Grant McNally

[Petitions, September 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition from constituents which has to do with the issue of marriage. The petitioners ask that Bill C-225, an act to amend the Marriage Act and the Interpretation Act so as to define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a single female, be implemented.

I am presenting this petition on behalf of my constituents. I would remind my hon. colleagues that it is my duty as a member to present my constituents' wishes.

I have another petition that I will table at another time.

[Petitions, September 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions today.

The first petition has to do with lowering the age in the Young Offenders Act from the age of 12 to 10 and also some other changes to the Young Offenders Act, increasing the penalty for first degree murder from a maximum of 10 years to 15 and ensuring parental responsibility.

[Criminal Code, September 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I too support the bill proposed by the hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Bill C-258. I will keep my comments rather brief and to the point through a personal story.

If there is every a place that you do not want to meet somebody it is at a hearing involving a section 745 case. Unfortunately that is where I met one of my constituents for the first time, Mr. Ray King. Mr. King is the father of one of Olson's victims.

Mr. King came to me prior to that case and shared with me the years of anguish he went through personally as a result of the incident that unfortunately happened to his son.

That is what this is about. We have heard in the House today philosophical difference. There certainly is a very big philosophical difference. This philosophical difference has a dramatic impact on individual lives, Mr. King's life being a clear example of that.

I will read into the record a few of the comments made by Mr. King and the anguish that he shared personally and publicly in this process he had to go through:

The nightmares that had been absent in my life for several years returned (after going through this process).

We get a life sentence too. And it doesn't end after 15 years or 20 years. Having those victim impact statements read aloud in the presence of this person was the ultimate obscenity. Throughout it all, the grin never left his face.

I found it impossible to make any sense of the fact that this person, who had taken away our right to see our children grow up to adulthood, should demand and be afforded concessions.

This is the heart rending situation in this section 745 case and this bill. It is not understandable why this bill is not votable today.

The parliamentary secretary mentioned the changes the government has made. I think she said it goes against government policy, therefore it is not in favour of it. It is simply bad policy. It is bad legislation.

We have to ask ourselves on this side and individuals across Canada have to ask themselves is this government willing to accept bad policy and bad law which negatively affects individuals across this country. We must conclude by the actions and the statements made here today by members on the government side that it is the case. That is a sad commentary on the state of this government and its response to the criminal justice system.

Mr. King's comments are comments I will never forget. I was an 18 year old in Coquitlam where Olson was when his reign of terror was going on. I have mentioned that in the House before and I mention it again because I know personally the fear that gripped the community. I also many years later was in the unfortunate circumstance of having to hear Mr. King's tragedy and the loss that changed his life forever. It is not fair to put individuals, not one individual Canadian, through that experience.

If this government had the initiative to remove section 745 not one Canadian would have to go through what Mr. King went through. That is the tragedy we are talking about.

[Questions On The Order Paper, September 21st, 1998]

Can the government provide the rationale and criteria used to substantiate the October 21, 1994 declaration of the immigration minister, pursuant to paragraph 19(1)( l ) of the Immigration Act, that in his opinion, the former Marxist regime of Afghanistan, 1978 to 1992, had been engaged in systemic or gross human rights violations?

[Questions On The Order Paper, September 21st, 1998]

What studies has the Government of Canada commissioned concerning the extent of potential financial liability to taxpayers resulting from challenges by foreign investors against allegedly non-conforming measures at the national and subnational level under the investor-state dispute settlement processes of ( a ) NAFTA and ( b ) the proposed MAI?

[Supply, June 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the debate throughout the day and it has become clear now through what this member has just stated that there is a certain belief on the government's part about this idea of intellectual elitism.

We recognize that our supreme court justices or justices across the land are learned people who are working hard to do their job. They have opinions and perspectives. However what the hon. member just stated in her comments was that decisions by judges should override the majority of people in the country.

I am wondering if she is exerting the fact that individuals should be quiet, not raise any issues at all, but simply leave things in the hands of the judiciary, a group of unelected officials however learned. Is she telling the people of Canada that they should sit down and we will take care of everything?

Is she saying that we know better, that the learned people in society know better, and that we should reject the common sense of individuals and not allow them the opportunity to debate important issues?

I am wondering if that is what she is purporting because it is a thinly veiled argument. It is becoming very clear in her comments and those of other members of the government that that is at the hub of their belief of the Canadian electorate. As the minister for multiculturalism stated, it is the tyranny of the majority, in fact the majority that elected the Liberal government. Is that what they are indicating on that side?

[Supply, June 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great intent to my colleague and I thank him for his speech.

The point I made earlier was that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is appealing a particular case. The reason I would suggest she is doing that is because it would set a legal precedent. That decision will set a legal precedent which then again could affect other rulings in that particular area.

Here we have another example of this particular case affecting legislation in the definition of spouse and perhaps the redefinition of marriage.

I am wondering if my colleague could comment on the fact that the Liberal government says one thing in one area, it takes a specific action in appealing a particular case that will affect law in one area, yet it does absolutely nothing. It seems as though it does not even want this issue to be brought to the forefront, underpinning the fact that judges are reading in a new meaning to this particular law.

Could the hon. member comment on this contradiction, this lack of action in one instance when there is action in the other instance? How does he think the government might be able to explain this contradiction?

[Supply, June 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's speech. Recently the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration made an appeal to the supreme court on a specific case involving an Ontario court decision concerning a young woman who is being deported whose children were born in Canada.

Is the hon. member indicating that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is interfering with the correct process by making an appeal to a higher court? That is in fact what he seems, by logical conclusion, to be stating in that particular line of reasoning in his debate. I find that quite surprising.

What seems to be at the nub of the issue here is that government members misunderstand the fact that the judiciary in this particular case, as well as others, is reading a new meaning into the law that was not there previous to this new interpretation in this finding.

I would like the hon. member to comment on this. When the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration makes an appeal because that particular case would set a precedent that would affect other cases, does he not feel that is the similar process that should occur in this case? There is a direct contradiction. I would like the hon. member to address that.

[Supply, June 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite amazed that my hon. colleague states that the courts do not limit parliament. In fact, I think she well knows, as we all do, that when a decision is rendered by a court that decision has an impact. It sets a precedent for future decisions. For us to ignore that fact is irresponsible.

This was an Ontario appeal court ruling. The justice minister is not even willing to take the next step to appeal it to the highest court in the land, the supreme court.

The member stated that these types of cases should be appealed to the supreme court only if they are very important cases. I would ask her whether she thinks the definition of marriage is not an important issue. A lot of people in this country are looking for direction from this government and wanting to know exactly where they stand on that particular point. The fact is that the judiciary, in this particular case and in others, is reading in new meaning to the law. If that is the case, does this member agree that should continue, that a group of individuals should decide what is best for individuals in this country?

As the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism stated, it is the tyranny of the majority. That is quite a shocking statement.

I wonder what her response would be to those two questions.

[Supply, June 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's debate. I would like to ask him a question about how this decision might impact further on other individuals in our society.

I think of my own mother who is a widow and her sister who is just recently widowed and the fact they might be living together very shortly. Would they fit under the same definition for recognizing benefits? They would be of the same sex but not in a conjugal relationship. What about other individuals in similar situations, two friends living together or whomever else it might be?

What does my hon. colleague think about the courts setting direction and reading meanings into law? Does he agree with that or that decisions should be made in the House?