38th PARLIAMENT,
1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 124
CONTENTS
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
|
 |
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
Committees of the House |
|
|
Public Accounts |
|
|
Mr. John Williams (Edmonton—St. Albert, CPC) |
|
|
Foreign Affairs and International Trade |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Questions on the Order Paper |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
|
|
Civil Marriage Act |
|
|
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Hon. Irwin Cotler |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Irwin Cotler |
|
|
Mr. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Irwin Cotler |
|
|
Mr. Bradley Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Irwin Cotler |
|
|
Routine Proceedings
|
|
|
Committees of the House |
|
|
Foreign Affairs and International Trade |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Civil Marriage Act |
|
|
Mr. Gord Brown (Leeds—Grenville, CPC) |
|
|
Statistics Act |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
(Motion agreed to, bill concurred in, read the third time and passed)
|
|
|
Civil Marriage Act |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gord Brown |
|
|
Hon. Keith Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gord Brown |
|
|
Mr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gord Brown |
|
|
Mr. Dean Allison (Niagara West—Glanbrook, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Keith Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Dean Allison |
|
|
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, BQ) |
|
|
Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bradley Trost |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Ms. Françoise Boivin |
|
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
|
Mr. Michael Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
|
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) |
|
|
Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
|
Mr. Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Bradley Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC) |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bradley Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell |
|
|
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Derek Lee |
|
|
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—Richmond East, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Derek Lee |
|
|
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC) |
|
|
Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Scott Reid |
|
|
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—Richmond East, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Scott Reid |
|
|
Mr. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Scott Reid |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Betty Hinton |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
|
Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
|
Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—Richmond East, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Alan Tonks |
|
|
Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Alan Tonks |
|
|
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga, BQ) |
|
|
Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
|
|
Veterans Affairs |
|
|
Mrs. Susan Kadis (Thornhill, Lib.) |
|
|
Agriculture |
|
|
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, CPC) |
|
|
Forestry |
|
|
Mr. Michael Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.) |
|
|
World Police and Fire Games |
|
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) |
|
|
New Media |
|
|
Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Steven Fletcher (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, CPC) |
|
|
Fighting Anti-Semitism Together |
|
|
Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Marie-Hélène Prémont |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ) |
|
|
Northern Ontario |
|
|
Mr. Roger Valley (Kenora, Lib.) |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Mr. David Chatters (Westlock—St. Paul, CPC) |
|
|
Bosnia and Herzegovina |
|
|
Hon. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.) |
|
|
Religious Freedom |
|
|
Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP) |
|
|
Gasoline Prices |
|
|
Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Centre, CPC) |
|
|
Elimination of Poverty |
|
|
Ms. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ) |
|
|
Democratic Reform |
|
|
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. John Maloney (Welland, Lib.) |
|
|
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
|
|
Health |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Sponsorship Program |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Child Care |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ken Dryden (Minister of Social Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Rona Ambrose (Edmonton—Spruce Grove, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ken Dryden (Minister of Social Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Rona Ambrose (Edmonton—Spruce Grove, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ken Dryden (Minister of Social Development, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Ken Dryden |
|
|
International Adoption |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
International Aid |
|
|
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
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.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Ms. Meili Faille (Vaudreuil-Soulanges, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Meili Faille (Vaudreuil-Soulanges, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Gasoline Prices |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Justice |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Automobile Industry |
|
|
Mr. Lynn Myers (Kitchener—Conestoga, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Fisheries and Oceans |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Geoff Regan (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
Gasoline Prices |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Border Security |
|
|
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan |
|
|
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
Veterans Affairs |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
The Environment |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Justice |
|
|
Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
Canada Post |
|
|
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.) |
|
|
Citizenship and Immigration |
|
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Copyright Legislation |
|
|
Ms. Bev Oda (Durham, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women, Lib.) |
|
|
Points of Order |
|
|
Remarks by Minister of National Defence |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Civil Marriage Act |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Serge Cardin |
|
|
Mr. Bradley Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Serge Cardin |
|
|
Hon. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Paddy Torsney |
|
|
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—Richmond East, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Paddy Torsney |
|
|
Routine Proceedings
|
|
|
Committees of the House |
|
|
Citizenship and Immigration |
|
|
Hon. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Civil Marriage Act |
|
|
Hon. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Hedy Fry |
|
|
Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Hedy Fry |
|
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, CPC) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC) |
|
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich |
|
|
Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich |
|
|
Mr. Gary Goodyear |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Paul Harold Macklin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich |
|
|
Mr. David Chatters (Westlock—St. Paul, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. David Chatters |
|
|
Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. David Chatters |
|
|
Mr. Brian Jean (Fort McMurray—Athabasca, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. David Chatters |
|
|
Message from the Senate |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Civil Marriage Act |
|
|
Mr. Michael Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Michael Savage |
|
|
Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Michael Savage |
|
|
Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bradley Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC) |
|
|
Ms. Anita Neville |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) |
|
|
Ms. Anita Neville |
|
|
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Bradley Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Jack Layton |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Jack Layton |
|
|
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, CPC) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine) |
|
|
Hon. Jack Layton |
|
|
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine) |
|
|
Private Members' Business
|
|
|
Criminal Code |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Ken Boshcoff (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Sue Barnes (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, CPC) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine) |
|
|
Royal Assent
|
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine) |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Civil Marriage Act |
|
|
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
|
Hon. Sue Barnes (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Sue Barnes |
|
|
Mr. Randy White (Abbotsford, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Sue Barnes |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Hon. Sue Barnes |
|
|
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—Richmond East, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Sue Barnes |
|
|
Mr. Alan Tonks |
|
|
Routine Proceedings
|
|
|
Committees of the House |
|
|
Environment and Sustainable Development |
|
|
Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Civil Marriage Act |
|
|
Mr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Richard Harris |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Richard Harris |
|
|
Mr. Dave Batters (Palliser, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Dave Batters |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Hon. Judi Longfield (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and Housing, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Hon. Judi Longfield |
|
|
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Judi Longfield |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Judi Longfield |
|
|
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Dan McTeague (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Tom Lukiwski |
|
|
Mr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Tom Lukiwski |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Division 155) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Division 156) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Bill read the third time and passed.)
|
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
CANADA
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
(1000)
[Translation]
Committees of the House
Public Accounts
Mr. John Williams (Edmonton—St. Albert, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 19th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts concerning chapter 5, “Management of Public Opinion Research”, of the November 2003 report of the Auditor General of Canada.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, your committee requests a comprehensive government response within 120 days.
* * *
(1005)
Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 16th report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade concerning the participation of the state of Israel in the proceedings of United Nations organizations.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous consent for the following motion. I move that the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, presented on Monday, June 13, be deemed concurred in without debate or amendment.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member for Halifax have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
Questions on the Order Paper
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, you may be distressed not to hear me ask this in the coming days, we do not know, but I will ask once again that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Government Orders]
* * *
[English]
Civil Marriage Act
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) moved that Bill C-38, An Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes, be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-38, the civil marriage act, has now arrived at third reading stage. This journey has been a long one and, from my perspective, I would say that it started in 1982 when Parliament passed the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
What is important to appreciate is that it was a parliamentary initiative to enact the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and to make it part of our Constitution. It was Parliament that then vested the courts with the role of protecting these fundamental rights and freedoms, including equality rights and religious freedoms on behalf of all Canadians.
It was the people of Canada, including minorities, gays and lesbians among them, who invoked the charter and sought remedy and redress from these courts.
It was the courts of Canada, including those in eight provinces and one territory, that held that the opposite sex requirement for marriage was an unconstitutional breach of the equality rights section in the charter.
It was the Supreme Court of Canada that unanimously held that the purpose of the government's legislation, “Far from violating the Charter, flows from it”. The court also held that no religious official can be compelled to perform a same sex marriage if it is contrary to his or her religion or beliefs.
Accordingly, the issue now returns to the place from where it all began, here in Parliament where the people of Canada are now speaking to their elected representatives.
On February 1, the government tabled Bill C-38 in order to fulfil Parliament's responsibilities to respect equality rights by extending access to marriage to same sex couples and to render uniform the definition of marriage across the country, as invited to do so in the unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada.
The essence of the legislation, anchored as it is in the two foundational principles under the charter, equality rights and religious freedom, involve the extension of equal access to civil marriage to same sex couples while, at the same time, respecting religious freedom.
This has been known to us for over two years. Indeed, it was in July 2002 that the government referred its draft bill to the Supreme Court of Canada. During this period, and it is important and bears recall, all aspects of the bill had been discussed in depth in the House during second reading earlier and in the predecessor standing committee that travelled across Canada, went to 12 cities, heard from over 500 witnesses and received over 300 written submissions, all of which has been incorporated by reference in the testimony and report of the present special legislative committee.
It has been before the courts in nine provinces and territories, before the Supreme Court of Canada in the reference hearing and, most recently, as I mentioned, before the special legislative committee established to examine Bill C-38. That committee met for 21 sessions over the last month and comprehensively examined each clause of the bill, hearing from over 70 witnesses and receiving submissions from many more.
During its comprehensive review, the committee considered 19 recommendations for amendment and, consistent with the principles with respect to amendments and to be consistent with the principles of the bill and within federal jurisdiction, accepted two of those amendments.
I have yet to mention the media, another public forum that has given this issue one of the longest and continuous high profiles in recent history. I am pleased that there has been so much involvement by so many on this important issue and would say that this has been an exemplary democratic discussion and debate.
I have had the opportunity myself to visit every region in this country to engage in that debate with the faith communities, with the cultural communities, with non-governmental organizations and with the whole expression of civil society in that regard.
However, with all this discussion, debate and detailed clause by clause examination, the opposition's main arguments against the bill rests on three assertions that are simply unfounded as a matter of law and unfounded as a matter of policy.
The first argument is that it is somehow open to the House to re-enact the opposite sex definition of civil marriage without using the notwithstanding clause.
[Translation]
That is what Mr. Harper reiterated yesterday.
(1010)
[English]
The second argument is that Parliament can ensure that the equality guarantee is respected through some form of civil union.
The third argument is that the bill threatens religious freedoms.
I fully acknowledge that the legal and constitutional principles--
Mr. Ed Komarnicki: Is there a fourth question?
Hon. Irwin Cotler: I will get to the fourth question if I am not interrupted and the member allows me the democratic right to share my remarks with the people of Canada.
I fully acknowledge that the legal and constitutional principles involved here are complex. I understand there are strong feelings on all sides of the debate and that many Canadians are still struggling with the idea of change to one of Canadian society's central institutions.
[Translation]
I have seen for myself the diversity of answers.
[English]
There is a diversity of feelings, respect and expressions, all of which deserve respect, yet here we stand on the final day of debate in this House and the opposition continues to suggest that somehow there are alternatives to the present approach of Bill C-38, which are simply not available. I would like to use--
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
(1015)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): Order, please. I am having difficulty hearing the hon. minister's explanations.
Hon. Irwin Cotler: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I indicated, here we stand on the final day of debate in this House, with the opposition suggesting alternatives to the present approach to Bill C-38 that are simply not founded as a matter of law and simply do not exist.
I would like to use some of my short time available to explain in as brief a way as possible what choices are and are not open to us, as well as the costs and implication of those choices, in particular for our values and for our future.
The opposition members have continued during their speeches in the House and in hearings of the legislative committee to suggest that there is a compromise available to us, which would mean legislating the traditional opposite sex definition of marriage once again, this repeated yesterday by Mr. Harper, and it would offer the same rights and privileges of marriage to same sex couples, but through civil union, not marriage.
This alleged compromise is based on two assumptions which involve occurrences that are so unlikely they cannot really be put forward as realistic options and which do not have any real legal grounding in law.
First, the alleged compromise, while technically possible, can be implemented only if Parliament is willing to use the notwithstanding clause, only if it is willing to use the clause to override the charter, court decisions, rule of law and the like.
Second, even if that were to be done, it is unlikely that the law the opposition proposes could survive a court challenge, as Parliament simply does not have the authority to bring about this compromise.
Let me begin with why the notwithstanding clause would have to be used to re-enact an opposite sex definition of civil marriage.
The opposition assertion that somehow it is still open to Parliament to re-enact the traditional definition of marriage, to override the equality rights provisions of the charter, to override the decisions of courts in nine jurisdictions, and to override the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, without using the notwithstanding clause, is based on a leap of logic in law: that because the Supreme Court of Canada did not answer the fourth question put to them by the government in the marriage reference, Parliament is now free to decide the issue any way it wants.
I should add parenthetically that the fourth question that was put, and I added that question to the reference, as to whether the traditional definition of marriage is compatible with the charter, was included not because we intended to argue in support of that position, but to allow those who wished to argue in support of that position to be able to do so before the court. Indeed, the court admitted 28 interveners to provide as full and as fair and as comprehensive hearing as possible on this issue before the Supreme Court of Canada.
As to the question we put and supported as to whether extending access to civil marriage to gays and lesbians was compatible with the charter, the court answered, as I mentioned, and it is important to bear this in mind, that it was not only consistent with the charter but flowed from the principles and values of the charter.
As well, it is incorrect to say that the Supreme Court of Canada did not answer the question asked in the reference without stating that when the court came to question four, the answer, as the court itself acknowledged, was moot. For the court to have answered it at that point, as the court itself said, would have been unprecedented. This is particularly in light of the reason the Supreme Court gave us for not answering that question.
Simply put, the court said it was not necessary to answer question four because courts in six provinces and territories at that time had already come to this conclusion; that several thousand couples had already relied on these court decisions to get married and had acquired, as the court put it, protected rights; that the government had already indicated it would legislate to provide equal access to civil marriage to same sex couples in the reference itself; and, most important, something that is being ignored, that the Supreme Court of Canada had already effectively answered the question when it answered the earlier question on whether same sex marriage was constitutional and unanimously held it to be so.
Accordingly, what the opposition leaves out in its argument for alternatives is that the court, as I indicated, did not answer the question because it deemed the question to be moot, because, in effect, the court had already answered the question before. This does not mean that the court said that whatever decision Parliament makes would be constitutional or that we have a blank slate here. Rather, nothing in the Supreme Court decision overruled the binding decisions in the now nine provinces and territories finding that the opposite sex definition of marriage is inconsistent with the fundamental guarantee of equality in the charter.
As well, the opposition referred to the nine decisions striking down the traditional definition of marriage as being “only lower court decisions”. Somehow it is being suggested that only a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on this subject needs to be followed and so the House would only be required to exercise its power of the notwithstanding clause in the face of a Supreme Court of Canada decision.
(1020)
This appreciation of the issue is not only wrong in fact, it is contrary to the rule of law. What needs to be appreciated is that where a law has been found to be unconstitutional, the only options open to Parliament are to either remedy the unconstitutionality, which is what we are doing with Bill C-38, or overrule that court decision by invoking the notwithstanding clause. Invoking the notwithstanding clause means that Parliament is publicly stating that it will pass the law despite the fact that it is knowingly unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court of Canada is not the only court in the country that governments are bound to respect under the rule of law. Courts in nine jurisdictions have declared that restricting civil marriage to opposite sex couples is unconstitutional. Their decisions stand as binding on us. They are constitutional law in this country. They are a law for making laws.
The opposition may wish to speculate on what the Supreme Court might have done under other circumstances. However, it cannot continue to state that the House can ignore those court decisions and re-enact the same law that has already been declared unconstitutional.
There is a Constitution in this country. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a centrepiece of that Constitution. This country is a constitutional democracy. W need to conduct ourselves with the full respect for this country as a constitutional democracy under the rule of law.
The opposition would also have us believe that changes to the definition of civil marriage can somehow come about because of an alleged lack of action on the part of Parliament. The problem with this theory is that Parliament had already legislated the opposite sex definition of civil marriage. It was this federal legislation that was considered by the courts in Quebec, not the common law definition of marriage, yet the statute, and I underline statute, was also found unconstitutional by those courts.
Yes, the government could have continued to appeal all of those decisions to the Supreme Court, but did that really make sense? Should more taxpayers' money be spent on appeals in the face of what were unanimous decisions in all jurisdictions and regions of this country? The government made a decision that it was the role of Parliament to craft a uniform Canada-wide solution based on the decisions of the courts and as invited to do by the Supreme Court.
The second mistaken assertion of the opposition is that it could create equality for same sex couples by legislating a form of civil union that would give them the same rights and privileges of marriage. The opposition describes this as a responsible compromise.
However, both the British Columbia and Ontario courts of appeal have already looked at the possibility of a civil union alternative and said that it would be less than equal and therefore unconstitutional and would stand as a pronouncement on the rule of constitutional law in this country.
Even if Parliament adopted this approach, civil unions are within provincial and territorial jurisdiction, as the opposition acknowledges, and leaving it to the provinces and territories to try to solve this question would inevitably result in a patchwork of 13 different civil union schemes that would not guarantee equality.
The compromise offered by the opposition may appear to have a superficial attraction to it but it is simply not possible in Canada's legal and constitutional framework.
Let me turn now to the important question of religious freedom. The government takes this question most seriously, so seriously, as I mentioned, that we took the additional time to refer the proposed legislation to the highest court in the land to make sure that religious freedom would not be threatened. This principle of religious freedom is now included in five separate places in the bill for greater certainty.
The opposition would have us believe that Bill C-38 imperils the exercise of freedom of religion. Freedom of religion is portrayed as the weaker sister to equality, and it is asserted that whenever courts and tribunals are faced with a clash between equality rights and religious rights, equality rights will always trump religious freedom.
Such an assertion ignores both the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the reference and any number of other charter decisions. The Supreme Court has consistently indicated that freedom of religion must be fully respected. Indeed, as the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Brian Dickson, asserted, freedom of religion is the “firstness of our freedom”, to which I referred in many articles that I was writing long before I ever became the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.
If additional specific protections are desired in terms of civic marriage officials, commercial provision of services or rentals of church halls, they admittedly would have to be added to provincial and territorial laws. I have raised this with my provincial and territorial colleagues.
(1025)
Ontario has already responded, passing a new bill extending further protections for religious freedom. Quebec already has specific protection in the civil code for religious officials who refuse to marry a couple. Other provinces are now considering additional legislative protection. I brought it up in our meeting of the federal-provincial-territorial ministers of justice.
Bill C-38 fully respects the religious freedom guarantees of the charter, and this government has made a commitment to the importance of those religious freedom guarantees. Religious freedom is not threatened here, no more than it was in earlier changes to allow civil divorce, which enabled first cousins to marry and so on, none of which affected religious practice. This is a bill with respect to civil marriage. It does not affect religious marriage, religious institutions or religious beliefs and in fact expressly protects them.
As I have outlined, the compromise offered by the opposition is not possible within Canada's legal and constitutional framework. There are before us today only two alternatives, not a blank slate. The Conservative compromise is not a responsible contribution to this debate in this regard.
Bill C-38 emerges as the only responsible and appropriate constitutional compromise, one that will preserve the important and central institution of civil marriage in our society for both opposite sex and same sex couples seeking that degree of commitment. It will also ensure at the same time that religious groups continue to have the freedom to make their own decisions about marriage, both those who wish to maintain the traditional definition of marriage and those who might wish to recognize marriage for same sex couples.
The charter is the expression and entrenchment of our rights and freedoms, the codification of the best of Canadian values and aspirations, and we are all its beneficiaries. It defines us as to who we are as a people and what we aspire to be. It is in that spirit that this legislation has been tabled and in which this democratic debate and exercise in democracy has been carried out. It is also in that spirit and in that hope for equality, for the rights of minorities and for the protection of religious freedom, that I trust this legislation will be enacted.
Rights are rights. None of us can, nor should we, pick and choose whose rights we will defend and whose rights we will ignore. The government must represent the rights of all Canadians equally.
We understand and we respect the fact there are strong feelings on all sides of this debate. We are talking about a central, longstanding institution of society. We trust and hope that this bill will lead not only to a more respectful solution, but a solution governed by mutual tolerance and understanding, a solution anchored in charter principles of equality rights, minority rights, respect for religious freedom and respect for diversity, and, as I said, which represents the best of our hopes and aspirations for an egalitarian and just society.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): Before proceeding to questions and comments, may I remind the hon. minister that his comments are to be addressed to the Chair. As he knows, we are not to refer to members of the House by their family names but rather by their riding names or titles.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the minister has a lot more education in the law than I have. I am a lawyer, a small-town country lawyer, and I guess sometimes we just do not see things as well as the academic people who live in ivory towers do.
If I understand his overarching message today, it is that Parliament must respect the Constitution in every detail and that somehow the Conservatives have this wrong. Last year in the election campaign, the Prime Minister made health care the centrepiece of his campaign. That is what we heard about: health care. Now in his media interviews he says he has accomplished a lot, that he has the cities agenda pushed through and he has early child learning is in place.
Maybe I got something wrong in our law school in Saskatchewan, where Howard McConnell was my constitutional law professor, but it is my understanding that under section 92 of our Constitution and other provisions, municipal government is the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. Under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces is health care and the exclusive jurisdiction over education is with the provinces.
I think the minister has to be honest in acknowledging that the government, through its spending power and other means, has invaded those areas of the Constitution. In my opinion, it has violated the spirit of that Constitution by doing so. This government spends more time invading provincial jurisdictions and evading the Constitution of this country than any other government we have had in our country. For the minister to preach about being a constitutional purist in the House of Commons really flies in the face of the record of the government.
(1030)
Hon. Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the hon. member's observations have to do with Bill C-38, which is the subject before the House. In fact, I did not hear any direct reference to Bill C-38.
The hon. member made references to matters relating to health care, child care and the environment, and then to the fact that these were invasions of provincial jurisdiction. The last time I looked these were the subject of federal-provincial-territorial agreements brought about with the understanding, concurrence, support and indeed at times even the initiative of the provinces.
We are talking about an exercise in cooperative federalism, which is a central pillar of a whole approach to constitutional law and policy. We are talking about cooperative federalism in the service of the public good regardless of partisan party or politics in that regard. We respected the Constitution for our social justice agenda for the public good and we are respecting the Constitution with respect to Bill C-38.
Mr. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a very simple question of the justice minister. The only people saying that traditional marriage is unconstitutional are in fact the Liberals due to the Prime Minister's radical obsession with it.
In 1996, in a majority decision, Justices Iacobucci and McLaughlin stated that, in the absence of statute law, if Parliament enacts a statute law that differs from the court's view, it does not follow that would be unconstitutional. We have a lot of case law and common law in this country that when there is an absence of statute law, Parliament can fill that void by passing a statute and that it would not necessarily be unconstitutional if it differs from what the court may envisage in that absence.
Parliament could just as easily pass a statute law respecting the traditional definition of marriage and put forward that compromised position of civil unions without it being unconstitutional. We have lots of case law that proves that.
Hon. Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, I had a sense that this was going to be proposed regardless of what I said. Many of my remarks were spent trying to address that kind of scenario.
The hon. member says that the only one party that wants this is the Liberal Party. I might add that it is not a matter of this party or another party. It is a matter of the rule of law in this country. It is a matter of court decisions in nine jurisdictions following New Brunswick's decision last week, eight provinces and one territory. It is a matter of a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, all of which are constitutional law and a law for making laws.
Any statute about which the hon. member spoke has to comport with the charter, the Constitution, the rule of law and these constitutional law decisions. If we were not to comport with the rule of law, the charter and all these constitutional law decisions, we would have to use a notwithstanding clause and in using it state that all that has been declared as being constitutional can somehow now be regarded as being unconstitutional. That is not the kind of country that Canadians would want or invite.
Mr. Bradley Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the minister's remarks. He kept implying that to use the notwithstanding clause was a negative and somehow dirty thing.
Coming from Saskatchewan where in the days of constitutional negotiations and so forth with Pierre Trudeau, my understanding was that the NDP premier of Saskatchewan, Mr. Alan Blakeney, was one of the people who pushed for this for various reasons. One of the reasons may have been the health care ruling we saw from the Supreme Court where three of the justices referred to the national charter of rights and four of the justices referred to the Quebec charter of rights. However, listening to the minister speak, he continued to imply that using the notwithstanding clause was a bad thing.
The Prime Minister himself has said that under certain circumstances he would use the notwithstanding clause and that with the ruling of the Supreme Court it may be necessary to use the notwithstanding clause to protect a one tier public medicare system.
Does the minister disagree with the Prime Minister because the Prime Minister has backed the use of the notwithstanding clause in certain circumstances? Does he criticize the province of Quebec which has repeatedly, for language legislation, used the notwithstanding clause? Other provinces have, including my home province of Saskatchewan for one piece. Does he disagree with all those uses and criticize every use of the notwithstanding clause including the protection of medicare?
If we are to be consistent, we must be either completely opposed to the notwithstanding clause or we must actually think that it is a part of the charter of rights, which it is, and a part of our Constitution. We should embrace the entirety of the charter of rights and not merely pick and choose different parts.
So, my question again, which is it? Is he completely opposed to the notwithstanding clause or is he opposed to his own leader's position on it?
(1035)
Hon. Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that the notwithstanding clause, as a hypothetical, would be there for that rare possibility in order to protect rights, not to override rights. We are talking about the use of the notwithstanding clause. As I said to the hon. members of the opposition, if they want to re-invoke the traditional definition of marriage then at least have the honesty to say that they would have to use the notwithstanding clause to do so.
They should not invite Canadians to think it could be done by a magic wand of verbiage. If they are going to re-invoke the traditional definition of marriage, they should be prepared to tell Canadians that they are going to use that notwithstanding clause and if they use it, they are going to be overriding the charter of rights. They are going to be overriding the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, overriding decisions of eight provinces and a territory, and they are going to be overriding the rule of law and constitutional law in this country. If they want to do that, at least they should be honest and say that is what they want to do. However, I have not seen that kind of honesty, regrettably, from the opposition in this debate.
Routine Proceedings
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
[English]
Committees of the House
Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On the basis of further discussions that have taken place among the parties, I think you would find that there is unanimous consent for the following motion.
I move that the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade presented Monday, June 13, be deemed concurred in without debate or amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
* * *
[English]
Civil Marriage Act
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-38, An Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Gord Brown (Leeds—Grenville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would seek unanimous consent to split my time with the member for Niagara West--Glanbrook.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): The hon. member does not need unanimous consent to share his time at this time.
Mr. Gord Brown: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to stand in this House today and state my unequivocal opposition to Bill C-38.
I am in agreement with many of my colleagues on this issue, in that I support the traditional definition of marriage which is the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. I believe that all rights can be granted to same sex couples without the need to change this common law definition that stretches back to before Confederation and has helped define this great country for almost 138 years.
The definition of marriage which has been consistently applied in Canada comes from an 1866 British case which holds that marriage is the union of one woman and one man to the exclusion of all others. I believe what the Conservative Party of Canada offers on this issue is a reasonable compromise.
My arguments will not concentrate on these issues. I merely wish to put it into perspective, so that we can compare it to the situation in which we currently find ourselves in this debate.
My discussions will centre on the process by which the government has been attempting to ram this legislation down the throats of Canadians by cloaking its arguments in the mantra of human rights. I want to speak today about the flaws in the process and the lack of accountability to the Canadian people and the method by which we stand here today when we should have been in our ridings having dialogue with our constituents.
There has not been a proper debate on this issue involving the people of Canada and there has not been a proper process followed to allow full debate by parliamentarians.
The government introduced this bill after insufficient public debate and rushed it through the House, and sent it to a committee that I happened to have sat on that in my view did not allow proper examination of witnesses. It was not the proper process. This was a committee that the government knew would discuss the bill quickly. It was designed to get this issue out of the way with little opportunity for debate, permitting no changes. We now find ourselves in extended sittings as we fully expected we would, and we fully expected the government to invoke closure, as it has. The government is shutting down debate. We are going to pass this piece of legislation that flies in the face of the history of our country.
Late in his mandate, the former Prime Minister sent a proposed piece of legislation to the Supreme Court of Canada for a ruling on human rights issues. The current Prime Minister added a clause to that proposed piece of legislation in an effort to hog-tie the court and Parliament. Of course, and thankfully, the court saw through that feeble attempt and made no ruling.
I have several problems with the actions of these two prime ministers. First, this is not a debate about human rights. It is a debate about politics and social policy. Therefore, it should be treated in a much different way from how it has been handled by the current and previous governments.
I and my colleagues, and indeed every person in this place, have been elected by Canadians to debate and decide issues of concern to this country and its people. Whether it is the civil marriage bill, budget bills, assistance for foreign countries, missile defence, assistance for our farmers or any number of other issues, we the elected members of Parliament have been chosen by the people of Canada to debate and ultimately decide the direction of this country.
If the party opposite believed that, it would have followed the accepted process for such issues as Bill C-38. That process would have involved some sort of public dialogue and arguments for and against. The government would have brought the issue before the House and it would never have gone to the Supreme Court of Canada first.
A proper process would have taken into consideration the decisions and wishes of a previous Parliament, a Parliament that included some of our current members, which determined that the only definition of marriage that is acceptable to Canadians is the traditional definition of marriage.
A proper process would have included statements by members of Parliament that they would do everything in their power to defend the traditional definition of marriage. It would have included statements by judges on the Supreme Court that defined and defended the traditional definition of marriage.
Let me offer some examples. In 1995 Supreme Court Justice Gérard La Forest, speaking on behalf of four judges in the majority in the Egan decision, wrote:
|
Marriage has from time immemorial been firmly grounded in our legal tradition, one that is itself a reflection of long-standing philosophical and religious traditions. But its ultimate raison d'être transcends all of these and is firmly anchored in the biological and social realities that heterosexual couples have the unique ability to procreate, that most children are the product of these relationships, and that they are generally cared for and nurtured by those who live in that relationship. In this sense, marriage is by nature heterosexual. |
This statement remains the only commentary on the basic meaning of marriage in any Supreme Court decision and would have been included in any proper debate.
(1040)
I will offer another example. This House, which at the time included the current Prime Minister, voted to uphold the traditional definition of marriage in 1999 and the amendments to Bill C-23 in 2000, with the Deputy Prime Minister, who was the then justice minister, leading the cause of the defence of marriage.
The following is what the Deputy Prime Minister said in 1999 in her eloquent defence of the traditional definition of marriage. She said:
|
We on this side agree that the institution of marriage is a central and important institution in the lives of many Canadians. It plays an important part in all societies worldwide, second only to the fundamental importance of family to all of us.... The definition of marriage, which has been consistently applied in Canada, comes from an 1866 British case which holds that marriage is “the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”. That case and that definition are considered clear law by ordinary Canadians, by academics and by the courts. The courts have upheld the constitutionality of that definition. |
We have also heard comments from our Minister of Immigration that are consistent with that.
If the bill had followed proper process, these parliamentary statements and the court decisions would have had to be factored into the formulation of any bill that upholds the rights of same sex couples.
There may have been, and rightly so, a referendum. After this type of proper debate, the government would then have presented a bill for first reading, second reading and a proper committee hearing. The proper committee for the bill would have been the justice committee, but instead of carrying out the correct process, the Liberals formed a special committee and then loaded it in their favour. They charged through committee hearings at a blistering pace that did not allow ordinary parliamentarians the time for proper research and questioning of witnesses.
The Liberal chair of the committee ruled suggested modifications by the Conservatives to be out of order and the committee swiftly sent this piece of legislation back to the House for debate and third reading.
As we witnessed last week, the government will stop at nothing and use any trick in the book to avoid proper debate and reach its own predetermined end.
As I prepared this speech I wondered if I would in fact be granted the time to present it here in this place. I wondered that because of what we witnessed last week. I and most Canadians expected the coalition government to barricade proper debate on the bill once again, as it has, and close the doors on this sad chapter in the history of this place.
We all know that if a free vote were allowed by all parties, where MPs could represent the wishes of their ridings, the legislation would fail. It is this lack of proper process and the lack of real democracy more than anything, that I am truly concerned with today. I also have a great deal of concern about the lack of protection of religious freedom and the strengthening of that protection against discrimination for religious beliefs.
At this time I would like to move an amendment. I move:
|
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following therefore: |
|
Bill C-38, an act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes, be not now read a third time, but be referred back to the legislative committee for the purpose of reconsidering all of its clauses with the view to strengthen protection against discrimination for religious beliefs and that the legislative committee on Bill C-38 be reconstituted for the purpose of this reconsideration. |
* * *
(1050)
Statistics Act
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-18, an act to amend the Statistics Act, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among all the parties. I particularly want to thank the member for Edmonton—Leduc, the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup and the member for Windsor West for their important work on this bill.
I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
|
That Bill S-18, an act to amend the Statistics Act, be deemed to have been concurred in at the report stage, read a third time and passed. |
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill concurred in, read the third time and passed)
* * *
Civil Marriage Act
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-38, An Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, I also oppose Bill C-38. I believe that marriage is the legal union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
One of the important debates that took place on Bill C-38 had to do with the issue of whether this was a human rights issue on an equality basis. I wonder if the member would agree with the proposition that this is a matter of rights, but it is a matter of the rights of children and of families which have been ignored in this legislation by de-linking children from their parents.
Mr. Gord Brown: Mr. Speaker, the whole issue revolves around the rights of children. If we make marriage an adult-centred institution then we do so to the detriment of it being a children-centred institution. That is one of the many concerns I have about this legislation.
I talked about the process and I would like to go back to that for a second because it is another thing that I am greatly concerned about. In 2003, when the government had the opportunity to appeal the decision of the Ontario Supreme Court, it failed to do so. Despicable things went on in the committee. Liberal members of the committee hid in the hall, refusing to allow a quorum to address that question. It is a really sad state of affairs that our country is now in this state.
If Bill C-38 is such a great bill and such a great concept, why would we not allow proper debate, discussion and opportunity? If it were so good there would have been no need for the games and no need for this underhanded process to sneak the bill through Parliament.
Hon. Keith Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member's comments and there were really three parts to his speech. I will address two of those parts and ask him a question.
The first part has to do with the issue of democracy. If he had listened to the Minister of Justice he would have heard that the committee had 500 witnesses, visited 12 cities and received 300 submissions. Bill C-38 went through committee clause by clause. All of what he has asked for has already happened exhaustively.
My second point is with respect to the issue of religious beliefs. As the minister said very clearly, the right to religious beliefs and the protection of religious institutions to act out their beliefs is the first among all rights within this country.
The member mentioned the issue of children. Does he not think that Bill C-38 actually strengthens the rights of children because gay and lesbian couples actually have children? Bill C-38 would enable lesbian and gay couples to have a civil marriage, not a religious marriage because it is up to religious institutions to marry whomever they wish. Does he not think that Bill C-38 strengthens the rights of those children whose parents happen to be gay or lesbian?
(1055)
Mr. Gord Brown: Mr. Speaker, first, let us talk about democracy. In 2003 the justice committee was shut down without the opportunity to report to Parliament. Liberal members were hiding in the hall and not allowing quorum.
I sat on the legislative committee that dealt with Bill C-38. Witnesses were bunched four and five at a time. I sit on another committee and that is not the way we do things. Witnesses were given 24 hours or less notice to appear. They were given no opportunity to have their presentations translated. In my view that was not a proper process. I know members from the other side will talk about the lengthy process with 400 witnesses but the justice committee was not dealing with this legislation.
Mr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today is a significant day for many of us in the House. It is the one year anniversary for those of us who were elected last year. I want to thank the good people of Davenport for electing me a year ago.
It is also a very significant day for the tens of thousands of gays and lesbians across the country. It is a day when we say as parliamentarians and as a government that we recognize them as full citizens under the law. Equality for all, for once, prevails. It will be a very historic day in years to come when people look back on this day as being the day we started to believe in equality and put forward the civil marriage legislation.
The leader of Her Majesty's official opposition stated that the law would be less weakened today if it is passed because it has the support of the Bloc Québécois. Does the hon. member share the view of his leader?
Mr. Gord Brown: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Davenport on his election a year ago today, as was I.
The member asked whether I supported my leader's comment about the legislation having less legitimacy because it was not supported by a majority of federalist members of Parliament. I think that is key because it is important that we support our country. I think the hon. member would be concerned about separation. We talk about a unified country. It is very important we have a united country and I stand four-square for that.
Mr. Dean Allison (Niagara West—Glanbrook, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House again today to speak to Bill C-38. As I have previously stated, I am fully aware of both the privilege and responsibility that I have been given as a representative of the diverse communities and residents that compose the riding of Niagara West--Glanbrook. All my hon. colleagues in the House also have the duty to reflect the values and concerns of their constituents.
Each time I have risen to speak on the bill, I have clearly said that I will be voting against the legislation that will change the definition of marriage. In my vote I have faithfully taken the direction that has been so clearly expressed by the people of Niagara West--Glanbrook.
More than any other item on the government's agenda, which has been incredibly lacking when it comes to effectively responding to real concerns of Canadians, the issue of same sex marriage has evoked an outpouring of commentary.
The same sex marriage bill has inspired tremendous debate and considerations throughout all segments of my community. To date I have received feedback for up to close to 10,000 individuals from my constituency and thousands more from coast to coast on the definition of marriage.
Overwhelmingly the residents of the communities of Niagara West--Glanbrook have indicated support for maintaining the current definition of marriage. I agree with the majority of public views I have received, that marriage is a union between one man and one woman.
During the election campaign I promised my constituents that I would vote in support of this definition and that promise I have kept with them.
I have solicited the opinion of my constituents by asking them through news letters, emails and other correspondence and I would like to share the response. Almost 90% of my constituents are against changing the meaning of marriage, 9% support changing it and the remainder has no opinion.
Contrary to the claims of the Prime Minister with regard to anyone who does not support the legislation, the residents of my riding are Canadian and so are the millions of Canadians from coast to coast who oppose the legislation. Are their voices any less important than other Canadians? In my eyes, definitely not.
However, I am not so confident that all members of the House can look their constituents in the eye and claim that they wholeheartedly represent them. How long can the Liberal government claim that its is fixing the democratic deficit when it refuses to hear the voices that oppose it?
Just last week the government tabled the report on democratic reform which it stated was at the top of its priority list. It has stated that its action plan on democratic reform is based on three pillars of democracy: ethics and integrity, restoring the representative and deliberate role of MPs and accountability.
The Liberal government has failed miserably on all three counts. In the action plan the government has stated:
|
Democratic Reform will re-connect Parliamentarians with Canadians by giving MPs greater freedom to voice the views and concerns of their constituents, by providing parliamentary committees with more resources to influence and shape legislation, and by requiring that Ministers are actively engaged with MPs and Committees on priorities and legislative initiatives. |
|
What this means for individual Canadians is that the people they elect will be able to better reflect their views in the process of government. It also means increased responsibilities for individual Members of Parliament to ensure that these reforms result in real change. |
That is a quote from the report. From my time I have been here in the last year, that could not be further from the truth. Many committees have made many recommendations to the House that have been totally ignored or just shelved for a later point in time.
I would like to repeat one more time that I hope all members from all parties take this to heart. The government talks about the fact that democratic reform will reconnect parliamentarians with Canadians by giving MPs greater freedom to voice the views and concerns of the constituents. What this means for individual Canadians is that people they elect will be better able to reflect the views of the process of government. It also means increased responsibilities for individual members of Parliament to ensure that these reforms result in real change. I am not exactly sure at what point in time Parliament strayed away from this democracy by honouring the wishes of Canadians, but now is the time that we need to restore democracy.
The government can produce reports, action plans and even create a minister of democratic reform, but these measures are meaningless if members of the House are to ignore the voices of Canadians on an issue that will alter one of the most fundamental institutions in our society.
(1100)
The government can produce reports, action plans and even create a Minister of Democratic Reform, but these measures are meaningless if members of the House are to ignore the voices of Canadians on an issue that will alter one of the most fundamental institutions in our society. The fact is the Liberal government and, indeed, the Prime Minister, are not interested in restoring faith in democracy. They will even alienate their own beliefs along with their constituents' beliefs to ensure that they maintain whatever little power they may have left.
I am baffled that many members of the Liberal government who not so long ago spoke so fearlessly in preserving the traditional definition of marriage. Now they immediately will do as they are told and vote for the bill.
It has been quoted before, but I would like to quote the speech of the hon. Deputy Prime Minister delivered in the House on September 2003 when she was the justice minister. She stated:
|
Marriage has fundamental value and importance to Canadians and we do not believe on this side of the House that importance and value is in any way threatened or undermined by others seeking to have their long term relationships recognized. I support the motion for maintaining the clear legal definition of marriage in Canada as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. |
In free votes in 1999 and again in 2003, the hon. Deputy Prime Minister voted for maintaining the traditional definition of marriage, as did many others in government. Yet she along with her cohorts will stand in the House again today, as she did last night, and force the will of the Liberal government on the Canadian people and vote for a bill that will reverse exactly what she fought so hard to preserve on two previous occasions. Maybe “fought” is too strong a word.
My intention is not to single out the Deputy Prime Minister. She is just one of the many in cabinet who publicly opposed changing the traditional definition of marriage in the past. In fact there are currently 20 Liberal members who in 1999 freely voted to preserve the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, who now vote to destroy marriage. There were 34 Liberals who have voted against the government. This also includes the current Prime Minister.
There could be many more Liberal members whose constituents oppose the legislation, but without a free vote, the voices of Canadians will be ignored and our democracy trampled on once again.
I applaud the hon. members who have put their political careers aside to truly represent what they and their constituents believe is right. They have sacrificed their aspirations for what is best for the country. Why will the Prime Minister not do the same thing?
It is rather unfortunate that the Prime Minister has given his cabinet an ultimate: Vote in favour of the government or lose your ministerial perks.
The NDP, a party which also claims it is the true voice of democracy, has also whipped its members into submission. The only member of that party who dared voice an opinion has been muted and has been told to sit on her hands during a vote on one of our society's fundamental institutions. This is just another example of the Liberal-NDP coalition forcing members to toe the party line. I will mention, though, the member did vote last night and I was encouraged to see that.
Coercion is not a tool of democracy, it is a tool of tyranny. All hon. members should resist the threats of having their political careers ended prematurely by voting against the bill. As elected representatives, we were sent to Ottawa for a specific reason: to be the voice of our constituents, to embody the wishes of the great people of this country and to protect their democracy and freedom.
The justice minister has presented the bill as a charter issue. He has said that it will give all people equality. He has stated that religious freedoms will not be affected by the passage of the bill. I would challenge him on this.
There are numerous instances that have already occurred which have put religious freedoms at risk. Scott Brockie owns a printing company called Imaging Excellence. In 1996 Mr. Brockie refused to provide printing services to the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives on the basis that the cause of homosexuality was offensive to his religious belief. The CLG Archives filed a human rights complaint under the Ontario Human Rights Code, alleging that Mr. Brockie discriminated against them on the basis of sexual orientation. A board of inquiry, appointed under the Ontario Human Rights Code, found that Mr. Brockie did discriminate and fined him.
Then there is the case of Mr. Kempling. Chris Kempling is a teacher and a school counsellor in Quesnel, B.C., who was disciplined by a professional body, the B.C. College of Teachers, for writing letters to the editor of a local newspaper denouncing the school's teaching on homosexuality.
The B.C. Supreme Court upheld the discipline and said that Mr. Kempling was not entitled to protection. Mr. Kempling was not even working at the time.
I could mention Bishop Fred Henry as another individual, the Knights of Columbus and the list goes on and on. Bishop Henry said:
|
The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to same-sex couples is not discrimination. It is not something opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires such an opposition. |
(1105)
|
It is the right and the responsibility of all citizens who are troubled by the proposal to reinvent the institution of marriage, to enter into the debate and, with clarity and charity, to make their voices heard by their fellow citizens and our political leaders. |
It is through their elected representatives that we must let the citizens of our great country be heard. The majority of Canadians have clearly stated that they want marriage to continue to be defined as the union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. When the vote is called, I would encourage all my colleagues to courageously stand and vote against Bill C-38.
Hon. Keith Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we tend to come back to the issue of supposedly the lack of democracy on this bill, but it has been expressed quite widely what has taken place with respect to the Constitution. I want to get back to the root of what appears to be going on here.
When so much anger is directed against a particular bill, what is the true root of that anger? If we scratch behind the scenes, what is really driving the opposition? I completely understand the views on both sides of this. I understand why many people would oppose this, particularly when it is consistent with their religious beliefs, which they have every right to protect. We must protect, acknowledge and respect the beliefs of people.
Fear is driving much of the animus that has come from members on the other side who oppose this. There is the fear of people's marriages, of their children, of their children's future relationships and of the direction of Canadian society. That has been expressed many times by the other side. Is this fear really rational? Are the concerns as expressed by many members from the Conservative Party about where the issue of marriage is going, how this will affect heterosexual marriage, whether it will dilute or destroy the institution of marriage?
Does my hon. colleague not think the bill will have absolutely zero bearing whatsoever on heterosexual civil marriage and on religious marriage? The bill has everything to do with civil marriage and nothing to do with religious marriage? Does he not see this will not affect his marriage or damage heterosexual relationships or marriages? It will broaden the concept of marriage to include those people who are in a loving, caring relationship. They can then share in that institution as other heterosexuals do.
(1110)
Mr. Dean Allison: Mr. Speaker, one of the bigger questions I have is this. If there is no fear or no reason why we should be concerned, if there is no basis for our concern, and in many cases the government has tried to assure us that religious freedoms will be protected, then why did the Minister of Justice say in his speech that in every case religious freedoms would be trumped by human rights?
What we see right now is if it is a human right but it is not a religious right, those things do not matter. I have given a half a dozen examples. My colleagues have given many examples where people who have been in front of the courts have been discriminated against. They are being fined and dragged into lawsuits which are quite possibly costing them their homes, given the costs to defend these cases.
Right now individuals have religious choices, but their personal beliefs are being trumped by what society wants. We are not even at the point where we have changed the name. We have broadened the definition.
If it is a question of incorporating the rights or broadening the rights, why does this group not look at a new name? Why does this group not look at establishing something of its own. Marriage has been fully entrenched in our society for thousands of years?
In 1999 and 2003, 20 government members, including the member, voted to support the traditional definition of marriage. What has changed in his mind or the minds of his constituents? Why in 1999 and in 2003 was the traditional definition of marriage important but now, as we move forward in 2005, there is a difference. What has changed?
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what a great day it is today for rights and freedoms in Quebec and Canada. This great day should be celebrated, not only by the minority that in the next few days will finally obtain the right to marry, anywhere in Canada, but also by all the heterosexuals who have supported the cause of equality, the cause of rights and freedoms, whether from the very beginning or only more recently. They know very well that confirming the rights and freedoms of a minority does not take anything away from the majority that previously enjoyed these rights and freedoms.
It has often been said in this debate, which has been going on now for many a long year, that marriage is an important institution in our society. That is very true. It is an institution through which society or the state recognizes the commitment that two people make to one another.Through the institution of marriage, society, the state, recognizes the importance of conjugal love.
The fact that homosexuals have fought hard and have spent time, money and energy for access to marriage—this basic institution in our society—demonstrates the enormous respect they have for it and their desire to gain access to it. Their entry into the institution of marriage will strengthen it because they are people who believe in it and have spent years fighting for access to it.
I would like to make two comments on the side. People who followed the debates in committee will know what I want to say. Marriage is not a static institution, contrary to what some people claim. I said so yesterday and it is important to repeat it. Just a few decades ago, when a woman married in Quebec she lost her adult status and became the responsibility of her husband, just as she had previously been the responsibility of her parents. But society changed, and as it changed, the various institutions and elements that make it up changed as well. Fifty years ago, women were not considered equal to men; now, they are.
Today, it is high time to give couples consisting of same sex partners access to the institution of marriage.
There is something else as well that we have heard many times in this debate, namely that marriage is supposedly—to use the expression of my friend in the Conservative Party who spoke before me—a child-centred institution. I challenge every member in this House who has gone before the altar to get married, whether once or more than once, to say whether having children was ever part, even one time, of the vows they exchanged. The answer is no.
When a couple gets married they promise fidelity, mutual support and friendship; they do not promise to have children. The purpose can vary according to what the couple wants or can do. What marriage celebrates is the recognition of conjugal love between two people.
The bill before us was improved by two amendments on the freedom of religion.
(1115)
Although the bill deals specifically with civil marriage, some religious groups met with us many times to express their fears and apprehension concerning freedom of religion. It was with the utmost respect for these religious groups that my colleague from Hochelaga and I addressed the problem. We were very open to the representations made by the representatives of churches, temples, mosques and synagogues.
Mr. Speaker, you chaired this legislative committee admirably. I told you that privately today and now I am telling you that in public. Although I do not share the same views as these religious groups that oppose opening civil marriage to gays and lesbians, the other members of the committee and I listened to what they had to say. After several meetings with these religious groups and individuals, we presented an amendment, the only one to be adopted yesterday at report stage. It is an amendment that states in black and white that no religious group will lose its status as a charitable organization for refusing to celebrate marriages between same sex couples. One of these Christian groups made a suggestion for an amendment, which we presented and which was passed yesterday.
I want to say one final word on freedom of religion: it is as important and as fundamental to the Bloc as the right to equality, which, in our case law, now includes the right for same sex partners to marry. This freedom of religion is fundamental in a free and democratic society such as those in Quebec and Canada. This freedom of religion must not mean that the religion of some should become the law for others. We do not live in a Catholic, Evangelical or Protestant state or in a Jewish, Islamic or Buddhist state. We live in a secular state, where the separation between church and state is one of our civilization's finest achievements. It is an example of the fundamental principles from the age of enlightenment that have enabled us to expand the definition of marriage to include same sex partners for civil purposes.
We observe society's evolution with respect to civil marriage. However, we are in no way changing the Catholic vision of marriage as a sacrament, according to this church, which does not accept or allow divorce. This in no way changes Jewish marriage, for example, where, in order to marry, both partners must belong to the Jewish faith. This in no way changes any other religious wishes or religious definitions of marriage.
In any state with a justifiable and constitutional charter of rights and freedoms, the courts play an important role. For about the past 10 years discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation has been illegal, under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Furthermore, the highest courts in eight jurisdictions in Canada, including the appeal courts of Quebec, Ontario and B.C., which are the three most densely populated provinces in Canada, have ruled that the so-called traditional definition of marriage is unconstitutional. The Ontario and B.C. appeal courts struck down the common law definition of marriage, which dated back to 1866. The Quebec appeal court struck down the legislated definition of marriage that was passed by this Parliament in 2001.
(1120)
That very clearly contradicts those, in the Conservative Party, especially, who said that Parliament had simply to reaffirm its belief in or its support for the so-called traditional definition of marriage, and the courts would follow.
First off, allow me to say that, each time someone says “all we need to do is such and such”, all too often the solution proposed is overly simplistic. The “all-we-needs”, as we might define them, are simplistic solutions for complex problems.
I have to agree as well with the 134 law professors who took the fairly unusual and exceptional step of signing a joint letter to the leader of the Conservative Party. In the letter, these eminent professors said, rightly, that the only way to make marriage between partners of the same sex illegal in Canada would be to use the notwithstanding clause.
That was my opinion before the letter. My legal analysis led me to say at the time—and these 134 professors concur—that the only way, today, for us parliamentarians to prevent partners of the same sex from marrying is to say that, notwithstanding what the courts have said, we are suspending the rights and freedoms recognized by the courts for a period of five years, five years being the maximum period the notwithstanding clause may be applied.
Never would I vote, nor would I ask my colleagues to vote, to suspend the recognized rights and freedoms afforded a minority that has been persecuted too long, not only in Quebec and Canada, but throughout the world.
The choice facing us is to support Bill C-38, which would expand the right of same sex partners to marry in the eight jurisdictions where the right already exists and in the other jurisdictions where it does not, or to state very clearly that we are prepared to use the notwithstanding clause.
I have participated in this debate for many years. I have been an MP for eight years, during which time few matters I have been involved in as a parliamentarian have made me as proud. I am proud to take part in the process that will broaden the right to equality of thousands of Quebeckers and Canadians who want to marry. Be they two men or two women, they want to be able to say publicly to society, the government and the world that they are committed to a solid relationship, they are in a relationship of equals, and they are publicly declaring their love for each other.
Having taken part in this debate, having heard the vast majority of the 472 witnesses who appeared before the committee the first time around and the 60 or so who testified before the legislative committee, having travelled across Canada, from Vancouver to the Maritimes, via Iqaluit, Montreal Toronto, and many other places, and having received wedding pictures over the past two summers of couples who told me, “Look, we got married. Thank you, thank you for your part in it”, I say that is wonderful, The pleasure is all mine.
To conclude, when I rock myself in my rocking chair, a few decades from now I hope, with my dentures in a glass on the side table, I will tell my children about what I did when I was a member of Parliament. When they ask me, “Where were you, Dad, when this debate took place? What did you do to provide these men and women with the same right as everyone else?”, I will be able to say that I was there and that, on this June 28, 2005, I voted in favour of these men and women finally having access to marriage, as opposite sex spouses have had for decades, centuries, millennia.
(1125)
Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for his excellent speech. I had the pleasure of sitting on the legislative committee on Bill C-38, and I share his opinion that you did an excellent job as committee chair, knowing the passion this subject arouses. Above all, I admired the calm and truly democratic way in which everything proceeded.
Obviously, when I was elected a year ago, I had no way of knowing how turbulent this Parliament would be. However, like my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, I will be able to say that I took part in what I consider a historic moment, in the sense that this vote will reaffirm the leadership role that Canada can play in terms of the right to equality.
I want to take advantage of my colleague's background in law, since we are not often able to call upon counsel for free in the House. So, I want to know what he thinks about an argument often made by our Conservative friends in committee and during the debates at the different stages of Bill C-38.
I am talking about the fourth question included in the reference to the Supreme Court of Canada on the traditional definition of marriage. Since the Supreme Court did not answer this question, our Conservative colleagues frequently use this as an excuse to claim that Parliament could simply reaffirm the traditional definition of marriage. So, I want his opinion on this.
If I may, I also want to ask his opinion about the frequent complaint that this legislation is being rushed through with no regard for the democratic process. In this context, I want—
(1130)
[English]
Mr. Bradley Trost: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I have done a head count and by my numbers there are not 20 members here. I would like to call for a quorum to ensure we have enough proper representation.
And the count having been taken:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): The count confirms that there is quorum in the House.
[Translation]
I would therefore ask the hon. member for Gatineau to finish her question.
Ms. Françoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, I certainly prefer to speak before a larger crowd. I am very happy, therefore, to see that everyone here is listening carefully to what I have to say.
My questions were simple and I think that my friend from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, with whom I sat on the legislative committee considering Bill C-38, could hear them. They were about question 4 in the reference to the Supreme Court of Canada and the lead-up to the report on Bill C-38. I would like to know whether the hon. member thinks that the whole process is going too quickly.
Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Speaker, I also enjoyed working with my colleague from Gatineau on this committee.
In regard to her first question, it was indeed quite surprising to hear the Conservative committee members saying, “The courts have not ruled. So none of that is clear”.
I would like to read two passages that I have before me. The first is from a ruling by the British Columbia Court of Appeal on the traditional definition of marriage. I am going to read it, knowing that she understands English to some extent because we have taken part in debates together in English on various subjects. So I am going to read it in the original language because I do not have the translation.
Paragraph 7 in the ruling by the British Columbia Court of Appeal says:
[English]
|
--I conclude that there is a common law bar to same-sex marriage; that it contravenes s. 15 of the Charter; and that it cannot be justified under s. 1 of the Charter. I would grant the declaratory relief set forth at para. 158, infra,-- |
[Translation]
And the Ontario Court of Appeal said the following in paragraph 108, and I encourage my colleagues and the people listening to us to go and see for themselves if they want:
[English]
|
Based on the foregoing analysis, it is our view that the dignity of persons in same-sex relationships is violated by the exclusion of same-sex couples from the institution of marriage. Accordingly, we conclude that the common-law definition of marriage as “the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others” violates s. 15(1) of the Charter. |
[Translation]
It is obvious, therefore, to anyone who has taken the time to read the rulings that the courts were very clear that the so-called traditional definition of marriage was unconstitutional.
Insofar as the time we are allowed is concerned—a matter that we have already discussed—I would simply like to say that I share the view expressed by the Conservative Party's favourite newspaper. Usually, they rely a lot on this paper, and I encourage them to do so again.
I think that I quoted the editorial yesterday, but it is important to read it again. It is the editorial for Friday, June 3, 2005 entitled, “The marriage debate has had its day”. I apologize for not having the translation. The paper says:
(1135)
[English]
|
But whatever side of the issue one is on, the notion that the 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 a 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 the 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. |
[Translation]
I could not have put it better myself.
[English]
Mr. Michael Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's speech very much. I also enjoyed sitting on the civil marriage committee along with him and many others. I have to add my voice of commendation for the way that you, Mr. Speaker, chaired that committee and particularly the way you managed the relationship between the member for Provencher and the member for Hochelaga, which I thought showed great sensitivity.
I am proud to be standing here today in the House, proud that tonight we will indeed provide equality to gay and lesbian Canadians, something that they deserve and something whose time has come.
One of the issues that we heard a lot from witnesses in committee was about the changing roles of marriage and how marriage has changed. We have heard here today some concern from opposition members that marriage has not changed, that this is too dramatic a change. We all recall that not that many years ago blacks and whites did not marry, and Anglicans and Catholics did not marry. Marriage is an evolving process.
One of the concerns that people brought forward to the committee and other places was that Bill C-38 might lead to things such as polygamy. I wonder if the hon. member might be able to reassure Canadians that they do not have to worry about polygamy in the near future.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour for his question and say that I too enjoyed very much sitting with him on the committee.
Second, when my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour said that marriage is an evolving process, I was very surprised to hear a Conservative member shout, “Wrong”. I wonder what planet our Conservative colleague lives on. He is a young, and probably a dynamic person. If he thinks that the institution of marriage has not evolved over time, I suggest, in a friendly, gentle and humble way, that he should do his homework and carefully review history, particularly as regards the race based exclusions that existed and the lack of equality between men and women.
There is also the fact that, for hundreds of years, in our own Judeo-Christian tradition, polygamy was permitted. Until the year 1000, in the Jewish tradition, Ashkenazi Jews were allowed to be polygamous. Similarly, until just recently, Sephardic Jews who practised polygamy in their countries of origin were allowed to remain polygamous upon moving to Israel. So, marriage has evolved. I hope that my colleague is not suggesting that it did not.
As for polygamy, I believe this a an unfounded fear. One of the tenets of our legislation here, in Quebec and Canada, is gender equality. But polygamy, or its mirror image polyandry, means inequality between partners within the couple, which means gender inequality. So, any conjugal relationship that is not based on equal partners would de facto be contrary to this equality right that has opened the door, thank God for that, to same sex marriage.
(1140)
[English]
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today to Bill C-38. It is an honour for me to be splitting my time with the member for Halifax.
Today is a historic moment in Canadian history. We will be breaking new ground in a country that has individual civil liberties and rights at its forefront, and which are contained in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Constitution. We will be reaffirming our commitment to those rights today.
The member for Halifax is an interesting case study of a changing society and rights and freedoms. The member for Halifax was a trailblazer for women's issues. Back in 1980 she was elected to her provincial legislature as the first female leader in this country. This country has benefited in the last 25 years since her election because women have become more involved in municipal, provincial and federal politics. Women have not yet reached their full representation in our society in terms of business, industry, or politics. However, the steps that have been taken have benefited Canadians. My colleague from Halifax needs to be commended on this historic day for Canadians.
I want to talk a bit about Bill C-38 in terms of what it means aside from the issue of whether or not we should support it. I and my party will be supporting this legislation for a couple of reasons.
The first and foremost reason is the fact that it involves an issue relating to freedoms and rights. We in the NDP believe it is very important to protect these freedoms and rights for all members of society. The courts have done through the back door what we in Parliament should have done through the front door. The courts have acknowledged that gay and lesbian couples deserve the right to be unified in marriage by those religious institutions that choose to do so.
It is important to note that any religious organizations that feel it is not within their practice or faith to perform civil marriages do have the right to have their traditions reaffirmed, defined and protected. They need to be masters of their own domain. Their own congregations need to decide for themselves what is in the best interests of their members. It should not be left up to the government to decide.
At the same time, there are those religious institutions that want to perform same sex marriages and have expressed this right to their members. They have had this debate and their congregations want gay and lesbian couples to celebrate their love in a similar fashion as heterosexual couples.
What happens in the nine provinces and the one territory that has passed this legislation if we do not pass Bill C-38 in this place? Nothing will change. We will then be denying rights to these jurisdictions in Canada.
Since the Ontario court ruling in 2002 we have witnessed thousands of couples getting married across this country. They have expressed their feelings in a way that is open and inclusive, and one that they feel is healthy for themselves. How do we undo that?
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the people in my community who came forward to discuss this issue, whether they were opposed to it or in favour of it. One of the most interesting conversations that I will always remember was with a young man who had been adopted by two women who were married. He did not have a family before this relationship. His family wants to keep their relationship and show the rest of the community that they are in a strong relationship. Their church endorses their relationship. What gives me the right to take away that relationship?
He asked me how we would benefit people if we treat them differently? How could that court judgment be used to treat people differently and not equally?
(1145)
It reminds me of the kind of division we have in that some people believe that people can be treated differently. They put it in the guise of being equal but different. I remember when those arguments were used in the civil rights movements. Quite frankly there was a discussion earlier here about people of different races marrying and the stigma attached to that. I am married to Terry Chow, who was originally born in Hong Kong. We have two beautiful children. At times I still get hate mail in my office because I married someone outside my specific race. Those people perceive that my children and my marriage are not equal and they write to me. I will not even mention some of the language they use. That is the reality. There are some people who still do not accept that and it is unfortunate.
That is one of the reasons we have to pass Bill C-38, because when we protect minority rights we protect all Canadians. We have to make sure that people are going to have fair access.
I have had other interesting discussions with people regarding why they want us to move on this issue. I have had discussions with soldiers, firefighters and police officers who tell me that they put their lives on the line every single day for Canadians. They get up in the morning, go to work, not knowing whether or not they will return home. There could be an accident at work, in service to the community or the country. What right do I have as a politician to deny them the equality that other citizens enjoy? Important policy to keep in mind is that the government has a responsibility, as do we parliamentarians, to act on something when we know at the end of the day the conclusion will be through the court system.
That brings me to a very important aspect about this whole debate. If we do not pass this bill, we will simply be sending everything back to the courts. It is an interesting strategy for those who are criticizing the decision of the courts that the very best we could do is to send it back to the courts, to the other four jurisdictions, but where would we go from there? Would it be the notwithstanding clause at that point? Do we go in a circle in the parliamentary cycle in the fall and discuss this issue over and over again?
We need to move forward. The amendments that have been made to the bill, the criticisms that have been related to it such as religious freedoms and sensitivity about it have actually been healthy in some respects. They have helped define the fact that Canadians are still very much interested in having their own religious autonomy. That is going to be protected by the charter. Also, there has been a strengthening of the bill which was unanimously agreed to. I want to read a specific clause in the bill about that which is important to note. It is clause 3.1, freedom of conscience and religion and expression of beliefs:
|
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 same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religious 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 is important. It does not just say that the court is going to define this. It says that Parliament in its own will wants to reinforce the fact that we want those organizations to make their own decisions and judgments. There was another amendment related to charitable status so that churches, synagogues and mosques, for example, may decide that they do not want to perform these services and they will not be undermined because they might make different practising decisions.
At the end of the day it comes down to why we should do this. We need to do this because it is the right thing to do.
Parliament has been watching the courts make decisions. At a certain point in time our country has to act. We know that gays and lesbians in our communities are not being treated equally across the country. It is time to finally pass Bill C-38 and make sure that the voice of Parliament is heard in this debate and that we move forward as a country with equality for all.
[Translation]
Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Windsor West for his very interesting speech. I am curious to learn what he thinks about another argument that has been frequently raised in the House or during the hearings in committee. People say okay, gays and lesbians can have the same rights, but this union should be called something else. I want to hear his opinion on this point since many people consider this to be such an obvious and simple solution, instead of arguing with each other and dividing the country.
(1150)
[English]
Mr. Brian Masse: Mr. Speaker, my colleague has raised some very important points in that this goes to the whole argument that people have the right to be treated differently. This society cannot be founded on that principle. Society has to respect the rights of all individuals. If we are going to make arbitrary decisions about who can have a different categorization of rights, then we will see challenges in the court system in the future. Also, it is fundamentally wrong for a nation to progress in that way.
I mentioned my own personal relationship with someone of a different ethnic origin and that there has been a very negative stigma related to it. We have not even solved that in our society. That is why it is important for us as Canadians and parliamentarians to not try to to do something through the back door in terms of changing rights of individuals when we know it is going to be thrown back to the courts. Once again it makes it very interesting because those who want to do that will simply end up throwing everything back to the courts that they have been criticizing from day one. I do not think that is leadership.
I noted the fact that there are only four jurisdictions left in Canada that do not have this equality. That is about 10% of the population, which means that 90% of the population have already been marrying same sex couples. Some have been doing it for years. Those couples are in society. They are on my street and in my neighbourhood. I have not witnessed the erosion of the family unit. In fact, I have seen a strengthening in many respects because I have seen people being able to express themselves in a way that has less restrictions. That is very important for those individuals.
If we are going to have a different categorization of individuals, it is a slippery slope for Canadian society. It opens the door for other possibilities that would be very negative. It is very important that we do not allow people to be categorized differently.
The courts have already decided this issue in many respects. They have said that we cannot treat people differently. Why would we want to throw this issue back to the courts at the expense of Canadian citizens who are law abiding, pay their taxes, participate in the community and only want to celebrate their love and relationship in an equal manner?
Approximately 3,000 individuals across Canada have been married since 2002. We are talking about a very small percentage of the population, which I do not think undermines any other type of marriage. I do not think it hurts Canadian society. In fact, it only progresses us by once again defining that civil liberties and rights in Canada are ensured and that Parliament will participate in that debate.
Mr. Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I lost count of how many times the member erred in his statements. No one is trying to create different categories. That is rhetoric and it is misleading. It is a shame that the member continued to use punchy words to mislead the Canadian public. There is no different categorization.
I believe everybody in the House recognizes the truly loving relationships of homosexual couples. I do not think that is the issue. My concern is that the love I have for my wife has not been improved or decreased because of a word or a piece of paper. That leads to my first question. How does the member feel this word, going on the previous member's question, is going to alter anything, and how does not having Bill C-38 decrease the love of these relationships?
The second question is very brief. Given the truth that the Bloc party only has an interest in Quebec and has absolutely no interest in the furtherance of Canada, and given the second truth that the Liberals have made a deal with the Bloc to push this bill through, in terms of truthful debate, how is that democracy?
(1155)
Mr. Brian Masse: Mr. Speaker, I am astonished by the question and the statement of the hon. member.
I would ask the hon. member to look at the comments of some of his own colleagues in Hansard. In the material that I have used I was looking at some of the comments and some of the positive statements that Conservative members have said in favour of same sex civil unions.
With regard to the Bloc, whether we like it or not, the Bloc is part of the democratic process in Canada. It seems rather convenient that the Conservatives would team up with the Bloc on the budget bill and would work quite closely with those members for the majority of this Parliament and then astonishingly last night the Leader of the Opposition tried to categorize the Bloc differently.
We know that is only partisan politics to try to get away from what Canadians know, which is that the Conservatives have been working quite closely with the Bloc and it has hurt the Conservative Party in many parts of the country. The Conservatives know that and this is their single opportunity as Parliament recesses to try to undo that damage. Everyone sees it.
Whether we like it or not, the Bloc votes count. Canadians live in Quebec. They are Canadians and they have decided that they want to stay in Canada for now. Quebeckers go to the polls and elect members from different political parties, including the Bloc. Therefore, the Bloc has a voice in this Parliament.
It is hypocritical, and I would say it is harpercritical, for the Conservative member to say that the Bloc votes do not count this time, when throughout this session of Parliament the Conservatives have been teaming and scheming with them. It is a harpercritical suggestion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): May I suggest that members be careful with regard to their vocabulary, especially when creating new words.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am very privileged and delighted to have an opportunity to speak briefly to this very important bill, Bill C-38, on this very historic occasion, because what we are about to do is pass a piece of legislation that has been many decades in the making here in Canada.
Many have spoken very eloquently about the evolution of human rights in our society. There is no question that over the years, the decades and the centuries we have evolved toward a more civilized, more compassionate and more just concept of the rights of people in our society, and really, justice is what is at the root of what we are talking about. Not only do the rights of people in our society have to be acknowledged and recognized, but they also have to be reflected in the laws of the nation and they have to be upheld. In other words, rights are of no consequence if there is not a way to protect people and ensure the enforcement of those rights.
Let me say this for those who would ask why we need legislation to protect equal marriage, who would say that we have managed without it forever and ask why we need it now, and who would ask if it is not some kind of trendy notion. Let me simply say that even though it is in recent years only that we have moved to assert full equality for gays and lesbians in our society as it relates to the right to full and equal marriage, we must recognize that the lack of this right, the lack of this respect and the lack of this sanctioning have haunted and bedevilled people whose right to that social recognition has been denied throughout the centuries.
Let us today celebrate the fact that we have recognized that there has been harm, hurt and frustration and that there has been a denial of this full exercising of the right to marriage to gays and lesbians in our society. Some people say they have gay friends or lesbian friends who do not want to get married and they ask what the big deal is. We all have friends who are gay and lesbian or who are straight who opt not to get married, and that will continue to be the case, but what is absolutely unacceptable in our society is the fact that no Canadian should be denied the right to equal marriage on the basis of sexual orientation. We are about to change that and it is something to celebrate,
I have heard some members in the House, not exclusively in the neanderthal corner of the Conservative Party but also alarmingly frequently in the backbenches of the governing party as well, ask why we have to call it marriage. Why? Because that is the recognized sanctioning in the law of a relationship that exists between two people and has meaning. It has emotional meaning and it also has legal meaning.
As for those who argue that they are for it up to a point but to call it marriage just does some kind of terrible damage to the institution of marriage, I have to say in all honesty that I have struggled to understand why this is a problem for people. I do not understand what it is that causes someone to say,“I feel my marriage is somehow going to be diminished if the marriage between two other people is allowed to take place on an equal basis between two people of the same sex”.
When I hear those arguments, I have to say that I am really genuinely puzzled that there could actually be people, thinking people, people with a sense of fairness and justice in our society, who would want to take the position that any other person, regardless of sexual orientation, should be denied access to the very marriage that these people say is so very important to them.
(1200)
If marriage is such an important element of our society, why would they not be in favour of greater inclusion and more marriages? What we are talking about is a commitment undertaken between two adults to say that they want their obligations and their rights to be codified, institutionalized and fully recognized. Does that not broaden the circle of marriage? Does that not broaden the institution to the point where, if one really believes that this is a foundation in our society, more of it should be a good thing?
I do not want to spend my remaining moments arguing with members who take the opposite point of view. Sometimes I feel almost literally physically sick at my own welling up of intolerance. I do not like that feeling, because this is supposed to be about tolerance, inclusion and acceptance.
However, I will admit that I feel a certain welling up of intolerance when I hear the insensitivity that is displayed by those who say they have no problem denying equal access to marriage to people on the basis of their sexual orientation. These same people very often say they are in favour of protecting gays and lesbians from being discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation.
Let me say, however, that for some people it is the ultimate form of discrimination to say that they cannot enjoy the full benefits and full access to being married to the persons they love, as other people in this society enjoy.
I want to take a moment or two to pay tribute. I do have not time to pay tribute to a vast number of people, but we did not reach this point in this debate, in piloting this legislation through here today at this historic moment, without a great many people having contributed to and engaged in the struggle to bring us to this point.
It would really be an omission on this occasion not to recognize the very early and courageous work done by the former member for Burnaby--Douglas. I want to share a brief and actually quite humorous anecdote. Some 20 years ago, the former member for Burnaby--Douglas, and some of my colleagues may know the exact date, held a press conference on Parliament Hill to openly declare, as a parliamentarian, that he was gay. A dear friend of mine from British Columbia, a mutual friend of his, was visiting in Nova Scotia. Her name is Rosemary Brown. Many will know that she is a hero to many of us. She said, “I don't know why Svend Robinson needs to hold a press conference to declare he's gay. That's like me holding a press conference to declare I'm black. It seems quite obvious. Everybody knows it”.
Underlying that slightly humorous discussion was the recognition that some of the worst forms of discrimination and some of the worst kind of hate-mongering take place when it cannot be fully recognized that it is happening. That is why we have laws to say that we cannot discriminate against people just because we do not like whatever their characteristics or attributes may be.
I have had an avalanche of letters and emails from people in my own riding and across the country. I wish I had time to write a book and someday share them with people. I know that we all have had those kinds of letters.
I have also benefited from information that has been shared. I want to mention this briefly in wrapping up. Regarding the place of churches in the same sex marriage debate, there are a few things members may not have heard. There is an outstanding paper by the head of the Department of Religious Studies at Queen's University, Pamela Dickey Young, and I commend it to people.
Finally, I want to quote from the very fine speech from the current member for Burnaby--Douglas, who stated in this debate that:
|
When it comes down to it, there is no difference in the love experienced by gay and lesbian couples and heterosexual couples. Love is love is love. |
|
The bill is a cause for celebration. Soon, when it finally passes, we will be able to celebrate the love and commitment of all Canadian couples. The circle of love, of responsibility, of commitment, of marriage will be wider. |
We will all be the richer for it.
(1205)
Mr. Bradley Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have two comments and one question for my hon. friend.
First, I have been listening to the debate and I want to say there is one thing that I think both sides of the debate can agree on. When the opponents of this legislation talk about heterosexual marriage, about marriage as traditionally noted, we talk about it being a child-centred institution, about historical reasons, not just religious reasons, about anthropological and sociological reasons, et cetera, and also about reasons about structure and nature. When the proponents talk about marriage, be it heterosexual, homosexual or whatever way we are going to define it, they talk more about the commitment of two adults to each other, about intimacy.
Therefore, I think there is one thing we can agree on, based on the speeches, and it is that we have converged at one point: the two sides of this debate fundamentally disagree on what the nature of heterosexual marriage is even before we redefine it to include homosexuals. We fundamentally disagree on what the nature of marriage has been in the past and what it should be in the future. That is just one point. It is one thing I have gathered in listening to various comments.
The other thing I want to put on the record as a comment is that in this debate democracy has not been respected. Not all members are being allowed to give speeches on behalf of their constituents due to the closure motion that the separatists, the socialists and the Liberals pushed through last night. This is one reason why I am up on questions and comments repeatedly today. It is my only opportunity to speak. I will be denied a right to speak at third reading of this bill.
Now I have a question for the hon. member. She has spoken about how this is an important human right and how, if it is a human right, it cannot be compromised on, how there is no leeway and we must back it. Last night, much to my surprise, the member for Churchill, a member of her caucus, broke ranks with her party and essentially, according to what she said, voted against human rights. I suspect she will do that again tonight.
If the member for Churchill again votes against human rights, in the mind of the hon. member for Halifax, what should happen to her? Voting against human rights is very serious. I know that if a colleague of mine opposed what I believe to be human rights, I would not want him or her sitting with me in caucus. I can disagree with members on many issues, but on fundamental human rights there is a line in the sand. What does the member believe should happen to the member for Churchill if she votes against human rights?
(1210)
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, let me respond to two things. I wish I had more time to respond to a number of things that have been said by the hon. member opposite, but I know I do not.
First, he has made some kind of convoluted argument about how the real problem is that same sex marriages do not actually have anything to do with children. I think that was sort of the argument. I have to say that my dearest and closest childhood friend from the age of two, with whom I grew up and actively engaged in the Baptist church, has a wonderful, beautiful daughter who entered into a same sex marriage and has one of the most beautiful children I have ever known. If the member does not understand anything about how that, in today's world, is a modern miracle, then I hope he can do his homework and find out.
Let me just quickly read for him a letter from a lesbian couple in my riding. I do not know them personally. Here is what they said on that subject:
|
We are a same-sex couple who have been together for almost twenty years. We are planning to have a family, and we feel that recognized social support of marriage will make the country a far less discriminatory place for our children. |
Now, let me--
Mr. Bradley Trost: Where is the father?
Ms. Alexa McDonough: I am sorry. If you have another question I would be happy to address it, but I am not hearing what the question is--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): I would remind hon. members to deal with each other through the Chair, please.
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, this member is trying to single out the one member of my 19 member caucus who has taken a different view. I personally regret that very much. I would suggest that this member on the Conservative bench should take a little more responsibility for his 94 colleagues who have taken a stand against this bill.
I hope that he will speak to the member for Central Nova who absolutely betrayed a commitment that he made to his constituents who helped elect him to defeat a woman by the name of Roseanne Skoke who had no respect for human rights. The member for Central Nova ran as a champion of human rights, put on the record that he viewed gay and lesbian issues as human rights issues, and then absolutely betrayed, in a way that was very hurtful to people in Central Nova, the commitment that he had made to treat this matter as a matter of human rights. I think the member has his hands full dealing with 94 of his colleagues. Perhaps he would want to turn his attention there.
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Scarborough—Rouge River.
It is an honour to be here on this historic day when Parliament will affirm the equality rights and religious freedoms that were first conveyed to us when the Charter of Rights and Freedoms became part of the Canadian Constitution.
Everyone in Parliament and across Canada understands the very deeply held and passionate views on this issue among Canadians. No member of Parliament would ever suggest that their constituents were not split or that people did not feel very passionate on both sides of this issue.
It is incumbent upon all of us to respect the rights of each member of Parliament and of each Canadian to have different views on this very sensitive and heartfelt issue.
I will try to give a balanced reflection of some of the comments from my constituents. I will read some excerpts from some of the emails and letters I received from my constituents with views on both sides of the issue, so they know they have been treated fairly, they have been heard, and they have passed their feelings on to Parliament.
Jennifer Williams and Paul Gort wrote:
|
As constituents we are writing to let you know of our support for the government's proposed same sex marriage act and to urge you and your colleagues to take action to ensure this important bill is passed before the House adjourns for the summer. The right to marry is a fundamental human right and as such is deeply connected with our Canadian identity and sense of justice. How can we as Canadians deem to judge other nations if we fail to uphold the most basic of human rights at home? |
Lana Wickstrom wrote:
|
Courts across Canada consistently and repeatedly found excluding gays and lesbians from civil marriage to violate the charter because the exclusion is discriminatory and without reasonable justification. Some argue marriage has always excluded same sex couples. However, just because a discriminatory practice has been in place for a long time does not make it acceptable. Women were denied the right to vote for centuries. Discrimination was not fair then and it is not fair now. |
Given that same sex marriages have been allowed in eight provinces and in Yukon Territory, Claude Chabot wrote:
|
I can't say I've noticed Yukon society falling apart after our experience with same sex marriage over the past few months. |
Kevin Greenshields wrote:
|
The United Nations Commission on Human Rights has upheld traditional marriage on an international case from New Zealand in 2002. Even countries like the United Kingdom, France, Denmark and Sweden have upheld the traditional definition of marriage. |
Don Green said, “--marriage is part of what defines a Christian”. Ruth Dueck said, “--social experiment that would intentionally deprive children of a mother or father”. Carol Horne wrote:
|
Furthermore, it would appear that the government is abdicating the responsibilities of Parliament, allowing an unelected and unaccountable judiciary to set the agenda and to carry out drastic social re-engineering of an essential human institution. |
The Right Reverend Terrance Buckle, the Anglican Bishop of Yukon, wrote:
|
This proposed legislative action by the Government of Canada stands in opposition to the faith teachings of many in Canada and not only Christians, as I am certain you are aware. |
Stan Marinoske wrote:
|
One of the major social systems which has been the cornerstone of our society is that of the family. The traditional family unit has been under attack from all sides. This will be another huge nail in the coffin which will eventually bury the family as we know it. |
Harry McKenzie wrote a very deep felt letter ending with, “You have a chance here to protect our community and its members rather than push for their potential abuse and victimization”.
I received a number of form letters. A card from Don Duriez stated that marriage assures the survival of society by creating the next generation. Dianne Tate said, “Marriage is a vital social institution and is the foundation on which a strong, dynamic society is built”. Finally, Kim Runions said, “Will you also vote one day in support of marrying one man and one beast or maybe a father and his daughter?”
I want to assure my constituents that I read all their emails and letters, and I have reflected a number of them, on both sides of the issue, fairly in the House of Commons today.
I want to comment on that last one because it has come up a number of times in the House and in debate that it might lead to polygamy, incest or marrying animals. I want to assure the House that this is obviously not true. The difference is quite clear. We in Parliament are saying to all Canadians that they cannot marry beasts, have incest or polygamy. We are treating all Canadians equally by saying they cannot do that
(1215)
The reason that same sex marriages are allowed now in Canada is that it is an equality right. It is treating all Canadians equally and allowing all Canadians to do that, just as we are not allowing all Canadians to participate in those other activities.
I would like to outline more of the facts related to this situation for those Canadians who may not quite clearly understand the situation related to this law, so there are no misunderstandings.
I wish to make it clear that this is just civil marriages. If anyone is worrying about their traditional religious marriages, the law will carry on exactly as it has always been. We are only speaking of civil marriage.
The case in Canada today is that the highest law in the land created by Parliament, the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, has been interpreted to say that same sex marriages are legal. Whether or not the law passes, same sex marriages are now legal and they will continue to be legal in Canada.
Unfortunately, this has left us in a situation where there are two provinces and two territories where it has not been through the courts yet. Obviously, it will eventually get there, but in a sense we have two classes of citizens. That is why it is important to deal with this law. In fact, we will be finishing it this evening, so that we do not have different classes of citizens in Canada. I am sure all parliamentarians would agree with that.
Another fact that people should be made aware of is that this has nothing to do with benefits like pensions or other employee benefits for same sex couples. They already have these benefits through other laws which have been dealt with. It also has nothing to do with the right to adopt children. Same sex couples already have these rights as well through other laws.
The only thing that we are dealing with here is that same sex couples have equal rights to use the word “marriage” to define their civil unions.
Given that we have this situation, that same sex marriages are now legal in Canada, it is very important to note that all parties in the House of Commons have said that they will not change the Constitution to deny this equality right or to deny same sex civil unions. They will not use the notwithstanding clause. Then why do we need this bill? It is over and above, as I said earlier, to ensure that persons in the other two provinces and two territories are treated equally.
The other major objective of the bill is to reaffirm the protection of religious freedoms in the Constitution. Churches that do not want to perform same sex marriages should not have to. One of the important elements of the bill is to protect religious freedoms and two more elements have been added to the bill to enhance the religious freedoms aspect. I congratulate the committee and the House for doing that.
In summary, that is what the bill is all about. It reaffirms two rights that are in the Canadian Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, namely the equality rights and the right to religious freedom.
Canada is a nation of minorities. We are all part of some minority. If we do not protect all minorities, we cannot protect any minority. If we do not protect all minorities, we cannot protect people of colour, Anglicans, Catholics, Muslims, people of different genders, and people of different races or nationalities. We could not protect any Canadians because each and every one of us is part of some minority.
Parliamentarians in a previous Parliament have issued a great challenge for us by creating a charter with some overlapping rights, equality rights and the right of religious freedom. Balancing these is what Bill C-38 would put into law with a very good framework. Our challenge as parliamentarians is to do our level best to find that balance in these two rights for the fairness of all.
I have never had one Canadian suggest to me that all Canadians should not be treated equally. I stand by them, and the freedoms and rights of all Canadians.
(1220)
Mr. Bradley Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I generally do not compliment members of the government but I will say that the member's speech was actually thoughtful and fairly representative of his constituents. He seems to honestly believe in the position he has come to.
I want to make a couple of general points. First, I want to make this point again to see what the hon. member thinks of it. Not all members of the House who wish to speak to Bill C-38 at third reading will be allowed to speak to it because of the closure. With such an important piece of legislation that affects so many Canadians and is crossing party lines in many different directions, I wonder why the hon. member feels each member should not have been treated in many ways as an independent to be allowed to speak out. I would like his comments on that.
I have a second point that I would be interested in hearing his comments on. When the Minister of Justice gave his speech this morning he seemed extremely adamant that the notwithstanding clause portion of the Charter of Rights should never be used. During questions and comments I noted to him that the Prime Minister had said that there were situations in which he would use the notwithstanding clause. I asked about previous incidents in the province of Quebec where the Quebec government used it for language rights and so forth.
I also noted that when the Constitution was ratified the premier of my province was a New Democrat, Mr. Allan Blakeney. He was an emphatic backer of the notwithstanding clause for things such as his future. He seems to have been fairly wise in seeing into the future and being concerned about the health care ruling that came down from the Supreme Court that medicare may be against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Does the hon. member see any circumstance where the notwithstanding clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms should be used? Does he agree with the Prime Minister that perhaps it may be the only way to reverse that? Does he see the notwithstanding clause as ever being potentially useful?
(1225)
Hon. Larry Bagnell: Mr. Speaker, first, with regard to allowing people to speak, I agree with the member. I am a champion of democracy and I believe everyone should be allowed to speak, including minorities.
However I think the justice minister made a very good delineation this morning in his speech of how this particular bill has been dealt with more extensively than probably anything else in this Parliament. Last night the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence made a beautiful outline of all the other serious items affecting Canadians that we ought to be dealing with.
The fact is that we have debated the bill at different stages. I know more people would like to speak but I think the Conservatives have agreed that no one is going to change his or her mind no matter how long we speak. With that in mind, it is my view that we should vote on this and then carry on with other items that are also very important for Canadians.
In relation to the notwithstanding clause, in answer to the member's question this morning, the justice minister said that he did not believe the notwithstanding should be used to deny people rights, in this case the equality right. The Prime Minister's suggestion was that we use the notwithstanding clause to protect people's rights.
In relation to my thoughts about the provinces using the notwithstanding clause, one of my philosophies in governance has always been to not pronounce on what other governments do in Canada. We have four orders of government: municipal, first nation, provincial-territorial and federal. Each, in theory, has an identified jurisdiction and work they should be doing. I personally have enough work to do in my own job that I do not comment on what the other governments do or what is within their authority and legal right to do.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I stand here today as a Liberal. I noticed earlier in the debate that parties were being painted with different names. I heard one party being painted as separatists, another party being painted as socialists and another party being painted as Neanderthals. I am gratified that my party has managed to cling to its name, Liberal.
Mr. Andrew Scheer: You're crooks.
Mr. Derek Lee: There you go, Mr. Speaker. We are the crooks, according to the Conservative Party.
In any event, I will start with the big picture. Canadians are quite divided on this issue, as is Parliament and every caucus representing a party in the House. I suppose it ought to be that way because that is the way it is with Canadians.
From the very beginning the Prime Minister accorded our members a free vote on this issue. I know the opposition has said that it is not a free vote, that cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries do not have a free vote, but that simply is not true. Cabinet ministers do not have a free vote. They will vote as a government. However all the parliamentary secretaries do have a free vote, save one, and that is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.
I am very comfortable with my Liberal Party being where it is on this issue with the two line whip structure. I think it is serving the House and Canadians well.
The first major item I want to deal with today has to do with the amendment that was made at committee, which is described as clause 3.1. The amendment has not had a lot of discussion in the House because it was actually crafted and inserted into the bill at committee stage but I think it is a rather significant amendment. I will read it to the House:
|
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. |
Those are a lot of words but what the clause actually does is it codifies in the statute the widest possible berth we could have constructed on a general basis for those who, for religious or freedom of expression reasons, are not supportive of, nor advocates of, same sex marriage.
What we have here, structurally, is a clash between charter based equality rights and, on the other hand, religious freedoms and freedom of expression. On the issue of civil marriage, those two sets of values clashed and we as a Parliament needed to assist in drawing the boundary lines.
Many people have said that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides freedom of religion and freedom of expression, that it is good for everybody and that it is there if it is needed to defend oneself. While that is true, it just so happens that the ordinary citizen does not walk around with a copy of the charter in his or her back pocket. Those rights and freedoms in the Constitution are usually pretty general based.
I am one of those who believe that if we are going to legislate in an area that manifests the clash of those spheres of interest, equality versus religious freedom, then we have to provide to the citizen something on the shelf that he or she can refer to in a statute, and we have done it.
(1230)
However there are those who say that we should not be putting that in a statute because it tends to entrench on other provincial jurisdictions. I am one of those who say that if we can legislate on the subject, if we can refer to the charter, which is a federal instrument in the Constitution that is there for all Canadians, then surely when we enact legislation to protect the spheres of interests we can place a provision on the shelf as part of the hardware and software to which the citizen has access. I mentioned them earlier, the charter based equality provisions versus religious freedoms.
We have to note that the Holy Bible and the Holy Quran are just two of many religious writings, and other religious writings have done the same thing, which comment on or even prescribe same sex relationships.
In our modern world those relationships do exist but, at the same time, many Canadians say that the religious writings on which they manage and govern their lives have provisions in which they believe and to which they subscribe, which prevent them from looking in any other way at same sex unions. Recognizing that, we have constructed in clause 3.1 a reasonable berth for those views.
I will be voting against the bill even though I have tried to make the legislation better and played a small role in developing clause 3.1. What if Bill C-38 does not pass during the final vote this evening? If it does not pass, we would be left with an existing status quo, where eight out of ten provinces through their courts have recognized the legality of same sex marriages and those marriages are taking place now. We also would be faced with the scenario where we have to regularize what is out there unless we are simply going to let the courts carry on legislating for us for ever and ever.
We would then have to either deconstruct what has been put in place by the courts, which we could do in part, or we would have to find some other way to reconstruct and re-legislate.
I wish we could have gone back and completed the work of the justice committee, made a proposal to the House and attempted some legislation. Who knows where it would have ended up, in a way, without the pre-emptive strike of the Ontario Court of Appeal, which I regard as a very unfortunate day for parliamentary procedures and functions. I know there are those in the House who believe it was a great day for human rights, for equality rights, but we would have to go back and reconstruct. I am not saying that we could not do it but it would be very difficult to do given that we have had a year or more of same sex marriages taking place and those people are legally married.
It was unfortunate the way in which the courts did this. I am not saying that they are always wrong in the law. I am just saying that the way the courts have done it has pre-empted the legislative work of Parliament and placed us in a very difficult position.
There is no sense in me getting out my guns on the courts. I can do it freely here. I have the freedom under the Constitution to say whatever I want and I can bad mouth the courts and say that they ought not to have done it, that it really was a matter for Parliament and legislatures and not for the courts, but they saw the opportunity and they stole it. They swiped it right off the legislative desk of this Parliament. They knew the justice committee was working on this matter. They knew the House had referred it to the justice committee and yet they felt the need to strike down a provision and read in new law.
(1235)
I think the rationale was that the courts made the law in the first place in 1868, in the case of Hyde v. Hyde, and if they could make the law 130 years ago, then they can make the law now. They are wrong. The world has changed and we do not have a system of elites making decisions for people now. We do it in parliaments and legislatures. There are a whole lot of reasons I could give as to why the courts should not do it.
Maybe this is an area we have to work on as a country and as a Parliament. I am not saying we have to discipline the courts, but we need to have some kind of an understanding about what the courts do and what Parliament does.
I will not try to rewrite history now, but that is one of the reasons I cannot support this because I do not think we should be here now, and I fault the courts for that. I do understand everyone's position, but I will be vote against the bill for all of the usual reasons related to the views of my constituents.
Mr. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC): Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my colleague's speech he quoted clause 3.1. I will read it again because I have a specific question for him about it.
|
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 important part in my mind is the part that reads “under any law of the Parliament of Canada”. He said that this was a very broad umbrella of protection for Canadians, but it is not.
We look around the country and there are several examples of people facing persecution under provincial human rights tribunals or provincial laws or trade unions. There is a case in British Columbia of someone who lost his teacher's licence because his union deemed that the letters he wrote to the editor on the subject of marriage were worthy enough to kick him out. We have seen a school in Ontario forced to have its position compromised on these issues.
I would put to him that the line under any law of the Parliament of Canada is very narrow. There are many examples out there that we can point to where people are facing persecution for their religious beliefs and the expression of those religious beliefs. They have lost their livelihoods and face many other sorts of persecution.
(1240)
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, it may be true that these conflicts exist out in society. It should not surprise us that they do. The items the member refers to are probably ones that began before this federal bill got to Parliament. In any event, the bill has not even passed yet so it could not possibly have an impact on the street.
What is going on is that the issue is out on the street. Therefore, we have to find ways to regularize and accommodate the resolution of those conflicts. While we can legislate here in this Parliament for federal matters, we cannot legislate in areas of exclusive jurisdiction. That is simply something we cannot do, we never could do and we never will be able to do.
However, the fact act that we have addressed these issues and have legislated in a certain way in an attempt to codify the conflict between individual equality rights and religious rights and freedoms is quite likely to be noticed by provincial institutions. They may want to take another tack or another course, but I think we have done the right thing by legislating in this way. I think it will provide some leadership to those institutions as they all attempt to resolve these conflicts.
In any event, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is always there as a backstop. A number of the people who are involved in these situations will ultimately have to rely on the charter to defend themselves.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—Richmond East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I do not want to put words in my friend's mouth, but in his discussion he suggested that perhaps the fault here lay with the courts. Stanley Hartt, in a presentation before the parliamentary committee studying the legislation, stated that Bill C-38 had provoked divisiveness because it was based on:
|
--an unsustainable claim that the government is acting out of a constitutional imperative to alter the traditional definition of marriage... because this is the only way to accommodate their equality rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. |
Mr. Hartt stated, “ I see this claim as unsustainable, because I don't believe it's true”. He noted that when the charter equality challenges were heard in the lower court, the court only had the option of either rejecting the claim or offering them marriage. However, when the Supreme Court was expressly asked in question four in the same sex marriage reference, “Is the opposite sex requirement for marriage for civil purposes consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms”, Mr. Hart noted that the Supreme Court declined to answer the question.
Is it then not so much the fault of the courts, but the fault of the government for failing to adequately pursue this issue and to adequately defend the traditional definition of marriage?
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, this is a good set of issues. If I had my way, I would have acted a lot more robustly in relation to the courts of appeal.
It is true that the Supreme Court of Canada has not had an opportunity to test the constitutional validity of an opposite sex requirement in the definition. It is also true that in every court of appeal in the seven provinces, and now we have an eighth province on track, the opposite sex definition was tested and failed.
I suppose there is an outside mathematical chance that the Supreme Court of Canada might have said that all the appeal courts were wrong and that it would strike them down and uphold the opposite sex definition. I do not think there were any observers who really believed the Supreme Court would do that.
I was disappointed that it did not take the opportunity to deal with it in the reference. I understood why it did not. The member makes a good point. He must realize that all the courts of appeal of the country that have dealt with this issue, as I understand it, have struck down the opposite sex definition.
(1245)
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.
Let me start by indicating that I will be voting against the bill at third reading. I will be doing so because I consulted with my constituents, using a householder that contained a mail in ballot, in which constituents were asked the following question, “Should your member of parliament vote for the civil marriage act?”
We received back a total of 9,176 responses, with 7,321 advising me to vote against the bill, 1,814 advising me to vote for the bill and a further 41 ballots which were either spoiled or invalid. Therefore, my mandate is clear. My constituents want me to vote against this bill and I will respect their wish. However, speaking frankly, I am relieved that I was not asked to vote for this bill since I have grave concerns as to the implications of the civil marriage act for religious freedom in Canada.
Defence of freedom of religion and freedom of conscience has been one of the hallmarks of my own political career. My very first speech in the House of Commons in 2001 was in defence of the freedom of conscience of Falun Gong practitioners who had been persecuted in China.
In 2002 I offered a resolution, which was adopted unanimously by the House, in favour of freeing 13 Falun Gong practitioners who had ties to Canada and who had been imprisoned in China for expressing freedom of conscience. Some of those individuals are in our country today as free individuals because Parliament took a stand at that time in favour of freedom of religion and conscience.
My loyalty to this foundational principle goes beyond the defence of any one group. I have spoken out in protest against the oppression of Tibetan Buddhists and of both Buddhists and Christians in Vietnam.
One of the reasons I broke with my party to vote against the Anti-terrorism Act in 2001 was because that law effectively criminalized certain kinds of religious beliefs in certain kinds of situations, a feature that at least in theory could lead to the oppression of religious groups, most notably and obviously a danger that existed with Canadian Muslims.
When I say that I am very worried by the absence in Bill C-38 of protections for freedom of religion and freedom of conscience, I hope hon. members will understand how serious this matter is to me.
I am not unique of course in having such concerns. I will read from an article that Father Raymond de Souza, the well-known columnist, published in the journal First Things last year. He wrote, regarding the draft same sex marriage law then before the Supreme Court:
|
[It is likely to erode] religious liberty on questions related to marriage. First it will be churches forced to rent out their halls and basements for a same-sex couple’s wedding reception. Then it will be religious charities forced to recognize employees in same-sex relationships as legally married. Then it will be religious schools not being allowed to fire a teacher in a same-sex marriage. Then it will be a hierarchical or synodal church not being allowed to discipline an errant priest or minister who performs a civilly legal but canonically illicit same-sex marriage. All of this can happen short of the worst-case scenario specifically exempted in the federal government’s proposed law. |
If Father de Souza's concerns seem a bit over the top to some hon. members, let me demonstrate that these concerns are, if anything, understated.
I will demonstrate this by giving a real life example of just how far Canada's courts have already gone to restrict or roll back the protection given to freedom of religion and freedom of conscience and the protection given to those rights under section 2 of the charter when this protection has come into conflict with the currently fashionable but constitutionally unjustifiable, highly aggressive reading of the charter's equality of rights section, section 15.
I refer to the Scott Brockie case, although there are other cases before this nation's courts that I could cite as equally effective illustrations.
In April 1996, Scott Brockie and his family's Toronto printing business, Imaging Excellence, were approached with an order for letterhead, envelopes and business cards for the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives. Mr. Brockie, who is a Christian, refused to accept the order as it contravened his religious conscience to assist an organization's activities that directly promoted homosexuality, which he believed to be a sin.
Two months later, a representative from the Archives filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission, asserting that Mr. Brockie had denied the individual commercial services based on the man's sexual orientation.
In September 1999, Mr. Brockie and Imaging Excellence were found guilty of what was called discriminatory conduct. He was forced to pay a penalty to the Archives of $5,000 and to provide the printing services he had originally refused; in other words, to perform an act that he regarded as being unethical or immoral.
(1250)
All of this occurred despite the fact that Mr. Brockie was able to demonstrate in court that he had provided printing services to homosexuals in the past and that his objection was to the policy objectives of the organization seeking the use of his services rather than to the sexual orientation of the representative who approached him.
Later, the Ontario Supreme Court rejected Mr. Brockie's request to overturn the decision. The Superior Court had initially awarded Mr. Brockie $25,000 in costs, a decision that the Human Rights Commission and the archives successfully appealed to the Court of Appeals. As a result, Mr. Brockie must now foot a legal bill of $40,000.
In upholding the initial decision of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Ontario Superior Court engaged a logic that, if fully applied, would mean that freedom of conscience has no meaning under Canadian law, except that with which it is endowed by judges who more often than not will not share the religious or ethical beliefs of those upon whose right to act according to conscience they are ruling.
The court started in paragraph 51 of its ruling by citing with approval an earlier case in which the Supreme Court of Canada had “expressed some of the elements of freedom of religion and necessary limits on it”, that is, freedom of religion. It went on to state:
|
The further [a given] activity is from the core elements of the freedom, the more likely the activity is to impact on others and the less deserving the activity is of protection. Service of the public in a commercial activity must be considered at the periphery of activities protected by freedom of religion. |
The court went on to say, “Mr. Brockie's exercise of his right of freedom of religion in the commercial marketplace is, at best, at the fringes of that right”. It then made an argument in paragraph 56 of its decision that deserves to be quoted at length:
|
If any particular printing project ordered [of] Mr. Brockie...contained material that conveyed a message proselytizing and promoting the gay and lesbian lifestyle or ridiculing his religious beliefs, such material might reasonably be held to be in direct conflict with the core elements of Mr. Brockie's religious beliefs. On the other hand, if the particular printing object contained a directory of goods and services that might be of interest to the gay and lesbian community, that material might reasonably be held not to be in direct conflict with the core elements of Mr. Brockie's religious beliefs. |
Let me start by making the obvious observation of the astounding arrogance of this claim. How can the court know what Mr. Brockie's core religious beliefs are? How can it determine what is core and fundamental to his conscience? When he says certain things are core to his beliefs, how can the court say that no, they are not, that he misunderstands what his own beliefs are and the court will dictate them to him?
There are so many examples from history of this. Let me cite just one example where something that appeared peripheral was actually core to people's beliefs.
I studied Russian history. In the 1600s, in an attempt to modernize the Orthodox church, the czar of Russia instructed that certain changes would occur. For example, the manner in which the sign of the cross was made would be done using three fingers instead of two and certain other apparently limited rationalizations took place. The so-called old believers, and there were hundreds of thousands of them, maybe millions in Russia, were so distressed by these changes they fought them. Sometimes it cost them their lives. Whole congregations allowed themselves, for example, to be burned alive rather than to change to the new rationalizations.
These may seem like peripheral beliefs and practices, but they were not peripheral in the minds of the old believers. I would argue that it is arrogant to assume that any court has the capacity to reach into the minds of other people to determine what is core to their belief systems.
This is as outlandish as the court determining that a Buddhist has no right not to print menus for a restaurant that serves meat. It is as ridiculous as instructing a Muslim that he has no right not to allow the Gideon Bible to be placed on bedside tables in a motel he runs. It is as inappropriate as saying that it is not against the core belief of a Mennonite to refuse to print a pamphlet promoting a war. This is simply inappropriate and arrogant action on the part of the courts. Unfortunately, it is something that could get worse and indeed is likely to get worse under the direction that the government is going.
Kevin Bourassa who runs the website equalmarriage.ca has publicly stated the following warning to religious officials who disagree with his viewpoint. Mr. Bourassa, of course, is in favour of same sex marriage. He stated:
|
If you are at the public trough, if you are collecting taxpayers' money, you should be following taxpayers' laws. And that means adhering to the Charter....We have no problem with the Catholic Church or any other faith group promoting bigotry. |
By that he means opposition to same sex marriage.
|
We have a problem with the Canadian government funding that bigotry. |
In other words, we have a problem with the Catholic church being able to have charitable status but not with the Unitarian church.
(1255)
I myself am a Unitarian and was raised as a Unitarian, as part of a church that supports same sex marriage. I do not think it is my right to dictate that the Catholic church or any other institution which says that same sex marriage is not moral should be deprived of its equality and its right to speak freely and proselytize its views, any more than I happen to think that the Catholic church should be restricted from saying that divorced persons, like myself, cannot get married in a Catholic ceremony. It is not my right; it is not the right of any person to dictate what some other person's core beliefs are and to say that that person does not have the right to express those beliefs I dictate as being non-core.
This is protection that is completely absent not merely from Bill C-38, but from the entire legislative agenda of the government. It could be central to its agenda, but it is not. I regret that very much. I urge every member of this House to vote against this bill and in favour of protection of freedom of religion and conscience in Canada.
[Translation]
Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington for his very interesting speech. Since I know he is a great democrat, from my time with him on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, I would like to know if he agrees with his leader that, thanks to the Bloc's support, this evening's vote on Bill C-38 will lack legitimacy. I want him to comment on this.
Mr. Scott Reid: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is a sovereignist party. It is interesting that this party is in favour of Quebec's sovereignty. This support is legitimate in a Canadian context. However, it is also legitimate to point out that most federalist MPs, meaning those in favour of Canadian unity, oppose this bill. That is what the leader of my party said yesterday about this evening's vote.
[English]
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—Richmond East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on a fine speech. I agree with him that the courts have been particularly aggressive on this issue.
I asked the member for Scarborough—Rouge River a question about the government's failure in this regard. I wonder if the member would comment on that. Briefly, my question was that when charter equity challenges were heard in the lower court, the court only had the option of rejecting the claim or offering marriage. However, when the Supreme Court was expressly asked in question four in the same sex marriage reference, is the opposite sex requirement for marriage for civil purposes consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it declined to answer the question. This was in essence because if it had voted yes to that, it would have thrown the whole state of law into confusion.
In my view the federal government dropped the ball here. It should have aggressively defended the traditional definition of marriage and it did not. I wonder if my friend would comment on that.
Mr. Scott Reid: Mr. Speaker, as a general rule, the Supreme Court and indeed all courts in Canada are reluctant to rule on hypothetical cases when the opportunity exists for presenting an actual case of law before them. The courts do not like to do this, notwithstanding the lapses in judicial activism that we see more often than we ought to with our courts. The reason they do not like to do it is that a hypothetical case inevitably is a case of policy, as opposed to being a matter of deciding on law. Obviously courts do what they can to restrict the extent to which they are being forced into policy decisions, especially when it is a highly controversial decision on which a consensus does not exist in public opinion.
I think the court quite rightly sensed that it was being asked to make a political decision to get the Prime Minister out of the hot seat. The Supreme Court quite rightly said, “Look, you have other options here”. One option would have been to appeal one or perhaps several of the provincial court decisions up to the Supreme Court of Canada. The court might have, as my hon. colleague from Scarborough—Rouge River suggested, in the end decided to uphold those decisions, or it might not have done so. We will not know. That would have been the best way to go from a legal point of view.
Of course the Minister of Justice understands that entirely, as does the Prime Minister, but they were not looking for the best legal solution. They were looking for a way to get themselves off the policy hook, while at the same time pushing through their agenda on same sex marriage.
(1300)
Mr. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC): Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing today is the heavy-handedness of a Liberal government that is afraid of honest debate on this issue. The government is afraid to hear speeches like the one made by my hon. colleague because the government knows that the vast majority of Canadians are opposed to its radical position on marriage.
Because of the Liberals' fear of healthy debate on this issue, they have invoked closure, one of the most undemocratic things that has ever happened in this Parliament. The government extended the sittings of the House, tinkered with the Standing Orders and the legislative calendar, and then immediately afterward invoked closure to cut off debate on Bill C-38.
Does the hon. member think these are the actions of a Prime Minister who is going to slay the democratic deficit?
Mr. Scott Reid: Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague's opinion.
The invoking of closure is permitted under the rules, but to me the real travesty was the absolutely unconstitutional decision of the government to refuse to permit a confidence vote in the House until it had a chance to cause members to cross the floor, to attempt to buy the vote of one member and perhaps several others, before it had the chance to frame the debate.
The whole idea of the House needing confidence in the government is predicated on the idea that it is the House that determines whether or not it has confidence in the government. It is not up to the government to choose the time and place of a debate and try to rig the proceedings. That was unconstitutional. It was a violation of one of the most fundamental tenets and conventions of our Constitution. It was an absolute abuse. To me that will be what Paul Martin will be remembered for. He will be remembered for shame in Canadian history.
The Deputy Speaker: I urge all hon. members to use either the title of the person they are referring to or speak of them in the third person.
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this is the second time I have risen to speak to this issue. I will preface what I am going to say by telling the House that I sent out a ballot within my own constituency on this issue. Eighty-two per cent of my constituents told me to vote in favour of the traditional definition of marriage. I have done so.
I want to go back a little bit on this and mention a few things that may or may not be relevant to some members of the House. My daughter's godmother has a sign in her place of business that reads, “Poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part”. I believe that is a very appropriate saying for where we find ourselves today.
This was a very awkward situation for all. I understand that, but that sign pretty much sums it up, because what we have here is a case of poor planning, poor wording and face-saving. The result is going to be bad legislation. We have tried to put through amendments that would make it a better piece of legislation and would protect religious freedom, but all of those amendments have been thwarted.
I also would like to suggest, as I suggested in my last speech, that this is not a human rights issue. People use the argument that this is a human rights issue because they have to resort to using emotional speeches to get their point across. They cannot get their point across in any other legitimate way.
I believe that is very wrong. As the shadow critic for veterans affairs, I could introduce members of the House to any number of veterans who would be happy to tell the members the difference between a human rights issue and a social issue. As a country, we are extremely proud of these men and women who have fought for democracy worldwide. I do not think we would find a single veteran who would say to us that the same sex marriage legislation is a human rights issue. It is not a human rights issue. It never has been.
In my last address to the House, I told the House that in my opinion I believed that this was in fact an intellectual property issue. I believe that the creation of the ceremony for marriage belongs solely to the churches. I also question why members of the House would stand up and passionately defend intellectual property rights on another issue yet be very casual about protecting religious rights. I do not understand that. I believe that if we were to ask a few of the members here about this, they would be hard pressed to explain it.
Perhaps they do not view this as intellectual property rights, but I do. I believe that when we take the emotion out of this argument and boil it all down, that is in fact what this is. We do not have the permission of the churches to change anything to do with marriage. That lies solely in their hands. I do not believe that government has a place in this, but we are here nonetheless.
I also have made it clear that other things are at stake here. One of the things I would once again like to clarify is about what we sell to immigrants coming to this country. For the very people who built the country, who made the country what it is today and who add to the country on a daily basis, what we sold them on for Canada was freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Both of them are seriously jeopardized in this piece of legislation.
Yesterday the Prime Minister met with the Prime Minister of Vietnam. By all accounts, when the Prime Minister spoke to that issue, he claimed to have told the Vietnamese prime minister that Canada wants Vietnam to honour freedom of expression and freedom of religion. There is an irony there. Is the Prime Minister of our country saying to the Prime Minister of Vietnam “do as I say, not as I do”? This piece of legislation that he is currently endorsing undermines religious freedom in this country. I do not quite understand how he can stand up and say something like that to another country when he has that very problem happening within his own.
(1305)
Just a few steps outside these doors there is a statue. It is probably 10 paces from the outer doors. It is a statue of Lieutenant Colonel George Baker. Lieutenant Colonel George Baker was the only member of Parliament to die in a war. He died in World War I. From all accounts, he was a man of great honour. This was a man who served his country not only in Parliament but on the battlefield.
Right next to the statue of Lieutenant Colonel George Baker is another plaque. On that plaque is a poem that most Canadians can probably recite by heart. The poem was written by John McCrae:
To you from failing hands we throw,
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
Those words have great meaning to all veterans. They have great meaning to all Canadians. In the opinion of many, that torch has fallen. If we fail in our own country to maintain religious rights and freedoms, we have failed all of those who have gone before us, who have fought worldwide and who have fought for honour in Canada to give freedom of expression and freedom of religion to countries throughout the world.
As Canadians, we are expected to stand up for these things and we have stood up for these things. When we draw up legislation that will affect the lives of every single Canadian and every immigrant who chose Canada for the freedoms we offer, it is beyond reason that we would put together legislation so iffy that we are challenging the right of religious freedom in our own country.
I do not understand it at all. It baffles me when I look about me and see that there are less than 20 people sitting in this room right now listening to what I have to say. This says to me that members are thinking, “My mind is made up. Do not confuse me with facts. I will make my decision based on whatever reasoning I have in my own head and I really do not care to hear anything that anyone else has to say”. I never thought we would see the day when those sorts of thought processes would happen in a house of democracy.
I have been here only a short time, but I am deeply ashamed about some of the things that have happened to the democratic process in the House of Commons. I would like to see democratic renewal, but I have seen no evidence of it.
We have an opportunity right here and right now to take a sober second look at what we are doing with this legislation. What would be the harm in not bringing back this legislation until September?
There will be those who argue that we would be leaving people's lives in limbo, but we would not. There is absolutely nothing stopping same sex couples from marrying in this country right now. If we were to take the summer, have a sober second reflection and really seriously get down to what this is all about, I have no doubt that we could put wording into this legislation that would in fact protect freedom of religion.
As I said earlier, as shadow critic for veterans affairs, I have had the pleasure, the opportunity and the privilege to meet some of the finest men and women this country has to offer. Whether they are senior veterans who fought in World War II or the Korean war, to a man and a woman they will tell us that they value nothing more than the freedom this country has to offer. They have put themselves on the line around the world to preserve it for strangers.
The conversations I have had with veterans tell me very clearly that they are very unhappy about this legislation. Never in their lives did they think that the greatest threat to democracy would be coming from within their own country. We have to take steps which will ensure that everything we are so proud of in this country, everything we stand behind, is protected. Until we can protect freedom of religion, we have failed miserably.
I ask hon. members to remember the words of that poem:
To you from failing hands we throw,
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
(1310)
Mr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have to stop this debate and argument about how there is somehow a great fear, about how an incredible situation is going to take place in our country if the civil marriage bill becomes law.
It is already the law in many places in the country. It is the law in Ontario, my home province, and it has been the law for over a year. I do not see marriages breaking up all over the place.
There is this incredible fear being presented by the opposition. It is terrible to build that on the unity of this country. We should speak to the betterment of the country, to what it is all about. It is about a country of tolerance and hope, one that respects people's rights and dignity. It is not a country that wants to create barriers between one group and another. I am concerned about some of the arguments stated by the opposition member.
I want to again ask a question of the members of the official opposition. I have posed this question twice already and have yet to get an answer. Maybe the hon. member will answer. It has to do with the fact there have been over 5,000 licences issued in the country. What is the Conservative Party view of what to do with the 5,000 licences that were legally issued to citizens in good standing of this country so they could get married civilly? What is her plan? What does her party plan to do with those licences? Do the Conservatives plan to have them nullified?
Mrs. Betty Hinton: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall hearing any of my colleagues say that marriages will be breaking up all across the country if same sex marriage is granted. I think that is the theatrical type of response I have come to expect from those who are uncertain of their ground. It is an emotional argument. That is what I talked about earlier in my speech.
I do not have any qualms about horrid things happening to marriages across the country if same sex couples are allowed to marry. They are allowed to marry now. In many provinces, they have been allowed to marry. They have been allowed to marry because this government failed to give a signal. It did not give a strong signal. It allowed provinces to make their own decisions along the way.
As for what we as the Conservative Party would do about the marriages that are already there, the marriages are there and we honour the marriages. We have made it very clear that we are prepared to accommodate same sex couples. We are prepared to give them the same responsibilities and the same rights as heterosexual couples.
What we are not prepared to do is change the definition of marriage, and we are not prepared to risk religious freedom. Religious freedoms and the freedom of speech are absolutely fundamental in this country. If the member across the way does not understand that at this point, or did not glean that from the speech I just made, there is nothing else I can say to make this stronger for him.
This is seriously flawed legislation. It does not do justice to any Canadian. We need to protect the rights of all. When we want to extend rights to another group of people or a certain segment of society, we have to take into consideration the ramifications for the rest of society. We in this House have failed miserably to do that.
We have jeopardized the things that mean the most to Canadians. There is no explanation for that. I do not understand why there would be any question about it. This has been dealt with for over two years now. There was a split decision at the committee level. Also, it was not endorsed by a vast majority of people. I am sure the Speaker recognizes as well as I do that if we were to do a survey across Canada we would find a split, roughly half and half, maybe a little more to one side and a little more to the other side depending on what part of the country one is located. It is split roughly half and half.
Why would the House not take the time to make certain we protect the things that are the most valuable to us in our country? We can extend benefits and extend all of the things that the government is talking about extending. I do not have a problem with that and neither does anyone in my party.
We believe in equality in this country, but this is not a human rights issue. This is an issue that goes well beyond human rights. As I said in my speech, I believe it is a question of intellectual property. It is the right of the churches to decide who they do and do not marry. If we take away that right, we will have failed all of those who have gone before us, those who made the country what it is today and who have built Canada's reputation worldwide.
(1315)
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for York South—Weston.
Bill C-38, the civil marriage act, seeks to change the definition of marriage from a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, to any two persons to the exclusion of all others. The difference is defining characteristics. The traditional definition of marriage has defining characteristics. The proposed definition of marriage appears not to have any defining characteristics whatsoever, which seems to be very odd.
Even this morning the justice minister in his speech continued to debate whether this was a matter of human rights and a matter of equality. There is still a debate. I think it is very clear to all members and to all the public now that if this were really a matter of human rights, then it would not be subject to a free vote. That is the issue. Human rights are not subject to a free vote.
With regard to the equality provisions of the charter, there are two substantive exceptions to that provision.
First, as we all know that section 33 of the charter, the notwithstanding clause, permits Parliament to continue to operate for up to five years.
The second broad exception is found in section 1 of the charter. It reads:
|
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. |
What that really means is any of the rights and freedoms provided in the charter can be suspended or can be overridden if under a section 1 analysis, they determine that it is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
In fact, this case, with regard to whether the definition of marriage is constitutional, has come before the courts many times. This is much like the Quebec referendum question. We are going to keep asking the question, keep going back to the people and eventually it is going to pass and become law. There may not be a final answer. This is driven by the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada has clearly laid out that it views the charter as a living tree. It changes. We change and, therefore, our interpretation of that changes.
We have to be very careful. Now the Supreme Court is telling us that, even though Parliament is supposed to make the laws and the court is supposed to interpret and apply those laws, the charter is a living tree and if the government does not act, it will act and change the law and the government will have to deal with it.
This is the challenge for us. The Supreme Court of Canada has given us a clear signal.
As I mentioned, for many years the question about whether the constitutionality of the definition of marriage has been challenged in the courts. In the last case, before the Halpern case which triggered all of this, the Attorney General of Canada argued that the objective of limiting marriage to opposite sex couples was sufficiently important to warrant infringing on the rights of same sex couples. The next point was that the purpose of marriage was to provide a societal structure for the procreation of children in order to perpetuate Canadian society. It was very clear. This was the Government of Canada. This was the position before the courts.
What happens when we have the Halpern case where, all of a sudden, the same details come out? In July 2002, Halpern v. Canada, the Ontario Supreme Court heard a case dealing with the constitutionality of the definition of marriage. This is what gives me the most problem. It is probably the reason why I am totally opposed to Bill C-38. It effectively discredited heterosexual marriage by citing the number of divorces and the existence of common law marriage.
This is something that had not changed overnight, not since the last Supreme Court decision. It just happened to be a different panel of the court, three persons on a panel. That was their view. It was not the decision of the Supreme Court.
The court went on. It also dismissed the importance of the ability to procreate, citing the availability of reproductive technologies, such as artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, surrogacy and adoption just to name a few.
By the failure of the court case, the arguments being made all of a sudden were challenging what happened in the B.C. court decision a year earlier. By looking at marriage and the distinctive characteristics of marriage, it tried to discredit them to the point that it might tip the balance in terms of a section 1 analysis. That is where it always has been a matter of a violation or an infringement on equality rights.
(1320)
Under section 1 it was not so great because of the consequences. If we change the definition of marriage, look what it would do to the definition of family, look what it would do to the parent-child relationship, look at all the other risks that would come about, which I will deal with shortly.
In my view, the court case that has triggered all of this summarily dismisses the relevance of marriage to any aspect of social well-being of Canadians, which is one of the reasons why we are here. It is to protect the health and well-being of all Canadians, especially our children.
Let me paraphrase Justice Robert Blair on assessing that court decision. He warned that the legal redefinition of marriage would not be an incremental change, but a profound one, with extremely complex consequences. These include touching the core of many people's beliefs and value systems, resulting in social, political, cultural, emotional, and legal ramifications. This is very ominous, and I think it is a caution and maybe more strongly a severe warning to legislators.
Daniel Cere of McGill University also talked about the impact on children. He raises a point that members have not talked about very much. Under the bill, the biological concept of parent will be replaced by a legal parent. This is very important because all of a sudden the role of biological parents is coming under question. I totally disagree.
I want to conclude by talking about marriage. This is all about that. Marriage promotes the bonding of men and women and the creation of stable and durable partnerships for life and property. It recognizes the interdependence of men and women. It embodies the spiritual, social, economic and contractual dimensions. It reflects a commitment to fidelity and monogamy.
Marriage serves as an optimal societal structure for the birthing and rearing of children, at least to the extent necessary for the perpetuation of society. It provides for mutual support between men and women. It supports the birthright of children. Marriage promotes bonding between men, women and children. It guides the transformation of children into young men and women who are readying themselves for marriage and to begin a new cycle. Marriage grows the family tree and develops broad supports and securities for all members.
These are the distinctive characteristics of the definition of marriage being one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
The potential change to the parent-child bond will have a profound effect on society. I believe that but I do not know because we will not know until it happens. There are also clear possible effects on religious rights as we know. Paragraph 60 of the Supreme Court reference decision says:
|
Returning to the question before us, the Court is of the opinion that, absent unique circumstances with respect to which we will not speculate, the guarantee of religious freedom in s. 2(a) of the Charter is broad enough to protect religious officials... |
This involves the living tree issue. Today we do not know of any, but based on what has happened so far, there will be a challenge to religious rights and freedoms.
I believe the redefinition constitutes a radical societal change. It may not have immediate societal consequences, but over time it may have, and I stress may have enormous implications. This is not just about the infringement on the rights of gays and lesbians. It is also about diminishing the relevance of the most important societal institution, and that is marriage. In my opinion, the potential for material and adverse consequences is so great that we should take the time to more fully assess the broader implications of this fundamental change to families, children and religious freedoms.
With all due respect to the House, my view is that Bill C-38 should not proceed and that the notwithstanding clause under section 33 of the charter should be invoked to provide Parliament with the time it needs to make a fully informed decision.
(1325)
Mr. Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member who has been up a number of times on this issue. Frankly, he has a number of good things to say and I appreciate his comments.
We have had lots of experience in Canada, the United States and a number of countries around the world with people who sit around tables through the day, maybe five or 10 people, and think up ways to change society, kind of a societal engineering group. These experiments have, for the most part, been devastating to society.
I will acknowledge that I too cannot support this issue for a whole bunch of reasons. We need a lot more debate on this. We need to think about this a lot harder.
The member and I get criticized on this being a human rights issue. I believe we agree that it is not that. How does the member feel about extending Parliament to debate this issue rather than debate what is clearly a human rights violation by the member's own party? The courts recently ruled that the waiting times in our health care system are a violation of Canadian rights. Why are we not spending this time debating those crucial issues?
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, because Bill C-38 is before the House and not the latest decision from the Supreme Court. I want to reiterate a couple of points.
On the issue of human rights, I know when this started. I suppose if I were to reflect back, the genesis of some of these things came when the Divorce Act was amended to provide no-fault divorce. All of a sudden we started to see the first pieces of the disrespect for the institution of marriage, the “I can get out of it”, and also the growth of common law relationships.
I remember watching a panel program on this. People were asked why they did not get married and why they were living common law. Ninety-nine per cent of the people said that it was easier to get out of, that there was no commitment.
At the time I wrote a monograph on strong families making a strong country. I tried to come up with a definition of true love or real love. It was something to the effect that true love was when we put the interests of others ahead of our own. Therefore marriage represents that commitment. It represents a true love. There is a weaker commitment in a common law relationship and between any two parties, I doubt that there is any commitment, which has nothing to add in terms of making Canada a stronger country.
(1330)
Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am standing in support of the bill, as I have consistently even prior to becoming a candidate. Consistency is important for Canadians. When we go through the electoral process, it is important for them to know what bill of goods they are getting when they vote for a certain candidate, a party and the leader representing that party. I have tried to stay consistent on this issue throughout.
I was raised in a single parent home. There is some suggestion in the member's tone that the ideal circumstance to produce good, strong Canadians is under the traditional nuclear family to the exclusion of all others. I find that not bordering on offensive, but fully into the realm of offensive.
Many of my constituents have struggled with this issue. This goes to the heart of many of their concerns for the strength of society and community. One of the ways that I have seen to strengthen this is through a robust and good economy and we have been struggling in the rural communities in Canada to do that.
When I go around my riding, I see the various stresses on families. For almost two years now, we have had same sex marriages in British Columbia. If I were to go to most of the homes in my riding where the family units are struggling to survive, I would place this issue very low on the scale compared to the basic ability to meet the needs of housing and all of the rest.
Not only do I find part of his tone offensive, but is drawing some conclusion that perhaps those Canadians who were raised in other than so-called traditional nuclear families are somehow of lesser quality or character?
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not intend any offence to any members or anyone with regard to those comments. I am not an expert in these matters, but I have done enough research.
I refer the member, for instance, to the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access and its study on the Divorce Act. It wrote a report called “For the Sake of the Children”. If the member looks at that he will find that there was a clear majority opinion, which I think was unanimous, that both mothers and fathers have an important role to play in the lives of children.
Second, I wrote a monograph called “Tragic Tolerance…of Domestic Violence”. It is on my website. If he looks at that he will see that the incidence of domestic violence in married relationships is less than it is in common law and same sex relationships. That is not my view; that is the research. That is Statistics Canada.
Finally, if he wants to talk about lone-parent situations, I am aware of it. I wrote monographs entitled “Strong Families...Make a Strong Country” and “The Child Poverty Solution”. Very clearly, the latest statistics from campaign 2000 say that 15% of the families in Canada are lone-parent families, but they account for 54% of all children living in poverty. One cannot deny the facts. Children have a better start in life, a better outlook, and a better possibility of having successful lives in adulthood when they are in a secure, consistent attachment with engaged, committed adults. That is marriage.
Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for this opportunity to speak once again on this subject, Bill C-38, which proposes that the traditional definition of marriage, that which traditionally exists between a man and a woman, be changed to classify marriage as the legal equivalent to a civil marriage, which may be between two men or two women.
The fact is the bill tries to accomplish in one fell swoop what most Canadians would have preferred to have seen their Parliament do in two separate acts, instead of combining marriage and civil union in Bill C-38 and calling it civil marriage. Canadians would have supported the creation of the architecture of civil union, accessible to all Canadians, and separately protect the sanctity and sacrament of marriage as blessed and protected by the faith communities. The government, however, for reasons previously presented, decided not to assert its statutory responsibility to reaffirm the traditional definition of marriage, appeal the decisions of the provincial courts, and then set out to construct a true civil union regime.
For these reasons, Parliament missed the opportunity to interpret and wisely apply the words of the Canadian Supreme Court in describing the Canadian Constitution as a living tree, and root that tree in those same traditional and fundamental values that would serve both religious freedom and modern civil society.
Because we failed to do that, that is, to bring together all of our collective wisdom and parliamentary capacity and construct a bill reflective of the will and the needs of all Canadians, we are now, through Bill C-38, setting the stage for pervasive and divisive change, which up to this point in the discussion has not been given nearly enough consideration.
Time allows me to focus only on two areas as illustrations of practice and institutions that will be profoundly affected by Bill C-38, these being adoption and the public education system.
In some provinces, children's protective services, after decades of advocacy, were judicially granted to faith communities. In Ontario, for example, there exists a public children's aid society, but also both Jewish and Catholic children's aid societies. In this jurisdiction, and I use this as an illustration, when the relevant society is approached through an application for adoption by a couple of the same sex who are married but are at odds with religious and traditional teaching, it will be the courts who will pronounce upon what once again will be a matter of human rights, a confrontation between that same, but we believe erroneously applied, concept of human rights, which is the basis for Bill C-38. This will conflict with traditional spiritual and religious practice and teaching.
The second area is usually referred to as preach and teach, which is more than just protecting the hard-won rights of certain faith communities to develop curriculum in church-affiliated schools consistent with religious and spiritual values. While this is absolutely essential and itself will probably come under judicial assault, we must also be aware that the public school system, presently supported by many faiths, will be faced with contradictory attitudes toward marriage and sex education, compared with values taught in the churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, and homes of this nation. What long-term impact will this have on the institution of public education, which has been a force of cohesiveness across our land?
(1335)
In both examples, adoption and education, I believe members can see that at a time when more social cohesiveness is needed, Bill C-38 will be taking us in exactly the wrong direction, by weakening these traditional practices and institutions.
To conclude, at a time when the world sees in Canada an example of a caring, tolerant, and compassionate society, and when one reflects on the legacy of institutional strength that generations of Canadians have fought and laboured to build and preserve, on balance, Bill C-38 is just not good enough, either in substance or in the process we have followed in developing it.
The most appropriate course of action, then, would be to defeat this bill and to begin the task of designing and constructing a true civil union that would respect the dignity, tradition, and lifestyle choices of all Canadians, but none at the expense of the others. This has been and should be the Canadian way.
(1340)
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—Richmond East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend opposite for a very thoughtful and well-reasoned presentation.
The previous member, the member for Mississauga South, suggested that the Supreme Court has given us a clear signal on this particular issue. My friend opposite referenced the Constitution as a living tree, and I think most recognize that. The difficulty, of course, is that there is a conflict here. We essentially have nine lawyers in the Supreme Court telling 308 elected members what kind of country we should have.
My question is this. Is the problem we are facing here on this issue now that the Constitution does not really define the balance between the rights of Parliament to define society and the duty of the court to tweak Parliament's decisions with reference to the Constitution and the charter? It seems to me that is part of the problem we have today. There is no balance between just what the court can say and Parliament's rights here. Personally, I would fault the government for not stepping up to the plate and protecting Parliament's interest in this delicate balance, which perhaps is not so delicate. I wonder if the member had some thoughts on that notion.
Mr. Alan Tonks: Mr. Speaker, first, I am a teacher by profession, not a lawyer, and there are many who I think have given very accurate and reasoned analyses with respect to the authorities that Parliament has inherited through its statutory responsibilities and the role that Parliament plays with respect to decisions that are made by the courts. The charter is a living document as part of the Canadian Constitution. We have seen just how alive it is in the most recent decision given by the Supreme Court with respect to health care, with the notion that the charter should not arbitrarily set in place a standard that would make it difficult for Canadians to have reasonable freedom of decision, a different concept of freedom and rights, and one again that we are attempting to fit within the architecture of decision making as established through Parliament.
I believe statutory law is very close to natural law, that there is the finite law and the written law, but it is up to Parliament to look at the overall higher interest and to develop statutory principles within which all Canadians, in fact all human beings within our country, can live. I would think that is the guidance we should be giving to the courts, by setting that higher ground in terms of a law that goes beyond legalistic and judicial law and is really based on traditional values and conventions that have stood the test of time.
Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the member for York South--Weston mentioned values that are common to people who enter the institution of marriage in Canada. I would like to ask him exactly which values gay and lesbian couples who seek to be married do not share with other Canadian couples who seek to be married in Canada.
It seems to me that the gay and lesbian couples who are seeking to be married in Canada do so because they strongly believe in the institution of marriage. They are willing to fight to have access to that institution. It seems to me that we were raised in families where the values of marriage were passed on to us by our parents who entered into those married relationships, and we saw how those relationships were of importance and had value in our families and in our society. It seems to me we were raised in churches and other organizations that valued the institution of marriage and taught us those values and led us to want to share in that institution.
So exactly what values does he see gay and lesbian couples not upholding when it comes to marriage in Canada?
(1345)
Mr. Alan Tonks: Mr. Speaker, there would be none if gay and lesbian couples were part of the same civil union institution that was created to be accessible for all people. I suppose it is wrong-headed and I have tried to argue that had we started from that premise, it would not be necessary to fend and prove what values gays and lesbians cherish and value more than couples of the same sex who are married. It would be the blessing and the sacrament of the church that would be part of the freedom that the church enjoyed in granting that benefit. That would be protected equally by the courts.
The question unfortunately sets the stage for what I have tried to say is an unnecessary confrontation between perceived values. The member made a good point, but he also must admit that if it was an acceptable principle that same sex couples and those of opposite sex had the same values, then why would we find ourselves in the position that we are changing one and it has to be at the expense of the principles and values of married couples, of those who have a traditional attitude supported by their religious convictions as a marriage between people of the opposite sex?
My very short answer is that we would not be where we are. We would be talking about the same values, if we were talking about the same thing, which would be a civil union regime.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the House, I will be sharing my time with my good friend, the hon. member for Sherbrooke.
I am pleased to speak to what is certainly an historic debate in this House. I was in the House of Commons when Allan Rock introduced an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination. I was in the House when section 718 of the Criminal Code was amended to include provisions on hate crimes. I was also in the House when common-law same-sex couples were given the right to be fully considered as spouses with all the related obligations and responsibilities.
I must say that today's debate seems rather different to me. Of course, just like the other laws mentioned, it improves rights for gays and lesbians. Nonetheless, the debate today is slightly different because we are not just talking about financial benefits.
The primary issue is whether Canadians and Quebeckers want to consider gays and lesbians as full citizens. If so, then logic follows that we should allow no room for discrimination in any aspect of society. It is not permitted in the workplace, in common carriers, nor in public places. There remained one place, one major institution, that of marriage, where same-sex couples were being discriminated against. That is what makes today's bill so great.
The bill before us is not important from a financial standpoint. I would even say that it is not important from a legal standpoint, since many of the benefits associated with marriage are available to those in common law unions. In Quebec, many benefits granted to heterosexual couples are available through a civil union.
What is great, noble and profoundly historic in the debate today is that we are recognizing same-sex couples as full citizens by allowing them to get married. Some will say that not all same-sex couples want to get married, just like not all heterosexual couples want to get married. However, all homosexual couples will have the choice. Among the wide range of possible committed relationships they can have, marriage can be added to the list.
Why is this important? It is never easy discovering you are a homosexual. I recall realizing I was homosexual about the age of ten. I announced it to my parents at age 18. Even though I was a member of a very open family, even though my parents were very understanding, even though I had brothers and sisters who loved me and still love me a lot, it is never easy saying you are gay. Parents wonder in what sort of company their child will grow up, what awaits the child, if the child will face jeers and rejection and if the child will be accepted wholly.
The bill before us sends a very clear message to parents. It says that, if they discover in a few years their child is homosexual, they will be able to say that, in Canada and Quebec, there is no room for discrimination, rejection, intolerance, at least in the light of the legislation passed by the men and women in Parliament. That is what is so great about today's bill.
(1350)
I recall when we looked at Allan Rock's bill, when he was Minister of Justice. A psychiatrist had appeared before us in committee and presented very alarming figures, which even today are true. They reveal that young adolescents who discover they are homosexual are more prone to suicide, depression and self rejection. So, I think that everyone who supports such a bill today will help make it easier to live with one's homosexuality in the Canada and Quebec of tomorrow.
Today, I am thinking as well of Svend Robinson and of two of my fellow Quebeckers, Michael Hendricks and René Leboeuf, who were the first in Quebec to contest the laws. They were so serious and strong in their fight then that they had to remortgage their house to pay legal costs. It is all very well to have the court challenges program, but, obviously, people contesting the law have to invest time, money and energy.
So, if you asked me who, in the long list of great values advocates made important human rights contributions, I would immediately say Svend Robinson, along with Michael Hendricks and René Leboeuf.
I would like to finish by saying that the churches had some reasons for concern in this debate, even though there were very clear provisions on freedom of religion in clause 3 of the bill . What I liked was what the United Church of Canada had to say when it appeared before the members, and I would like to quote it:
|
In August 2000, the 37th General Council affirmed that human sexual orientations, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are a gift from God and part of the marvellous diversity of creation, and further resolved to advocate for the civil recognition of same-sex marriages. |
Wherever one looks in society, whether among religious groups, in legal circles, in political parties, in social groups, among our fellow citizens, in urban or rural areas, there are people who support this bill.
The leader of the Bloc Québécois, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, shared a survey with us in caucus that had been done in Quebec. It was interesting to see that in all the large urban areas in Quebec, a majority of people supported same sex marriage.
When I introduced a motion in 1995 to recognize common law marriage rights for homosexual partners, the government whip, who was Alfonso Gagliano at the time, called the vote on a Monday morning to make sure that as many members as possible were absent. Only one member of cabinet came to vote, and that was Sheila Copps, the Prime Minister's good friend, who had a tremendous amount of courage. She was Minister of the Environment then and Deputy Prime Minister. At the time, it was still so taboo for people in public life to be associated with homosexuality and the promotion of it that no other cabinet members dared to come and vote on a Monday morning.
The good news, this evening, is that more than a decade has passed since then. With great pride, dignity and open-mindedness, a majority of parliamentarians, I hope, will make one of the most noble gestures that can be made in a democracy, namely furthering human rights and saying clearly to all the homosexuals in this country, wherever they may be, whatever their age, and whatever education they may have, “You are real citizens and you have a right to love”.
(1355)
Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Hochelaga for his very impassioned speech, as always. I want to take this opportunity to thank him for his work on the legislative committee on Bill C-38. The committee did not have an easy task, but I think it has been accomplished with serenity, thanks in large part to the member for Hochelaga, who was able to inject nice touches of humour throughout the deliberations.
That said, I would like to ask him two questions. Does he believe that the bill we will be called to vote on provides adequate protection to all religions, given all that we have heard during committee hearings and the concerns that have been voiced, with good reason, I would say. Some of these concerns were more subjective than objective, as the Supreme Court of Canada indicated. So, is the member satisfied with the amendments that were made?
I would also like him to comment on the remarks made yesterday by the leader of the Conservative Party about tonight's vote lacking legitimacy because of the support by Bloc Québécois members.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her questions. I will not dwell on what the Conservative leader said, which, in a democracy, is extremely unfortunate. I think this shows how many light-years away he is from the responsibilities he aspires to, in other words, the responsibilities of Prime Minister.
The concept of freedom of religion is an important one. I am sure that no member would want to interfere with anyone's religious beliefs. Religious beliefs are important and have to do with our perception of the world and how we relate to one another.
I believe that the clause in the bill was very clear and that the Supreme Court was very clear in its reference. My colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles introduced an amendment to ensure that no group would be denied its status as a charitable organization, regardless of its religious beliefs on the right to marriage. I think all these factors combined ensure that all those concerned with freedom of religion can vote with complete peace of mind in favour of the bill before us today.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member will have time to answer one other question after oral question period.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[S. O. 31]
* * *
(1400)
[English]
Veterans Affairs
Mrs. Susan Kadis (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today in Toronto the Jewish War Veterans Memorial Committee will launch its fundraising campaign with the creation of Canada's first national Jewish war veterans memorial. The memorial will honour those of the Jewish faith who have served Canada both before and after Confederation.
This issue is very close to my heart as my father, Vic, at the young age of 15 joined the more than 17,000 Jewish men and women who fought for Canada during World War II.
As Canadians, we must honour the sacrifice of all veterans who have secured the hard-fought freedoms that we enjoy today. It is especially fitting that this project is being launched during the Year of the Veteran. As we mark the halfway point of this special year, Canadians across the country are continuing to celebrate, thank and remember our veterans, including those in particular who gave their lives. We must ensure that memorials like this one are erected so that Canada's memory and appreciation of our veterans never fade.
I want to convey my gratitude to all our veterans who have, whenever terror has loomed, when peace has been threatened, proudly fought with courage and determination to ensure that the Canadian values of freedom and democracy were always protected.
* * *
Agriculture
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canada's BSE crisis is into its third year and the Liberal government continues to be content wandering around the outfield while the U.S. protectionist group R-CALF stands at the plate taking swing after swing at Canada's livestock industry.
R-CALF, already granted a temporary injunction against our live cattle, will be seeking to make that injunction permanent and seeking to add boxed beef. The case will be heard in Billings, Montana on July 27 and the Liberal government will not even be in the ballpark.
With the unwillingness of the tired government to go to bat for our producers and with our food safety protocols under attack, Conservative parliamentarians, in an unprecedented ruling, will be the de facto government in a foreign court. Yes, it will be the official opposition presenting an amicus brief in Billings on behalf of Canada's livestock industry.
While the government is stuck in the seventh inning stretch, content with its peanuts and Cracker Jacks, the Conservative team will be on the mound hopefully delivering the strike-out pitch.
* * *
Forestry
Mr. Michael Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday a fire hit the eastern shore of the Halifax regional municipality. The fire was fueled by leftover debris from hurricane Juan, debris that cannot be transported due to the quarantine zone that was established in 2000 by the CFIA as a result of the brown spruce longhorn beetle.
We were lucky yesterday. No lives were lost and damage was limited. Yesterday was a warning of what could happen if solutions are not found to the huge problem that exists for woodlot owners and residents inside that zone.
I have raised this issue in the House. It is imperative that all levels of government work together to solve this issue immediately. I have seen the damage firsthand and it is devastating. On top of the financial hardship, there is the danger of this debris as well. Broken branches, tree stumps and logs litter these properties, providing a hazard to everybody, especially children.
We must ensure that this problem is not compounded by personal tragedy such as a major fire. We need to get the wood out of the quarantine zone. We need to do it immediately. We all play a part.
* * *
[Translation]
World Police and Fire Games
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, from last Sunday until July 5, Quebec City is hosting the 2005 World Police and Fire Games.
A total of 9,500 athletes from some 60 countries will compete in 62 disciplines. There will be over 24,000 visitors to Quebec City during the 10 days of competition.
With economic spinoffs of approximately $50 million, it is hard to understand why the contribution from the federal government has been only half that of the Quebec government, particularly since Ottawa will benefit tremendously from this international event.
The Bloc Québécois congratulates the organizers and the 4,200 volunteers who will ensure the success of the World Police and Fire Games and solidify Quebec's reputation as a tourism destination.
We wish all the competitors good luck at the games.
* * *
[English]
New Media
Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to boast.
The Gastown and Yaletown districts in my riding form the hub of an innovative, rapidly growing sector called new media, an industry that bridges culture and technology using emerging, interactive, digital media to entertain, educate and inform.
B.C.'s new media industry includes 700 companies. Three-quarters export globally and predict a 25% growth next year. The industry employs 15,000 workers, 95% of whom have a technical, college or university degree, making B.C. Canada's largest new media hub.
Vancouver is home to the world's number one electronic games software company, Electronic Arts. Together with 150 other companies, including Radical, Sony, Disney and Vivendi, they make B.C. the North American hub for video game development.
Futurist Richard Florida postulates that today's highly educated, mobile, IT workers carry their intellectual property with them. They choose where they live, though their workplace is global. Because of its lotus land image, multicultural lifestyle and superior quality of life, they are choosing B.C.
* * *
(1405)
Health
Mr. Steven Fletcher (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last fall the health minister promised tainted blood victims that come June he would give them answers. Well, June has nearly ended and we have heard nothing.
Victims have been phoning my office every day because they cannot get answers from the minister's office. They deserve to know today if they will be justly compensated for their suffering. It is disgraceful that victims have had to wait at all.
What is worse is the government misleads victims by implying that moneys are forthcoming and then does not provide compensation. This is a typical Liberal tactic, to make promises and commitments for political gain and then quietly do nothing, assuming the media will not follow up. The Conservative Party will follow up and it will not let these victims be forgotten.
The government's inaction on this issue is abhorrent. The Liberals should hang their heads in shame while these victims suffer. A Conservative government would have shown compassion to these victims from the start.
It is the end of June. For heaven's sake, compensate these people now.
* * *
Fighting Anti-Semitism Together
Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute the initiative of Tony Comper, CEO of BMO Financial Group, and co-founder along with his wife Elizabeth, of the coalition FAST, Fighting anti-Semitism Together. Mr. and Mrs. Comper have joined along with 21 other non-Jewish Canadian business leaders at a most important time, as the year 2004 produced an all-time high of 857 reported incidents of anti-Semitism in Canada.
Further to speaking out against the scourge of anti-Semitism, FAST will also attempt to educate young people about the evils of anti-Semitism and bigotry in general by establishing an educational initiative for 10 to 14-year-olds called “Choose your Voice”.
It is one thing when members of the Jewish community speak out against anti-Semitism and bigotry, but it resonates much more when non-Jews decide to attack the problem. I ask my colleagues in the House to join with me and wish the members of the group well in their initiative and their fight against anti-Semitism.
* * *
[Translation]
Marie-Hélène Prémont
Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to the victory on June 25 of cyclist Marie-Hélène Prémont from Château-Richer in the women's mountain bike world cup, which took place in Mont Sainte-Anne in my riding.
In sweltering heat of nearly 30oC, Marie-Hélène Prémont came from behind in the last lap to beat the Olympic champion to the finish, in front of thousands of spectators from the Quebec City area who had come out to cheer her on.
This is her second victory on the world cup circuit. In addition, she ranks second overall.
I salute her courage and her determination, and I wish her the best of luck in her next competition, which will take place in Brazil. Congratulations again to Marie-Hélène for this great win. Good luck during the rest of this season. Côte-de-Beaupré and all of Quebec are behind you.
* * *
[English]
Northern Ontario
Mr. Roger Valley (Kenora, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it has been a year since the government was elected.
This has been an important year for the people of my riding, who have seen progress for which this government is directly responsible. We have seen improvements in our infrastructure through the work of FedNor. Our municipalities and unincorporated areas have benefited from the government's commitment to create a lasting partnership by supporting their initiatives through the reimbursement of the gas tax. The people in northern Ontario will have access to millions of dollars of new money to support their infrastructure.
During the past year I have had a chance to learn more about our remote communities. The potential for these communities is enormous but we must do more to address the unique challenges these communities face. We have made important steps to strengthen our relationship with the aboriginal people. This can be highlighted by the conclusion of the national round table.
I have been fortunate to work with municipal governments, local roads boards, fellow parliamentarians and people in my riding to achieve such positive results. I thank the people of my riding for the opportunity to serve them. I look forward to working with them over the next year.
* * *
National Defence
Mr. David Chatters (Westlock—St. Paul, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence assured me personally on three occasions that he would resolve a conflict between his department and Scott Collacutt and his company CEL Surplus. Mr. Collacutt is a resident in my riding of Westlock—St. Paul.
In spite of the minister's commitment to me and months of delay, the minister has failed to use his ministerial authority to resolve this issue fairly. Mr. Collacutt has served his country honourably in the Canadian armed forces and is seeking only fair compensation for his losses caused by the actions of the Department of National Defence and the government.
I want Canadians to know that I am holding the weak-kneed minister personally responsible for the great hardship that this has caused Mr. Collacutt, his family and business. Why will the minister not find some backbone and courage and live up to his promise?
* * *
(1410)
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Hon. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this July will mark the 10th anniversary of the massacre in Srebrenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina. The memory of those atrocities are still very much alive in the minds and hearts of many of my constituents.
Srebrenica marked the climax of the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Red Cross estimated that between 8,000 and 10,000 innocent people were either executed or listed as missing. Throughout the three year war, tens of thousands were deprived of the fundamental democratic principles of peace, stability and safety.
This July let us remember the individuals who suffered because of hatred and intolerance. Let us assure the Canadian-Bosnian community and all communities that aggression, ethnic cleansing, genocide and all such evils be not repeated, and that Canada and Canadians stand ready to uphold democratic principles and the rule of law.
July 11 is a day that all Canadians will remember.
* * *
Religious Freedom
Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in a time when religion is predominantly characterized in the media as a conservative force, there is a need to diversify the face of religion in the political realm and to emphasize that there are faith informed progressive perspectives on issues which too often are dealt with as if there is only a debate between faith and non-faith.
In fact, what is often happening is a debate between Canadians of the same faith and/or a debate between conservative faith communities and a secular liberalism that owes its values in large part to our common religious heritage.
People of the same faith arrive at different conclusions about difficult issues and consequently join or support different political parties. This is as it should be.
Religious speech should not be restricted to a few issues, or even worse, seen as inadmissible in debate. Questions of peace and war, the economy and the environment are also moral issues that can be informed by faith.
The task is to discern the appropriate ways of such speaking in a pluralistic world. Dismissing views purely because they are religious throws out the wheat with the chaff. Secular fundamentalism is not the answer either. Thanks be to God, Mr. Speaker.
* * *
Gasoline Prices
Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, gas prices are too high and Liberal taxes are to blame. The Prime Minister likes to take credit for reducing the deficit. Canadians reduced the deficit by paying an extra 10¢ a litre excise tax on gasoline. It has been an extra 10¢ a litre since 1995 when the Prime Minister, in his capacity as finance minister, raised the federal excise tax to 10¢ a litre claiming it was a temporary deficit reduction measure.
There is no longer a deficit yet the extra tax remains, gouging Canadians to the tune of $7.8 billion this year, and then there is the GST on top of that. When people fill up at the pump this summer and pay the highest gas prices in Canadian history, they can thank the Liberals.
* * *
[Translation]
Elimination of Poverty
Ms. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this morning, the Make Poverty History coalition as well as performers and organizers of the Live 8 concert brought the Prime Minister thousands of postcards with the names of nearly 40,000 Quebeckers and Canadians calling for a world without poverty.
More than 800 million human beings will go to bed hungry tonight and, today, more than 50,000 people will die from poverty related causes.
Increasing and optimizing international aid up to 0.7% of GDP, making trade fair, and continuing debt cancellation for poor countries are all tangible ways of fighting this scourge.
The Bloc Québécois urges the Prime Minister to champion such efforts at the next G-8 summit, at the UN millennium summit in September and at the WTO meeting in December.
Poverty is a hindrance to the development and fulfilment of those who live in it. Canada must act and do its fair share.
* * *
[English]
Democratic Reform
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in his first throne speech, the Prime Minister announced that he would restore freedom to MPs by adopting a three line voting system.
Under this system, when a vote is designated as a three line whip, all Liberal MPs have to vote the way they are told. Ministers and parliamentary secretaries are bound by party discipline when it is a two line whip. But not to worry. Under a one line whip, every Liberal MP is in theory free to vote according to conscience.
I say in theory because the government's annual report on democratic reform reveals that not one vote has ever been designated by the Prime Minister as a one line whip. This is significant because a two line whip denies a free vote to all those new cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries the PM keeps creating, including both of the ministers for democratic reform.
It means that every member of a cabinet that is expanding like a prize winning pumpkin is bound on every single vote and on every single piece of government business. If the freedom of Liberal MPs is the test of the democratic deficit, the Prime Minister gets an F.
* * *
(1415)
Health
Mr. John Maloney (Welland, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to commend Health Canada for its recent award presented by the United States Food and Drug Administration to acknowledge the work the department has done to enhance its ability to protect not just the health of Canadians but all North Americans.
The FDA Leveraging/Cooperation award recognizes Health Canada's commitment to addressing health challenges and furthering health goals. Canada's rigorous participation in the Canada-Mexico-U.S.trilateral cooperation charter has proven an asset for the citizens of our continent.
The trilateral group has increased communication and information exchange in the areas of drugs, biologics, medical devices, food safety and nutrition to protect and promote human health in North America.
Health Canada's award is an excellent demonstration of the efforts Canada is making to promote relations with our closest neighbours to the south, the U.S. and Mexico. This award represents our shared important goals: healthy scientific research, healthy citizens and healthy international relations.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Oral Questions]
* * *
[English]
Health
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I pointed out the government's failures over the past year on Air-India, hepatitis C and the fiscal imbalance.
The Prime Minister said he would fix health care for a generation. Instead, his health minister is fighting with doctors. After more than a decade of mismanagement, Canadians are waiting longer than ever for access to medical care.
Why has the most important action on health care come from the Supreme Court and not from the government?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, although the Supreme Court certainly dealt with the issue of waiting times, it was the government that convened the federal-provincial conference specifically on that issue. It was the government that raised it during the election campaign. It was that opposition party that said it was not a problem during the election campaign.
It was the government that put $41 billion over 10 years into dealing with the issues of waiting times and better health care. It was the government that set up the waiting times reduction fund. The government has assumed its responsibilities despite the blindness of the opposition.
* * *
Sponsorship Program
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, what the Supreme Court said was not that the government had dealt with health care, but that it was not dealing with health care adequately in this country.
While we are on courts, yesterday in court the former prime minister and the current Prime Minister were again working together against Justice Gomery. Both lawyers for the government and for Jean Chrétien have ignored a court order to expedite allegations of bias.
Why are the Prime Minister's lawyers still working with Jean Chrétien instead of working with Judge Gomery?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition's facts are simply wrong.
The government's position, and we have stated it clearly in court and elsewhere, is that Judge Gomery is not biased. We will oppose any moves to obstruct or to slow down his report. We supported Judge Gomery. We put Judge Gomery in place. We created the commission. We have supported him throughout the whole process despite the countless attempts by the opposition to undermine his authority.
* * *
Child Care
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the only person who undermined Justice Gomery was the Prime Minister when he praised Jean Chrétien's behaviour in his own caucus.
After another year Canadian families still see no results on child care. Premier Lord of New Brunswick is trying to get an agreement with the government which would give options and results to parents.
Why is the government so inflexible when it comes to dealing with New Brunswick and giving real options to parents?
Hon. Ken Dryden (Minister of Social Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago we were on the verge of signing an agreement in principle with the Government of New Brunswick. We had an agreement among officials. We are still looking forward to finalizing something with New Brunswick which would represent something quite significant to people in rural and remote areas in New Brunswick, in particular, an increase of about 130% on what is currently being spent on child care in that province.
(1420)
Ms. Rona Ambrose (Edmonton—Spruce Grove, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Premier of New Brunswick wants to give his share of the federal child care money to parents, so they can have a choice in child care, but the Minister of Social Development refused to listen and said that federal money will only go to trained child care experts.
When will the Minister of Social Development understand that these billions should be going to the real child care experts in this country? Maybe he has heard of them. They are called mom and dad.
Hon. Ken Dryden (Minister of Social Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I might remind the party opposite that 13 months ago in terms of child care in this country things were stalled. In the midst of the campaign, the party opposite decided to make a campaign promise and that promise would represent $320 for a low income family.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Hon. Ken Dryden: They are applauding. That is less than $1 a day. That is a real triumph. Congratulations.
Ms. Rona Ambrose (Edmonton—Spruce Grove, CPC): Mr. Speaker, at least on this side of the House we would have given this money to parents already.
The Liberals say they take child poverty seriously and yet their day care deal leaves millions of children without financial support. The Conservative Party has committed to providing each and every child with significant financial support, regardless of whether or not their parents choose day care or stay home.
Why is the government refusing to give this money equally to every child in Canada?
Hon. Ken Dryden (Minister of Social Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is another great difference between the party opposite in here--
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. We need to have a little order. Hon. members will get cheated out of an opportunity to ask a lot of questions with all this noise. The Minister of Social Development has the floor and I am sure hon. members want to hear the answer and all those differences. The hon. Minister of Social Development.
Hon. Ken Dryden: Mr. Speaker, the biggest difference is that this government is delivering on a $5 billion commitment over five years for a national system of early learning and child care.
All that has happened on the other side of the House was a campaign promise 13 months ago, discouraging words ever since and vague talk at this particular moment. There is a huge difference between each side.
* * *
[Translation]
International Adoption
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Canada-Vietnam agreement on international adoption, which has been awaited for two years, is being compromised because Ottawa wants to limit the legal scope of it, to the detriment of parents and children, something that is totally unacceptable according to the Quebec minister of international relations, who says this sets us back 40 years.
As dozens of this type of agreement have been signed by Quebec, how does the Prime Minister explain his government's desire to now question Quebec's authority in international adoptions, a field that is clearly under its jurisdiction?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, Vietnam is the one calling for an international treaty with other countries to permit international adoptions. It is Vietnam's request. Instead of criticizing, the leader of the Bloc Québécois should be happy, because this is good news. After a three or four year moratorium, Canadians can now adopt Vietnamese children. It is good news, and I am very happy that Canada could sign a framework agreement and that now the provinces, including Quebec, will be able to negotiate within the framework.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, apparently, the Government of Quebec does not find it good news and has said so clearly. The framework agreement is not at issue. What is, is the fact that Quebec had negotiated with Vietnam on jurisdiction over international adoptions, and Ottawa is changing its mind and setting conditions for Quebec in this regard, according to the Government of Quebec.
Why set these conditions rather than do what has been done in many other cases where there is a framework agreement? However, the international schedule is in Quebec's domain. Why these conditions?
(1425)
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. The government of Vietnam wants a treaty protecting children, a treaty with the force of international law. This area is clearly under the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada. This is of concern to us. It is our job, and we delivered the goods yesterday with an agreement of great interest to families and Vietnamese children seeking adoption. Now that this treaty has been negotiated with Vietnam, with the force of international law, the Government of Quebec, clearly, can negotiate its own agreement, since it is responsible for adoption.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Quebec and Vietnam negotiated an agreement two years ago on adopting children from that country. For this agreement to be valid under international law, since Quebec is not a sovereign country, Vietnam asked the federal government to sign an agreement also.
Why did the federal government use it to backtrack on the understanding negotiated by Quebec, as it has done a number of times in the past, when the Government of Quebec acted within its jurisdiction? Why is the federal government acting in such bad faith?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I must say that we are very proud to have this treaty with Vietnam. The Government of Quebec is perfectly within its jurisdiction in the area of adoption. The situation in Quebec is quite special since we have the civil code. The Quebec understanding should reflect the laws as they exist in Quebec. However, as far as international law is concerned, it is the agreement the Government of Canada signed yesterday that provides the force of international law and the protection Vietnam was seeking. Nonetheless, the Quebec government's understanding governs the conditions for adoption in Quebec.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the understanding reached between the Government of Quebec and the Vietnamese government was negotiated with the approval of the former minister of foreign affairs, who approved the wording himself.
Why is the current Minister of Foreign Affairs insisting on setting things back 40 years in matters of adoption, by taking responsibilities away from Quebec? Why this step backwards by the minister, when hundreds of parents are waiting to adopt hundreds of waiting children?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, children and families are precisely what we are concerned about. Let us think about the children and the families and let us stop raising constitutional issues and try to obtain international recognition for a right that is very clear under international law. Children and families are what must count the most here.
I do not see how the minister could have approved the wording two years ago, as the hon. member just said, when it was finalized this weekend. Really, there are limits.
* * *
[English]
International Aid
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, thanks to the member for Halifax, Parliament has now voted to set a target of 0.7% of GDP in foreign aid by 2015. Canadians want this to happen, thousands of Canadians, like all those involved in making poverty history. MPs want this to happen. Canadians want us to be part of the family of nations that keeps its promises.
Will the Prime Minister commit to achieving 0.7% of GDP in foreign aid by 2015 as requested by Parliament and this House?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to the 0.7% and we would very much like to achieve that target by the year 2015. However we believe it is crucial that nations keep their commitments, which means they have to set out how they are going to do it.
I remember very clearly the agreement of the international community to achieving primary education for all young Africans by the year 2015. That is a commitment that has not been lived up to. I remember the first commitment on climate change in Rio de Janeiro, which is another commitment the international community did not live up to.
The fact is that countries must keep their commitments, and if they are going to do it, they should set out how they will do it. We will set the example.
(1430)
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the only example that the government has set is the breaking of international commitments, whether it be climate change or repressing poverty.
It was under the Liberal administration that Canadian foreign aid fell as a percentage of GDP, at the same time as leading nations in the world were honouring a promise that was established by a Canadian prime minister, for heaven's sake.
When will the Prime Minister begin to listen to Parliament? Parliament has just adopted the position that Canada should honour its international promises. Does the Prime Minister not hear, and if not, why not?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have led the world in cutting the debt of poor countries. We are in the process right now of doubling our aid to Africa.
A commentator in this House last year said, “Every time you propose an idea, you have to identify a source of funding”. That was in a book called Speaking Out published in 2004. The quote is at page 192. The author is Jack Layton.
The Speaker: I assume the Minister of Finance meant the hon. member for Toronto--Danforth and, if so, I know he would want to be correct the next time he answered such a question.
The hon. member for Calgary--Nose Hill.
* * *
Citizenship and Immigration
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there is growing evidence that this Liberal government misuses residency permits for political advantage.
Equally troubling, the recent ethics report also confirmed the involvement of the Prime Minister's own office. According to Democracy Watch, the PMO had information about permit abuse but did nothing.
Why did the Prime Minister's Office not call in the Ethics Commissioner about evidence it had of unfairness in Canada's immigration system?
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the hon. member is referring to the Ethics Commissioner's second report where he found that one of her old colleagues was asking for 232 letters of guarantee before there was an intervention on behalf of a constituent.
We believe they are going to operate on behalf of a constituent at all times with no letters of guarantee but doing appropriate due diligence.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Evasive tactics, Mr. Speaker.
The discovery of partisan misuse of residency permits in the 2004 election by the Liberals may well be just the tip of the iceberg. A brave whistleblower provided evidence of abuse of permits personally authorized by a Liberal immigration minister.
The ethics report identified that during the election 97% of permits issued at an MP's request went to Liberals.
Did anyone in the Prime Minister's Office direct the former minister to approve this flood of election period permits for Liberals?
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that in my period of time as the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, we have duly presided over roughly half a million decisions.
I want to put that 97% of 70-plus decisions into context. As the House will recall, last year 1,100,000 permits were issued for entry into the country, be they tourist visas, student visas, work visas or permanent residencies. So far it is about 600,000 this year.
I am sure the member will be delighted to hear that we are operating--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.
[Translation]
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, CPC): Mr. Speaker, mafioso Antonio Commisso easily found refuge in Canada.
A man whom the international justice system describes as a bloodthirsty organized crime leader has managed to live here after easily entering through the Pierre Elliott Trudeau airport.
How can we trust a government that is not even able to refuse mobsters?
[English]
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, surely the member would not expect us to talk about a specific case here on the floor of the House, especially when we are not sure whether the member is a real member or whether it is a staff member who he sent to replace him.
(1435)
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the minister for raising a new bar of arrogance in this place.
The other day the Minister of Public Safety tried to mask the reality of how the Liberals have improved the security of Canadians. When men like Commisso can come to Canada, buy a house, get a driver's licence and live in our suburbs, it seems that the only security the Liberals can provide is financial security for the mobsters.
Why did it take over a year to catch this man? How does the Deputy Prime Minister expect Canadians to feel safe when they made Mr. Commisso an offer he could not refuse?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me reassure the hon. member that the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, the RCMP and the CBSA worked very closely on this case.
I will not comment on individual circumstances but I will reassure Canadians that we take their safety and the integrity of their safety very seriously.
I cannot comment further on any extradition proceedings that might take place. That is a matter for the Minister of Justice and the Department of Justice. However the named individual is someone who is now--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges.
[Translation]
Ms. Meili Faille (Vaudreuil-Soulanges, BQ): Mr. Speaker, concerning the refugee appeal division provided for by law, the minister is making excuses not to establish this mechanism requested by many organizations, including the UN committee against torture.
How can the minister explain with a straight face that, three years after the legislation was passed in Parliament, this mechanism has yet to be established, despite requests from international organizations and despite the fact that people are suffering and are being penalized because this appeal mechanism does not exist, even though the minister has repeatedly promised to deal with the situation?
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, individuals who seek political asylum are not disadvantaged by the mere fact that there is no appeal system. They are disadvantaged because of the bad conditions in the countries they come from. It is important to remember that last year this country welcomed 22% more refugees. This shows that something is working pretty well.
Ms. Meili Faille (Vaudreuil-Soulanges, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the lawyer representing the Mexican family facing removal as early as tomorrow morning stated that an appeal mechanism would represent a solution for this family.
Does the minister not realize that the government's inability to comply with its own legislation is severely penalizing individuals, who are thus denied rights and are victims of its mismanagement? What is he waiting for to act?
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I still want to act. I am not referring to any case in particular, but each individual who seeks Canadian protection has an opportunity, after having been heard by the Immigration and Refugee Board, to appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal and, then, to another mechanism on humanitarian or compassionate grounds.
There is always a whole procedure to follow.
* * *
Gasoline Prices
Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is increasingly obvious that the government is resigned to seeing the price of gas skyrocket. Contrary to statements by the Minister of Industry, there are ways to monitor the petroleum industry, but obviously the political will to act is lacking.
What will it take for the Minister of Industry to amend the Competition Act and significantly increase the investigative powers of the Competition Bureau, which, according to the former commissioner, does not have the authority under current legislation to investigate the industry? What will it take for him to act?
[English]
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, while I thank the hon. member for the question, I must say that following the tradition of the Parti Québécois perhaps he should recommend to Parliament that we repeal the laws of supply and demand. In the meantime, let us get on with the amendments to the Competition Act, which are designed to deal with the very issues he is talking about. We will go further, but we will consult with industry on how to take those amendments further.
(1440)
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, consumers clearly do not consider the government's inaction to be a solution, now that the price of gas has passed the $1 per litre mark.
Does the Minister of Industry not think it is time to retain the recommendations put forward by the Bloc Québécois demanding that the Competition Bureau be granted the authority to conduct independent investigations into the petroleum industry, and send the message that the current inaction has gone on long enough?
[English]
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that it still costs more for a litre of Coke than it does for a litre of gas.
I will say this. I welcome suggestions from the member opposite on how we can strengthen the Competition Act. We will certainly consider constructive suggestions on how we can improve that act and improve public policy for all Canadians and for competition in the marketplace.
* * *
Justice
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it has been four months since the death of four RCMP officers near Mayerthorpe, Alberta, but what has the government done to make our communities and our police officers safer? The families of the victims want changes to our criminal justice system. They are coming to Ottawa this fall to make their case.
How will the minister explain his inaction to the RCMP families when they get here?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me say that my colleague, the Minister of Justice, and I take very seriously the concerns that were raised yesterday by the families of the four fallen RCMP officers from Mayerthorpe. The Minister of Justice and I will be more than happy to meet with the families.
As did the Prime Minister, I certainly had the opportunity to talk to them at the time of the terrible tragedy, but the Minister of Justice and I will look forward to discussions with them around how we can improve different elements of our criminal justice system.
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC): Mr. Speaker, if that is what she is going to tell them this fall, they are going to be very disappointed.
Yesterday in London, Ontario, two police officers were shot during an incident that left four people dead. The Canadian Police Association wants minimum sentences for serious crimes. The London police chief wants them. It seems that the only one who does not want them is our justice minister.
Mandatory minimum prison sentences are not only about deterrence; they are about protection. Is the government committed to minimum sentences for serious violent crimes?
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have said before and I will repeat again that the evidence we have thus far has demonstrated that mandatory minimums serve neither as a deterrent nor an effect. We share with the hon. member the concern with respect to the protection of public safety. We now await a report that is about to be tendered with respect to the deputy ministers who have looked into this issue. We will see what their response is on matters of mandatory minimums and other sentencing principles.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last week the Ontario Court of Appeal refused a request to unseal Justice Fred Kaufman's report into the 1959 murder conviction of Steven Truscott. The court said the report's contents are a matter of public interest but are protected by solicitor-client privilege that only the Minister of Justice can waive.
Steven Truscott, who has the most to lose if this information is prejudicial to his case, has called for the release of that report. In the interests of the public, will the Minister of Justice waive the privilege so Canadians can finally see the material that the judge and the minister himself concluded was a miscarriage of justice for Steven Truscott?
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in our submission to the court we said at the time that we had no objection to the release of Justice Kaufman's report with appropriate protections in matters of privacy and in the interests of the administration of justice. One of the parties objected to the release of the report. We are now going to confer to see whether we will nonetheless authorize the court to release it, notwithstanding that there may be an objection by one of the parties.
(1445)
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it has been an excruciating 45 years for the Truscott family in its wait for fundamental justice. In December, the Ontario Court of Appeal issued directions to ensure a fair review of the Truscott case. The court said it would rely on the information provided to Justice Kaufman but not the report itself. Last week, Justice David Doherty expressed concern about the sealing of this important information in one of the most well known criminal cases in Canada.
Why is the Minister of Justice compounding the injustice for the Truscott family, in this case by continuing to assert solicitor-client privilege in refusing to release the Kaufman report?
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should read the decision from which he is quoting. In fact, the December decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal said it would not release the report because of considerations of privacy and in the interests of the administration of justice. As a result of this most recent judgment, we said we would now be prepared to look into it.
As I have said, I have no objection to releasing that report. In fact, I look forward to it, provided it is consistent with issues of privacy and the administration of justice. We will address that in our letter to the Ontario Court of Appeal.
* * *
Automobile Industry
Mr. Lynn Myers (Kitchener—Conestoga, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, recent media reports say that Toyota plans to build a new auto assembly plant in southern Ontario. This would be the first greenfield auto assembly plant built in Canada in almost 20 years.
Could the Minister of Industry advise the House whether the federal government has been active in trying to secure this investment and the 1,300 direct jobs it could bring?
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question, and I want to thank the hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga for the good work he has done in expressing the interests of the auto industry in our caucus and supporting the auto supply industry.
I want to say that if there is an announcement on Toyota in the next couple of days it will be because the Prime Minister met directly with the president of Toyota in Tokyo and encouraged Toyota to put that plant here in Canada. I think we are going to be successful.
* * *
Fisheries and Oceans
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it would be a great day if he were to announce a shipbuilding policy in this country.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Mining Watch Canada today issued a blistering report on the failures of DFO to do a very simple thing for the protection of fish and fish habitat. From British Columbia to Newfoundland and from Yukon to Nova Scotia, fish habitat and fish are disappearing at an alarming rate. Why? Because the Department of Fisheries and Oceans refuses to do its job.
I ask the Prime Minister of Canada, will he put the minister and the department out to pasture and call an inquiry into the practices and policies of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans?
Hon. Geoff Regan (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague knows that my first priority is fish and fish habitat. That is why last week in Vancouver I announced our wild salmon policy, which makes it very clear that conservation is our first principle. I am doing my job, not grandstanding like my hon. friend.
* * *
[Translation]
Gasoline Prices
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is insulting for the minister to compare the price of Coke to the price of gas. We do not need Coke but we do need gas.
Gasoline prices are higher than ever. The cost of living is killing consumers. Businesses continue to increase the price of their products and services to offset these costs. According to one study, many Canadians are giving up the idea of travelling this summer due to the price of gas. The Canadian economy will suffer as a result.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Will the Liberal government take the necessary steps to halt this unjustifiable increase in gasoline prices?
[English]
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see that there is gathering support in the House to repeal the laws of supply and demand, but I will say once again that since 1990 there have been five reviews of competition in the oil and gas industry and not one of them found any evidence of anti-competitive conduct
. If the member thinks there has been anti-competitive conduct, he should ask to have an investigation launched.
* * *
Border Security
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last week I challenged the government on its plans to close five single-person RCMP detachments along a 100 mile stretch of the Canada-U.S. border. The government said it was a provincial issue. It is not anymore. Last weekend, someone ran the border near Val Marie, Saskatchewan. Because of chronic understaffing, the RCMP could not respond. Instead, they resorted to phoning the Val Marie bar and local residents to see if they had seen him.
Will the government admit that these closures are leaving our borders unprotected?
(1450)
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no, I do not admit that--
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands has asked a question and he is going to get an answer from none other than the Deputy Prime Minister. We cannot hear a word she is saying. How can the member ask an intelligent supplementary if he cannot hear the answer from the Deputy Prime Minister? We will have some order. The Deputy Prime Minister has the floor.
Hon. Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, there are 71 million crossings in this country every year. Virtually every one of them stops legally at the border, either on our side or on the American side. In fact, these closings of single detachments are redeployments. They take place after consultation with the provinces involved. These redeployments ultimately lead to more effective policing.
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC): Mr. Speaker, let us get this straight. The government is going to allow the closure of these detachments. There will be no permanent RCMP presence along a 100 mile stretch of the border, with no officers stationed within 50 miles of the border. Is the government serious? Is it telling us that its new border security plan is to phone the local bar and ask if anyone has seen a stranger?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, redeployment of RCMP officers and closures of detachments are operational matters for the RCMP and they are done in consultation with the provinces involved. It is my understanding from the RCMP that the Attorney General for Saskatchewan has been consulted on these closures.
* * *
Veterans Affairs
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is now clear that the families of servicemen and civilians living on or near CFB Gagetown have been exposed to the so-called rainbow herbicides, agents orange, purple and white, and a variety of other toxic chemicals. There is also the likelihood of exposure at other bases.
If the government denies responsibility for all victims of chemical warfare testing, why does the government refuse to recognize all victims, including non-military, of chemical warfare experiments?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is deliberately, and I say again, deliberately, seeking to mix up the question of chemical warfare experiments and the use of defoliants on bases, which are entirely different propositions.
It is an irresponsible suggestion on her part. She represents the military in her riding. It is a disgraceful attempt to sow fear in the military. It is not true. There never was chemical warfare related testing on our forces in connection with the defoliants agent orange or others. We will get to the bottom of this. We are working on it. Let us work together to help the Canadian public, not sow discord of this kind.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the controversial spray program at CFB Gagetown ran from 1956 to 1984 with casualties all over the place.
Last week DND confirmed an in-house investigation would take place, but it would be restricted to a small scale test area in 1966-67. Would the public interest not be best served with an independent public inquiry, removed from the influence of senior politicians in Ottawa, an inquiry that would focus on the entire spray period program?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the public interest would be best served by is hon. members in the House restricting their comments to the facts. The hon. member knows very well that agent orange and agent purple were tested in Gagetown over a small acreage during two years.
The member suggested to the public and others that it expanded over another period of time. In fact, there were only seven days involved over two years during a limited time.
We in the department will be looking at that. We will be doing soil tests. I will be working with other members of the government to ensure that we find the facts. We will work with the Canadian public to ensure that all people get proper treatment of--
(1455)
The Speaker: The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.
* * *
[Translation]
The Environment
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Canada's attitude in its fight to eliminate pesticides is puzzling to say the least. While, as a signatory to the Montreal protocol, it undertook to reduce the use of pesticides that are harmful to the ozone layer, Canada requested an exemption in 2004 for the use of methyl bromide and made a similar request for 2006, although it knows full well that this substance is one of the causes of the depletion of the ozone layer.
How does the government justify this increased use of methyl bromide?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is nevertheless true to say that the Government of Canada and Canada as a whole have made huge progress, in connection with the ozone layer, in fact. We have succeeded in reducing substances enormously. It takes longer, but, despite everything, Canada is well ahead of most of its partners in this matter. We will certainly succeed in reducing this substance, as we have all the others.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as methyl bromide is a potential risk to public health, how can the government agree to import products from the United States that have been grown with the use of this pesticide?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have answered the question, but permit me, in this heat wave, to point out Canada's determination to reduce smog and climate change. Just yesterday, my provincial counterparts and I reached an agreement in principle to reduce mercury emissions by at least 60% to 90%, which we will confirm in the fall.
* * *
[English]
Justice
Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-13, the DNA bill, was a high priority of this Parliament and received royal assent before Karla Homolka's release. She could now be required to provide a DNA sample. Unfortunately, Bill C-13 is sitting on the desk of the Prime Minister. While he waits to enact the legislation, other sex offenders, murderers and terrorists will escape the requirement to provide DNA.
What is he waiting for? How many other dangerous sex offenders will escape DNA sampling while the Prime Minister dithers?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-13 was legislation that everybody came together on in the House. Bill C-13 speaks to the fact that when people actually focus on the real problems confronting Canadians in the House, we can work together. That legislation will be in full force and effect and will help us in our pursuit of dangerous criminals. It also will help us to achieve a higher degree of safety and protection for all Canadians.
* * *
Canada Post
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it looks like it is going to be a happy anniversary for André Ouellet. It has been almost a full year since the Deloitte & Touche report told the Prime Minister that the former porkmaster general had violated tendering and hiring rules and turned Canada Post basically into a friends and family program.
The Prime Minister's tepid response has been to dither. This is a Prime Minister after all who can buy a billionaire over dinner, make one-night stand deals with the NDP and lately, regularly resorts to closure to get his way.
Perhaps he could tell Canadian taxpayers this. When will they get some closure on André Ouellet's file?
[Translation]
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the audit is proceeding normally and without political intervention.
I see that the hon. member is not pleased to hear me respond in French. There is a simple solution. Since he questioned the right of a witness to speak French before a parliamentary committee, he needs to apologize to French Canadians. We have a saying in the other official language.
[English]
It is never too late to say sorry.
* * *
Citizenship and Immigration
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. For nearly a year Syria kept my constituent Maher Arar in prison and subjected him to terrible treatment, in total violation of Mr. Arar's rights as a Canadian citizen. Now the daughter-in-law of the former head of Syria's internal intelligence force, involved in denying Mr. Arar his rights, has a visitor's visa so her child can be born a Canadian citizen.
This is outrageous. I demand that the minister exercise his discretion and immediately revoke this visa.
(1500)
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not want to make a connection between the former unfortunate situation and this one. I will not comment on a specific case except to say what I have done already.
I have instructed my department to examine the procedures that are in place in such similar situations so as to avoid any perceptions like the ones that have been raised.
* * *
Copyright Legislation
Ms. Bev Oda (Durham, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canada has a world-class Internet infrastructure in our schools, but the heritage minister's new copyright legislation makes it restrictive, onerous and possibly more costly for schools, teachers and students to download online educational material.
The legislation will make routine classroom activities illegal. Why do the government and the minister want to make our students and teachers pay more for materials they are using now or make them criminals under a new copyright law?
Hon. Liza Frulla (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. opposition member knows very well that we promised to table the copyright law in June, which we did. We also said that as far as the education matter was concerned, we would study it and focus on it solely after second reading of the bill. We will study the education matter because it does not have consensus.
Children can be in school, but once they become researchers and authors, they also need to have their copyrights reserved and paid for.
* * *
Points of Order
Remarks by Minister of National Defence
[Points of Order]
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On June 20 the Minister of National Defence, in responding to a question from the member for Acadie—Bathurst, said the following, I quote from Hansard:
|
We are, of course, concerned with the case of agent orange which, as I have said, was sprayed seven days a week for two years over Gagetown land. We will continue all our investigations on all our bases to determine whether other agents have been used. |
On Tuesday, June 21 the assistant deputy minister for infrastructure and environment in the Department of National Defence, Karen Ellis, during sworn testimony before the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, contradicted the minister when she stated that in the case of agent orange and agent purple, three days in June 1966 and four days in July 1967 were the only days and, to the best of the department's knowledge, were the only times cooperative defoliant testing was to have occurred.
This statement directly contradicts the information the minister gave the House on June 20 when the minister told the member for Acadie—Bathurst that agent orange was sprayed seven days a week for two years at CFB Gagetown and that the use of the rainbow herbicides, such as agents orange and purple, was being investigated on all military bases.
As a consequence of the conflicting statements coming from the Department of National Defence regarding chemical weapons testing, I invite the Minister of National Defence to either correct the record in the House of Commons or correct the comments of his public servant regarding the use of chemical defoliants and desiccants on or near Canadian military bases.
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I did not quite digest entirely everything the hon. member had to say, but I understood the thrust of her comment to be that there was confusion between what I had said in the House and what Ms. Ellis, who was the assistant deputy minister, had said to the committee. She said that agent orange and agent purple, which is a matter of concern before the House, were sprayed on a limited area in Gagetown in 1967 and 1966 over a total period of seven days, three days in one year and four days in the other year.
I have tried my best to make the House understand that. If the hon. member has not understood that and chosen to interpret that as seven days a week for two years, I am sorry for her. I have tried to make it very clear to the House and it is consistent with what the assistant deputy minister said, that this was a matter of seven days total spraying over two years in a limited area of Gagetown.
We are working with all those concerned to find out the facts so we can get the proper response to this terrible problem. We will ensure we do that, but let us get the facts straight first. That is all I ask of the House, that we get the facts.
(1505)
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on that same point of order, the minister is inconsistent in the testimony that he provides compared to the testimony that we heard at committee and what the people in Gagetown heard in the community when DND took their travelling road show to Base Gagetown.
The point I simply want to make is this. When the Minister of National Defence talks about a limited test area, he fails to mention the broader spray program of those years where they used agent orange and agent purple over 4,000 acres and hundreds of gallons of the defoliant in those same years that he selectively refers to as the test period.
I believe the member is correct in the sense that the minister is operating on information which is inconsistent with the documents that his department has provided and it inconsistent with the evidence that we heard at committee by some of his officials.
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this has now become a matter of debate, but I would like to respectfully suggest to the hon. members and to the House that if we can have debate with some civil conduct with one another, I would be happy to look into this and I will get back to the hon. members with the facts.
My understanding, as I said to the House, is that there was no suggestion of any spraying of agent orange over 4,000 acres. That is not testimony that I have ever heard before.
I will consult with my officials and I will correspond with the hon. members to exact facts about what I have said and what has been said by my deputy minister to ensure that the facts are entirely clear. We will do our best to get--
The Speaker: I think we have heard enough on this. Is the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst rising on the same point of order?
[Translation]
Apparently, the hon. member wishes to rise on a different point of order.
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise on this same point of order. It also concerns the question I had raised in the House about the importance of public health and safety. For years, we have been calling for the Department of National Defence to decontaminate the Tracadie-Sheila military training area, and so far, only a surface decontamination has been done. This is contradictory. We want the minister to mandate an independent group to conduct a study and fully decontaminate this military training area once and for all.
The Speaker: That is interesting, but it concerns another matter and is not a point of order. The problem before us concerns a contradiction of facts, obviously. The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke has pointed out two quotations that may be contradictory.
[English]
We have heard clarification on the matter. The minister said he will clarify any other issues that are raised on it. I am sure if the hon. member for Acadie--Bathurst has continuing problems, he will be able to correspond with the minister directly. We are not going to keep doing question period under the guise of points of order. That is unheard of.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
* * *
[Translation]
Civil Marriage Act
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-38, an act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.
The Speaker: Before oral question period, the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve had the floor. He has two minutes left to finish his speech.
The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas.
[English]
Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Hochelaga on his speech, which was a very important addition to the debate on this bill.
With his usual modesty, he undersold his importance in the various aspects of the improvement in the human rights situation for gay and lesbian people over his many years of service in the House. He mentioned that he had been present in the House while many changes had been made. He very much underplayed his own part in making those changes happen. He has played an important part in ensuring that gay and lesbian people assume full citizenship here in Canada and in Quebec. I want to recognize the contribution he has made over his many years here and tell him how important it has been to all of us in the gay and lesbian community.
I also want to thank him for mentioning the contributions of my predecessor, Svend Robinson, to those debates and to his other colleagues from Quebec in the whole move toward full equality and full citizenship for gay and lesbian people.
It has been a cooperative effort by many people, but I do not want the member for Hochelaga to underestimate the importance he has brought to this debate in the House.
The member will remember from the committee hearings that we heard from the Canadian Psychological Association. One of the things the association said was that the stigma and isolation that gay and lesbian families may experience as a result of public and systemic prejudice and discrimination may cause distress and that was a far more important factor in the stability and the adjustment of children in those families than was the fact that their parents were gay and lesbian, which seemed to have no effect whatsoever on the children.
I wonder if he could comment on the importance of Bill C-38 in light of that assertion by the Canadian Psychological Association.
(1510)
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his kind words. I remember quite well when the Canadian Psychological Association appeared before the committee and said that there was no correlation between sexual orientation and parenting skills.
It was also made very clear how important it is to quell any type of stigma in the process of building self-esteem, what psychologists call psychogenesis. All the members voting in favour of the bill we are discussing this afternoon are contributing to making homosexuality respectable. In so doing, we are saying that gays and lesbians are full citizens. That is the historic dimension of tonight's vote.
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, to completely honest, I must admit that it is not a pleasure to take part in today's debate on Bill C-38 on civil marriage.
I get the feeling that, right from the very start, this has been a fruitless debate where everyone has stuck by their positions and refused to budge. Both sides have said some scandalous things. Not only has the debate been polarized, it has been controversial. Some people were subject to harsh remarks and an obvious lack of respect.
Today, I want to make my humble contribution, given my great surprise that the government is incapable of addressing the right to equality and, at the same time, respecting our identities as individuals. When I said that I supported maintaining the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, I also said, in the same breath, that I supported the union of same sex partners and their right to equality.
The challenge facing this House and its members, as legislators, was that, in maintaining the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, it was also our duty to find a way to pass legislation ensuring equality for same sex couples, so they could have access to a union recognizing their choices and rights. The quest for equality does not mean we have to standardize intrinsically different realities by creating just one type of union between individuals and using the same word to describe it.
Homosexuality exists. It is a reality and no one can explain it or even attempt to. First, it is complex; second, it would be politically incorrect to do so.
Love also exists between same sex partners, and their right to happiness, as far as I am concerned, is a given. We must understa