Bill C-48 (Historical)

An Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments

This enactment authorizes the Minister of Finance to make certain payments out of the annual surplus in excess of $2 billion in respect of the fiscal years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 for the purposes and in the aggregate amount specified. This enactment also provides that, for its purposes, the Governor in Council may authorize a minister to undertake a specified measure.

Wage Earner Protection Program Act

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, the current bankruptcy laws were clearly written by the monied class. Big money has controlled things in Ottawa for so long that it is no surprise that all the laws are structured in such a way as to look after the interests of big money. That is the case in the current bankruptcy laws. Employees, workers, have been left hung out to dry in the event of bankruptcies in alarming numbers.

There are approximately 10,000 commercial bankruptcies per year in Canada, with over 100,000 employees owed back wages, benefits and pension contributions. It is a huge problem. Some of the estimates are as much as $2 billion per year are owed to employees due to bankruptcies. Imagine the impact of that.

The government finally has listened to the years of pleas from members of various parties to do something about this. I personally had a private member's bill that called upon the government to address the issue of bankruptcy.

One of the key elements in Bill C-55 is the wage earner protection program. For the record and history books, this is the manifestation of a commitment negotiated with the government by the NDP in Bill C-48, or what we call the NDP/Liberal budget of 2005. The Liberal government is living up to the commitment made at the bargaining table with our leader, the member for Toronto—Danforth. We find ourselves with the wage earner program.

Under this proposal, an employee can seek restitution for up to $3,000 for back wages left owing. The government would then seek compensation from the trustee of the bankruptcy, wait in line and be reimbursed. It proposes as much as $2,000. It is an idea that we can agree to in concept. My colleague from Hamilton Centre may be able to expand on it. This was an NDP idea that was put in place in the province of Ontario by the NDP government in the early 1990's.

My problem with it is the figure is too low. We do not believe a $3,000 compensation would compensate as many affected workers as the Minister of Labour would have us believe. Partly, it should not just be back wages and holiday pay. It should also include severance pay or termination pay which may be included in a person's terms and conditions of employment. It also should include commissions for salespeople who may work in retail sales who get their commissions at the end of every month. That could amount to many thousands of dollars.

We believe that threshold limit of $3,000 is not adequate and that the employees should be able to seek compensation for wages, holiday pay, termination pay, severance pay and commission for salespeople.

We also are critical that there is a three month exemption. If someone has worked for the company for less than three months, that employee is not eligible for this program. I do not see the logic in that. In fact someone who has only worked for less than three months is more vulnerable than a person who has 20 years of service if there are two weeks back wages owing. That person may have been catching up on their personal finances. We are critical of both those issues and will be moving amendments to that effect.

The second element of the bill has to do with student loans. My colleague from the Bloc has pretty much reflected our criticisms of the proposed amendment to the student loan provisions. Let us be clear. The 10 year limit that students have to wait before they can declare personal bankruptcy is like a life sentence. This is crazy. Why should they be treated any differently than any other Canadian?

This came into effect only when the Government of Canada off-loaded the student loan system to the banks. When it privatized and contracted out the student loan program, the banks, in assuming the responsibility, demanded that they did not want kids to get out from under their debt for 10 years. That is baloney. The NDP supports the idea, especially in the cases of hardship, that the discharge in the event of student loan debt should be no different from ordinary Canadians. We will be negotiating that down with the ruling party.

One of the most important terms of this new bill is the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act amendments. Under the current rules, and we have checked this out and had it confirmed recently, a judge may unilaterally and arbitrarily alter the terms and conditions of a collective agreement of the employees. When a company goes under the CCAA and is seeking to avoid bankruptcy, a judge may alter the creditors' arrangements or collective agreements unilaterally. This is fundamentally wrong. We cannot and will not abide by that.

The amendment put forward by the federal government states that a judge may intervene to the point that he or she may direct the parties, labour and management, to sit down at the bargaining table and try to negotiate amendments to the collective agreement, but the judge may not unilaterally impose changes to the collective agreement. This is a step forward, providing we can be abundantly sure that the default position will be the status quo. In other words, if the two parties at the bargaining table reach an impasse, the default position will be to revert back to the collective agreement which will stand in full force and effect as it is. Providing that is the understanding, we will support element three of the bill.

The final element of the bill we also support, and I will leave more details of this to my colleague from Hamilton Centre. It deals with personal bankruptcies, in this case for very wealthy people making $200,000 a year or more, which very few do. Usually only heads of crown corporations like David Dingwall make more than $200,000 a year. They would not be allowed to have their taxes discharged in the event of bankruptcy for a period of five years, during which time they would have to try to negotiate a payback period. In other words, the people of Canada have a chance to be made whole if these high income earners try to welsh out on the back taxes they owe to Canada.

I believe this traces its origins back to the Radwanski scandal. George Radwanski, the former privacy commissioner, owed $650,000 in back taxes and it was forgiven 24 hours before he started his job as a $230,000 a year privacy commissioner. There was no payback whatsoever to Canadians. That could not happen under the provisions of this new bill. He would have had to sit down and negotiate a five year payback period. In that scenario, making $230,000 a year as a privacy commissioner, he could have paid back $100,000 a year to the people of Canada and still earned a good salary as privacy commissioner. I support element four of Bill C-55.

We will support Bill C-55 because it is better than the status quo. It gives some relief to wage earners who are affected by bankruptcy. There are some good elements to it. We will be fighting for amendments at committee.

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

[Liza Frulla, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, there is a dispute between management and the union. First, they are now in the process of trying to reach a joint agreement, and second, I would remind the hon. member that we have maintained the funding for CBC—Radio-Canada, and have added $60 million. I would ask them where they were when Bill C-48 was passed. Was there money in it for culture? No. For CBC—Radio-Canada? No. So we are doing our duty and do not need any lectures.

Civil Marriage Act

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, let us be quite clear about one thing. We would not even be having this debate had Bill C-38 been defeated. The member and others had a chance to defeat the bill. It is not a pall on members on this side of the House that the bill will be passed in a few moments. Members opposite had a choice and they made that choice.

I only know my constituents. I am not sure what the constituents of the hon. member might be thinking about this. However, I would be willing to place a small wager that if his constituents came up to the member and asked him to to do everything within his power to stop the passage of this bill and if the member said that he choose not to because by doing so he would have to threaten to stop Bill C-48, I would suggest his constituents would want another member of Parliament who would stand up for their wishes, desires and our hopes.

The member had a choice. He chose not to make the choice.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that I will probably be the final speaker in the debate this evening, I am not sure if there is any symbolism to that or not and I am not sure if that holds any special responsibility for the Conservative Party of Canada to try to encapsulate some of the feelings that we have about this legislation.

I will take a bit of a different tack tonight and talk about choices, choices that members opposite made which brought us to this point in history tonight.

Before I do, I want to put on the record that I will be opposing this legislation. I have stated that many times before and I will continue to state my opposition to this legislation in the future. I will not go into all the reasons why. Many of my colleagues have expressed the views I hold far more eloquently than I could ever do, but I do want to point out a couple of things.

I firmly believe that by passing this legislation, we start on a very slippery slope which could affect societal change in a very adverse way. I see things which have been expressed before that could come down the pike, things like polygamy and others, while hiding behind the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I am fearful that societal change could happen.

I also am a firm believer in the fundamental definition of marriage as we have known it all our lives. Marriage is and should continue to be between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. I was brought up in that environment and I will continue to believe that until the day I die. This is not to disrespect members who hold opposite views. I understand this is a highly volatile and emotional issue. I respect the views of my colleagues who have to taken opposite views. All I want to express is that I believe the traditional definition, as we have known it for centuries, is the one we continue to observe for the next 100, 200 years, ad infinitum.

Finally, my views are widely known within my riding. It is without question that the vast majority of my riding constituents agree with the position that I take. If nothing else, I will continue to represent the views of my constituents before anything else I do in this place.

Let us talk about those choices. What are the choices the government and the members opposite made that brought us to this place and time? First and foremost, in my opinion the government abdicated its right totally when it turned to the Supreme Court to have it make a decision on its behalf as to the definition of marriage. I am not a lawyer and I freely admit that, but I believe one thing. The Supreme Court of Canada and any court in this land should be there for two purposes. One is to administer the law. The second is to interpret the law. It is not to make the law. The government tried to turn the whole question of same sex marriage over to the courts. It hoped that the courts would give a decision that it could hide behind, and that is what the Liberals were prepared to do.

Much to their surprise, and probably much to their chagrin, the Supreme Court came back and said that it was not up to it to define marriage. It was up to Parliament. Yet those parliamentarians and the government, primarily led by the members opposite, continue to use the Supreme Court and its ruling, as indecisive as it was, to say that we have no choice but to allow same sex marriage. It complies with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and it is a matter of human rights. Other international institutions, such as the United Nations, say it is anything but a human right. That was their first choice.

Second, the Liberals had a choice in which they could have allowed every member of this House an opportunity to express their views freely on this issue. Did they do that? Absolutely not. Parliamentary secretaries and ministers were compelled to vote with the government's position, and that is in favour of same sex marriage.

However I have ultimate respect for a few of the members opposite. The courage of their convictions on this issue forced them to resign from the government and sit as independents.They did not decide to sit as a Conservative member or for any political reasons but to sit because in their conscience they could not support the government's view on this fundamental issue.

I give great credit to the member for London—Fanshawe and the member for Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont who both left the government to sit as independents. They chose to tell all Canadians, not just members of their ridings, their explicit views on this fundamental issue that was so near and dear to their hearts. That was their choice but there was another choice that was made by many other members opposite.

Over 30 members on the government side stood in this place from time to time and spoke, sometimes with passion and sometimes at length, on their opposition to the bill. However they had a choice: to either bring the government down and not allow this legislation to see the light of day, or to acquiesce to the government and allow the legislation to pass. It was their choice that allowed the legislation to pass and it will pass in the House in a few moments.

I have the greatest of respect for those members opposite who stood down because in their conscience and in their moral view they could not support the government. They did the only thing that was humanly possible within their realm of possibilities. They stood down because they did not want to be associated with a House, a Parliament and a party that would allow this legislation to pass.

I have heard members opposite say that even though they opposed Bill C-38 they could not vote against Bill C-48 because they had to vote on each piece of legislation on its own merits and that if they had voted against Bill C-48 it would have destroyed a budget that is good for all Canadians and therefore they had no choice, they had to vote for Bill C-48 but against Bill C-38. That is absolutely disingenuous.

If Bill C-48 was such good deal for Canadians why was it not contained in the budget that the government originally brought to the House two weeks before they made a deal with the NDP? This was a choice that members opposite made. However the point I want to emphasize is that even if they did not wish to speak against Bill C-48, they had a choice.

We have seen the Prime Minister back down from every threat posed to him. We have seen individuals challenge the Prime Minister with bringing his government down. Danny Williams threatened the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister backed down. Premier McGuinty threatened the Prime Minister and all of a sudden there was an extra $5 billion-plus for the province of Ontario. The NDP threatened the government by saying that if it did not acquiesce to its demands it would bring the government down. What happened? The Prime Minister and the government backed down. They blink first and they do so every time.

I say to the members opposite, such as the member for Mississauga South, who have stood in this House and tried to convince Canadians that they were doing everything in their power to bring down Bill C-38, They did not do everything in their power.

Had they gone to the Prime Minister and said that they would not support Bill C-48, the Prime Minister would have blinked and this legislation would not be passed tonight. This legislation, at the very worst, would have been deferred until the fall. The members opposite are the reason that Bill C-38 will pass tonight.

Let there be no mistake and let every Canadian understand these words very clearly. There was a choice to be made on whether Bill C-38 would be passed and brought into law or not and it was the members opposite, each and every one of them, who made their choice to allow the legislation to pass through the House tonight. Let that be on their heads, not anyone else's head. It is the members opposite who made that choice and shame on them.

[Judi Longfield, Liberal, Whitby—Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think I started off by saying that for the most part it has been a very respectful debate.

The member opposite asked me about Bill C-48. As a member of Parliament, I vote on the merits of each piece of legislation. With respect to Bill C-48 there were some very important issues that affect my constituents. There was funding for affordable housing. I know that some members of the Conservative Party think that the answer to affordable housing is simply to put people in jail and make it illegal to be homeless, but that is not my view. I support public transit. The communities in my area want public transit. They deserve public transit and that was in Bill C-48. Bill C-48 gives money for post-secondary education. The residents of my community have students at Durham College and the new University of Ontario. They need that.

[An hon. member]

Where were you on Bill C-48?

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am here to speak the report stage of Bill C-38, the same sex marriage bill. In the 10 minutes I have allocated, and that is another issue which I will speak about, I will talk about why we are here today, the same sex marriage bill. I also will talk about how this could have been avoided and where we can go from here.

With the government invoking time allocation at report stage and third reading, we will be voting on the legislation tomorrow night and there is nothing we can do about it now except to be here to vote and we will. Bill C-38 will probably pass tomorrow night, but that will not be the end of it.

Why are we debating Bill C-38 today? That is an important question. Just a few years ago the current Deputy Prime Minister was in the House defending marriage as the union of one man and one woman. She said that nothing would ever happen to change that and anybody who would suggest that would be speaking absurdity and all kinds of things like that.

The Deputy Prime Minister rose on the opposition motion brought forward by our party back in 1999 and speaking on behalf of the government in a carefully crafted speech she said:

The definition of marriage is already clear in law in Canada as the union of two persons of the opposite sex. Counsel from my department have successfully defended, and will continue to defend this concept of marriage....I continue to believe that it is not necessary to change well-understood concepts of spouse and marriage to deal with any fairness considerations the courts and tribunals...

She went on later to say:

The institution of marriage is of great importance to large numbers of Canadians, and the definition of marriage as found in the hon. member's motion is clear in law.

This was one of her closing statements, “I fundamentally do not believe that it is necessary to change the definition of marriage” as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Why are we debating Bill C-38 today? That is an important question and a question I have a great deal of difficulty understanding.

We know that about two-thirds of Canadians do not support this legislation. I did a survey of my constituents and received thousands of returns. About 98% of those who responded to my questionnaire, which was dropped at every household in the constituency, supported marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Many of my colleagues have done similar types of surveys and they have found the same results. Polling nationally showed that two-thirds of Canadians do not support the legislation. In my constituency it is much higher.

Why are we debating Bill C-38 today? It seems to me that the government is so obsessed with the issue of same sex marriage that it will not let it go. In the 12 years I have been here I do not remember closure being used in the House the way the Liberals used it on Bill C-48, the NDP budget bill. If Bill C-48 had been defeated, the government would have been defeated and Bill C-38, the civil marriage bill, would not be here today and we would not be dealing with it.

It is not only the government that is obsessed with same sex marriage, but the NDP is also obsessed with this issue. This is the first time the NDP has voted with the government in favour of closure and now today on time allocation.

The Bloc is obsessed with the issue of same sex marriage as well. The Bloc members, who are generally democrats and would not support time allocation or closure, are so obsessed that in the last two days they have formed this unholy alliance with the government; the separatists, the government and the socialists. They have signed an agreement and together they are doing everything they can, including bypassing the normal rules of the House of Commons, to push the bill through.

This is an unholy alliance and this is why we are here today debating Bill C-38. Those three parties are obsessed with the same sex marriage issue. Because of that, they made this deal in bed together, the government with the Bloc and the socialists.

How could this have been avoided? First, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Prime Minister and many members of the Liberal caucus could show that they believe what they say. Many of them, including the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, said a few short years ago that they did not support same sex marriage and that they believed that marriage should be retained as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Therefore, there should be no reason for this bill to be debated today.

More recent, a free vote, which means all cabinet and all parliamentary secretaries in the governing party, would have killed the legislation at second reading. That is how this could have been avoided.

I want to talk a little about that. The government put our a document last week on parliamentary reform. I looked through that little booklet and I was shocked at what I saw. The document is from the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. It is entitled, “First Annual Report on Democratic Reform”. What a joke. The things the government has pointed to as being changes it has made to make this place more democratic are exactly the opposite to what in reality has happened. However, there are some things of interest in there.

For example, it talks about how often the government has used the one line whip, the two line whip and the three line whip. I want to explain that. A one line whip is when the government says that it is a completely free vote. A two line whip is when the backbenchers can vote freely on the issue but cabinet and parliamentary secretaries must toe the government line. A three line vote is when all members of the Liberal Party are expected to toe the government line.

The government's own numbers in the document say that there were zero one line votes. That means no free votes whatsoever in the time that was documented in this report. Eighty-two of the votes were two line votes, including the marriage bill vote. That means that half of the Liberal caucus members are not free to represent their constituents on the important issue of marriage, cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries. A three line whip was used 18% of the time. There was not one single free vote on government legislation.

I want to go to my third point. Where do we go from here? I want to say without a doubt, even if this bill passes tomorrow, which it probably will, that is not the end of the issue. The Conservative Party and the Leader of the Conservative Party are committed to bringing this back to the House when we form the government and we will have a truly free vote on this issue.

We know, as I have said before, that about two-thirds of Canadians support the option where marriage is retained as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Legal civil unions in Canada give all the rights that married couples have to those who want to be involved in a civil union. That is what we will put before the House. We will put options before the House and there will be a free vote.

Under a Conservative government I fully believe same sex marriage will be struck down and we will move on to become a country where we have marriage enshrined as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am not even sure the last question deserves an answer. However, it annoys me that bills as important as Bill C-48 and Bill C-38 would come to the House without notice and be voted on while I was having dinner. I came back to the House. I have been in the House more often than that member.

The government ought to be responsible and take its duty seriously. Bill C-48 has no plan, it has nothing. How many housing units were build by the government in 11 years? There were very little for the money spent. The Liberals spent $1 billion with not a house being built.

There are more people living in poverty today than 11 years ago. There are more people homeless on the street while the government has been in office. That is something to be noted.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, our colleague from the Conservative Party was pretty concerned about Bill C-48 last week. It was a good bill because it gave $1.5 billion to students to cut their debt and $1.5 billion for affordable housing. I want to ask the hon. member, why did he go for dinner with his wife at 9:30 p.m. instead of being on duty until 12:00 midnight and doing his duty by voting against the bill if he did not like it?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will be taking a different tack tonight. I will look at the process that has led us to be facing Bill C-38 at report stage and closure.

I must say, in respect of the bill itself, that marriage essentially is the union of two people, a man and a woman, who consummate the relationship with sexual relations with the potential to procreate. Marriage has well been said to be something more than a contract, either religious or civil, to be an institution, and it should remain that way. For the Liberal Party, it is more about politics, power and arrogance than it is about the essence of Bill C-38.

The government was prepared to make deals to keep its own members on side by promising broad committee hearings and not introducing the bill past report stage and third reading until fall. Then, when the Liberals were able to make a bigger deal, they decided to proceed to ram the bill through both stages. There will be a price for such an action and the Prime Minister and his enforcers shall pay the ultimate price at the ballot box.

Surely, the public at large will not let them get away with this. For those in the Liberal Party who oppose Bill C-38, the marriage bill, but voted with the government in a sneak manoeuvre to pass Bill C-48, the NDP budget bill, without notice, can certainly talk the talk, but they fall far short of walking the walk.

Let me speak briefly about procedures being used in this House that preclude the giving of notice. I could hardly believe that in a democracy, in a free and democratic country like Canada, the governing party would resort to procedures that would achieve their end by means of subterfuge and subtleness.

Surely, on an important issue like the NDP budget and Bill C-38, the government should at the very least provide notice of its intention and face the issue fair and square, so that the representatives of the people of Canada can make their views known.

Instead, what did the Liberals did? According to a Canadian Press report of June 25, by 8:30 p.m. Thursday last week, the Liberals were hiding out in the government lobby with one MP stating that the Liberals were going to bushwhack the Conservatives. I am sorry for the confused logic. It is really an affront and it is a bushwhacking of democracy.

I left the House at around 9:00 p.m. to have supper with my wife. Before I was finished supper, and without notice, Bill C-48 was up for a vote. Something as important as a budget vote was being snuck through the House. In all of my life, I have never heard or seen anything like it. The Liberals could not hijack democracy without the complicity of the NDP and the Bloc.

It is understandable that the NDP would engage in a procedure such as this as the leader himself asked if putting aside corruption, would the Minister of Finance change the budget? The NDP were prepared to make a deal regardless of the tactics or the manners of the government.

However, the Bloc, who opposed the NDP budget, Bill C-48, had nothing to gain or lose by the vote being taken on Thursday or on Monday, when we had a full contingent of our members in the House. To agree to Bill C-48 being placed before the House without notice was either intentional mischief or done for consideration of some kind. I can see no other rational conclusion. In either case, such actions are odious and any trust on my part from here on in will have to be earned.

All these steps were taken to force Bill C-38 to remain on its own, undressed, in full view of closure motions, limits on debate, and the concurrence of three parties to shove it through. Then on a foundation that it accepts important and significant matters, the government disposes it without notice given to the representatives of the people of Canada. That is wrong.

Any debate in this circumstance, in this context, is a farce and simply a matter of the government trying to appear magnanimous when it knows full well, it is about to drop the hammer to close matters off, as we just witnessed in this House tonight. I find this offensive. The fix, as they say, is in.

Indeed, this type of conduct may be what is necessary to awaken a sleeping giant. Those who agree with Bill C-38 and whose views will be made known in the ballot box in the next election will find out who is the ultimate judge in this particular case.

The Saskatoon Star Phoenix , on June 25, stated with reference to the government's conduct that “Thursday was the third time such a stunt was used in Canada's history”, and a stunt it was. I doubt it was ever used in such an important and significant a situation as a budget bill and a bill that redefines the definition of marriage. Obviously, it has never been done in this context. This is an all-time first and an all-time low in terms of its use in the history of this great country we call Canada.

Let us have a look at what brought us here today. Last week on Thursday morning, under Standing Order 57, a minister of the Crown served notice that debate with respect to extending the sitting of this House should not be further adjourned, with the provision that no member shall be allowed to rise to speak after 8:00 p.m., when a vote was held with respect to this motion. To put it simply, it was a closure notice with a time limit on speeches on an important issue such as we face here today. That was wrong and the government will pay the price for that.

Let us have a look at the motion itself, and I spoke to it the other day. The motion was prefaced by saying “notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice”. In other words, it was overriding anything that could stand in the way of the motion by way of Standing Order or usual practices. We put those aside. What does the motion go on to say? Essentially, that the sitting would continue until a minister of the Crown proposed, without notice, a motion to adjourn.

In other words, a minister could unilaterally have this House adjourn at any time without notice. It has come to this. What if anything or is there anything the government might not do to achieve its end? This seemed to me to be a heavy-handed approach and something one would not expect in this country.

This stunt, as referred to in the Star Phoenix , took place when the NDP, the Liberals, and the Bloc agreed that the Minister could propose to pass Bill C-48 without notice, without debate or amendment.

The government dispensed with the Standing Orders and usual practices to its advantage in circumstances that the Standing Orders were never intended to be used. It is in these circumstances, with this play of characters in office, that Bill C-38 finds itself.

What hope is there for those who oppose its passage? The hope is in the ballot box where they will have an opportunity to remove these characters from office.

The government tried to tie Bill C-48 to this bill in case it needed to apply to the Speaker for extension of the sittings, but then decoupled it when they and the sneaky, no-notice NDP budget Bill C-48 was voted in, in the middle of the night last Thursday.

Father Raymond J. de Souza said, “When holding unto office becomes the beginning and end of all activity, there are no more politics, just the machinations of power”. He went on to say that the corruption of our politics is now complete.

He refers to an article in the Toronto Sun that states, “--the time has come to cool the fury in Parliament, to ease the pressure on the Prime Minister to resort to seedy vote buying”. He says that Canada's largest circulation newspaper and ardent supporter of the Liberal Party concludes that the Prime Minister is engaged in seedy behaviour but excuses it on the grounds that otherwise he would be defeated by the opposition. It is all about power and if a little seedy vote buying is necessary, so be it.

He says what is cynicism in politics? It is the belief that politics is not about the common good, nor what one sincerely believes is right for the country, but only what is personally advantageous to the office holder. It is a Prime Minister's Chief of Staff discussing how one could go about trading offices for votes without officially trading offices for votes.

The mockery of the process of Bill C-38 in committee has caused the Liberal member for London—Fanshawe, to his credit, to leave the party and sit as an independent. Why? Because he knew what the Prime Minister promised, he would not deliver.

He observed what we did, the tricky procedural moves in committee such as removing Liberal MPs in exchange for others who would vote in correct ways, having members leave a meeting to cause it to adjourn for lack of quorum, calling witnesses in batches of four on very short notice, limiting witnesses to be called, and heavily stacking the Liberal committee members and the witnesses in favour of same sex marriage. Is this evidence of the Prime Minister's solemn word for full, fair and meaningful public hearings? Of course not.

The committee was asked to work to an unnecessary and premature deadline to report to the House. The member went on to state that witnesses were being given inadequate notice to appear at committee hearing and some have been rudely treated when they have attended. He said that the process as it was unfolding was unfair and perfunctory at best, and that it was not what he agreed to as a proper democratic consultation on such a major piece of legislation as the proposed definition of marriage. He added that in his view, the government had no democratic mandate from the people of Canada to redefine marriage.

I wish to conclude with Chantal Hébert's comments in the Toronto Star which could well be prophetic. She said:

Given the lengths to which [the Prime Minister] and his team have gone just to prolong the life of their minority government for a few more months, one has to wonder how many more ethical niceties they would dispense with--

Having heard [the Prime Minister's] chief-of-staff Tim Murphy nod and wink and dress up the Liberal window with future government considerations, can anyone doubt that this is an administration that is just as likely to live and die by the rule that the end justifies the means?

The democratic deficit [the Prime Minister] so likes to wax lyrical about has been compounded into an ethical one. And past sins of omission and/or commission have been overshadowed by current, in-your-face transgressions...It is a malaise that permeates the upper reaches of the government.

So much for the loyalty of the country. Anything the Prime Minister said suggesting that he encouraged a full debate on Bill C-38 in these sittings was, simply put, hogwash. The price the Prime Minister will pay will be paid at the ballot box. He cannot get away with such treachery as we witnessed in the House for this long. The voters will see to it. Marriage should be defined as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others with no exceptions, no amendments, period.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about common law and judge made law. The Conservative Party is talking about that whole point.

There was a common law definition in our country about the definition of marriage and one group of judges in Ontario struck it down for the entire nation. Now, in the absence of statute law, the courts made that decision. It is still entirely within the rights of Parliament to enact statute law to address that. We can keep the traditional definition of marriage by filling the vacuum and passing that statute law.

He says that if those Liberal MPs had voted against Bill C-48 to force an election, then for 36 days we would not have had a government and we would not have addressed the vacuum in the absence of a statute.

What we would do is allow Canadians to have their say on this issue, to vote for members of Parliament who represent their views. I would propose that we would have had more pro traditional definition of marriage MPs in the House. We could have enacted the statute law to preserve the traditional definition of marriage and address the very problem about which the member spoke.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting. Today a number of members suggested that some Liberal members should have voted against Bill C-48. That would have brought down the government down and they would not have had to deal with Bill C-38 until some other time. That does not change the common law definition that is in eight provinces and one territory already. Quite frankly, it is time to address the problem more frontally.

The problem is we have a situation of court made law. I will get into that hopefully when I speak at third reading. Since we are speaking about the report stage motions under Group No. 1, could the member name one of the amendments proposed in this group?

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague that there are far too many consequences for Canadians and for families.

I want to ask him a question, because I know his constituents who are as concerned about the legislation as I am will ask him the same question. A hundred years from now, does he think Canadians would be more concerned or society would be more impacted by the changing of a definition that he rightly called a fundamental part of society, or would they be more upset if we had an election, if the hon. member had voted against Bill C-48, cancelled the NDP-Liberal coalition, ceased to be a member of Parliament, but did the right thing?

Maybe he would not have ceased to be a member of Parliament. Maybe his constituents would have rewarded him for standing on principle, for doing something that he believed in. Does he think that 100 years from now, 50 years from now or even 20 years from now there would be more repercussions from changing a fundamental aspect of society than there would have been over a federal election or the cancelling of a deal with the NDP?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to once again address Bill C-38.

Let me begin with Supreme Court Justice Gérard La Forest in 1995, who spoke on behalf of the majority of the judges in the Egan decision. I want to read for members what he said, because I think it sums up a lot of what we are trying to talk about today. He said:

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 [reason for being] 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.

I would like to make the point that in the 10 years since then, things have not changed. That statement is still a valid statement.

Will Rogers was a cowboy philosopher from the United States. One of his comments was, “I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts”. If he were here today, I wonder if he would be laughing or crying.

The government seems to be out of control in most of its actions. A week ago we were leaving the House and then the government decided that we were staying because we had to debate important issues such as Bill C-48 and Bill C-38. Then the government turned around and said it did not want to debate these issues; it wanted to bring in closure. It did that on Thursday night to ram through Bill C-48. There are indications that it will try that same thing with this bill. It seems as if we are in the middle of a bad joke.

Bill C-48 was a joke in many ways. We talked about that last week and about the fact that the NDP had been sucked in on the bill. If one reads the page and a half long bill, one sees clearly that it states the government “may” commit up to $4.6 billion in spending in four areas. It does not have to spend it and cannot spend it until September or October of 2006.

The bill passed, and although somebody may be stuck with it even after the next election, it really has no immediate consequences. It was a joke of a bill. It seems as though the NDP bought into that. In the end the Bloc did too, in order to carry it through and try to get Bill C-38 through.

Bill C-38 is another joke. The government has decided that it is pushing ahead with the redefinition of marriage, but in the middle of the discussion there has been a lot of debate about whether religious institutions are going to be protected. The government has assured us time and again that it will try to do that even though the Supreme Court said it could not.

Clause 3 of the bill states:

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

That gave no protection to anybody, which was recognized immediately, so the government has come back with another clause, clause 3.1. It certainly sounds fancy, but I understand that the justice department lawyers themselves say that this gives no more protection than the charter gives anyway. We know how useful the charter is; the judges have the opportunity to interpret it the way they will. It is frustrating. Once again we are faced with what I would say is a bad joke that is being played on Canadians.

As we know, Bill C-38 is being opposed by most Canadians. We just heard our colleague across the way, who is a Sikh, talk about his opposition to it. We know that the world Sikh leaders have opposed a change in this concept. The member for Calgary Northeast talked about his riding and the opposition from the Sikh community there.

Most of the Muslims oppose this. In my riding last year we had a summer rally with the Muslim clerics at which a scholar came to speak. His words were, “This is a non-starter for us”. I thought that was as clear a statement as one could make.

Christian leaders across Canada have been fighting to preserve the traditional definition of marriage, the traditional position, which is seen as a core tenet of their beliefs.

We have had Jewish leaders who have been working on this as well and who have been a fundamental part of the fight to maintain the traditional definition of marriage.

For many of these folks, the belief in the traditional definition of marriage goes back to their holy scriptures and goes back entirely to creation and their perception of that. The Liberals have chosen to listen not to them but to special interest groups instead. In fact, the Liberals do not even listen to their own charter. As the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster pointed out, the charter talks about us recognizing the supremacy of God in this country and the Liberals have chosen to completely ignore that.

I do not know if I have enough time tonight to even go through this, but we are faced with two irreconcilable views about what marriage is. On one hand, the prior status of marriage has been that marriage is recognized but it did not have to be created by law. It was not created by law; it was recognized by our society. Heterosexual marriage had never needed law in order to be socially recognized and accepted. It had been universally accepted that the union of a man and a woman was the appropriate definition for marriage. That view sees heterosexual marriage as a natural fact, as something that unites men and women.

It has been historically recognized down through the centuries. For many, as I have mentioned, it has also been seen as part of a granting of divine revelation to people. Others see it as observable by natural reason. For those who see marriage as a natural fact uniting men and women, the binding force would be nature itself.

As Iain Benson, the executive director for the Centre for Cultural Renewal, pointed out in his presentation to the committee dealing with Bill C-38, “To people who hold this view, the idea that two men or two women could be married makes as much sense as two men trying to become sisters, or two women trying to become brothers. It just does not compute”.

This view of marriage does not depend upon the state. The state's role and function is to recognize it, not to define it. That is why in the past there have been so few statutes defining marriage.

Marriage by definition, to the folks who believe in this, is one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. To change that definition changes marriage. It just changes the definition to where people do not recognize it as marriage.

The other view sees marriage as basically a social construct, something that is not given in nature but something that is chosen and defined by humans, something that is chosen by our will, and then because of that, it is something they insist everyone should recognize. The ones who hold this view will tend to portray this as an issue of rights rather than just a redefinition of a social institution.

The interesting part of this is for the folks who hold this second definition or the second view of marriage, it is essential for them to try to bring the state in and to bring the power of the state to bear on the definition of marriage. That is what we see happening in the House. It is what we have seen over the last few months. For them the act of redefinition requires the use of all possible available means. We see that going on.

We have also been able to see the judiciary be part of this. We know now that eight provinces and one territory have had one single judge in each of those provinces and territory step forward and make a ruling. The federal government and the provincial governments have not had the courage to appeal those definitions. We talked a little about that earlier, but they just have refused to appeal. The Supreme Court actually pointed out in its decision that this change has come about by default, that basically governments have not done what they should be doing. They have not done their due diligence and because of their neglect, they have allowed the definition to change without the proper discussion of it that should have taken place.

Obviously the resolution between these two views is not going to be easy, but the government has made it even more difficult because it has basically destroyed the forum for public debate. With the extension of the sitting this week, we expect the Liberals at some point are going to try to close down debate. We see them whipping votes across the way and we see those members barely willing to come into the House to address the issue. People who have been watching the debate this afternoon will note that very few government members are even interested in talking about this issue.

We see the government rushing to radical conclusions.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would also like to compliment my colleague across the way for what appeared to be a very heartfelt and sincere speech. I agree with probably everything that he said. I, too, am a new member in the House, but I have been here long enough to know how games are played. In the last couple of weeks I have seen some incredible tricky political strategies to get things through that skirt around the democracy issue and maybe deplete the democratic process here in Canada.

Knowing full well that the only way to bring this bill down, members opposite did not vote against Bill C-48 last week. I absolutely accept that the member has a heartfelt concern about this, but I question how deep that goes when knowing how to vote against the bill was not done by the members opposite.