Werner Schmidt

[Petitions, May 1st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present, both of which are on the same subject but were sent on different days. There contain well over 400 names.

The petitioners are asking the government to recall Bill C-23, to affirm the opposite sex definition of marriage in legislation and to ensure that marriage be recognized as a unique institution.

[Human Rights, May 1st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the gratuitous execution of Canadian Nguyen Thi Hiep by the Vietnamese government has shocked Canadians. The execution violated basic principles of human rights by failing to provide Nguyen with a fair trial and by carrying out the execution before investigations were complete.

With such blatant disregard for human rights one can only imagine the dreadful fate Ms. Nguyen's 74 year old mother faces as she serves a life sentence in a Hanoi prison.

Canadians in their outrage are calling on the government to exact a severe price and to review its co-operative agreements with Vietnam. On behalf of the Canadian Alliance, we extend our sympathies to the family of Ms. Nguyen. We call on all Canadians to continue to fight against human rights violations.

Canada must send a clear message to international governments to abandon such atrocities if they wish to carry on co-operative relations with our country.

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

I am so glad the hon. member over there said yes, yes. I expect him to vote according to the way his constituents want him to, not the way the agenda has told him to.

It matters what history has told us. Our custom has been very clear, that marriage shall be the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. That has been our history and tradition. Much has been said that that is what the definition is and it will continue to be. Parliament put that on record last June by passing Motion 216-55. It was very clear that parliament should do every thing it could. If the minister had really wanted to make the definition of marriage in her amendment legally binding, she could have.

According to David Brown, a constitutional expert and litigation lawyer in one of the reputable firms in Toronto, if she really wanted to do that, there were three things she could have done. She could have done something to amend the Marriage Act to include a specific definition of marriage. Or, she could have amended the bill to include an enacting section which provides that “for the purposes of all federal legislation, the word `marriage' means the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”. Or, she could have amended the bill to include amendments to each affected act enacting in each such act a specific definition of the word marriage. She did none of those three.

In fact, what she did was put it into the interpretation section. What was the amendment? She said “For greater certainty, the amendments made by this act do not affect the meaning of the word marriage, that is the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”. If that is what she really meant, she should have put it in an enacting section in the law. It would have meant something. The way it is written now does not have that impact.

We have hon. members opposite who are in the legal profession and who know jolly good and well that this is the case. The Minister of Justice knows this is the case. There is absolutely nothing new in what I am telling the hon. minister. She knows better. So do certain other ministers who are sitting across the way.

The time has come for us to tell the truth and to recognize that the people of Canada do want marriage to be defined as the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. They want that in the law of Canada. That is what they have told us. If these government people are going to honestly reflect that, they are going to vote that way. It would be incorrect for them not to vote that way and vote the way the whip tells them. I would suggest that it is an abuse of the power of the whip to force each one of them to vote a particular way. They should vote according to the way the people have told them to.

If they do not do that we then have to be very clear that that group of people over there is anti-family and not in favour of marriage. We have to be absolutely clear what this is about. It is time that we determine what we are. Are we democratic? Do we really mean that marriage is one man and one woman lawfully united? Is that the issue or is it something else?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who just spoke asked why we have to take things back to the dark ages. What I want to do is bring this to the 21st century.

I wish I knew who wrote this but apparently it is anonymous. For the record, I want to indicate that there are four classes of people. There are those who do not know and do not know that they do not know. They are foolish. There are those who do not know and know that they do not know. They are simple and should be instructed. There are those who know but do not know that they know. They are asleep, and we should wake them. The fourth are those who know and know that they know. They are wise and we should listen to them.

There are many Canadians who fall into the fourth class. They know that they know. It has to do with marriage. They know what the institution of marriage is and they know that they know that. They also know what the definition of marriage is: the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. They have told us that in thousands of letters, thousands of faxes, thousands of phone calls and thousands of e-mails. That is why the minister brought in an amendment to the bill.

We need clarity on this bill. Why do we need it? The way the government will vote on this particular bill will determine whether it really believes in democracy or whether it simply wants to promote its particular agenda.

Is it the people that the government will listen to, or will it ignore the representations which have been made and pursue an agenda it has set for itself in the interest of a particular position it wants to advance?

There are three points I want to make in the time left to me. The first is the need for clarity in legislation. The second is the need for a clear expression of the intent of parliamentarians as to what they want the courts to interpret in terms of law. The third is the need to recognize the significance of the message we send to society. It is for our children that we send this message.

The importance of the meaning of a word reminds me of a passage from Alice in Wonderland : “When you use a word it means what we choose it to mean, neither more nor less. It is simply a question of who is the master, that is all”.

The other side of that coin is that whoever determines the meaning of a word is the master. That suggests then that the master in Canada is the court, which decided what marriage should mean.

What it ought to be is that we as parliamentarians better define what that meaning is if we want to be the master of the intent of what is meant and how we want the courts to rule. We had better decide, not the courts and not the judges.

As a parliament, we need to clearly express what we intend marriage to mean. I have already indicated what various people in Canada have told us what it ought to be.

I want to move on to the next point which is for our children. I notice there are five hon. members from the government side of the House listening. I congratulate them for being here. I want to register the point about the message parliament is sending to people. That is do we really want to look at what the people have told us they want marriage to mean or are we going to put it somewhere else? We need to be careful in this matter because it will establish the truth of what we believe. Are we a democratic institution or are not?

[Supply, April 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the best response is that is why they never voted in a Liberal.

I have too much respect for the minister to not recognize the seriousness behind the question. I want to recognize that the voters by and large are very intelligent. After all, that is what makes democracy work. I also know that we are sometimes very subtly influenced by getting certain kinds of money for certain advantages. We are kind of selfish people. Most of the people around here have a bit of a selfish interest.

We do have this kind of thing. We do have a penchant toward doing that. We want to avoid that. We do not want the appearance of public funds being used to influence a voter to cast his or her ballot in a particular direction. That is the issue. I do not think the voter would do so deliberately. To suggest that they are not influenced is not the way it really exists out there.

[Supply, April 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for giving me the opportunity with that question to expand further on this issue.

Yes, it is an expansion of the motion to a degree, but it is a very necessary expansion. The audits themselves reveal the processes to be used to follow the money to determine if it was spent where it was supposed to have been spent. That is a financial audit. We could call it a performance audit, if we wished. It is a very fine distinction and one which the people really do not care about.

What the people want to know is if their money went where it was supposed to go and was it used for that which it was originally intended.

One thing they do not want that money to be used for is to buy votes. That was never the intention when the people of Canada gave the money to the government and said “I will pay my taxes. I want you to look after those who are poor, who cannot look after themselves”, as in the case of HRDC. That is what they want. By the same token, they do not want that money to be used to buy votes to give particular advantage to particular people because they live in a particular way and have given money back to a political party. That they do not want. The audit will reveal that kind of thing if it is a proper audit and if it is open and timely. That is exactly what we want.

[Supply, April 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is really a very interesting debate that is taking place this afternoon. I would like to commend my hon. colleague from Yorkton—Melville for the very explicit and detailed analysis that he has done and also the very specific examples that he used to illustrate and support his particular arguments. I appreciate that very much.

I would like to focus our attention a little more concisely, because information is such a big word. In fact it has come to the point today where to simply use the word information is almost ambiguous. We have to ask ourselves what kind of information it is that we want.

We are talking about audits. Audits have been divided by various groups into different kinds. There are internal audits, external audits, financial audits, performance audits and a variety of audits. What we are talking about, at least in part, has to do with financial audits. In fact I wish to speak about financial audits primarily.

These audits have to do with examining in an official capacity the financial statements and the financial records and accounts that are kept by government, that are kept by business and that are kept by individuals. The audit is a reflection, an accurate statement, an official statement of the expenditures that have been taking place in a particular government department. That is what we are talking about this afternoon.

The audit is the official examination of whether there is an accurate statement of the revenues that have been received and an accurate accounting and record of the expenditures that have taken place. However, the audit also follows the trail of the money: Where did it come from? Where is it going? What was the process used in spending the money? Was it spent according to the plan that was originally established? That has to do with the budget.

The audit compares where the money was supposed to come from, where the budget suggested that the revenues be collected, and where the money was supposed to be spent, and we have the official record of the estimates.

Invariably, every year there is a statement that is brought forward called the supplementary estimates. These are estimates that are added to the original budget. They change certain lines and they add certain amounts of money to certain lines so that the intentions of the original budget document can be met.

The budget is the guiding document. It is the policy document. In fact the budget is a piece of legislation. It has the force of law, it is the law and it must be observed. The audit is a very clear comparison of what the budget said should happen and what actually happened. It has to do with projects, with programs and with the intentions of government as to where our money should be spent.

There are two words that refer to the audit. One has to do with accountability, that is, to hold the government to account as to whether the money was spent the way it was supposed to have been, and also to give an account. To whom should that account be given? That account shall be given to the people whose money was spent. The money the government has is not its own. Whatever money the government has is money that has been collected from the taxpayers, either directly or indirectly. It is money that is held in trust. The whole concept of holding to account has to do with giving an account of how the money that was collected was spent. The government said it needed the money for these projects and programs. Did the government deliver the projects and programs? That is the first level of accountability.

The second level of accountability is, did the government spend as much as it said it would spend, less or more? If less was spent, why were the costs of the project underestimated? If more was spent, why? Was it inefficiency or were there other reasons? The government had better explain why it did not hit the mark set in the budget.

The budget also establishes responsibility. It says who shall get the money: the Minister of Human Resources Development, the Minister of National Revenue, the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Industry, and so on. The budget clearly identifies who shall get the money and on which projects and programs it shall be spent. If the minister does not do that, he or she should be held to account. The responsibility is his or hers and no one else's.

The point has been made that the servants of government, the public employees, are doing an excellent job of managing public money. They had better, because it is the minister who holds them to account. If the minister does not hold them to account, then the minister is the one whom the audit should reveal and say “Mr. Minister, you are the one who had this account. This is your responsibility. Make sure that it is done according to the regulations and policies that have been set up to do the job”. That becomes the issue.

The budget clearly identifies not only what money should be spent, how much should be spent, where it should be spent, but who is to be held to account, who is responsible for the expenditure of that money.

Then we have to look at the honesty, the integrity, the openness and the freedom of the people to do what the government said they should do, in trust for the people, in the name of the people. When the Minister of National Defence spends money, he spends it in the name of the people. The people trust that minister to spend the money in such a way that their security and the security of the nation will be looked after. If it is not, then the minister is held to account, and the Prime Minister is held to account for all of the ministers in his cabinet.

What is meant by honesty? It means that the government and the minister have to be able to say “This is the financial statement. These are the revenues that we received. This is how they were spent. This is an honest statement of what happened”. There are not two sets of books. There is one set of books. That is honesty.

Then there is integrity. Integrity is very interesting because the minister recognizes that it is his or her responsibility and that he or she is accountable. The responsibility cannot be pushed off by saying “I have delegated this to my deputy. Therefore, I am not responsible, it is the deputy's responsibility”. If the minister is a person of integrity the response would be “I am responsible”.

What about openness? “Sure, here are the books. Here is where I spent the money. Have a look and see whether it is not so”. They do not bother to white out columns so as not to show certain numbers. Why would they not want to let out this information? It is a cover-up of some kind. It is either the cover-up of a number on a sheet of paper or it is the cover-up of a decision that is represented by that number. In any event, any kind of whiteout, any kind of resistance to give information is a lack of openness. This is all part of responsibility. This is all part of integrity and honesty.

There is also something else, and that has to do with freedom. When it comes to the business of people giving to the government their money, which the government is to spend on their behalf, in trust, to do the kinds of things that the government said it would do in its budget, the people have the right to know. They should have the freedom to ask the minister and to ask the Prime Minister if the government spent their money the way it said it would. That openness has to be guaranteed.

It is not just openness for the sake of openness; it is openness in a timely fashion. If a department's books are opened five years later, it might be useful, but there would be a totally different set of circumstances. There has probably been an election and there may be a different government in power. Timeliness is absolutely critical.

We need to be very, very careful when we talk about these audits, that they are timely, that they are open, that they can hold people to account and determine clearly where the responsibility lies.

If that is the case, then we need to examine why it is that a corporation like the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation can request an extension because it needs to consult a third party. Whose money is this? Who made the decision? The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation made the decision. It had the money. It kept the books, but it now needs to consult a third party to see whether in fact it is an accurate statement. What is going on? Why does it have to consult a third party? The corporation is responsible. The minister is responsible. He should be open and he should be able to account.

The debate is very significant. It is very necessary and it is in the interests of the people who are listening. I am here to hold the government to account. The government should not be afraid. If it is making good decisions, the people will say “Yes, the government has managed my money well”.

[Supply, April 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member opposite for his impassioned plea for the opening up of the Access to Information Act and to become more transparent than is currently the case. I could not agree more.

I also agree with his advocacy that charitable organizations open their books to the public insofar as it is desirable to do so. I do not disagree with that at all.

I think the hon. member actually is in agreement with everything we stand for over here. The interesting thing which I cannot figure out is why in the world he moved from one bill to another bill and somehow thinks that the second bill is better than the first. He has not explained that to me at all. I do not think he has explained it to anyone. I think that is why he is in trouble right now, because he has failed to explain exactly what it is that he wants.

He wants more access to information and that is correct. So do I, as does this whole side of the House, whether it is the Canadian Alliance or others. And I would like to educate the hon. member opposite that there is a Canadian Alliance and there is no Reform Party in Canada. Would he please remember that is the case.

I ask the hon. member, exactly what does he understand an audit to be?

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 3rd, 2000]

And where are we going?

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to debate the amendments in Group No. 1 on Bill C-23. I will debate essentially three aspects of these amendments.

The first has to do with the matter of definitions. In fact I would like to suggest that the purpose of the amendment is to focus on the definition of marriage. That is the purpose of the amendment.

I think we would agree with a lot of things about this amendment. I know I certainly would. The suggestion that this is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others is consistent with the June 1999 motion in the House.

After looking at these amendments I asked myself what all the fuss was about with the definition. Why should we care so much about the definition? I recalled back to a day when I was in grade eight. The teacher came into the class and said “Class, I would like you to take out a clean sheet of paper and write at the top of the page the word science”. He then asked “What is science?” Science is the orderly arrangement of knowledge. After having gone through this in grade school, while taking several courses in organic chemistry in university, I asked a professor to define science, and he did. Guess what he said? He said that science was the progressively explicit organization of knowledge.

There we have it. What is in a definition? A definition tells us clearly what a thing or an element is and what it is not. It defines something as being exclusive from all other things.

One of the major contributions that Mendeleev made, for example, was to categorize the various elements, to show the various atomic weights of these elements and in what order, the valences of these chemicals and what they had, and how they would unite with one another. It was the degree to which one could specify in detail what each of those elements were, what each of the definitions are and how they work that progressed science.

As we define things more and more clearly, we are progressing. That is not regressive. The suggestion is being made that by modernizing we can somehow expand the definition of marriage. That is not the point. That is precisely why we have insisted that the definition of marriage be included, not only in Bill C-23 but also in subsequent legislative bills that this particular bill proposes to amend.

Not only does definition allow us to recognize what a thing is and, by that very recognition, what all other things are not that particular issue that we are talking about, there can be all kinds of other arrangements. There can be common law arrangements, gay arrangements and liaisons of a variety of natures. They are just simply liaisons and they are different from marriage. They are not marriage. To expand marriage to include that would, it seems to me, confuse the issue rather than clarify it.

What is being sought here is a clarity, to make abundantly clear to everyone that this is what marriage is. That means that any other relationship simply is not marriage. It seems to me that is very fundamental. That is why it is so essential that we focus on the definition.

We could go on at great length to determine what the other significant aspects are of a clear definition. One of the most significant aspect is to clearly identify how things relate to one another and how they differ from one another. This does not mean that they are not equal. A toe is not the same as a thumb. The head is not the same as a leg. However, they are part of a body. As we define these things, we begin to recognize how they relate to one another, and similarly in marriage.

The marriage definition clearly identifies the relationship between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others and that this be a lawful arrangement as to the exclusion of all others. It is abundantly clear that is what is being proposed here.

The difficulty arises when we confuse the definition with something else that it begins to mean something different. It is expanded to the point where relationships become confused and where in fact it is not clear any more what ought to be the situation with marriage as compared to any other situation.

We need to recognize that equality is essential and will only happen if and when we have clear definitions. If not, what happens? It means that if we have clearly defined something we can then go to a judge and to any other part of society and say what we mean. The judge would then not have to interpret it differently in one case from another case, from a different situation. It can then be applied across the board. The judge can be consistent, equal and fair in all those cases.

I believe it was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice who suggested that the only reason why this was happening was because the supreme court said so. If there was ever a role for the House, it was to clearly define what we mean in the legislation that we write. The last thing we should do is let the courts tell us what we mean in any legislation. We should tell the court what we mean without equivocation and without interpretation. The judge then has to interpret the application of that law in particular cases. If the definition is clear, he can do so consistently with equality, justice and fairness. That is what we need.

What happens if we do not have a clear definition? It is very interesting to see what happens. First, there is confusion. What is it we are talking about? If that is the issue, then it is abundantly clear why this particular amendment should come forward.

In this connection, I will refer, as my hon. colleague did just a moment ago, to an interpretation of a rather respected law professor at the Osgoode Hall Law School, a practitioner in law and a man who has presented various cases before judges. After a very careful and studied analysis, he came to a conclusion and said:

If Parliament intends to state that, as a matter of federal law, “marriage” is the “lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others” then in my opinion (the Minister's amendment) does not achieve that objective. As previously stated, (the Minister's amendment) is not an enacting section—

Those watching must be wondering what in the world that means. It simply means that this does not enact that definition in each of the subsequent pieces of legislation. In other words, it may have force or it may not have force. It is a matter of opinion, a matter of interpretation. The definition of marriage should not be a matter of interpretation, which is essentially what this legal mind has said.

The gentleman goes on to say:

—it will not bring into force any legally binding definition of “marriage”. By contrast, if the Bill was amended to enact a definition of marriage for each of the particular acts referred to in the Bill, then Parliament would be giving a clear indication of its intention to the courts and to the public at large.

Can anything be more clear and unequivocal than that kind of statement? That is what we are asking the government to do.

The hon. member for Vancouver East stated that we are not speaking consistently with what people are saying. I certainly am speaking consistently with what my constituents are saying.

I was in my constituency last Friday and I asked how many calls, letters, faxes and e-mails we had received in support of Bill C-23 and how many we had received in opposition to Bill C-23. I was told that they had not counted the number in support of the bill because there was only one in support of it. We have not yet been able to count the numbers opposed to Bill C-23. Is that not pretty clear? Only one person out of almost 125,000 voters in the area supports the bill. By far, the majority of people are not in favour of Bill C-23 as it is being proposed.

In the interest of building and making a better piece of legislation there are two possibilities. The first is to amend it so it does what the government is intending it to do. I encourage the government to do that. The second is to withdraw the bill until it can be studied and until the people of Canada can express themselves, as they have to me, as they have to my hon. colleague for Calgary Centre and as they have to many of the other MPs in the House. Do it.

We are not here to condemn the government. We are not here to oppose the government. We are here to give to the people the kind of legislation and the organization of marriage and of families that will make our society stronger and will make Canada stronger. On the basis of that, the family is the strength of the nation.