Roger Gallaway

[Yukon Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Act, February 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to be recorded as voting in favour.

[Divorce Act, February 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the bill in general terms.

Bill C-22 is further evidence of why representative democracy is dead in terms of the Department of Justice. Section 18 of the British North America Act which gives this House the powers of representation of the public is dead. A motion was made recently by the Minister of Justice asking members of this place to waive their privileges, that is, section 18 of the British North America Act, our counterbalance to the enormous powers of the Crown as represented by the cabinet. Now we have a new evolution in that under Bill C-22.

Bill C-22 is a disgrace. It represents only the wishes and the views of perhaps seven lawyers in the Department of Justice. Bill C-22 is representative of nothing in this place. It is representative of nothing among the Canadian public, yet the justice minister brought it to this chamber.

In the 10 minutes allotted to me, I will quickly trace some of the history of this legislation.

In 1968 Canada's first Divorce Act was introduced. It introduced in some sense a no fault provision. In 1984 the act was amended and the then minister of justice in the Trudeau cabinet, Mr. MacGuigan, brought in some amendments to it. He introduced the concept of the best interest of the child, but, and this was a very traditional Liberal value, the best interest of the child included the joint financial obligations of the mother and the father to their children, and also the principle of maximum contact of the children with both parents.

The Divorce Act of 1984, or Bill C-10 as it was called ironically at that time, died on the Order Paper when Parliament dissolved in 1984. In 1985 the then minister of justice, Mr. Crosbie, brought in an act respecting divorce and corollary relief. He revamped and changed Bill C-10 but retained the best interest of the child concept and the concept of joint financial obligations toward joint and equal parenting.

I will flash forward to 1996 to Bill C-41 which introduced a revolutionary concept about child support. It put in place a regime where one parent, the non-custodial parent, would pay support and the custodial parent had no obligations. God bless those people in the other place because they resisted it. The bill passed on the very clear understanding that a joint committee of Parliament would be formed.

In 1997 that joint committee was formed by resolution of this House and the other place. That joint committee met throughout 1998 and made approximately 44 recommendations about fairness, about equality, about balance and most important, about putting two parents back into the life of a child when those parents divorced. I will read two pivotal recommendations of that committee.

Recommendation No. 5 of the joint committee report of December 9, 1998 states:

This Committee recommends that the terms “custody and access” no longer be used in the Divorce Act and instead that the meaning of both terms be incorporated and received in the new term “shared parenting”, which shall be taken to include all the meanings, rights, obligations, and common-law and statutory interpretations embodied previously in the terms “custody and access”.

Recommendation No. 6 states:

This Committee recommends that the Divorce Act be amended to repeal the definition of “custody” and to add a definition of “shared parenting” that reflects the meaning ascribed to that term by this Committee.

That is all rather interesting. At the same time, a massive public shift of opinion occurred.

A Compas poll showed that 89% of Canadians believed the stress of divorce was more severe than a generation ago, and that 70% of men and women said the courts do not pay enough attention to the needs of children.

In that same poll 62% of men and women said that they feel the courts pay too little attention to the needs of fathers and 80% of Canadians believed that the children of divorce must maintain ongoing relationships with their non-custodial parents. Also 65% of Canadians said that they feel it is a priority that the government should protect the rights of children to relationships with their non-custodial parents and that no custodial parent should be allowed to bar that access.

An Angus Reid poll on May 25, 1998 in the Globe and Mail said that 71% of residents of Ontario believe a woman's child support should be withheld if access is denied. Also it said that Ontarians are equally split as to whether or not jail terms are appropriate for access denial.

The end result was that in May 1999 the justice minister responded to the special joint committee. I quote from “Government of Canada Strategy for Reform” the Government of Canada’s response to the report of the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access:

The Government of Canada is committed to responding to the issues identified by the CommitteeReport. The Special Joint Committee Report’s key themes, concerns and recommendationsprovide a foundation for developing a strategy for reforming the policy and legislative frameworkthat deals with the impact of divorce on Canadian children.

On October 12, 1999 the throne speech said “it will work to reform family law and strengthen supports provided to families”.

With respect to the throne speech of January 30, 2001, at page 8 of the Senate Debates it states:

The government will work with its partners on modernizing the laws for child support, custody and access, to ensure that these work in the best interests of children in cases of family breakdown.

On September 30, 2002 the throne speech said at page 4:

[The government] will also reform family law, putting greater emphasis on the best interests of the child...and ensure that appropriate child and family services are available.

What do we get out of all of that? What does this all mean? It means that in December last year, the justice minister tabled Bill C-22 which reflects nothing. It is not reflective of anything that three committees of Parliament have said ought to be done. It does not reflect anything that Canadians told the committee. It reflects nothing that polls across the country have shown.

A justice minister, who had been the justice minister for three months, arrived and said “I know more. I know better. I will tell you what is in the best interests of children and it is this thing I call Bill C-22”.

The end result is that we are now living in a place where the executive branch has given to the House a bill which reflects only the wishes of the so-called experts in the Department of Justice. We have been given a bill which flies in the face of everything this place stands for in terms of representative democracy. The bill is the status quo or less. The bill does not address children.

The bill brings in a new concept which is turning the Divorce Act into the form of a mini criminal code. It introduces something called domestic violence into the Divorce Act.

Since when did a civil act become a criminal act? Since when did we start passing laws in this place that would criminalize allegations? Since when did we say to half the population, “You have no place in the life of your children because you have divorced and we will allow, not Parliament which has an obligation to protect children, but judges to decide”.

This will continue to foment dissent and great bitterness. Most tragically, we will continue to see a generation of children of divorce who only know one parent, who only know one family and who will be raised under the guise of revolution if we allow the bill to pass. That is why members of this chamber must do what is best for the children of this country, not what is best for a justice minister or his bureaucrats. We must stand and say at second reading, no, we will not accept this.

[Privilege, February 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising from the justice minister's response to the question posed by the member for Huron--Bruce during yesterday's question period. I will be brief, as others may feel as I do that this is a matter of extreme importance to the House's overview and approval of public moneys, that is, the public purse.

The minister stated:

--up until the approval of the supplementary estimates, we were moving with what we call cash management.... The program is running at minimum cost but we are able to fulfill our duty.

That raises, I submit, an important question of privilege.

On Thursday, December 5 of last year, on a motion by the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, the House reduced by an amount of approximately $72 million the supplementary estimates on votes 1a and 5a. The House agreed and voted on that reduction. The government has attempted to manipulate the public perception of this act by spinning the myth that it was the justice minister who withdrew those supplementary estimates.

That $72 million had been dedicated to the national firearms program. That motion of reduction carried in the House. That motion was the unequivocally clear expression of this chamber to disallow those moneys to the minister. To state otherwise would be patently false and misleading. The record is clear.

There is an unequivocal principle in our House that the estimates are the financial expressions of government policy. In brief, the approval of the estimates is the signal to bring on the adoption and consideration of the appropriation bill. In fact, Beauchesne's sixth edition, paragraph 968(1) states:

The concurrence by the House in the Estimates is an Order of the House to bring in a bill, known as the Appropriation Bill, based thereon.

By that December motion to reduce the Minister of Justice's estimates for the firearms program, the House laid down two principles. First, it ordered that no moneys for the national firearms program be included in the appropriation bill. Second, it clearly stated its disapproval, this chamber's disapproval, of the national firearms program. It repudiated the program by ordering no more money for it.

Furthermore it must again be emphasized that the estimates are the financial expression of the minister's policy contained in the national firearms program. The minister's usage of the phrase yesterday in his response of “up until the approval of the supplementary estimates” reveals his failure to accept that the House reduced to zero his estimates on December 5 just passed.

It was 112 years ago that the great commoner, Liberal William Gladstone, delivered a speech concerning public finance, specifically the financing of government by Parliament. That speech is printed in the 1892 book The Speeches and Public Addresses of the Right Hon. W.E. Gladstone, MP . Mr. Gladstone embodied the Liberal concern for Parliament's control of public expenditure, known as parliamentary control of the public purse. I am sure that hon. members opposite will want to hear what Mr. Gladstone had to say.

Remembering that the House denied the Minister of Justice $72 million on December 5, I draw attention to Mr. Gladstone's remarks as set out on page 343:

I must remind you of that which is apt to pass away from recollection, for the finance of the country is intimately associated with the liberties of the country. It is a powerful leverage by which...liberty has been gradually acquired.... If the House of Commons can by any possibility lose the power of the control of grants of public money, depend upon it, your very liberty will be worth very little in comparison.

Mr. Gladstone continued a few paragraphs later:

No; if these powers of the House of Commons come to be encroached upon, it will be by tacit and insidious methods, and, therefore, I say that public attention should be called to this.

Yesterday in question period the Minister of Justice stated that the national firearms program was working. He has said that a lot recently. The minister does not seem to understand that the order, as contained in the December 5 motion to reduce the estimates, binds him. In short, he is obligated to obey that order. He maintains that the national firearms program is running at minimum cost and that he is fulfilling his duty. He fails to recognize that his duty is to the House and its orders.

For the minister to assert that it is a good policy, clearly is not consistent with the position the House adopted by motion, the most recent position of the House.

Again I say that the minister does not accept the very clear fact that the House repudiated his estimates. Again I say that the House repudiated his estimates, which are the financial expression of the policy embedded in the firearms program. The House did not say anything about cash management when he asked more than two months ago for further funds. It said that the relevant estimates for the national firearms program were reduced to zero.

As a member of the House I voted on that motion. I, as did the House, indicated that such order of the House reducing the estimates would suspend the minister's ability to spend any more money for the national firearms program. That $72 million, which the House removed, was the total appropriation in support for that program.

That the minister stated yesterday that the registry was working, that it was operating and that it was taking registrations, is contrary to the order of the House. On December 5 the House ordered no more money.

It is clear that order means nothing to the minister. He is simply not obeying the order.

In the nineteenth edition of Erskine May on The law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, it states:

Every question, when agreed to, assumes a form of either an order or of a resolution by the House.

By its orders the House directs its committees, its members, its officers, the order of its own proceedings and the acts of all persons whom they concern...

It has been more than two months since the House vetoed the appropriation for the firearms program. In parliamentary terms, such a denial to a minister of the crown is momentous.

The minister's response is a breach of my privilege and particularly the collective privilege of the House to control the public expenditure. The minister is breaching our privilege because of his disobedience to the order of the House and his refusal to comply with the Commons wish to deny him money.

I submit, based on the foregoing, that there is a prima facie case of privilege.

[Petitions, February 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the last petition calls upon Parliament to strengthen and tighten laws against pornography involving children.

[Petitions, February 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the fourth petition calls upon Parliament to enact fair family law legislation which incorporates a presumption of equal shared parenting.

[Petitions, February 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition calls upon Parliament to assume full federal responsibility for a lawsuit involving the Mohawk Institute in southwestern Ontario against the Anglican Diocese of Huron.

[Petitions, February 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls upon Parliament to focus its legislative support on stem cell research to find the cures and therapies to treat diseases, such as Parkinson's disease.

[Petitions, February 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present, the first reinforcing what my colleagues have said, particularly the member for Guelph—Wellington.

The petitioners calls on the justice minister to re-examine the Steven Truscott case within a reasonable time period with the hope that justice is restored.

[Privilege, December 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will briefly comment on this. I want to characterize it as a point of order. I think the message received from the Senate is disturbing and we must address it in this chamber. I say so for the following reasons.

First, pursuant to the special order made by the House on October 4 of this year, it was said that a minister of the Crown proposing a motion for first reading of a public bill could state the bill was in the same form as a bill introduced by a minister of the Crown in the previous session. If you, Mr. Speaker, are satisfied that the bill indeed is in the same form as at prorogation then, notwithstanding Standing Order 71, the bill shall be deemed in the current session to have been considered and approved at all stages, completed, at the time of prorogation of the previous session.

On October 7 during debate, the government House leader, at page 335 of Hansard stated:

This is an enabling motion to permit the government not to create any new bill but to reintroduce that which has already been discussed at the stage completed prior to where we concluded the debate...in June--

How can a special order purport to revive or reinstate a bill which was not before the House in June. It was in fact before the other place. Surely the House by that order did not contemplate reviving a bill which was not indeed before it at prorogation. Therefore, if the government House leader's statement regarding reintroduction, which I just quoted, is to have meaning, it must be that it foresees that only bills before the House can be revived. Therefore the subsequent ministerial motion to reinstate it was out of order because the bill at prorogation was in the other chamber.

Second, the House by this order sent a bill called Bill C-10 to the other place and you, Mr. Speaker, certified to us that it was in the same form, and I stress form, as it was at prorogation. A printed copy of Bill C-10, as we have heard, bears your certification. In fact, it is one of the few times where the Speaker directly becomes involved with a bill.

As well, on Wednesday, October 9 of this year, the justice minister moved for leave on the basis that Bill C-10 was in the same form as what was then known as Bill C-15B from the first session. Therefore he requested that it be reinstated at the same stage it had reached at the time of prorogation. Your ruling on that date, Mr. Speaker, stated the bill was deemed adopted at all stages and passed by the House because it was in the same form.

As we know, on October 10 it received first reading in the other place and it followed various stages. Now we have this peculiar position where we have received a message from the Senate saying that it is sending part of it back. We are in this new age of a two for one special, it appears, from the Senate.

I would draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to Citations Nos. 626 to 638 of the 6th edition of Beauchesne's where it lays out what is necessary in a bill and what is discretionary in a bill. What we have now is a bill, which you certified as to form and a minister certified as to form, being returned in a way that this place cannot recognize whatsoever.

I would like to echo what the last speaker opposite had to say and that is, that the minister appeared in the House and certified to you, Mr. Speaker, and you certified to us that this was indeed in the same form. Upon an examination of the minutes of the committee in the other place when it was split, the minister appeared before a committee in the other place and did not object to the splitting of the bill.

I have to ask you then, Mr. Speaker, how can a minister apparently assume two positions, one in this place and be passive in the other place? That is first.

Second, I will conclude by quoting Erskine May, 22nd edition on page 5:

The principal common characteristics of the rules of practice was to provide ample opportunity for debate and for initiative in choosing subjects for debate, and ample safeguards against business being taken without due notice so that decisions could not be reached without opportunities for full consideration being given.

We are now in this very strange and unusual paradigm where you, Mr. Speaker, have certified a bill as being Bill C-10. What has been returned is not an amended bill. We have a two for one special back from the other place. If you would refer to Beauchesne's, one of the necessary components of the bill is the title. We cannot recognize what has been returned because it indeed has a different title. We cannot recognize this bill, we ought not to recognize this bill and it should be deemed that the receipt of this message and the bill attached to it ought to be ruled out of order as it is unrecognizable by this place.

I would then say that we are now descending into chaos here because we are ending up in an area where we have a bill on which we are going to be asked to concur. There have been no notices. There has been no debate and there is no opportunity for full consideration.

W cannot accept it in the form and content in which it has been returned, particularly when you, Mr. Speaker, and the justice minister have certified it as to the form of the bill.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, that is a most interesting question. I have been on record twice on this, if I could put it that way. I have two positions on it.

I am waiting to hear if this is a confidence motion. There is a new verb which has been introduced into this place, to Nunziata oneself. I am not certain what that means but it is a verb. One should not be put in a position where one would Nunziata oneself. If that were the case, I would be absent, but I would make a lot of noise outside the chamber.