Lynn Myers

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 11th, 2000]

As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, ours is the politics of hope and reconciliation.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to the member opposite. It struck me that he is talking about outrageous triads. He should think about the Reform Party, the CCRAP party and the Alliance party in that order. There is a triad from which we certainly want to keep our distance.

Having said that, I want to say that the minister knows full well what she is doing, and so do we on the government side of this great parliament in terms of Bill C-23.

What I find objectionable are the myths and falsehoods that the member opposite and people of his ilk try to perpetuate and, in doing so, try to pit region against region in this great country, and people against people. Ours is not as they would have it, the politics of destruction, grievance, hatred and pitting people against people. Ours, rather, is the politics of hope—

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

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by saying that this is a very delicate matter. Bill C-23 is an issue of concern for Canadians on all sides of the political spectrum.

I have taken a number of calls and representations made by my constituents as to how they feel on both sides of this issue.

At the end of the day, in this great parliament and across this great country, it is a matter of fairness, tolerance and respect.

I object to the kinds of comments that have been made by members opposite with respect to this all important matter. I object to the myths, the falsehoods and the misinformation that people, especially members opposite, have found it necessary to use to stir up people, to try to pit people against people and group against group in Canada, which prides itself on being a tolerant, caring and compassionate society. It is important that we proceed with Bill C-23 in a manner consistent with the great values of Canada. I think that is precisely what we are doing.

I have listened to the comments of members opposite. I want to be very clear that what is at stake are both rights and obligations. The granting of same sex privileges will confer certain rights and there will be obligations which will flow from that. Let me also be clear that this bill, which has been studied at committee and is now before us once again in the House, deliberately maintains a clear legal distinction between married and common law relationships.

We know that courts have ruled on this matter. We know that we in the House are obliged to follow through with legislation. We also know that equal treatment should be afforded in the law for all Canadians, whomever they may be and wherever they may live, common law opposite sex couples or common law same sex couples. It makes no difference. We are talking about fairness, compassion and equal treatment.

It remains for the government to choose how to achieve the goal of equal treatment, and so it is that Bill C-23 represents the government's choice to provide equal treatment while also responding to the concerns of many Canadians about the need to preserve the fundamental institution of marriage. This bill strikes a balance.

First, the bill uses clear language to maintain the term spouse for married couples and to introduce a new term, common law partner, for unmarried, committed relationships.

Second, under clause 1.1 it is now stated clearly that nothing in this bill would, in any way, shape or form, alter or affect marriage as we know it.

Another issue that has been raised is the question of whether individuals will have to go to court to find out if they qualify as a common law partner because of the use of the term conjugal. Quite frankly, this defies common sense.

Common law relationships are not new. The word conjugal has been used in federal law for some 40 years to describe common law opposite sex couples. There is absolutely no reason that there should suddenly be a problem in this area where there has not been one before. Let us put that to rest once and for all.

Common law partners, both opposite sex and same sex, will apply for benefits and be held responsible for obligations in the same way that already occurs for common law opposite sex couples.

The members across the floor raise a concern about those who might try to take advantage of the system, either by declaring a relationship that does not exist or by failing to declare one that does. They raise all kinds of outrageous scenarios, which is beneath them to do so.

This is not a new situation either in law or in the administration of federal law. Declaring a relationship that does not exist or failing to declare one that does would be fraud and would be dealt with under existing provisions that apply to married couples and common law opposite sex partners. Let us put that issue to rest as well.

Members opposite have also repeatedly claimed that there is no public support for this bill. On the contrary, this is simply not true. In a survey conducted in October 1998, 67% of Canadians agreed that same sex couples should have the same legal rights and obligations as a man and a woman living together as a common law partnership or couple.

I, like a number of colleagues, have heard from many Canadians on both sides of this issue, as I said at the outset. Some are concerned about preserving marriage, for example, but just as many are concerned about the bill being fair, equitable, tolerant and compassionate. Equal treatment for all is what I have heard.

The bill will not result in increased taxes for Canadians or increased costs for employers because the bill responsibly ensures that both benefits and obligations will be extended at the same time. The Department of Finance estimates that the fiscal cost will be balanced by the fiscal obligations which will rightly ensue. This is not a cost issue for the government.

Similarly, I should note that over 200 private sector Canadian employers already extend benefits to same sex partners in their employ as a business decision.

I think it indicates that a business decision taken in this all important area makes sense, not only from a competitive point of view but also from a compassionate and human point of view. We in the government are doing the same by bringing forward Bill C-23.

I need not remind members that the Supreme Court of Canada made it clear last May in the ruling of M. v H. that restricting government benefits or obligations to common law opposite sex couples is simply not consistent with the charter. Canadians respect the charter. Canadians have a great love for the charter. Why is that? Because the charter defines us as a people.

I hear the member opposite laughing, and well he should laugh because it is not we on this side of the House who always want to denigrate one of the great institutions of Canada, the charter as we know it.

Not so long ago Mr. Stockwell Day was in Ontario. I forget how the chant went, but I think it went like this “Stockwell Day, go away, anti-choice and anti-gay; Stockwell Day, make my day, right wing bigot, go away”.

Those are not my words; those are the words of Ontarians who see through the code words used by members opposite, who see through the bitterness, extremism and underlying hatred of various groups. Quite frankly, we reject that, as do all good thinking, caring, compassionate Canadians.

If the hon. member does not laugh at me again I will go back to what I was saying, which is that the great charter of ours guarantees equality for all Canadians, regardless of age, race, ethnicity, religion, gender or sexual orientation. Those guarantees exist for all, and they exist in a manner consistent with the fundamental underlying values of this great country.

It is important that we proceed with Bill C-23 to ensure that people, no matter where they live in Canada, are given the kind of fundamental respect that Canadians of all stripes not only require, need and deserve, but want, because that is after all who we are. We are a nation of greatness built on the very foundation of tolerance and compassion, caring and acceptance for everyone.

Why is that? Because our forefathers and foremothers forged this land along with native Canadians consistent with the underlying belief that we treat each other as we would be treated. Why do we do that? Because it is the Canadian thing to do.

I urge all members of the House to do the right thing and vote for Bill C-23.

[1911 Census Records, April 10th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, it is a great honour to rise in the House today to speak about this very important issue. I want to say at the outset that I have had a number of calls from constituents with respect to this matter.

It is a matter of great importance, not only from a genealogical point of view but also from an historic point of view. It is something that we on the government side have indicated we take seriously and want to take a very strong, fast and hard look at all the options with respect to where we should go on this all important matter.

I remind my colleagues in the House that the transfer of census records to the national archives for public access is a very complex issue. Although historians, genealogists and researchers have legitimate reasons for wanting access to historical census records, we have to balance that and at least weigh in the respect and the right to privacy for individual Canadians and their ancestors.

It is a balancing act and one on which we have to give careful thought in this very important and delicate matter. I want to point out that the minister and the government have gone on record as doing precisely that.

The motion before us, while perhaps of some interest to some people, is really premature based on the fact that our minister and our government have moved in this area. We are taking a look at exploring and reviewing the options. In so doing, it is important to note that the minister has created an expert panel of eminent Canadians to provide independent insight into this very important issue, where expert advice on legalities and privacy in archival matters are explored and the implications looked into in a meaningful way which will bring credibility to the process.

The five member panel is comprised of: Dr. Richard Van Loon, who is president of Carleton University with a long history, including with the federal government; Chad Gaffield, director at the institute for Canadian studies and professor of history at the University of Ottawa; the Honourable Gérard La Forest, a retired supreme court justice; the Honourable Lorna Marsden, president and vice-chancellor at York University and former president of my alma mater Wilfrid Laurier University; and John McCamus, president of Osgoode Hall Law School at York University in Toronto.

The members of the panel were chosen with great care and are highly regarded Canadians who have a great deal of insight into these matters. They were appointed on the basis of individual merit for their expertise and their long term interest in historical research and privacy issues.

The minister has asked the panel to recommend by May 31 of this year an approach that balances the need to protect personal privacy with the demand of genealogists, historians and others who want access to historical census records.

Access to individual census records for all censuses starting with the 1906 census is explicitly prohibited by law while census records up to and including the 1901 census are publicly available through the National Archives. These records are in a public domain because the censuses up to and including the 1901 census were conducted under legislation that did not contain a specific confidentiality provision having the force of law. However, access to individual census records for all censuses starting the the 1906 census is explicitly prohibited by law.

Starting in 1906 and for all subsequent censuses thereafter, the legislation giving the authority to collect census information containing statutory confidentiality provisions was in place. These provisions are such that only the person named in the record may have access to his or her own information.

There is also no time limitation on this access. Even when the person is deceased, the provisions are still in effect. As a result, Statistics Canada, without breaching the Statistics Act, cannot, according to law, make public the census records taken under the authority of the 1906 and all subsequent Statistics Acts.

This has of course—and it is apparent as a result of the correspondence certainly that I get and other members of parliament—dismayed many genealogists and researchers who had expected that the 1911 census and the records would be publicly available in 2003, 92 years after the taking of that census. They argue, and some would say rightly so, that the census should be available after a reasonable period of time in order to conduct research that historians, genealogists and others like to do, which would shed light on the personal and community history of Canadians across the country. They would like to see a change in the Statistics Act which would confirm that census records would be available after 92 years.

There may be a perception that Statistics Canada has taken an arbitrary position in this matter and is circumventing regulations under the Privacy Act. That is certainly not the case. The agency is respecting the legislation under which censuses have been taken since 1906. It is after all the law.

As members of the House are aware, the Statistics Act, like any law, can be amended. While there is undeniably great value attached to nominative historical census records, this is where an important principle of privacy protection comes into play. Is it right to alter retroactively the conditions under which information was collected by Canadians and provided by them? It is a question that we need to look at and grapple with.

The privacy commissioner, Mr. Bruce Phillips, says no. He strongly opposes a retroactive amendment to the Statistics Act which would alter and allow the transfer of individually identifiable census records collected during past censuses, 1906 to 1991 to be precise, to the National Archives of Canada for archival and access purposes.

While there is undeniably great value attached to historic census records, there is also great value attached to the aggregate information that can be produced from current and future censuses as well. That information is and will be used for a multiplicity of purposes, and as genealogists and historians know, that is very important.

Changes to the commitments made to respondents in the past could have a negative impact on the level of co-operation given to future censuses and surveys. A substantial decrease in such co-operation could seriously jeopardize Statistics Canada and its ability to carry out its national mandate of producing reliable, timely information on which many users depend. It is very accurate and it is known throughout the world as being a good model, which many countries copy.

Census information is used for a multiplicity of purposes, as I have noted. For example, population counts play a vital role in determining the amount and the allocation of federal-provincial transfer payments for the Canada health and social transfers, equalization and territorial formula financing. These payments were estimated at $39 billion in the year 2000-01 and the census is required to allocate them.

The census also provides comprehensive information for analysis of the social and economic issues of concerns to all Canadians. These issues include education, training, language use, immigration, multiculturalism, income support, child and elder care, housing programs and many other issues, all of which are relied upon as a result of the information gathered.

Before I conclude I want to remind my colleagues that census information is a fundamental pillar of our democratic system. We have a great system. We need to promote it. We need to protect it. We need to ensure that it survives into the 21st century. That is our job, not only as parliamentarians but also as Canadians.

The data from the census is one that measures indicators that electors use to evaluate the performance of their government. This must never be taken lightly. I know that members in the House do not.

With the minister having appointed the panel and the government having recommended that we proceed, it is my position that we should now go forward and hear what that panel of experts has to say. After that, we will be in a far better position to make subsequent decisions that affect Canadians.

I recommend that we let the process take its course. We should listen to those best suited to give us that good advice and proceed accordingly.

[Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, April 6th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat heartened to hear the member opposite talk in terms of the benefits of the bill. Of course, we on the government side take these kinds of issues very seriously, as well we should, because Canadians, no matter where they live in our great country, take it seriously.

As we have done historically and specifically with regard to this bill, we have proceeded in a timely fashion, unlike the member opposite who thinks we should have taken more time. We have taken the required time to review the circumstances and talk with partners around the world, not only in terms of policing agencies but to get the kind of bilateral and multilateral arrangements in place that are part and parcel of the Canadian way of doing business.

I am heartened to hear that some members opposite are indicating that this is a good bill. It certainly underscores the commitment of the Government of Canada to do the kinds of things that are appropriate when it comes to this all important issue of money laundering and the exchanges of cash that take place, et cetera, and in trying to secure our banking and monetary systems in a way consistent with the values of Canadians and the international community.

As we move into more globalization in the future, would the hon. member agree that we should bring in more partners to be a part of this process? Should other countries in the world be assisting in this area?

Could he also outline not only his position but especially the Canadian Alliance's position vis-à-vis this criminal activity? Could he perhaps, in point form fashion, outline his party's position on the steps that would be appropriate to curtail, in a globalized economy, these kinds of things, especially as it relates to bringing in other partners from around the world? I will be interested in his response.

[Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, April 6th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have a long history in this kind of issue. I sat for 10 years on the Waterloo Regional Police Commission. As chairman, I can tell members that this was an area of primary concern.

We went across Canada and, in fact, went to international conferences where we looked at these issues because they were very, very important, not only to Canada, but to nations around the world.

I was quite heartened by the fact that the hon. member opposite deemed it appropriate to make his comments. I know that he has a very strong interest in this area. I congratulate him for some of the recognition that he gave to the government with respect to the kind of initiative we are taking.

This initiative will require not only physical resources but human resources to accomplish the desired result. I applaud the government and members on this side of the House for the kind of measures we are taking. It is always a question of whether we should go further or faster, more money, and those kinds of issues. It is often a question of priorities. However, I think at the end of the day Canadians will applaud what the government is doing in this very important area.

In light of the globalization that is taking place and in light of the interconnectedness of the world, does the hon. member see that this is a problem which will escalate over time? I am sure he will say yes. I would like to know his views with respect to how best to try to curtail this very severe problem in a globalized world. After all, it is a very severe problem. People, no matter where they live in the world, find themselves caught in the trap with these kinds of criminal activities.

When I was chairman of the Waterloo Region Police Commission, with 700 police officers and civilians, we went to great lengths to look at this issue. We had symposia and went to places across Canada and internationally to see what could be done. I would be very interested in his views because of his background and his very strong interest in this area.

[Supply, April 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the member opposite that we on the government side have made a very consistent effort to ensure that this very, very important audit information is released in a timely fashion, and we have done so in a manner consistent with normal auditing practices and in a way which underscores the government's commitment to accountability, to transparency and all of the things that Canadians, wherever they live in this great country of ours, determine to be important.

I am convinced, as are most Canadians, that we continue to do the right thing in this very important area and to do so consistent with the values of Canadians. I think it is important that we continue to do so and that we do so in an efficient, effective, transparent and accountable way.

[Supply, April 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I need not be lectured by the member opposite when it comes to accountability and openness when his own party had to print 6,000 additional ballots when it came to a vote and then, before the real scoop got out, had to destroy those ballots. Talk about duplicitous. Talk about hypocrisy in the extreme. It really is too much to take, especially from the member opposite.

He should be congratulating the Government of Canada. He should be congratulating all of us in terms of the openness and accountability that we, on this side of the House, portray on a day to day basis, year to year—decade to decade for that matter. We have implemented the kinds of checks and balances in our system which enable us to conduct internal audits and release them in a timely fashion.

Instead of bringing forward this frivolous kind of nonsense that only those people opposite seem capable of doing, he should be celebrating the Government of Canada and congratulating us for the kind of good work we do, not only on behalf of the people in this House, but on behalf of Canadians wherever they live in this great country.

The member for Medicine Hat has repeatedly referred to the grants and contributions portrayed by the HRDC minister as, I believe his words were, stupid and garbage. He should instead take a lesson from his constituents and understand that those are in fact good investments made in the regions of Canada which assist Canadians wherever they are. Instead of bad-mouthing people, constituents in the ridings and people across Canada, he should be celebrating and congratulating the Government of Canada, as should all those people opposite, whatever they term themselves as these days. The member should be celebrating and saying what a wonderful thing that we on the government side are doing.

In direct response to the member for Elk Island, I would simply say that he should go back and do his homework. As a former teacher he should know that we cannot do the kinds of things that members opposite are doing, state the kinds of things they state, without doing their homework. He should do that. If he did, he would begin to understand a little more about what it means to govern this great country of ours.

[Supply, April 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to split my time today with the hon. member for Mississauga West. I wanted to pick up a bit on what I was talking about previously, simply that some members opposite have called the programs of HRDC, among other things, a manure pile, stupid, garbage, and such.

Those members opposite do not understand how important money to the disabled, to students, to the elderly and to community groups across our great country really is. They should take a lesson appropriate to knowing our country and determining that great things are done as a result of the money that flows through grants and contributions. I remind them that with their holier than thou attitude it seems it is very easy for them to dish it out, but it sure seems not so easy for them to take it. Given their new alliance with their right wing friends perhaps they should try to develop thicker skin. I think it would be more appropriate for the House.

We on the government side have processes and procedures in place whereby we fully understand internal audits and how best to proceed. We deal with access in audit reports in a timely fashion. I can say firsthand, as a former vice-chair of the public accounts committee and working with the Auditor General of Canada who is by the way, I need not remind members, an officer of the House, that we have dealt and do deal effectively with audits in a timely fashion.

The motion being presented today is not only flawed, not only silly, but is unnecessary, redundant and otherwise unheard of and quite out of character. In addition to creating additional paperwork, something members opposite seem to claim that they want to reduce, it would actually add to the number of days they would have to wait until they got access to this information.

Let us think about that for a minute. We are talking about members of a party that want to have things done quickly and efficiently. They take the moral high ground and say that they made it all happen, that they put the minister of HRDC under a microscope and therefore must take credit for doing all these things. The very motion they are proposing today would add time to the release of audits. It would add time by approximately 15 days. That simply is ridiculous and not worthy even of those people opposite.

By the way, why should Canadians have to request audits anyway when we under government rules have audits released in a timely fashion in any event? The smokescreen members opposite are trying to portray is quite ridiculous. To have to request under access to information audits that we would in the normal course of events make public in any event is quite frivolous and, in fairness, vexatious.

I would like to remind the House of something that happened not so very long ago. I was interested in reading in The Hill Times that it was one of the Reform members own researchers, I believe the name was Laurie Throness, who actually was on record as saying that the human resources department was one of the best departments in the Government of Canada when it came to responding to access to information requests.

I take full congratulations on behalf of the government from that wonderful researcher who seems to know what he or she is talking about. It is appropriate to duly note that. It was interesting to see and I think the researchers who are saying that should tell their political masters how important the Government of Canada is in this very important area.

It is somewhat encouraging to have a silver lining in the cloud today. We share the view about the importance of internal audits. The Government of Canada and we on this side of the House have always done that. Audits are a critical tool for managers within the public service and an independent and objective means for parliamentarians to hold governments accountable. We have had that process for many years and I think it has worked effectively.

When I see the motion before us today I know it is yet again that party opposite, the Alliance or whatever it calls itself, trying to grandstand and to score cheap political points where none can be scored. After all, it has to do what it thinks is best for a party that is sinking fast.

Clearly the evidence shows that the government is committed to an effective and independent internal audit function. We are taking the necessary steps in keeping with what we have always done to ensure that the internal audit function is spread throughout government in a meaningful, transparent and accountable fashion.

In 1997, not long before the audit at HRDC, an independent review panel of recognized leaders in the management and accounting professions wrote a report on the modernization of comptrollership in the Government of Canada.

It was a very important document. The report made a number of observations about the role and practice of internal audit in the Government of Canada. As a result, the Treasury Board Secretariat, to its credit, understood the requirements, recommendations and objectives of that report. It indicated and undertook a comprehensive examination of the internal audit function.

The objective of that government-wide study was to set internal audit practices and policies standards geared to the management environment of today. The study was largely conducted in the summer of 1999 and the draft report was completed in January 2000.

I do not want to take a lot of the time of the House to go into the details of the study, but suffice it to say that over the last decade, especially and perhaps even beyond, the whole area of internal audit has evolved considerably. That is important to note. Not only do auditors audit under financial statement requirements and the rules of financial management. They also get into the whole area of management control and the framework of management control.

I need not remind you, Mr. Speaker, and members of the House that it is now an extension of what auditors do not only in the Government of Canada but across Canada in other areas as well. That is important. We need to make sure we have the kinds of checks and balances in place to ensure that the proper internal audits are conducted in a meaningful way which helps and assists not only governments but Canadians wherever they live in Canada.

In the audit that came down there were a number of recommendations. The first priority would be the development of a new treasury board policy on internal audit to set the stage for further development of the function. That is important because it sets the stage, the foundation, where we now act in an appropriate fashion.

The second priority would be the development of a new set of professional standards to support the expanded role of an internal audit. Again it recognizes that there is an important role in this area to play, and I believe rightfully so. I think Canadians expect that. Certainly we on this side of the House, unlike those people opposite, understand fully the importance of those kinds of things and do it effectively in the interest of all Canadians.

Finally, the third of these cornerstones is that once they are in place the Treasury Board Secretariat must then work with the internal audit community to address human resource issues. These include determining the required core competencies, recruitment, professional development and succession planning. There are many more but I do not have time to go into them. I would like to do so for the record but I cannot.

These then underscore the commitment of the Government of Canada to move in this all important area in a meaningful fashion that underscores our party's commitment, the government's commitment under the leadership of the Prime Minister, to ensure that we do the kinds of audits necessary.

I need not remind the House as the Prime Minister did not so long ago that years ago the auditor general would report once a year. It was under our government that was changed to four times a year. Why did we do that? It was because we wanted to enable that the books of Canada and all audits were made in a timely fashion, were done so effectively and efficiently, and were done so knowing that Canadians expect transparency and accountability.

By way of conclusion I want to say that the motion as presented is frivolous. It is vexatious. It is annoying. It is not in the best interest of Canadians and what they should do. It should be voted down because it is simply not something that needs to see the light of day.

[Supply, April 4th, 2000]

I will, Mr. Speaker. Your judgment, as always, is dead on. When the member for Medicine Hat called the programs wasteful, stupid, and garbage, and when the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands called them a manure pile, I wondered if the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan agreed with that. I wonder if he agreed that loans to the—