Debates of March 23rd, 2005

Message from the Senate

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, the member first asked this question on December 3 last year, just as the government was anticipating the release of the decision from the Supreme Court of Canada on the marriage reference.

I would like to remind the House that the government takes the issue of religious freedom very seriously. Indeed, as the House will recall, the Government of Canada was very concerned that the granting of equality to same sex couples should not come at the expense of other charter protected guaranteed rights and freedoms, such as the freedom of religion. It was for that reason that the government chose to refer its proposed legislation to the Supreme Court of Canada before tabling it in Parliament, so that our opinion that the bill would not affect religious freedom could be confirmed by the highest court in the land.

The Supreme Court released its decision on December 9 of last year and confirmed that the charter already protects the religious freedom of all Canadians. In its ruling, the Supreme Court made some of the strongest statements ever on the nature and importance of religious freedom in Canada. Specifically, the court clearly ruled that: religious officials are protected by the charter from being compelled to perform any religious or civil marriage that would be contrary to their religious beliefs; and religious institutions are protected from being forced to provide their sacred spaces.

The Supreme Court was categorical: the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms already protects the freedom of religion. The charter protects churches and synagogues, mosques and temples from being obliged to perform marriages contrary to their beliefs.

This protection is clearly echoed in the draft bill to extend civil marriage to same sex couples. Indeed, the crystal clear assurances of religious freedom are one of the major reasons that I personally support Bill C-38.

At the same time, I am concerned that some may be seeking to unduly alarm Canadians by confusing the question of civil commissioners with that of religious officials performing marriages. The two issues are qualitatively different. Religious officials are protected by the charter from doing anything that would be against their religious beliefs. Civil marriage officials are provincial or territorial employees or appointees hired to perform a service that the provinces and territories are required under the law to provide to all without discrimination.

As provincial employees, civil marriage officials are not within federal jurisdiction but would fall within provincial or territorial jurisdiction. As I understand that there is currently a case on this issue before the provincial human rights body, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on that specific situation in Manitoba.

In general terms, however, if any additional specific protections for religious freedom are desired in the terms of civic marriage officials, commercial provision of services, hall rentals, et cetera, they must be made by the provinces and territories.

Even here, at a recent FPT meeting, the attorneys general of two of the most populous provinces, Ontario and Quebec, both said that they had experienced no problems with religious freedom despite thousands of same sex marriage ceremonies.

Many provinces and territories already have amended their laws to add specific protections for religious freedom. In a recent FPT meeting, the Minister of Justice encouraged the provinces and territories to ensure, as the federal government is doing, religious freedom is protected in all their laws.

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

Madam Speaker, I find the parliamentary secretary's comments quite amazing. First, he makes a statement that religious freedoms are very important to Canada and yet refuses to engage in a situation that we have happening in the provinces. Yes, these are provincial civil matters but these are people who have their rights guaranteed to them under the charter, which is a federal responsibility.

It is up to the federal government to stand up for these people and to ensure they have the opportunity to express their freedom of religion or freedom of conscience. Not everyone has a particular religion but they do have strong personal beliefs and do not agree with the approach being taken by the government.

Therefore I ask the government one more time to actually take a stand and stand up for individual rights and freedoms. It has the responsibility to oversee what the provinces are doing and to ensure t they are enforcing what we have as a charter.

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is quite clear that different provinces and territories are entitled to and will take different positions on this issue, as they do with many others.

The bottom line is that the government has no intention of intruding into matters of provincial jurisdiction. Frankly, I am quite shocked to hear the member opposite suggest that we should be forcing a sister government to do anything that is within its exclusive power to decide for itself even where we may respectfully disagree with its approach.

As I mentioned, I am concerned that the specific cases, such as civil marriage officials, are being taken out of context and used to alarm religious groups into believing that Bill C-38 should not proceed because the government cannot assure religious freedom. That is simply not the case.

The Supreme Court has clearly supported the position of the government that the charter continues to protect freedom of religious officials and groups who oppose same sex marriage.

Civil marriage officials already have the potential for conflicts with their religious beliefs. For example, in situations where the marriage involves a divorced person, first cousins or interfaith couples, each of which is forbidden by some religious beliefs, in these situations a solution has been found before. I am confident that our provincial and territorial colleagues will find one now.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following public bill to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-14, an act to protect heritage lighthouses.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a question that I posed on December 3, 2004. My question was to the Prime Minister and had specifically to do with the opening of the American border to Canadian and particularly Saskatchewan beef. I asked him what he had to say to all of the farmers and ranchers across Canada who are facing another winter of despair about what was going to happen.

The answer was that at the USDA, the United States Department of Agriculture, and in the White House steps were being taken to have the border open on March 7. In fact, in a news release our agriculture minister announced that Canada received a commitment from the United States to open the border and resume trade of Canadian live cattle under 30 months on March 7, 2005.

There is no question that the process involved was an administrative one by the United States Department of Agriculture. They had hearings and so on and came to the conclusion that in their opinion, administratively, and according to their legislation, the border ought to be open to Canadian cattle.

The fact of the matter was that during these hearings, Canada had an opportunity to make representations. I have heard the members opposite indicate that based on science, based on facts, based on data, there was no question that the transfer of Canadian cattle through the American border was safe, that our food chain was safe, that our inspection agencies were properly codified, and that they were using the proper protocol and there was nothing to be concerned about.

When R-CALF made an application for an injunction to the Montana court, the court in that particular case held that the injunction would issue. One of the reasons it held that the injunction should issue was that it said the USDA “failed to provide the specific basis for the conclusion that its actions carried an acceptable risk to public health and failed to provide the data on which each of the agency's critical assumptions were based”.

What that judge was saying was that the USDA did not provide the basis and data for its decision. My question is, where were the Canadian government and its people in ensuring that the USDA had all of the facts and all the basis to show that the sound science was there for the border to open. Why was that material not there?

Second, when the matter was before the Montana judge, our government should have had lawyers present at that court case arguing Canada's position. They applied late, I understand, trying to file a brief, and perhaps they filed a brief, but they were not there to advance the case. Consequently Canada was not represented at a very critical time when we had millions of dollars in trade being affected. Canada was using the political angle when it should have been using legal process and material.

Now that the courts have become involved, they are still playing politics. Our Prime Minister is in the United States today talking to the President, but we have no basis upon which to speed up the process. We have a Montana court decision that has been appealed. We have some indication that it will take until July 7 for a decision to be made. There is a trial and the process is taking months.

Where is the government? Is it taking the steps to ensure that this process is expedited? It is not a political matter now. It is a court matter. But political pressure can be applied to ensure that the process happens in weeks, not months and years. We see that happen in American politics. Let us look at the recent case relating to Terri Schiavo in which two courts, three judges of one panel and 12 judges of another panel, heard a case in the same day. If there were the political will it could be done, but Canada has wasted a lot of its political capital.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food (Rural Development)]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Souris--Moose Mountain for his question because I know that he is deeply concerned about this issue as we are. Certainly, all of us in the House were disappointed on the decision that was made relative to the March 7 border opening because based on science that border should have been opened.

However, I want to put the issue into perspective. First, the hon. member said that the USDA failed to provide the specific basis and why Canada was not there. The fact of the matter is that the Canadian government did ask to present an amicus brief which would have outlined the scientific details of what we are doing relative to BSE in this country. If the judge would have heard that, then he could have made a decision on the facts, but the judge refused to allow Canada to present that amicus brief.

I think it is important that I outline a few other specific points. First, the Government of Canada's approach has achieved some very considerable results, but not all that we wanted. We would have preferred the border to be opened totally on March 7.

The fact of the matter is that the interventions with President Bush and other American officials made by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and others have resulted in the border being reopened for boneless beef from animals under 30 months of age in August 2003.

That is the first time that ever happened to a country that had BSE. In fact, our exports of beef products, not cattle, to the United States are over 300,000 tonnes and that is at levels above in terms of the beef side prior to the BSE issue.

President Bush, as the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has said in the House a number of times, and Secretary Johanns have repeatedly expressed their commitment to further opening the border as soon as possible based on science. It is disappointing that a U.S. district court judge in Montana has managed to keep the border closed by taking the presentation made by R-CALF and preventing us from getting products in based on science.

We believe there were compelling reasons for the court to allow us to participate in an amicus brief in order to shed light on a number of factual issues raised in the litigation, but we were refused from doing so. However, we are pleased to note that the USDA is now appealing the March 2 preliminary injunction.

The Government of Canada intends to seek permission to file an amicus brief with the appellate court that would allow us to set out the facts about Canada's system for protecting human and animal health and food safety. We believe, if given that opportunity to raise the facts with the court, that the judge, if he is fair at all in terms of addressing the issue, would in fact allow the U.S. law to proceed. This would allow Canadian beef under 30 months into the United States and we would work on the other issues following that date.

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

Madam Speaker, I note that the United States appeal court said that the judge set July as the hearing date. We are now in March. That is a long period of time.

The Prime Minister today stated:

We look forward to the day in the future when, notwithstanding all of the lobbying, all of the legal challenges, all of North America is open to our safe and high-quality beef

He must do more than hope. Given the fact that the government was not on its toes and not making the representations it should of made, I think there is some obligation on the government now because of its lack of due diligence to put some money on the table for the BSE farmers who are suffering.

I think the parliamentary secretary, who knows agriculture quite well, also knows that the problem is deeper than that. Saskatchewan farmers and Canadian farmers need some financial assistance. They need it now before spring seeding.

Will the parliamentary secretary commit the government and tell us what the government's actions are with respect to those two things: funding for the BSE cattle producers who are dealing with that issue and the ordinary grain farmers who are waiting for some answers from the government?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, I think the member knows that both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food were in western Canada last week and talking to producers about the very concerns that the member has raised. The Prime Minister has made it clear as well as the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food that we will stand with producers in their time of need. Those issues have certainly been looked at.

However, let us look at a couple of facts specifically on BSE. There has been a BSE repositioning in the livestock industry in September 2004 in the amount of $488 million from the federal government; $995 million in March 2004 for the transitional industry support program; and in June 2003, there was $475 million for the cull animal program. Two weeks ago on March 10 the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food announced an additional $50 million to help aggressively market beef products around the world.

Therefore, we are standing with the producers and we will continue to do so to support them in their time of need.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:10 p.m.)