Bill C-38 (Historical)

Civil Marriage Act

An Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes

This enactment extends the legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes to same-sex couples in order to reflect values of tolerance, respect and equality, consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It also makes consequential amendments to other Acts to ensure equal access for same-sex couples to the civil effects of marriage and divorce.

Budget Implementation Act, 2005

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I always find it laughable when New Democrats, especially those from British Columbia, come to this House and preach about fiscal responsibility. Now, as a lifelong British Columbian, that is laughable. The $400 million that the NDP threw away on the fast ferry project could have gone to save lives, to help in waiting rooms and to help students, and yet this member has the gall to stand in this House and say that they stand for fiscal responsibility. What a joke. It is no wonder that that party was reduced to two seats in that campaign and it is no wonder that its leader left to go across the floor to the Liberal Party.

I cannot believe the member would actually get up in this place and start talking about how members of Parliament come to this place and do not do their jobs.

We recognized that the Canadian public wanted to make sure that Bill C-43 was thoroughly debated, and we did that. It is the Conservative Party that passed amendments at committee. The New Democrats did not pass a single amendment at that committee. We in the Conservative Party did our due diligence.

As for the issue of voting in this House, the most comprehensive and difficult social policy that this House has seen probably in a generation, the definition of marriage, our party had a free vote on that issue. I stood and I had the ability to freely vote and disagree with my leader on that issue. I had the capacity to vote and to speak freely on that issue because I happen to believe and support Bill C-38.

What did the New Democrats do? They told the member for Churchill to sit in her place, shut up, do not vote and do not represent her values. That is the New Democratic Party of the year 2005 and that is why that party is going nowhere.

Supply

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I stand before the House today somewhat concerned and saddened. I am saddened by the fact that this government and previous Liberal governments have continued to undermine and erode the very social fabric that has made Canada the great country that it is today.

The social fabric I am referring to is the family and the importance of the family in Canadian society. I find it disturbing, no, reprehensible, that this government continues to undermine the family as a unit, and also how this government continues to dismantle the things that family stands for, whether it is Bill C-38 and in its infinite wisdom changing the definition of marriage, or now, through its social engineering of having the state raise our children for us.

As Canadians we should be saddened and concerned by the road of moral decay that this government continues to take us down. We must be diligent in standing up for what is right for the family.

We must be wary of the Liberal government's hidden agenda when it comes to undermining the family. Let me give some specifics on how this government has discriminated against the family through its hidden agenda.

First is taxation. This government attempts to buy the Canadian public by going on spending sprees with taxpayers' money, yet it continues to discriminate against families in how families are taxed. For example, if families were allowed to split their income, then maybe more of their tax dollars and indeed more options would be made available to those who choose to stay home and raise their children.

At the heart of this issue is the right of a mother and a father to choose. Day care in Canada should be about the ability to choose, not about a two tier child care system as proposed by this Liberal government, not about a program run by a scandal plagued government that has never in its life run a program on time or on budget.

Government bureaucracies such as the proposed national child care program simply do not work. They certainly do not work nearly as well as the nurturing love of a mother and a father.

This arrogant government would have us believe that it is better suited or has more ability than a mother and a father to raise their own children. This is absolute nonsense. It is insulting to parents. Who does the government think it is and why does it assume that it knows best?

An article entitled “Mothering is Crucial to Child Development” talks about national day care:

It's not that the world hasn't experienced the disaster that a national day care system can bring to a nation. The Soviet Union, under communism, required all mothers to join the paid workforce with all children placed in state-operated child care. The USSR became a dysfunctional society for many reasons as evidenced by its high rate of crime, alcoholism, divorce, abortions, extremely low birth rate, etc. One of the reasons for this tragic dysfunction was cited by former Soviet Premier, Mikhail Gorbachev, in his book Perestroika: New Thinking for Our Country and the World (1987), in which he claimed the dysfunction was due, in part, to the separation of children from their mothers in their early years, by placing them in the state-operated child care facilities. This, he claimed, was a major contributing factor for the breakdown of Russian society.

While this proposed plan would not force parents to put their children in the proposed government operated child care system, the increased taxation resulting from the establishment of this system will make home care for children a diminishing option for parents.

What most parents would like is choice or more options. Why is this government so set against options for parents? Whether it is institutional day care, home care provided by the mother or father, or home care provided by another family member, parents should have the right to choose.

When I was born, my mother had a very successful career out of her home. She made the choice to take time to raise her children and to be with the kids as they were growing up. She chose to stay home while she raised her three children. As a family we could not afford it anymore than most of the working families today can, but it was a choice that my parents made freely.

My wife's parents also chose to stay home and raise their children. My mother-in-law, an accomplished artist, chose to stay at home and raise her four sons and one daughter. She also made sacrifices, not because she had to but because she chose to.

My wife is a successful businesswoman. She made the decision, as many of our generation did, to raise a family and continue to have a career. When we decided to have children, what was important to us was to have our family around us helping us with this very important task of raising, caring and nurturing our kids. We wanted the influence of our parents, not an institutional system, and we were very fortunate to have that option available to us. There are many parents today who would like to have that option available to them.

Grandparents are an integral part of every family. Unfortunately there are many families today who do not have their own grandparents available to them, but that does not mean this option is not available.

As our population continues to age, many seniors looking for opportunities to earn some extra income make great child care providers. Of course many of them do not have the institutional education that professional day care workers are required to have today. However, that does not make them any less effective. These individuals are the wisdom keepers who, through their determination, perseverance and dedication to family values built this country and made it what it is today.

Day care providers are not the only ones who can provide an educational environment for our children. Parents should also be given the right to choose.

Let me tell the House about the Langleys. Sandra and David are friends of ours who decided to home school their children. They receive no monetary compensation for what they do. As a matter of fact, they have made financial sacrifices to do what they do. Both Sandra and David are professionals with successful careers. As their children came along, they decided that one of them would stay at home to participate in raising and educating their children.

Let me give the House another example of a family who has made financial sacrifices to choose the opportunity to stay at home and educate their children. The Koolsbergen family not only decided to provide their own day care, but they wanted to home school their kids as well and have done so very successfully. Their oldest son has just completed his first year in university as an A student.

The Liberal government plan is intolerant of the Langleys and the Koolsbergens and other families like them. The minister of social engineering says that parents are not capable of educating their own children and that only professionals can. That may be one option, but it is not the only option.

As stated in an editorial in the National Post on October 26, 2004:

Instinctive, loving interactions between parents and their children are the best way to ensure healthy mental and physical childhood outcomes. These are things that cannot be taught at a teachers' college.... Parents should have a wide range of options in regard to their children's care and education. Our priority should be to preserve existing options - whether provided by the free market or social networks - not to shut infants into one-size-fits-all programs.

The government is misleading the public about day care. The government does not have a plan, has never had a plan, and will never be able to carry out a plan that is fair, equitable and affordable to all people in this country. The Liberals are creating a two tier day care system in this country, one tier for the Liberal plan and one tier for the rest of us who are forced to fend for ourselves. Money for some, nothing for most.

This two tier child care system does not respect the needs of the majority of parents. If we are going to talk about the government getting involved in the lives of our children, choice still needs to be the primary consideration.

The Liberals are not being honest about the cost of this program. They have committed $5 billion over five years, but less than $1 billion will flow in the first year, and the actual cost will be much more than $5 billion. The people who are going to get stuck with the bill will sadly be the taxpayers. We are the ones who will end up paying for a system that will only increase the number of subsidized, regulated day care spaces from 7% to 10%. That is right, $5 billion-plus to increase spaces from 7% to 10%.

When the question was asked of the minister of social engineering about the long term cost of child care, his response was, “You really don't know. In fact, you don't need to know because the future is going to decide it”. It sounds to me like the minister does not care because it will not end up being his problem, it will be somebody else's. It will be another government's problem for another day. In other words, the government does not mind making the financial commitments today that my kids, my constituents' kids and their generation will have to be financially responsible for tomorrow.

It would seem that not only does the government have a hidden agenda on this program, it has a hidden agenda in the actual cost as well. Tens of billions of taxpayers' dollars a year, but the saddest part is the lack of trust the Liberals put in parents, the lack of trust to give parents a real choice on how they would like to have their children raised.

This day care program will not give any options to those who do not fit in the rigid one system fits all proposed by the government. Shift workers, stay at home parents, or those living in rural ridings like Niagara West--Glanbrook will not be able to access this program, but they will sure get an opportunity to pay for it. Just like those who choose to send their children to Christian schools, they will be forced to pay for one system without enjoying the benefits of another.

If we are going to talk about the government getting involved in our lives, choice still needs to be the primary consideration. The Conservative Party supports choice for parents. The Conservative Party recognizes that parents are in the best position to determine how to care for and educate their children. The Conservative plan is universal and equitable. The Conservative plan will give cash subsidies directly to parents. The Conservative plan will allow parents to make their own child care choices. The Conservative Party will treat all parents and families equally.

Statistics Act

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the NDP caucus and the people of the riding of Winnipeg Centre, I am pleased to enter into the debate on Bill S-18 dealing with the census information.

Before I begin my presentation tonight, I would like to expand a little bit on what my colleague from Kelowna--Lake Country was talking about. I am of the same view as he. Just because an agreement is 100 years old does not mean it is stale-dated. It does not have an expiry date unless such expiry date was freely spoken to at the time or was entered into the original deal. The analogy we could use is the government's treatment of first nation's treaties. Just because they are 150 years old and just because they contain language that we have a hard time accepting today, or some people do, does not mean that they had some kind of expiry date or sunset clause, unless there actually was a sunset clause.

I am concerned as we enter into the debate. It is a good graphic illustration of the advantage and the benefit of reasonable debate in the tone that we have seen tonight and it gives us pause to reflect on the complexity of what we are being asked to do here today. What would seem like a pretty simple and straightforward issue is anything but that.

I, for one, have had hundreds of representations to my office in the form of faxes, phone calls and petitions tabled with me from people who can see no good reason that they should not have access to all of that information from the census data prior to 1911, or at least in that grey area of 1901 to 1911.

However when we look at the competing interests here, the legitimate interests of historians, statisticians and genealogists, whether people are doing it as a hobby or as a career, their legitimate interests in knowing this information is compared with the absolute right to privacy that we uphold to the very end of our being in the House of Commons. It is a conflict. It is a tension between two competing interests that cannot be viewed lightly.

Looking at this issue in the larger sense, I would ask, first, for my colleagues to consider and to pass judgment on whether or not it is appropriate that the bill should be coming from the other place. I feel strongly that were there the political will, it is almost abrogating our obligations, our duties and our responsibilities to have not dealt with this issue in the House of Commons from the House of Commons.

The government could have introduced the legislation through the House of Commons rather than through the Senate but it chose not to. This is fundamentally wrong for a number of reasons, not the least of which the Senate is not an elected body. We are the elected legislators and lawmakers and the federal jurisdiction in the House of Commons. I just wanted to preface my remarks with that one observation and criticism. It should be originating here. It should be a bill that begins with “C” for Commons, not “S” for Senate.

Much has been made of the idea of whether or not a promise was made. Was there a guarantee in perpetuity of privacy? I find it hard to believe that was not at least frequently promised to people given the people the Government of Canada statisticians were enumerating.

I try to think of the context of 1901 to 1911 in the prairie provinces where I come from. One million immigrants arrived at the train station at the corner of Portage and Main to begin a new life. I believe that was in 1906 alone. My numbers could be off but we will recognize a massive influx of immigrants, many seeking refuge from persecution in parts of the world where people's privacy was not guaranteed and information was used against them. Many of these people would probably be reluctant to have an official from the government in their new-found country asking very personal questions about them, their background and their history

I would imagine that to get the information we needed to plan the opening of the west, I think government had a right to know who was who, where they were going and their background but one can imagine the reluctance of people to be forthcoming with that information. One can also imagine the guarantees or the promises made to these new Canadians, these immigrants, that they should not worry, that they could trust the government and that any information they gave would be confidential, private and for government use only.

In other words, I can imagine a scenario where those promises were made at pier 21 in Halifax, at the train station at Portage and Main or in Edmonton, whatever the dropping off point was, where individual enumerators, which is what they were called at that time, would ask these questions and then commit, at least sometimes, that the information would be forever secret.

Now that is a contract that we are entering into and we have to be cautious when we break faith with people. At the very least, it would be a breach of trust if not an absolute breaking of a formal contract. Any contract, treaty, compact or agreement, as I say, is in fact binding and time does not wear that down or change it.

My house was built in 1911. I would like to think if I owned that house for another 50 years that nothing would happen to my title on that house, that it would l not expire and somebody would not view that as something that is expendable.

It is a commitment we make and the promise kept, I would think.

The bill has many complexities. It is intended to deal with the census after the one conducted in 1911 and it proposes two things. First, it proposes that the records from census between 1911 and 2001 be released after 92 years. Second, it proposes that records from the 2006 census onward be released if the individual confirms on the census form that his or her personal census information can be made publicly available after 92 years.

That is what the legislation seeks to achieve but some of us still have some fundamental problems with the way Statistics Canada and the Liberal government have been managing census taking in its larger context.

First, I am uncomfortable with the very recent idea that the Government of Canada would contract the record keeping out to an outside third party, and not just any outside third party but the leading American military contractor in the United States, Lockheed Martin, which would be in possession of our confidential census data.

If we are talking about the right to privacy of people from 1901 to 1911, let us think about that in the context of the right to privacy of Canadians who sent us here a lot more recently than that, like last year. Their personal private information would be in the hands of an American firm subject to the patriot act in the United States, where it is more or less like martial law, where one's confidentiality and privacy is non-existent. This concerns me very much and, frankly, any legislation to amend the census legislation and the statistical gathering from the Liberal government concerns me if its commitment to our privacy is so cavalier and shallow that it would risk our personal information being held by an American corporation subject to the patriot act. That is not defending the interests of Canadians very aggressively. I speak to this with an added concern coming from Manitoba.

The Conservative government in Manitoba in the 1990s thought it would be a cost efficient measure to contract out the gathering and the database of the Manitoba health insurance. It believed that it would be a cost efficient measure if it contracted out all my confidential medical records. Well, it did, and a new firm was created and it built a big office building downtown.

Then, because this was the era of corporate mergers, this data collection agency that held all of our confidential health records was sold to an American company, which promptly moved our Manitoba health records to Dallas, Texas. Now, all of my confidential medical information and that of my family and everybody in the province of Manitoba is located and stockpiled in Dallas, Texas, again subject to this patriot act, whereby the confidentiality of Canada's most private information may in fact be compromised and breached.

That is a concern. I would have thought that the current Liberal government of the day would have learned a lesson from what happened in Manitoba. We do not want our confidential information subject to the patriot act and we should be actively taking steps to avoid that. I am a little suspicious when the current Liberal government tells us that “we are in charge of the census and we are here to help”, and when it tells us that it is here to protect us by moving this amendment to the way it gathers statistics and census information, if it is going to subject us to this risk of having our privacy compromised.

I want to speak a little more on the range of options that have been put forward today. We have heard some very good ideas. I think some of them are being aired here for the first time publicly by those who seek to amend this bill. We do not seek to slow down this legislation, but I too am a little suspicious about the lack of priority this bill has been given by the government. I am wondering how committed the government is to solving this longstanding problem we have if it keeps introducing the bill at a stage of Parliament where it consistently dies on the order paper.

Were there the political will to really see this bill through to fruition and royal assent, one would have thought the government of the day would have introduced it a little earlier in this Parliament. Some of us have pretty good reason to believe that when we leave here on June 23 or thereabouts we will not be coming back. An election will be triggered or called sometime prior to the Gomery report being tabled. We might not get a chance to ever deal with this bill at committee. We certainly might never get a chance to get it to third reading or report stage in the House, because the legislative agenda is chock full of things that the government is prioritizing to try to force through whether that is Bill C-38 or the budget bills.

For all that the Liberal government is trying to garner some support by paying lip service to this complicated and thorny issue, it does not seem to me that there is a legitimate commitment to seeing this bill pass the stages necessary to actually give any satisfaction to the statisticians, the genealogists and the historians. It makes me wonder. I guess I could be convinced otherwise, but somebody would have to show me some evidence that there is a legitimate commitment to this bill being passed.

We can look at other jurisdictions. I often find it helpful and useful to look at other jurisdictions that have dealt with a similar problem. I note that in the 2001 Australian census of population and housing about 50% of the respondents chose to have their information released in the future. If in fact this bill were to go through, from 2006 on there would be an optional nature to this. We could check a box and say that we do not mind if 92 years from now some historian wants to look at our personal information. About half of Australians agreed to that. On a similar question in New Zealand, about 60% of the population there indicated on their forms that their information could be released after 100 years.

That gives us an indication of other Commonwealth countries. I think we would probably find about the same reaction here were we to test Canadians. It will be interesting to see what the result will be.

I was here in January of 2003 when the Government of Canada announced that it would need to clarify the Statistics Act to resolve this issue and it released the 1906 special census records.

The 1906 census was taken only in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, I think because of the massive influx of immigration to those provinces in that particular year. I do not have the information here, but if memory serves me that was one of the peak years for the great land rush to open the west. The advertisements went out all over Europe, including eastern Europe, to attract settlement and to open up the west.

As I referred to earlier, most members of Parliament were getting deluged with representations at their offices. It is significant to note that in January 2003, in partial response to the overwhelming interest that had been indicated, only very limited information was released. It is called tombstone information: name, age, address, sex, marital status and origin. There was none of the sensitive information that people may be concerned about, not like our personal medical records, those records of mine in Dallas, Texas.

I think we have found that this was not enough to satisfy most of the researchers, who found themselves without the information they needed. They were still left with great gaps in the history.

With that many people arriving in the prairie provinces that year, we can imagine the number of current residents in the prairie provinces whose lineage and genealogy are interrupted. There is a big gap. They do not really know exactly, I suppose, by census data at least, where their family tree went. They can trace it back easily to that point, but then there is a great interruption. That is what is giving a lot of Canadians cause for concern. There is a legitimate thirst for that knowledge for all of us.

It goes beyond curiosity. When one's people fled persecution in other countries and sought refuge here in Canada, that was a traumatic event in the history of one's family. There is a legitimate appetite for that kind of information. I have heard that since the advent of the Internet, genealogy is one of the fastest growing hobbies, so to speak. People really like being able to do it and obtain that knowledge.

When Bill S-18 makes the censuses after 1911 available after 92 years, it will take an active, informed part in deciding the use of one's own personal information. My point is that Canadians will be taking an active and informed part, because we all have the right to decide for ourselves if our information should be made publicly available in the future. It is a decision. It is a choice we are going to have to make. I will have to give it some thought myself. I do not think I will simply automatically check that box. The erosion of privacy rights is of some concern to me.

The point I would like to end with is that because Canada is a land of immigrants, perhaps our appetite for knowing our history, who we were and where we came from, is even more acute than in other countries where it is not so much the case. In the prairie region, I think it is even more interesting to those of us whose ancestors go back to this great influx, this last great frontier where the massive settlement drives took place.

On behalf of those people in the riding of Winnipeg Centre who want that information and who thirst for that information, I hope that we in the House of Commons can see fit to find a way to balance those competing interests and let that information be accessible. That is my hope. If reasonable heads prevail, and there does appear to be a fair amount of goodwill in the room tonight, so very ably chaired, there is optimism for progress on this contentious issue.

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this important bill.

It is very interesting to me that we are having this debate about information that is now over 90 years old. People want access to it for historical and research purposes. Are we going to say no? There seems to be a reason why we need to be careful here.

The reason is that there was a promise made.

There are of course those who claim that census data is to be kept in confidence in perpetuity. The researchers tell us that in fact when the census was taken way back in 1911 there was not an explicit promise to keep this information confidential; it was just sort of assumed. Thus, there was not an explicit promise of confidentiality in perpetuity, they say, so therefore the question of whether or not a promise is being broken here is now considered to be but an academic point and it has been answered in the negative: there is not a breach of this promise.

People are interested in this matter. I have found a considerable amount of interest among people, both in my riding and across the country, since this particular issue has been raised a number of times. There has been no indication from people who have contacted me that they have any questions at all about the release of this information. They want it released.

To my knowledge, I have not had a single presentation to my office from people saying we should not release this data. Those who have contacted my office are unanimous in saying that the census information should be released. I do not know whether this is sufficient to persuade us to go in this direction, but it certainly is a strong indication.

I have some thoughts about this. Most people doing this research are doing so in researching their own roots or sometimes the roots of other family members who are related by marriage or whatever. Usually it is their own roots they are discussing.

I find this curious. If I may, I will go off on a little sidebar for a few milliseconds about the strong desire individuals have to know their lineage, their parentage. They want to know who their mothers, fathers and grandparents are and so on up the line. I have actually heard of people who have traced their lineage back 200 years, which is really quite a curiosity.

Our family has not really made that much effort to do this. We could probably go back about 150 years or so and that is about it, but that is because of the fact that family records are available so we do not need to go to any public records in order to find out who our parents, grandparents and great-grandparents, et cetera, were.

What I am going to say in my little sidebar is to say in parenthesis that the other bill which we are now discussing in the House, Bill C-38, talks about the ability for same sex marriages. It is a foregone conclusion that with this would also come the right to have children by technological means. That is one of the implications. In fact, I personally am aware of at least one instance where, with an anonymous gamete donor, an individual has been brought to life.

This young child is only about a year old now, but when he gets older he will in fact perpetually be denied the right to ever know one-half of his genetic roots. He will know his mother's, but he will not know who his father is because that information presumably is not recorded. It was an anonymous donor. There is no information. That has other biological implications, of course, which I think we should be paying attention to. However, here are individuals who will be in perpetuity denied the right to ever know even who their first generation progenitor is or was.

To come back to Bill S-18, I believe very strongly that we should accommodate the needs and the requests of historians and genealogical researchers in order to access this data. I think the information that is available has to do with familial lines and things like date of birth, place of birth, names of parents, et cetera.

That information certainly should not be embarrassing. As a matter of fact, I think most of us are very proud of who our parents and grandparents are. We share a heritage with them because of their personal history and it is very useful to know what that history is.

One of the things that Bill S-18 provides on the form is a little box for people to check and sign. This is quite an interesting thing. Individuals who will be filling in their census forms after this bill is enacted, presuming that it passes, will see a box and this question: “Are you willing to have the release of this information after 92 years?”

I know that 92 years from now I will not care. I will no longer be here to say that someone should not have said this or that about me. As a matter of fact, I would be ready to check it off to release it tomorrow, I think, at least the information that I divulge, because I have nothing to hide at all.

I have told this story before, probably even in this House. When my wife and I lived in a little town of 200 people, one of my friends asked me how I could stand living in that little town where everybody knew what I was doing. I said that I was not going to do anything bad, so people could know what I was doing. For example, I said, “We went to Calgary and so they know. Goodbye”. I came back later on the same day or the next day. I am not concerned about that kind of confidentiality.

There is an implication here that one has done something one does not want divulged. The census form would presumably have that information. I do not know what kind of information the census people would be justified in receiving that would cause a person to say, “I will not allow the release of this information”. If they are asking questions about something which I do not want released, then I would think the real question should be, “Is our census bureau in this country legitimately asking the right questions?” I think that is a very serious question and an important one.

I have been particularly concerned about this and have had a number of constituents talk to me about it, especially when the last census was taken several years ago. I was concerned about some of the intrusive questions that were asked. People were asked whether the person with whom they were having conjugal relations was of the same gender. There were some people who were quite incensed about that.

They asked what business it was of anybody's. I have to confess that I agree: the government has absolutely no business asking questions of that nature. If the government did not ask that question, then of course there would be no information in the record that would cause the individual to say, “No, I do not want this ever released”.

Nowadays I do not know whether people who are in this--

Civil Marriage Act

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the committee studying Bill C-38 continues to hear from witness after witness that the Liberals' plan to change the definition of marriage will have an impact on basic freedoms in our country.

The minister has finally admitted what the Supreme Court told us months ago, which is that the federal government has no power to fully protect individuals from being attacked because of their beliefs.

Bill C-38 does not protect freedom of religion or freedom of conscience in any way, and the minister knows that.

Why is the minister rushing this bill through the House in spite of clear evidence and his own admission that it will have a negative impact on Canadian rights?

Petitions

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present two petitions from literally hundreds of my constituents who have taken the time and effort to make sure they have contacted me to stand up for the traditional definition of marriage as defined by one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

This is part of a growing sentiment among Canadians to protect marriage, to urge their elected representative to do what is right, to represent them in this House and to vote against Bill C-38.

Privilege

[The Speaker]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 and on Thursday, June 2, 2005 by the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell concerning the blocking of fax lines and the registration of Internet domain names of certain members of the House of Commons by individuals or organizations with no affiliation to the House, which the hon. member claimed has prevented them from carrying out their work as parliamentarians

I would like to thank the hon. member for raising this matter. I would also like to thank the hon. deputy House leader of the official opposition and the hon. members for Charlesbourg--Haute-Saint-Charles, British Columbia Southern Interior, Cambridge, and Prince Albert for their interventions on May 31. In addition, I would like to thank the hon. members for Halton, Scarborough--Rouge River, Edmonton--Sherwood Park, Yorkton--Melville, and Elmwood--Transcona for their contributions to the discussion on June 2.

On May 31 the hon. member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell claimed that his right to carry out his duties as a member of Parliament had been interfered with by a group called Focus on the Family Canada which was blocking his and other members' office telephone lines by sending multiple computer-generated faxes.

To illustrate, he indicated that during the course of one day he had received over 800 facsimiles. Only a handful of these faxes had been from constituents, whereas on a normal business day his office would receive an average of 30 to 40 faxes from constituents. He argued that because of this, his constituents had been unable to communicate with him and that he had not had access to notices sent out concerning committee and House business. He further claimed that some of the faxes had been sent by someone who was impersonating a member of Parliament.

In his arguments, the hon. member cited the ruling I had given on a similar matter on February 12, 2003 concerning mass e-mails. He also referred to a judgment handed down in the Ontario Court of Justice by Mr. Justice A.L. Eddy on November 22, 2000 in the case of Her Majesty the Queen against a citizen of Ontario who was found guilty of harassing a member of the Ontario legislature.

In conclusion, the hon. member cited Marleau and Montpetit at page 84 which states that Speakers have consistently ruled that members have the right to carry out their parliamentary duties free from obstruction, intimidation and interference. He asserted that, by interfering with the work of individual members, the organization responsible was in contempt of the House. He indicated that if the Chair found a prima facie case of privilege, he was prepared to move the appropriate motion.

In his intervention, the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles confirmed that his office had also received over 1,000 faxes and 2,300 e-mails in a span of 36 hours, thus monopolizing the tools provided to him as a member of the House, as well as the time of his staff. In addition, he argued that this action was an infringement on the privileges of members of Parliament because they are unable to carry out their parliamentary duties or remain in contact with their constituents

The deputy House leader of the official opposition challenged the claim of harassment, asserting that all Canadian citizens have the right to communicate with all members of Parliament on matters of public interest. He dismissed as absurd the contention that citizens wishing to communicate with members of Parliament on an issue of public moment constituted an attack on anyone. He maintained a logistical solution could be found to the problem and warned against censoring Canadians from communicating with their members of Parliament.

The hon. members for British Columbia Southern Interior, Cambridge, and Prince Albert contributed to the discussion by seeking clarification of certain points raised by the hon. member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell.

On June 2 the hon. member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell rose again to bring to the attention of the Chair that in addition to the communication difficulties he and other members were experiencing as he had described on May 31, an organization called Defend Marriage Coalition had taken over the Internet domain names of approximately 40 to 50 members of Parliament. This, he alleged, was not a legitimate use of the domain names.

He also claimed that in the case of 15 of these sites, this organization not only was using the members' names to access the sites, it had also published information about these members of Parliament. These sites, he alleged, were designed to look like the official websites of the members concerned, of which he also questioned the legitimacy. He contended that this constituted a bona fide case of privilege.

In response, the hon. deputy House leader of the official opposition argued that it was incumbent upon members to register their domain names and that this matter was not within the purview of the House or the Speaker.

The hon. member for Halton, in his intervention, informed the Chair that he was one of the members whose domain name had been taken over by the organization in question and it was using his House of Commons photo on its site, thereby creating the impression that it was his official website. The hon. member for Scarborough--Rouge River wondered if this might be a case of impersonation or identity theft, which would interfere with the duties of the members and the functions of the House.

I want to assure all hon. members that I consider this situation to be very troubling. Allegations of obstruction, interference and misrepresentation should not be taken lightly.

Over the years, members have brought to the attention of the House instances which they believed were attempts to obstruct, impede, interfere, intimidate or molest them, their staffs or individuals who had some business with them or the House. Since these matters relate so closely to the right of the House to the services of its members, they are often considered to be breaches of privilege.

That being said, members of Parliament come into contact with a wide range of individuals and groups during the course of their work and are subject to all manner of influences, some legitimate and some not.

First of all, I wish to address the matter of the blocking of members' fax machines and email systems.

The hon. member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell claimed that he had been obstructed from fulfilling his duties with respect to his constituents because of multiple computer-generated faxes that were preventing them from contacting his office in an expeditious manner. To support his contention, he cited the ruling I gave on February 12, 2003, at pages 3470 and 3471 of the Debates , concerning the disruption a mass emailing from a member's office had on the House's email system. I did not find that there was a prima facie question of privilege, but encouraged hon. members to use alternative means of communication and set in motion administrative changes to rectify the situation.

The hon. member also referred to a decision rendered in a court case before the Ontario Court of Justice in November 2000. I have now had an opportunity to review the particulars of the judgment and wish to share these with you.

In 2000 a resident of Ontario was charged with and found guilty of mischief by wilfully interrupting and interfering with the lawful use and operation of the property of Mr. William Murdoch, a member of the Ontario Legislature, by continually sending numerous lengthy facsimile messages to his Queen's Park and constituency offices.

The judge looked at the broad issue of what were the constraints, if any, on the right of a constituent to contact, consult and relate to his elected member of the provincial Parliament and whether it was open to the court to set reasonable limits.

The judge determined that the faxes were not sent by the accused in any realistic effort to inform and assist the member in carrying out his duties but, rather, they were sent in anger and in frustration in an effort to express his dissatisfaction.

In addition, the judge found that the citizen's actions had the effect of monopolizing the member's fax machines, thereby precluding the ordinary and reasonable use of them by constituents and others, and impeding the member and his staff from carrying out the orderly operation, activity and responsibilities of the member's office.

The judge ruled that the right of a citizen to communicate with a member is not without reasonable limits and that, when a constituent, by his or her actions, affects the ability of others to access and exercise their rights, a boundary has been crossed. The judge found that there is an inherent responsibility on the part of the constituent in his or her dealings to act in a manner that respects others' rights of access.

In the matter raised on May 31, the Chair has examined all the material supplied by the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell and has found only one facsimile attributed to a member of the House. In the absence of any complaint from a member that he or she was or is being impersonated, the Chair will set aside the claim that facsimiles had been received from individuals falsely claiming to be members of this House.

With regard to the second issue raised on May 31, namely, whether or not the hon. member has clearly demonstrated that his constituents have been limited or prevented from contacting him in a reasonable and ordinary fashion, it is evident from its website that Focus on the Family Canada is encouraging Canadians to contact the members of the legislative committee and express their views with regard to Bill C-38.

Unlike the court case referred to by the hon. member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell, where only one individual was involved in a deliberate attempt to obstruct the Ontario MPP, with no intent to inform or influence, dozens or perhaps hundreds of individuals are contacting members as they are free to do. I must ask myself, is the intent of these communications to prevent the members' constituents from contacting them? This is impossible to tell.

While it is clear that large numbers of faxes and emails have been sent to the offices of the hon. member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell, Charlesbourg--Haute-Sainte-Charles and others, and have interfered with the smooth functioning and ordinary routines of those offices, the hon. members and their constituents have still been able to communicate, albeit somewhat erratically, by facsimile and email, as well as by letter post and telephone.

Most certainly, the hon. member does have a grievance, but does it constitute a prima facie contempt of the House? As is pointed out in Marleau and Montpetit, at pages 91 to 95, there are numerous examples of members raising similar, legitimate complaints, but Speakers have regularly concluded that members have not been prevented from performing their parliamentary duties. Therefore, though the work and the offices of certain members may have been slowed, I cannot find a prima facie question of privilege in this regard.

I now wish to deal with the matter raised by the hon. member on June 2 concerning the cyber squatting of members’ domain names and the creation of websites that resemble those of members.

I am very concerned about this situation and the potential negative impact it is having on some members. When this situation was first brought to my attention, I visited the official website of the hon. member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell to see for myself what the problem was. On the website, listed under LINKS, I clicked on the link to the federal party association and up came the cybersquatting site. I worried at the time that this indicated that the hon. member's official site had been tampered with. Had that been the case, I might well have been inclined to find a prima facie case of privilege.

However, I have since learned that the offending link was not the result of some hacker, but that there was a far less sinister explanation. Simply put, the link occurred because the cybersquatters had bought the domain name when the hon. member's ownership of his name lapsed and the link, which predated the change in ownership of the domain name, had not been modified to take account of that change.

As a number of hon. members pointed out on June 2, like many things on the Internet, it may well be that it is impossible to resolve this. As was noted, it is incumbent upon members to register their domain names if they wish to prevent others from registering similar or even identical ones. I would urge all hon. members to take such precautionary measures immediately, for once a member's domain name has fallen into other hands, it is not easy to find a remedy to the situation.

In such cases, it appears to the Chair that hon. members may certainly have a grievance in this situation, and a serious grievance, but I cannot find that members have been prevented in any way from carrying out their parliamentary duties. Therefore, I cannot find that this constitutes a prima facie case of privilege.

The question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell raises important issues in an era where communications technology is ubiquitous and the demand for accessibility grows daily more aggressive. It is, of course, the right of all Canadians to communicate with their members of Parliament, but when does the exercise of the right to communicate with Parliament become unreasonable? What role, if any, should the House take in regulating such communication?

Similarly, with regard to “cybersquatting”, is this a legitimate means of engaging in debate and holding a member accountable in the public square for his or her stand on an issue? Is the inconvenience to the member and the potential confusion in the minds of constituents and citizens irrelevant to that legitimacy? Or ought the House look at safeguarding the Internet identity of its members in the interests of ensuring clear democratic discourse? Or ought this situation simply be left to the forces of the marketplace, leaving members who have not taken steps to protect their domain names to bear the consequences?

In conclusion, it is evidence that the matters raised last week are serious and bear further discussion and examination. It seems clear to the Chair that, given the realities of communication technologies in 2005, members of all parties will doubtless be faced with similar situations in the future. As it happens, Standing Order 108(3)(a)(i) mandates the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which is chaired coincidentally by the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, “to review and report on the provision of services and facilities to Members”.

Accordingly, the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell may well wish to take these matters up with the committee to explore, at a minimum, the ramifications of new communication technologies, including the Internet, as they affect members in the performance of their duties.

I thank all honourable members for their interventions on this very important matter.

Marriage

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is determined to ram through Bill C-38, the legislation that threatens the traditional definition of marriage.

The Liberals have used threats, coercion and intimidation as tools to get the same sex marriage bill into law before the summer recess. They have threatened religious leaders and the tax status of their churches. They have disallowed any member of the cabinet a free vote and threaten punishment if they disobey. They have threatened marriage commissioners with the loss of their jobs if they refuse to marry same sex couples. The Liberals want to ram Bill C-38 through before an election because they know the vast majority of Canadians do not support it.

If they succeed, I promise them that the people of Canada will never forget what they have done in their attempt to destroy the traditional definition of marriage and the voters will send a clear message of their anger to every Liberal candidate who supports same sex marriage.

There will be a price to pay for the Liberals' obsession with Bill C-38 and they may rest assured that the price will be paid at the polls.

Privilege

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, two days ago I rose in the House on a question of privilege to talk about the fact that there had been tampering with electronic equipment in the offices of members of Parliament, namely the telephone systems hooked up to fax lines. Six or seven MPs at least have been affected by this situation. I want to add to this today by bringing the following to the attention of your honour. We now have a situation where people are engaged in what is commonly referred to as cybersquatting. People have now taken over the websites of members of Parliament in much the same way.

We cannot refer to names of MPs in the House, not even one's own, but I bring to the attention of the House that “my name”.ca, which for years has been my website, now appears under the name of an organization calling itself the Defend Marriage Coalition. It instructs people on how to object to my voting in favour of Bill C-38 regarding the definition of civil marriage. It makes disparaging remarks against me as a member of the House and so on.

I also want to draw to the attention of the House that I am not the only member affected. There are some 40 or 50 members of Parliament whose names have been similarly taken over by this organization. I have the list and I am willing to provide it to the Speaker, table it, or both.

Finally, in about 15 such cases of the 50 that I have just enumerated, the members of Parliament are now subject to this actual cybersquatting. In other words, it is not only that the sites have been taken over, and many of them were previously held by the members and were paid for personally and otherwise, but now some of them have already been converted to these right-wing religious organizations.

For instance, the site names of the following members have been taken over by someone else: the hon. member for Durham; the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre on the Liberal side; the hon. member for North Vancouver, a Liberal member; and an hon. member of the Conservative Party from South Shore, Nova Scotia.

The point I am making is that our fax lines which we use to communicate with our constituents have been overtaken and plugged up by people. Now our websites have been taken over by cybersquatters. A number of them not only have captured the domain names, but they have published information about members of Parliament, using the member of Parliament's name as access, when in some cases, such as mine, I had personally held that site for years.

The threshold has now increased. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a bona fide case of privilege. I ask that this matter be referred forthwith to the procedure and House affairs committee.

Business of the House

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, before I get to the weekly business statement, I said at that time that I would begin to schedule opposition days before the end of May and that is exactly what I have done. There are a number more to schedule.

Today and tomorrow, of course, are allotted days. I also wish to designate next Tuesday and next Thursday as allotted days.

When the budget bills, Bill C-43 and Bill C-48 are reported from committee, they will certainly become our highest priority.

In the meantime, we will proceed with third reading of Bill C-22, the social development bill; report stage and third reading of Bill C-26, the border services legislation; second reading of Bill S-18, respecting the census; and Bill C-52, the Fisheries Act amendment.

We will then turn to report stage and third reading of bills that have been or are soon to be reported from committee. These include Bill C-25 respecting RADARSAT; Bill C-37, the do not call bill; Bill C-28, the food and drug legislation; and Bill C-38, the civil marriage bill. If there is time during the next three weeks, we will also start to debate the legislation that has been introduced during the last few weeks.

National Day Against Homophobia

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today is National Day Against Homophobia, the first time this day has been celebrated outside of Quebec. I therefore stand with pride as a member of a government responsible for removing, within all areas of federal law, discrimination and hate against persons because of their sexual orientation.

One area of discrimination still exists and Bill C-38 would ensure that the legal institution of marriage will be available to same sex couples in Canada. Yet de jure action against discrimination is not enough. We need to ensure that programs are put into place to address de facto discrimination.

In a report released yesterday by West Enders Against Violence Everywhere, 120 Vancouver residents reported that they had been victims of gay bashing. We must redouble our efforts to raise public awareness of the challenges that homosexuals face within their communities and their workplace.

As an MP, I will continue to work for all Canadians to feel welcome and respected in our society regardless of their differences. I urge all to participate actively in an effort to end de facto homophobia.

Petitions

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my duty today to present two petitions on Bill C-38. It is interesting to note that one is pro and one is con. It demonstrates that this is a very divisive issue across the country and, unfortunately, rather than uniting Canadians it is dividing them.

Civil Marriage Act

[The Speaker]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the previous question at the second reading stage of Bill C-38.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Petitions

[Russ Powers, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the congregants of a church within my riding, I present a petition in support of Bill C-38, the civil marriage act.

Civil Marriage Act

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the flood of petitions and letters to my office over the past six months is any indication, Bill C-38, the same sex marriage bill, is by far the most important bill that will be dealt with by the 38th Parliament.

I have received about five times as much mail on this subject as on any other that I have dealt with in my four years as a member of Parliament. I have received many thousands of signatures on petitions in the constituency. For example, last week I presented nine such petitions to the House, and this week I have a further eight petitions that I am ready to submit. As members can see from the size of this pile, there are many hundreds of signatures on these petitions. As well, of course, I listen to many of my colleagues on all sides of the House presenting one petition after another, which is a very strong indication of the depth of interest expressed by Canadians on this issue.

Another sign of the depth of interest and commitment is the number of letters that are received and that are individual handwritten letters, letters from people who, although they are constituents, are not regular correspondents. People have been moved to write to me on this issue when they have written on no other issue. That is a signal to me of the depth of their interest in and commitment on this issue.

It was my practice in the 37th Parliament, that is, the one that sat from 2000 to 2004, to seek instruction from the electorate in my riding as to how to vote on key legislation via a mechanism that we refer to in the constituency as a constituency referendum.

I have conducted constituency referenda in which I asked constituents, by means of a mail-out ballot to all households in the riding, how to vote at final reading on, among other things, the species at risk act, which was Bill C-5 in the 37th Parliament, and the anti-terrorism act, Bill C-36 in the 37th Parliament. I have asked about whether to opt in or out of the MPs' annual $20,000 pay increase and also about how the riding boundaries of my then riding of Lanark--Carleton ought to be redrawn so that I could submit to the Electoral Boundaries Commission a submission that accurately reflected the community of interest as expressed by my constituents.

My party leader, the Leader of the Opposition, is a democrat, which means a lot to me because I am of course the shadow cabinet critic for democratic reform. He is a democrat. He strongly supports the right of MPs, including members of the shadow cabinet, to vote their consciences or to vote the collective consciences of the people they represent. That is why three members of our shadow cabinet are able to vote for this bill without fear of sanction, reprisal or losing their posts.

This contrasts dramatically with the Liberal benches, where no such freedom is available to members of the cabinet. I am also the critic for FedNor, the federal agency for regional economic development in northern Ontario. My opposite number in the Liberal cabinet, the minister for FedNor, has indicated very strongly that he personally is opposed to same sex marriage and is opposed to this legislation. He has been faced with a choice between resigning his post or abdicating his conscience. Unfortunately, he seems to have chosen to abdicate his responsibility to his conscience in choosing to fall in line with the government.

How many others have done so without at least speaking openly as he has done I do not know, but certainly there is very little in the way of democracy on that side of the House and on something that is the most important issue in the minds of many of the constituents of many of the members opposite, and of course also in the minds of many of the members opposite themselves, as it is in the minds of so many opposition members of Parliament.

The same lack of freedom to follow one's conscience or the conscience of one's constituents is even more evident in the New Democratic Party, where one member, the member for Churchill, in northern Manitoba, has essentially been knuckled under, read the riot act and told she must vote the way her party leader tells her to, without regard for her personal conscience or for the will of her constituents.

As our party's critic on democracy, I am proud of the courageous and democratic position adopted by our leader, but also of the democratic position adopted by our party, the Conservative Party, at its March policy convention in Montreal. I want to read from our policy platform a policy that was adopted in Montreal at our March convention. It states:

On issues of moral conscience, such as abortion, the definition of marriage, and euthanasia, the Conservative Party acknowledges the diversity of deeply held personal convictions among individual Party members and the right of Members of Parliament to adopt positions in consultations with their constituents and to vote freely.

My intention personally has been to vote against this bill at second reading and to conduct a constituency referendum to determine how I should vote at third reading.

At second reading a bill is being approved or rejected in principle. As such, it is the stage of the bill's life where it is most appropriate for a member of Parliament to vote his or her conscience. My conscience dictates that I cannot support a bill that fails to provide adequate protection for religious freedom when such protection could easily have been included in the text of the bill.

I have largely based my political career on the defence of religious freedom. My very first statement in the House of Commons, as a new member of Parliament, was the defence of the freedom of religion of Falun Gong practitioners in mainland China. When I turned to my constituents to ask how to vote on the Anti-terrorism Act and ultimately when I broke ranks with most members of my party, and with the government of course, in order to vote against the bill, I was primarily motivated by the unwarranted restrictions that the bill was placing on freedom of religion which I believe set a very dangerous precedent in this country.

Freedom of religion that is nominally protected in clause 3 of the same sex bill is quite frankly a fictitious protection of freedom of religion. It is a section that Liberal members will cite constantly. Let me read what it says because it is revealing when the text is read. We realize how hollow this protection of freedom of religion really is. Clause 3 of the bill says:

It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.

There are two things to note about this. First, which my hon. colleague from Okanagan—Coquihalla so clearly identified, this does not take care of all of the other impositions on freedom of religion, of many other actors in society that are not contained within the wording of this section, such as people who serve as commissioners of marriage who find their personal conscience violated.

It would be no great effort to find someone who finds it in accordance with his or her personal conscience to perform a same sex marriage as opposed to leaving it, requiring that all people who are commissioners of marriage must be willing to do so should the condition present itself. That is just unreasonable. It provides no extra rights to a same sex couple, but it takes away a fundamental and profound right to those who find that it is not in accordance with their personal religious or philosophical beliefs.

That provision could be taken care of by provincial law. It cannot be taken care of by federal law, but the federal government could have engaged in negotiation with the provinces to ensure those kinds of protections are built into provincial law. It has made no such effort and in fact is standing by while the opposite starts to happen. There are many other instances that my colleague cited, but I will not go through them all now.

The other thing to note about this clause is that in the draft of the bill, the earlier version that was submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada, an almost identical provision was written into clause 2 of that draft law except that it did not have the wording “it is recognized” at the beginning. Clause 3 states that “It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages--”.

The inclusion of those words makes this a purely declaratory provision. It has no weight whatsoever. It should be up in the very long preamble to the bill because it has no weight in court. The reason it has no weight in court, even written as the original clause 2 of the prior bill was, is because the court said it can have no weight. It is ultra vires; it is outside of federal jurisdiction.

The solemnization of marriage under section 92 of the Constitution is a provincial responsibility. So putting this in the bill is disingenuous. It should not be given any weight. In fact, it should not even be in the text of the bill.

At third reading my intention is to go to my constituents and ask them how I ought to vote. Some people feel there is a contradiction between voting one's conscience and vote consulting one's constituents.

I want to indicate here that I heartily disagree with this bill. People know where I personally stand, particularly on the issue of freedom of religion. However, it would be arrogant of me to suggest to my voters, to my constituents, that on an issue of such great importance my conscience is somehow superior to the consciences of each of the 113,000 people I represent in the House of Commons. That is not the case. I am proud of them. I am proud of the good sense and conscientious, thoughtful and general sentiments that have been expressed over and over again in the hundreds of letters and many petitions that I have received on this subject, and that I have taken many hours to read and review personally.

If all members of Parliament of all parties showed the same good sense, goodwill, openness and respect that my constituents, and the constituents of all members, have shown, this debate would be a much more civilized debate than it has turned out to be so far.