Peter Mancini

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have some history and experience in this regard, having practised family law for some 10 years.

I not only encourage registered domestic partnerships, I encourage marriage contracts. I have represented many people who have been through difficult divorce situations. I represented people in common law relationships, before the courts took the initiative to define what were the rights of people who had not gone through a marriage ceremony but who lived in a common law relationship for a long time. It seemed to me it would have been a whole lot clearer, a whole lot saner, a whole lot easier and probably a whole lot cheaper if those parties had registered what the nature of their agreement was, what assets would be divided, what assets would be shared, what obligations if any would arise from the termination of the relationship.

Registered domestic partnerships are a good thing. They lend clarity. In terms of survivor benefits, I agree it would take care of the issue I raised which was brought to me by a constituent about someone who wants to ensure that the person who has looked after them who may be a family member is entitled to share in the benefits that a traditional spouse before the supreme court changed that definition would have shared in.

I thank the member for the question. I think it is an important question. I would have no objection to it.

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address this motion today, especially following some of the eloquent and learned comments that have been made by the speakers preceding me. I particularly want to comment later on in my remarks on the Minister of Justice's amendment to the motion. I think it is an important amendment.

First let me say that there is no greater spiritual union than that of marriage. There is no more intimate spiritual union than that of someone who makes a commitment for life to an idea, to a person, to what they believe. We use that word marriage. It is the most private commitment one can make. Although we celebrate marriage as a public event, the reality is the signing of papers, the commitment that is made in writing, the commitment that is made before God is perhaps the most private and intimate commitment we can make as human beings.

I say that because the word marriage has been talked about in terms of definitions. An hon. member from the government side and an hon. member from the Bloc went to the dictionary to define marriage. We have commented that it changes with time and it does, but it is clearly to correlate a pair, it is clearly to join together. In fact, those of us from the maritime provinces grew up knowing that when we splice the ends of a rope together, we say we marry them. When a carpenter joins together certain pieces, they are married. We marry up certain things.

When I talk about the intense commitment of one person, I think about one of my relatives. She will not be happy that I am saying this publicly, but I believe next year she will celebrate her 50th anniversary. Fifty years ago she put on a wedding ring. She made a commitment. She has stayed true to that commitment. Her marriage was to her church. Her marriage was to the ideology and the beliefs she believes came to her intimately and that is the career to which she is married. That is the intimate contract she has made with whom she sees as her God.

Marriage takes all kinds of forms. From reading history we know that Elizabeth I under pressure from France, from her ambassadors to marry the king of France, to marry the king of Spain, finally came to parliament and said “Behold lords, I am married. See the ring. I am married to England”.

Marriage has many connotations. We have to bear that in mind because we are dealing with words. Words in this chamber are important. I look at the motion in that light; I look at it in terms of what the words are. Some of them are important. We have had definitions of marriage and what it means.

I have some concern with the motion when it says that parliament will take all necessary steps to preserve that definition. We need clarification on that. I do not know what that means. Obviously it could mean invoking the notwithstanding clause of the constitution should the courts at some future date overrule what is contested here as being the legal definition of marriage, but how much further do we go if we invoke the notwithstanding clause? Do we go further than that? If two individuals of the same sex, let us say, decide that they will fill out forms and say that they are married, how far do we go to preserve the definition? We need some clarity on that.

We look at the constitution. I am glad the Minister of Justice made the amendment, because when I first read this motion, something did not sit right. It has been a long time since I have been in law school, but somehow I thought, there is a jurisdictional issue here and I do not know what it is. I did a little research. It has been commented on by my colleague from the Bloc. Professor Hogg said:

The federal authority in relation to “marriage”—the first branch of s. 91 (of the BNA Act)—has to be read side by side with the provincial authority in relation to “the solemnization of marriage in the province” (s. 92 of the BNA Act). In fact most of the laws concerning marriage have been enacted by the provinces, and the courts have tended to construe the provincial power liberally. The scope of federal power has been left largely undetermined.

I put that question to the minister and she agreed with me. I do not know what it means to the House that the minister and myself agree. There is Professor Hogg who may be a little more authoritative. I cite again:

The only federal law ever to come before the courts was one which declared that every marriage performed in accordance with the laws of the place where it was performed was to be recognized as a valid marriage everywhere in Canada.

It goes on to say that it was challenged, but their lordships expanded the power of the provinces.

We are debating a motion that clearly is one of those that overlaps the two spheres of federal and provincial authority. I caution the House on that. We have to be very careful before we interfere with the jurisdiction of the provinces.

A red light went on when I read this motion. I remember when I was married that we applied to the province for a marriage licence. It is the province that sanctions the marriage. It is the federal government that sanctions divorce.

We have to bear in mind those words and those jurisdictional questions when we look at this motion. They require further debate. We will hear about that as the day wears on and it will be a long day. I understand we are here until 6.30.

We also have to go behind the motion. This has been commented on by the mover and seconder of the motion. We began discussing what marriage is and what it should be and whether or not this government has the power and jurisdiction to enforce the legal definition. Then we moved into a debate about recent court rulings. It is fair to say that there is a great separation here between what is marriage and what the courts have determined in terms of same sex benefits.

There has been some comment by both the mover of the motion and the seconder or the speaker who immediately followed him in reference to some of the cases. The mover of the motion cited the Corbett case when he mentioned that the supreme court has determined what marriage is. In that definition, which is the court's and not his, he says it clearly requires the physical sexual intercourse relationship, the intimacy of that physical relationship.

It will be noted that in my opening remarks I did not refer to that. Marriage is a spiritual union more so than a physical union; even more so is the spiritual element of it.

If this debate is really about limiting benefits to same sex individuals, I would go further than that. A constituent came up to me and said, “I have no problem with this issue of same sex benefits. I think it should go further. Why should I be precluded from naming as my survivor my daughter who has looked after me for 20 years?” Why should two sisters who are elderly and have looked after each other their whole lives, be prohibited from the rights of survivorship that we traditionally ascribe to a husband and wife?

If this debate is really about fear of extending same sex benefits that were traditionally to a husband and wife to members of the same sex who have a longstanding relationship or to members of the same family who have a longstanding relationship, then I think that is a different debate altogether. I have some concern that that may be the underlying thrust given the comments that have been made and all the references to same sex benefits and supreme court decisions.

In light of that, it is a complex motion. I applaud the member for bringing it before the House because it is an important motion. But those are questions we will have to hear from the Reform Party on in terms of clarifying this important issue as the day wears on.

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister and is with regard to the amendment that has been moved in the House.

I think she would agree with me, given the nature of the amendment, that jurisdictional controversies in terms of authority, be it federal or provincial, is extremely clouded in this area. I quote from Professor Hogg:

The federal power in terms of regulating marriage has been largely undetermined.

In terms of the main motion there is some question as to the power and jurisdiction of the federal government. Would the minister agree with me on that?

[Criminal Code, June 7th, 1999]

A member of the Reform Party is yelling at me, saying that is not it. I ask the mover of the bill, then, why we have changed it from 25 years to 50 years. It is eligibility to apply for parole at 50 years. That is what we are extending. We are adding two or three life sentences.

In nations with the death penalty would murderer be hanged three times? Is that the direction in which to go? If we say there should be multiple life sentences then I ask that question. Maybe there are those who believe that if offenders take three lives they should pay three times.

I am sympathetic to the case made by the mover of the bill who says that many people and many victims ask if the death of their spouse, their child or their friend is meaningless. I respect and believe this comment. Yet surely we cannot say that by adding another life sentence to what is an impossible situation we bring justice to that family. Surely by saying someone will serve 200 years when it is not a possibility only mocks the justice system. I respect those who feel differently in this regard, but to me there is an illogical aspect to it that plays into the question of whether or not we are a vengeful society.

We are also asking the judge to look at the offender and determine whether or not the offender can be rehabilitated in 50 years. The burden we put on the judge is to look at the offender and say “I believe that you are so heinous a human being that you cannot be redeemed for 50 years and will make that judgment now”.

What other legislation would we pass in the House and say no one can change it for 50 years? I ask members to think about that. Would we say a piece of environmental legislation could not be touched for 50 years because we as members of parliament have the foresight to know what will happen in the next five decades?

Can we give a judge the power to sentence someone to two life sentences and not be eligible for parole for five decades? We can, and there are members who will vote for that. I disagree and I have asked for a respectful debate on it.

My opinion is that I cannot entrust any other human being with 50 years of foresight. I say that there are all kinds of prisoners, all kinds of horrendous human beings who have found redemption, maybe not at 25 years but maybe at 35 years, maybe at 15 years or maybe at 5 years. Can I judge that? If I cannot, can I ask the judiciary to do it? I object to the bill on those terms.

I will turn to the comments made by the mover. Again I say I respect her opinion. She referred to the Pollara poll. Many people in that poll believed that a life sentence was 25 years and the opinions were therefore skewered.

Let me end by saying that in a way we have perhaps increased the life sentence. Perhaps we have taken more from the offender. If we sentence someone without eligibility for parole for 50 years, we take away hope and in so doing perhaps we take away not only their life but their soul.

I have to vote against the bill because my conscience tells me that justice is redeemable and not vengeful.

[Criminal Code, June 7th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, the bill before the House has had substantial movement over a number a years culminating today in the vote before the House.

The original bill came before the justice committee, on which I was a member. We examined the bill and eventually it came forward in the following manner with amendments that have been moved and have substantially changed the bill.

I am going to address three things. First, I am going to address the changes in the legislation that occurred last week, to which the mover of the bill referred. Second, as this is a private member's bill, I will be addressing my own views on the bill. Third, I will also be addressing some of the comments made by the earlier speakers.

I will say that the drafter and mover of the bill has substantially changed the original legislation. One of my criticisms of the original legislation was the lack of judicial discretion. I believe the member has gone to some lengths to address that. However, to some extent I think that was also done in an effort to get the matter back before the House of Commons. I do not blame her for that because it is a matter she feels quite passionately about.

In the haste to move those amendments, I have some concerns about the drafting. People should know that members of Parliament only received these amendments a week ago today.

There has not been time to adequately review them in the way we normally would. Normally they should be vetted through the justice committee to ensure that there are no charter challenge objections or that they do not conflict with other sections of the code. That causes me concern and I will come back to it before I am finished.

Having provided for judicial discretion the member has narrowed the focus of the bill. I ask that we have a respectful debate on a piece of legislation upon which members of the Chamber have very differing opinions. I have listened respectfully to those with whom I disagree and I expect the same courtesy. We need that kind of debate.

The issue has now been narrowed to what kind of society we see Canada becoming, what kind of society we want to build. Is it a society where justice is vengeful, or is it a society that sees redemption in the spirit of mankind? Not just to be critical, I say that because there are those who believe that justice should be vengeful. There are those who believe in an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life sentence for a life.

Having redrafted the bill, the member caused me to think carefully about this when I was home in my constituency. I had a discussion with a young woman who is not sophisticated in the way bills come before parliament. I explained to her what we were talking about, how there was a motion that would allow a murderer who commits horrendous murders—and I do not think anyone would say they are not—to be sentenced to two consecutive life sentences in the justice system.

This young 11 year old woman looked at me and said “But you only have one life to serve. How can offenders serve more than their life?” That is the question to ask. How can we sentence offenders to more than God has given them? How can we sentence them to more than their life?

There is some confusion around this question. I think the member for Langley—Abbotsford mentioned it when referring to these sentences as 25 year sentences. There are members of the House who think that conviction for multiple murders is a 25 year sentence. It is not. It is a life sentence with eligibility to ask for parole at 25 years. Some prisoners have been released at 25 years and some have not. The sentence is not 25 years. The sentence is an entire life in prison with the opportunity to ask for parole at 25 years.

[Supply, June 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Alice was right: things get curiouser and curiouser here in Wonderland.

I look at the resolution introduced by the Reform Party and I must say it is a conversion of faith in the supreme court that is worthy of the conversion of Paul on the road to Damascus.

I have been in the House for two years. I have been on the justice committee for two years. Repeatedly members of the Reform Party have said that parliament is supreme. They have repeatedly criticized applications to the supreme court allowing the judiciary to interpret the charter of rights. Here they are today quoting the former prime minister and leader of the Liberal Party as a constitutional expert.

Does the resolution today signal a profound change of direction on the part of members of the Reform Party and indicate faith in the judiciary of the supreme court and its interpretation of proposed laws and laws that come before parliament, or have they abandoned their idea that parliament is supreme?

[Workplace Safety, June 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, knowing how I tend to speak I will take the four minutes instead of the three.

In my remarks I was indicating to the House the importance of the motion put forward by my colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. I indicated how we in this party would be supporting it. We had introduced very similar legislation through a private member's bill by the leader of our party, the hon. member for Halifax.

I talked a little about those of us in mining communities, those of us who come from towns where we know the price paid when mine safety regulations are not adhered to. I was concluding by saying that what we need is not further study on this. That is the only criticism I have of the motion. What we need is action. That is exactly what the bill put forward by the New Democratic Party would do.

There are those who will wonder whether or not other nations have legislation. They do. I point out briefly in the short time I have that both Australia and Great Britain are taking steps to address the problem of illegal criminal actions by corporations that result in the deaths of their workers. The focus here is Westray but it could apply to many other industries and many other corporations.

The tragedy among many tragedies in Westray was that the victims' families sought to see justice done. They sought to see the major players in that corporation brought to court and tried for determination as to their guilt or their innocence. Unfortunately, the Canadian judicial system could not do that because there is no law that holds a corporation liable for the murder of its workers.

I have indicated that Australia and Great Britain are moving in that direction. The Australian criminal code of 1995 allows corporations to be held liable for criminal conduct if it can be proven that the practices or culture of the company encouraged or at least did not prohibit the alleged offence. Had we that piece of legislation in this country, then the corporate owners who in the finding of Justice Richards wilfully neglected the welfare of their workers, could have been brought to justice by Justice Richards.

The British Law Reform Commission in 1996 recommended to parliament in that country the creation of an offence of corporate killing where the behaviour of the corporation falls below that which would be expected of a corporation in the circumstances.

I urge members of the government when they are considering the changes to the Cape Breton Development Corporation that they bear in mind by divesting themselves of their responsibility, they move the mining legislation to the provincial legislation and the same accident can happen in Cape Breton that happened in Westray.

[Devco, May 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago a delegation of miners' wives from Cape Breton came to Ottawa to seek assurances from the Minister of Natural Resources that he would review the inadequate package offered their husbands. He refused.

In good Cape Breton fashion they went to his boss. After meeting with the Prime Minister they reported that he assured the delegation he would sit the minister down and straighten him out.

My question is simple. Has the Prime Minister sat down the Minister of Natural Resources and told him to improve the Devco package?

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 11th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate why my hon. colleague who spoke just prior to me became so upset. I will not use the same words unless I get as upset as him, but what we see today is a government embarking upon the taking of money that belongs to Canadians.

We have to ask some fundamental questions about Bill C-78 at second reading. What does the bill do and to whom in the Canadian community? Let us talk about what it does. It takes the proceeds of pensionable earnings and reinvests them in the way the government wants instead of returning the money to individuals.

It is important for people to understand that the government can take the money, invest it or do with it whatever it wants. That means investing that surplus in multinational corporations or in whatever way the government would choose, not necessarily in the way the people who have paid into the fund would like to see the investment take place.

Let us ask who is affected. It includes everyone who has ever worked for the public service. Military personnel, the people who are currently fighting in Kosovo, the peacekeepers who have done the country proud and have ennobled the nation, are affected. The RCMP is affected. People who keep our streets safe and keep peace, order and good government are affected. The widows of our public servants are affected. There is an old saying in the Bible about taking the widow's mite. Those women are affected and women who have worked in the public service whose average annual pension income is about $9,600 are affected.

We are not talking about multimillionaires who are affected by the legislation. We are talking about average workers who have worked hard for their country in public service. They are the ones who are affected.

What will the legislation do to them? It certainly will not pay back to them the surplus from the funds invested by their hard work. We are opposing it because there is no provision to give this money back to the workers. The women earning $9,600 annually from her pension will not benefit from the government bill. In fact she will suffer directly because of it. Money that could go to improve her standard of living will instead go to whom? Perhaps the government could answer that question for us.

What does the bill say about priorities? What does it say about the government's commitment to community economic development? I will speak from my own riding's perspective because the vast majority of people in my riding are seniors.

Because of government policy many young people in the Atlantic region and in northern regions of the country leave for areas of high employment because of the high unemployment in those areas. That leaves retirees in those communities. That leaves in those communities people like the individuals I have already mentioned: people in the RCMP, military personnel who retire in the Atlantic region, widows of those who have worked for the public service or other retirees.

Because of changes to the employment insurance act in my own riding over the last seven or eight years over $30 million has been taken out of the economy in the form of employment insurance because of cuts.

The government now has an opportunity to say to the retirees in my community and in like communities across the country that is has a huge surplus in the pension fund and will make sure those people who paid for it reap some of the benefits.

If those people reap the benefits, then so do the small business owners on main street of every city in the country where there are retirees in the population. Those retirees will take the additional funds, to which we in the NDP believe they are entitled, and will invest them in their communities through purchasing power. This will create jobs in small communities and ensure the survival of small communities to some measure.

It is a small step the government could take to establish its commitment to economic survival of small communities. Unfortunately the government lacks either the courage or the foresight to take that step, or it is simply not a priority for it to ensure the survival of small communities by making sure that people who have lived in those communities all their lives or retire to those communities reinvest a part of the surplus to which they are entitled in those communities.

Many things could be said about the legislation. The government will say that the opposition is being unduly harsh and critical of the bill, is nit-picking at the bill, and perhaps not giving as clear an indication as it might. There is an opportunity for the government to rebut, but the government has chosen to invoke closure yet again on a most important piece of legislation.

If members of the opposition are somehow distorting the facts, if we are somehow incorrect, I challenge the government to put the bill forward and allow proper time for debate so that it can rebut the arguments we put forward. The government does not want to do that and we have to ask why. I think it is because the arguments put forward by members like me, by members of my party who oppose the bill, and by other members of the opposition cannot be rebutted by the government.

Why else would it shut down debate on an incredibly complex piece of legislation after four hours? This is the Kraft Dinner way of making law: put it in the microwave, turn it on for 30 seconds and hope it is done. We are not making a Kraft Dinner. We are making fundamental changes to legislation which affects individuals in every part of the country.

If we are incorrect in our analysis of it, I dare the government to come forward with its own facts and figures to rebut us. Rather than do that, it closes down debate. This is the second time I have had to address and bring the government to its heels on the issue of closure. The last time had to do with fundamental complex legislation.

It is not as if parliament does not have time to debate it. We spend hours in the House on many different pieces of legislation. When it comes to investing and taking money from a fund, the government does not want to talk about it. It invokes closure. I have not used the other word, but I am simply saying that the government is taking funds from something into which Canadian taxpayers have paid and to which we believe they are entitled.

Parliament was designed so that representatives of communities across the country could debate serious issues. This is among the most serious. When the government is playing with the financial gain of the workers of the country and we limit it to four hours debate, it is disrespectful of members of the Canadian public because it is their money, future and investment upon which we are limiting debate.

The bill talks to three issues. First, it talks about whom the government sets as a priority in its thinking. It is not the men and women of the public service, the surplus of whose pension funds is being taken away from them.

Second, it speaks to the priorities of the government in terms of community economic development. Clearly that is not a priority because we could reinvest those funds back into smaller communities.

Third, it speaks to the government's commitment to democratic debate in an open forum. Sadly the government's record on that issue is a failure.

On each of those counts I am afraid we have to give the government a failing grade. We are not alone in this regard. If we look at newspaper articles or happen to walk around Ottawa these days, we see normally mild mannered Canadians who respect the law and parliament carrying placards. They would just as soon be at work or at home getting their gardens ready. I am sure this is happening in other cities.

They know something is fundamentally wrong. They know the government is taking their money. They know they are entitled to the benefits. They are just making enough money to survive. They want to reinvest that money in their own families and their communities. It is a shame the government will not let them, and it is a shame it will close debate on this issue.

[The Environment, May 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern of the minister. I would go further and ask if she could explain to the House and the people of Whitney Pier, who have contaminated toxic sludge bubbling up in their basements and yards where their children play, why nothing has been done about their concerns.

I have another simple question. Will the government relocate the people on Frederick Street and surrounding area?