Reed Elley

[Immigration And Refugee Protection Act, May 1st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member in light of her speech and the government legislation that has been put before us about the higher maximum penalties for the crime of human trafficking.

It is very commendable that the government has raised the penalties to a high level, life imprisonment, high fines and that sort of thing. In view of the fact that most of the people behind human trafficking and human smuggling do not reside in this country and conduct their business offshore, how in the world would the government and the law be able to enforce such a law when these people never set foot in Canada?

[Petitions, May 1st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to rise in the House to present a petition on behalf of some constituents in my riding.

They ask that parliament withdraw Bill C-23, affirm the opposite sex definition of marriage in legislation and ensure that marriage is recognized as a unique institution.

[Petitions, April 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise in parliament to present a petition signed by hundreds of Canadians from New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and Alberta.

Once again they join with thousands of other Canadians across the country in asking that the government withdraw Bill C-23, affirm the opposite sex definition of marriage in legislation and ensure that marriage is recognized as a unique institution.

[Division No. 1265, April 10th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I grew up in a secure and loving family where both my father and mother were present. It was not a perfect marriage but I knew that they loved me and each other. There was a commitment to stay together in spite of all the problems of married life. That made my growing up years very happy and memorable and it instilled values and morals in me which I have brought to my own marriage and family of eight children.

I know that not every family had that kind of good beginning but it seemed to be the norm in the Canadian society of the 1940s and 1950s. However, insidious pressures were being placed on family life. Post-war parents had seen thousands of shattered relationships. Some of them had lost spouses in the war and had to start all over again. Other relationships had been destroyed by adultery both overseas and at home, brought about by the separation of six terrible years of war. In the lives of these people there was a growing bitterness about love and marriage itself.

In the post-war years Canada enjoyed an economic boom. With that came an ever increasing higher standard of living which placed the temptation of getting and spending before us. Both government and Canadians in general went on a huge spending spree. The government response to pay for all of it was to raise taxes bringing us to this day where we are almost the highest taxed nation in the world.

This in itself was yet another economic pressure on Canadian family life. As inflation spiralled, many women who wanted to be stay at home mothers had to become breadwinners with their husbands simply to keep up. Both men and women were working longer and spending less time with each other and their families. The commitment to develop strong relationships in family life was taking a back seat to other less worthy priorities. Some of my school chums' families started to disintegrate. Divorce become more frequent but still was not an epidemic. However, the pressure on the family was building.

By the mid-1960s we were in the midst of a sexual revolution. Some segments of our society hailed it as liberty, a freeing up from traditional values like chastity and fidelity which had provided, in my view, structure and safety for the Canadian family.

Many women were tired of the abuse they felt they suffered at the hands of a male dominated society. More of them were working, taking their places beside men and they wanted equality. Some of them wanted even more. They wanted vengeance and retribution. The feminist movement started a strident campaign to bring women into the 20th century. They burned their bras, demanded protection from unwanted pregnancy, spurned chastity and scorned the pro-life people.

A gradual blurring of the sexes occurred that gave young men growing up in many female dominated, single parent homes an identity crisis. This led to a rise in militant homosexuality, a coming out of the closet of gay men and women who also demanded equality. The things that had been considered improper went looking for a desperate legitimacy.

In 1968 then justice minister Pierre Trudeau mouthed his infamous words “the government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation”. He and his cohorts passed omnibus justice legislation which legitimized behaviour which until then for centuries had been considered outside the realm of normal and good family and personal relationships. He legitimized homosexuality between consenting adults. He provided couples who were being split by disharmony and infidelity with an easier way out, no fault divorce.

At that point in Canadian history, I believe our government started its assault on traditional family and marriage. In my view, no government can make legitimate any behaviour that has for centuries by tradition, custom, faith and the social contract been seen as destructive to family life.

This brings me to the year 2000. After 32 years of disintegrating family life, rising divorce rates, the murder of millions of babies by abortion, the decline of authority and discipline in families, school and judicial institutions, to the latest attack on the family, the attack on the very foundation of family life in this nation, the institution of marriage itself.

May I suggest that the majority of Canadians, people of faith, whether they be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or Sikh, have a common belief that the institution of marriage, one man and one woman, was part of the Creator's divine plan for the orderly conduct of life and the continuation of the human race. Those of us who believe in this are wondering why our government continues its assault on the family which started in 1968. Why is it so determined to allow in legislation the gradual diminishing of influence of the traditional family and marriage itself?

Bill C-23, unfortunately in my view, is the logical progression of trends started long ago, where now in the form of same sex benefits, government continues the blurring of the traditional family and marriage. It does that by suggesting strongly through this legislation that common law relationships of heterosexual or same sex couples are no different than that of marriage as the union of man and a woman to the exclusion of all others.

This sends a destructive message to all our children. This says that the marriage of man and woman for life is not important. It does not matter whether couples get married or not and it does not matter with whom one cohabits. What a terrible message to send to our children. How will the future of our country be influenced by this?

In moving in this direction, I suggest that this government has given in once again to the tyranny of the minority. Minority pressure groups in our society that demand legislative change to legitimize their position do not really question the morality of it. They are afraid to ask the important question: Is it really the right thing to do? They simply change the law in the name of equality. Having equal rights does not make those rights correct or moral. We cannot legislate equality any more than we can legislate morality. Those are attitudes of the heart and soul that the government has clearly forgotten about.

Now, the party that told us that government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation, continues to invade them. Ironic, is it not? We have a bill that gives benefits and obligations on the basis of conjugal relationships.

What are the youth of today saying? When I listen to them, I hear them wanting to return to a better day, to a day when family life and marriage had more security and more commitment. For instance, in a study done in 1971 young people between the ages of 18 to 34 were asked if they agreed that extramarital sex was okay and 34% of them said yes. In 1995, 18 to 34 year olds were asked the same question and only 11% said yes. Who are these 1995 young people? They are the children of the baby boomers whose lives were supposed to be made easier by free love, easy divorce and the legitimization of homosexuality.

They are the ones who suffered the results of the age of promiscuity, the lack of commitment, parents who were not there for them when they needed them and, quite frankly, they want a better life. They want to be better parents and more committed to their spouses, with more order and structure in their family lives and for their children.

Why does our government always have to be so many years behind the real feelings of the majority of people when it crafts and passes legislation? This is exactly what is happening with Bill C-23.

I look at our nation today and weep. I weep for the hurting children who do not really know their parents. I ache for the women who suffer post-abortion trauma and have deep regrets for their actions. My heart breaks for young people who have grown up in homes where the lack of structure, discipline and love has led to rebellion and bitterness.

The Reena Virk incident is a tragic result of the things that I have talked about today. I see a government oblivious to the whole thing, determined to march to the orders of a tyrannical minority which will cause us all to reap the results of the whirlwind in the years to come. I say shame on it for not having open eyes to see what is going on, open ears to hear the wishes of the majority of Canadians who are opposed to the bill and open minds to admit that it is.

If this bill passes without the amendments we have suggested, it will be a sad day for Canada and I, for one, would never want to be a part of that kind of country.

[Health, April 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I believe there will be many hepatitis C victims who are very interested in the finance minister's answers on this issue. The bottom line here is this: The finance minister promised the House that he will release all CDC minutes, but when the official opposition asked for them under the Access to Information Act, the finance department withheld these documents.

Why did the minister not keep his own promise?

[Supply, April 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that this is a bit of déjà vu. I heard all of this when the minister appeared before the HRDC committee this morning.

I ask the minister how in the world she could ever feel that it would be a step backward to provide documents which are supposed to be in the public domain anyway? All opposition members are doing today is putting forward a motion that basically reiterates what the law states already, saying to the minister and to the government that they are not upholding the law.

Why would the minister find this motion offensive when it is simply reiterating exactly what the government is supposed to be doing? Is it because the government is not following the law?

[Health Care, April 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to challenge the Liberal government over its lack of foresight and inability to seek out solutions for the number one problem facing Canadians today, health care.

Funding is an integral part of the solution but the federal government now only provides 11% of public health care funding in Canada. Yet this government seems unwilling to work with the provinces in an effort to find solutions to health care problems it has caused.

As all of the provincial health care ministers showed last week, there is an overwhelming need for the federal government to get on board and join in the search for real solutions. The time for empty talk is over. The time for action is now.

As I have done previously, I challenge this government to co-operatively research and seek solutions to the health care problems facing Canadians today. Bring the provinces on board for this major task.

This afternoon the Standing Committee on Health will discuss future business and I urge all members of the committee to adopt my motion to study the state of health care in Canada.

Canadians expect solutions. The Canadian Alliance is actively working to find these national solutions.

[Supply, April 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad we have you up there guarding the interest of democracy. Again I am astounded at the member who uses a smokescreen to deflect any kind of comments or any kind of good judgment we in the official opposition might bring to the motion by raising these kinds of issues.

We want to talk today about our concern about the lack of democracy in the House. In the opinion of many Canadians, and certainly those of us in the official opposition, the House does not act upon democratic principles.

The matter we are bringing to the House this morning is simply a case in point. We as the official opposition and all Canadians across the country have a right to know what the government is doing. We have filed access to information requests time after time and we do not get the answers. That is the problem, and it would be nice if the hon. members across the way would address the problem and not deal in smokescreens.

[Supply, April 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I feel very slighted by the member. I took time to make some very valid points and now he is going into the past history of the Canadian Alliance and the Reform Party. He is not talking at all about what I had to say. This again is an example of how democracy is thwarted in parliament.

[Supply, April 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join in this most important debate. The motion before us should not be necessary. Unfortunately, the Liberal government has taken upon itself to eliminate or reduce the ability of any of the opposition parties to effectively hold the government accountable for the public good.

Since 1993 the government has used one form or another of time allocation over 60 times in the House of Commons. That does not include the many times that committees have used similar tactics to limit or pre-ordain the witness list and the amount of time the committee will spend on a given topic or to select an issue and where or if the committee will travel.

In addition to the time allocations the government has imposed on all opposition parties in the House, I believe that it has made every attempt to thwart true democracy. When the government attempts to hide the information that should by law be readily available to all members of the public, including the opposition parties, then we have a travesty of democracy. It is for this reason that the Canadian Alliance has brought forth this motion today. It is appalling that the official opposition must be forced to bring this motion forward. Let us look at the government record. Unfortunately it is not a very pretty sight.

This past January the Minister of Human Resources Development held a hastily prepared news conference to break the bad news that an internal audit did not meet the standards that are expected by Treasury Board guidelines and more important, the standards of the general public. Although the minister has unsuccessfully attempted to overshadow the real reason that she suddenly came clean on this issue, the truth is easy to see for all who want to see it.

She did not release the audit simply because she wanted to act in a transparent and clear manner. She did not release the audit because the audit had just been completed and an update to the general public was therefore appropriate. She did not release the audit because her colleagues in other ministries were conducting the affairs of government in an accountable manner. That would be too straightforward for the government and it does not like to do things in a straightforward manner.

No, the minister released the damning audit for one simple reason. The official opposition had filed an access to information request for it. The official opposition had asked for it and both the minister and her officials knew that the report must have the government's spin prior to its falling into the hands of the opposition. The audit paints the Ministry of Human Resources Development in a terrible light. Full disclosure is required; in fact, it is absolutely necessary.

Within days of the access to information request being filed, the minister found herself in front of the cameras and media and the firestorm had begun. The minister has felt the heat of the opposition in the House of Commons and the heat of the press throughout the country. Even the spin doctors cannot control this one. The government has been caught in its own web of arrogance and will ultimately fail because of it. Of that I am certain. We only wait for the day when it occurs.

We all know the access to information guidelines. For the benefit of those who do not, let me summarize the overall concept.

The government maintains a vast database of information on everything that it does. The access to information regulations state that the majority of this information is to be available to the public.

I recognize the benefits of the Internet in this part of the equation. Many documents, including the words that we speak today, will be on the Internet by tomorrow, available to virtually anyone who has access to a computer.

The guidelines also state that the citizens of Canada have access to these documents. By filling out a simple request form and submitting it along with a $5 administration fee, they can ask for almost anything that the government has on record. The guidelines are also very clear in the length of time that the department has in order to complete the access request. All requests, by law, must be completed within 30 days.

Let us look at the reality of the situation. Does the government meet its own guidelines? Unfortunately the government does not even come close. While many requests are submitted, the results are often extremely slow in returning. For example, the official opposition currently has 29 access to information requests that one government department, Human Resources Development Canada, is now late in responding to. That should not come as a great surprise. However, some responses are as much as 90 days overdue.

Some will ask is this is really important; is the opposition just being picky with its criticism? The answers to these questions may be found in a quote from the information commissioner when he appeared before the standing committee on HRDC on March 28, 2000. He stated, “The right of access is one of the cornerstones of our democratic process and one of the best tools available to ensure responsible government”. The information commissioner, the person who oversees the access to information process for the federal Government of Canada, regards the right of access as one of the cornerstones of our democratic process and one of the best tools available to ensure responsible government.

A cornerstone of our democratic process, that is what the government is sadly lacking. Simply put, the party opposite lacks the integrity of a democratic government. Its arrogance and lack of accountability have placed true democracy on the endangered species list.

This is not just some pie in the sky theory that my colleagues and I are addressing. Listen to what Treasury Board stated in its letter of decision dated May 26, 1994. The access to information policy is: “To simplify the process for acquiring copies of reports, and to deliver on the government's commitment for more openness, the policy requires that departments make the final version of review reports, including internal audit and evaluation reports, accessible to the public”, and this is the really good part, “without requiring a formal access request”.

HRDC and Treasury Board are breaching their own policies by withholding this information until an access request is final. This is not acceptable. Furthermore, it is not right. Public access and disclosure is being grossly mismanaged. Now, as a result of the negative report that has slammed HRDC, both Treasury Board and the Privy Council Office require that they be told what audits have been requested, what bad news is within them and what the official spin will be prior to their release.

Listen again to what the information commissioner stated on March 28, 2000 when he appeared before the standing committee on human resources development. He said “The problem, however, arises when the communication concerns of the government are allowed to take precedence over the public's right to timely access to information”. I hope that the members of the government are listening today to what that means and what it says.

I respect any member of the House when we have philosophical differences of opinion. When we are collectively trying to solve a problem, I may not agree with their proposed solution. But it is a very sad day indeed when members of the public and the opposition parties are thwarted in their ability to have full disclosure to the government's activities. With the loss of access to information is the loss of trust, the loss of public accountability and the loss of true democracy.

I fully support this motion and ask for the support of the members of the House of Commons.

In conclusion, I move:

That the motion be amended by replacing the number “15” with the number “30”.