John Reynolds

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to report stage of Bill C-23. Bill C-23 would give out marriage-like benefits while failing to define marriage in legislation. Bill C-23 would remove any sort of unique public policy recognition of the institution of marriage.

The official opposition has tabled close to 100 amendments to Bill C-23, which would amend 68 pieces of legislation. The Canadian Alliance amendments, if passed, would define the terms “spouse” and “marriage” in each of the statutes affected by Bill C-23. In our amendments the term “spouse” would be defined as either a man or a woman who has entered into a marriage. The term “marriage” would be defined as the lawful union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. Why is that so threatening to some?

The approach by the justice minister in her amendment is an insincere attempt to alleviate widespread concern about Bill C-23 stripping away any unique public policy recognition of the institution of marriage.

After much public outcry and pressure from members of her own party, the minister proposed to add an interpretation clause to Bill C-23, stating that the bill does not affect the meaning of the word marriage. The legal affect of an interpretation clause in an omnibus bill like Bill C-23 is uncertain at best. Here are the facts.

Bill C-23 is an omnibus bill which would amend dozens of statutes. Thus, if the bill is passed, the justice minister's marriage amendment would appear nowhere in the consolidated statutes. It would not be seen by anyone looking at the online version of any of the acts modified by Bill C-23.

The minister is taking the easy way out by using the backdoor approach. Why not affirm the institution of marriage by using the appropriate legislative tool? Furthermore, the minister's amendment only affects the provisions of Bill C-23. Will we have to have an amendment every time the word marriage comes up in legislation in the future? We do not know that yet, but I am pretty sure this is another one that will keep lawyers very busy.

In committee a motion to clarify that the definition of marriage is the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others for the purposes of Canadian law was voted down. The justice department officials said that a charter amendment would be necessary to effectively protect the definition of marriage. I find that rather strange, based on a vote taken in the House, but I will talk about that later.

The justice minister's amendment shows that the Liberals are under intense public pressure on this bill. Regrettably, the minister's interpretation clause of marriage would have little legal weight. In other words, her amendment would not truly protect marriage in legislation. She is just playing the political game.

The approach of the official opposition would be to define the terms “spouse” and “marriage” in each of the statutes amended by Bill C-23. We would be clear and our approach would be meaningful about what these important social policy terms legally mean. If the Liberals vote against these amendments, they are voting against the definition of marriage in federal law.

On June 8, 1999 parliament passed a motion by a vote of 216 to 55 to take all the necessary steps to preserve the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. The result of that vote was pretty definitive. It was not even close.

It is time for the government to act on this directive and show some courage against those who would want to destroy it.

The Liberals are pandering to those who want to devalue marriage as a cornerstone of public policy. Marriage produces real and tangible public policy benefits. Liberal cabinet ministers cannot get their stories straight on who would qualify for benefits as a result of Bill C-23.

The justice minister says that Bill C-23 would not extend benefits and obligations to individuals in other relationships of economic and emotional interdependence like ordinary roommates.

The Secretary of State for Multiculturalism, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, said that one would not have to have a physical relationship to qualify for benefits under Bill C-23.

Who do we believe? The Minister of Justice who says only opposite or same sex couples involved in a sexual relationship, or the secretary of state who says there does not have to be a sexual aspect to the relationship? All of this is very confusing coming from ministers of the government.

Getting back to the minister's solution to sorting out the mess she created, allow me to read a legal analysis of her amendment as offered by the law firm Stikeman Elliott, which is a very well respected firm in Toronto, especially for its litigation department. It also practises corporate and administrative law. It has practised before the supreme courts of Canada and all over the country, and we should respect what it has to say about this law. It certainly has as much knowledge of what will happen as a result of the bill as any of the lawyers working for the ministry. I quote what that firm had to say about Bill C-23:

In sum, the justice minister's amendment would operate to tell the courts that any of the amendments made by the bill were intended not to affect the meaning of the word marriage. This would only have a practical effect if one of the specific acts already contain the definition of the word marriage in some part of the act not amended by the bill. It would be difficult to see what use courts could make of the interpretive guide offered by the minister's amendment.

Allow me to quote further from the legal opinion:

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.

That quote comes from Stikeman Elliott, one of the most respected law firms in the country. It stated that in its opinion the minister's amendment does not achieve the objective it is trying to achieve.

The minister's amendment is ambiguous and does not send a clear directive to the courts about the definition of marriage. What does that mean? It means that millions of dollars will be spent over the next number of years with lawyers going to the courts trying to seek a definition.

Why would parliament, when it has the opportunity at report stage, not put forward proper amendments to the bill to make sure that we tell the supreme court and the other courts what the definition of marriage is when it was voted on by an overwhelming majority of members of parliament? But the minister's bill, according to Stikeman Elliott's report, does not achieve that objective.

The same legal opinion offers three methods which would constitute clarity and weight for the courts. The first would be to amend the Marriage Act to include a specific definition of marriage. The second would be to amend the bill to include an enacting section which would provide that, for the purposes of all federal legislation, the word “marriage” would mean the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. That has already been voted on by the House and the government should be taking the directive it was given by a very big majority of members of the House. The third would be to amend the bill to include amendments to each affected act, enacting in each such act a specific definition of the word “marriage”.

Bill C-23 is a very flawed piece of legislation. That has been indicated not only by opposition members of the House, but by members of the government who have spoken against parts of the bill. We have an opportunity at report stage to move amendments which have been recommended by major law firms from across Canada and the government should take them seriously.

The Liberals refuse to be clear on who qualifies for benefits. They refuse to deal with the definition of marriage and they refuse to stand for the family.

There is an opportunity at this stage to vote for amendments which could change that opinion, which is shared by many Canadians and many law firms.

I thank the House for the opportunity to put forward not only my opinions, but those of many legal people from across Canada and those of Canadians concerning the faults of this bill.

[Petitions, February 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition bears over 40,000 signatures of people who believe that the government should be doing more about child pornography, especially using the notwithstanding clause to protect young children in Canada.

[Petitions, February 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from constituents who ask that parliament ensure that the supremacy of God remains in the Canadian constitution.

[Petitions, February 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present this morning. The first one is from constituents in western Canada who ask the government for 25% tax relief. I wish them good luck.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, February 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is very hard to answer a question from somebody who really has the wrong premise.

I have been in politics since I was 30. I have seen how government operates. I have no trouble attacking the judiciary if they are not doing their job properly. That is not shameful. I am doing my job as a member of parliament.

However, I have more fun attacking the Liberals because they make the laws. The member was in the House this morning, but he was obviously not listening when the minister admitted that we have to add these other people. It is only fair that they should be in this bill. Why are they not doing it now?

This government has had lots of time to look at the bill. It has had lots of time to defend these other people who have dependencies. The Liberals can do all the talking and insulting they want, but the fact is that this is a poor bill because it does not represent all Canadians and it should represent all Canadians. That is why we are here.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, February 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would love to answer that question. The minister did say that this morning. She did say that this bill is not complete and that we should be helping people with other dependencies. Our answer from this side of the House is that it should have been done with this bill. Why do we have to wait? Because they have to talk to the provinces? My God, they talk to each other every day at this level. I have been in provincial government and we talked to the federal government.

The member from Vancouver is the one using a red herring because her government has a bill which discriminates.

The member asked me if I listened to the minister. It is this minister who will do nothing about pornography. She has done nothing about drunk driving. She talks and talks about the Young Offenders Act. The government delays bills in the House.

I would be happy to debate with those members the fact that this bill discriminates against people in Canada, and it is not fair to many thousands of Canadians.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, February 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, that question was phony and dishonest.

This party believes in equality. This party wants equality for everyone in the country. The member speaks for one group, and I respect that fact. I respect the fact that he speaks for one group.

I do not like the fact that the member will stand to accuse us of being dishonest. My speech was quite open. We are saying that this bill should have been a full bill. The member believes in human rights. Why does he not believe that everybody should have the same rights? That includes other people living in dependent relationships, other than just homosexuals and gays or married people. It should be equal for everybody. We should not be afraid to argue that.

I have made speeches about that for many a year, but you do not listen to speeches. You only like to hear yourself talk. You do not like to—

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, February 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Mississauga South for his comments. I would suggest to him that this bill does not mean anybody living together. This bill says conjugal sex. It is involved with such. That is what we are saying is wrong. We are saying that this bill should include everybody who lives together and wants to declare that. We should not be defining it on whether or not they have sex.

How many people who are of a certain age are living together, are married, but are not having sex? If they are going to define sex as the answer for paying this out, it is wrong. We think it is wrong and most Canadians think it is wrong.

The member for Mississauga South also said it was not a police issue. I disagree with him. Does he not have any constituents calling about these new guys that are running our tax system in Canada? They are harassing people all the time. If he thinks they are not going to start harassing people on this issue, he is wrong.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, February 15th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, they ask how many sides I have sat on. I have been on one side, the right side, not the left side. I know it really upsets them when we have good ideas. The people sitting on the backbench on that side are not allowed to have any ideas. They have to rubber stamp what comes from the front row.

It was very nice to see my Liberal friend from Scarborough East get up this morning and say that this bill was not a good bill and he could not vote for it. I hope a few others on that side do the same.

Finally, all supreme court decisions should be reviewed to see if they gibe with the intent of the laws passed by this parliament.

I spoke earlier about the rush to get this legislation to parliament. One has to really wonder about the Liberals' sense of priority and condemn their manipulation of the events that take place.

Here we have a country which has been in limbo for over a year on the issue of child pornography. Despite the minister promising to act swiftly and decisively on the issue, we will wait around probably for another six months or more before we have a decision. Where is the justice minister on that issue?

The minister and the government refused all attempts by the opposition to have the notwithstanding clause invoked to reinstate the possession of child pornography as an offence. Sixty-four government members wanted to use that too but they voted against it when the Prime Minister said so. They saw no urgency in protecting our children from pedophiles who perpetrate this perverted behaviour. They ignored a petition with 500,000 signatures calling for reinstatement of the law.

It is amazing how the Liberals jump to attention for other groups. What is more of a priority, same sex benefits or protecting innocent young children? We will see how quickly the minister acts on this issue if the law is struck down by the supreme court. Will it be a priority then? That will be a big issue in the House.

Other criminal justice issues cry out for attention. Surely the conditional sentencing mess requires attention. Surely the issue of drugs in prisons and the proliferation of drug use and its terrible social consequences are very much priority issues.

It took the minister three years before we got her to act on young offenders. It took her three years on young offenders. She can sure study things to death.

Last summer we finally got around to the issue of impaired driving. How many years did that take? We await the finalization of this initiative. It is on the Order Paper, but obviously same sex benefits is more of a priority.

The minister made a big issue about her animal abuse bill last December. It was so important. Where is it now? It got the PR, it got the flack, but where is it now? Same sex legislation took over from that. It was good politics at the time, but it currently is not so important now that certain lobby groups are appeased for the moment.

This opportunism is truly the hallmark of the Liberal government. Everything is put on a back burner so the government can play politics in its feeble attempt to deflect attention from the real issues of the day.

Another bill, proceeds of crime, languishes on the Order Paper. Of all criminal justice issues confronting this nation, the minister drops everything because the supreme court sets the agenda for her.

Organized crime has become the single greatest threat to Canada's sovereignty according to those who fight crime for a living, the policemen. They tell us that organized crime has become the biggest single threat to Canada's sovereignty. What are we doing about it? We passed the motion in the House. I have not seen the other side coming to this side and saying let us get that committee going. Let us get that before the House of Commons. No, no. The House agreed unanimously to look at organized crime. We have done nothing about it since it was passed in the House because it is not a priority of the government.

The breadth and scope of organized crime is immense. It has penetrated any area where there is an illegal dollar to be made. Would the minister consider this a priority? It certainly does not seem so.

Over the weekend Toronto's new chief of police had some advice for the minister and judges on what are the priority issues in Canada. Allow me to elaborate. He said “Kids are vulnerable to sexual predators, pornographers and the dangers of a life of crime”. He went on to say that legislators and judges should get a reality check on life itself. This man is the chief of police of the largest city in Canada and knows what he is doing. I will repeat that. He said that the legislators and judges should get a reality check on life itself. Is that not a message that everybody in the House should take seriously? We have to have reality checks and we are not getting them from the other side.

He further indicated on the issue of child pornography and Robin Sharpe that Canada has been made the subject of international scorn and ridicule. To quote the police chief, he said, “I can tell you with a whole lot of shame that even third world countries are more civilized and conscientious about our duty as adults to protect the most vulnerable components of society, our children”. The chief of police said that third world countries are better than we are at protecting the vulnerabilities of our children. As I said before, where are the minister's priorities?

Chief Fantino cites drugs, prisons and organized crime as requiring our attention. Chief Fantino says that Canada is known as a country where crime really does pay. Canada, he says, has a reputation as a country that is soft on crime and that those who come here from elsewhere to pursue their criminal activities have little fear.

Is that not scary? Those who come here from other countries to commit crimes have little fear. This is from the man who is leading the police force in the largest city in Canada. I am sure the chiefs of police of Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Regina, Saskatoon, Winnipeg and all across the country would agree with the chief of police of Toronto. He says that it is a scathing indictment on our criminal justice system. This really should give the minister pause and impetus to get down to the real issues.

According to Fantino, south of the border Canada is seen as a sort of strainer leaking from a thousand holes. He asks if it is any wonder that even deported criminals and undesirables keep on coming back. And boy, with our immigration system we let them right back across the border as soon as they come.

Alas, instead of attacking real and substantive issues, the minister plays defence for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

Bill C-23 is a convenient smokescreen to get the government off the hook. Instead of supporting the call for more assistance to police to fight crime, the minister chooses to send the sex police into the bedrooms of the nation. As I said earlier, a former prime minister of this country said that the government has no place in the bedrooms of anyone in this nation. Would he not be ashamed of this government bringing in legislation that gets involved in the bedrooms of the nation? I am sure he is today.

This bedroom bill, and it is a bedroom bill, will not deflect the attention away from the human resources debacle. It is shameful that the government would be so manipulative.

This morning the minister said that if parliament does not settle the issue, the courts will. What kind of leadership is that in a country? If parliament does not settle the issue, the courts will.

We have other dependent relationships and the minister said we will have to look at those. We will look at those and we will start to travel the country. Why did we not do it before we brought this bill in? Why try to be divisive in the country and leave other people outside the fence? We should be united in the country. As a parliament we should be working properly to do everything that is good for all Canadians, not just any special groups in Canada.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, February 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in the debate on Bill C-23, same sex benefits, better known as the bedroom bill because if nothing is happening in the bedroom one does not qualify.

The Right Honourable Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the former Liberal Prime Minister of Canada, said in 1967 that “The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation”. Unfortunately, the Minister of Justice and her government have decided that it was really necessary to introduce a bill whose purpose goes against that historic statement.

When the minister introduced the bill on Friday she kept repeating terms like tolerance, inclusion and acceptance. It is too bad the minister and the government do not practise what they preach. The bill is an inappropriate intrusion and in fact is discriminatory. It extends benefits based on sexual activity and excludes all other types of dependency relationships.

This is particularly disturbing at a time when more and more dependency relationships that do not include sexual activity are growing. Here we have the Minister of Justice, representing a party whose mantra was the government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation, introducing a bill that makes private sexual activity the sole criterion for eligibility and benefits.

How times change. We have the government that preaches democracy and inclusion excluding thousands of individuals who are in dependency relationships, thanks to the economic situation caused by this uncaring government.

The bill has one spin and it is based solely on conjugal relationships. It is unfair. Seventy-one per cent of Canadians feel that benefits and obligations should not depend on relationships like spouse but on any relationships of dependency where people are living together.

I will repeat that for my colleague over there from Vancouver city. Seventy-one per cent of Canadians feel that benefits and obligations should not depend on relationships like spouse but on any relationship of dependency where people are living together, such as elderly siblings living together or a parent and an adult child living together.

Clearly the government is out of step on this issue by basing benefits on private sexual intimacies rather than on cases of dependency. The Liberals will have to hire sex police to apply the legislation, and will that not be interesting? They may laugh at that right now but we will have sex police, mark my words, before this bill is finished.

I can see a lot of litigation surrounding the bill and, more important for all those Liberal friends over there, a lot of new legal practices in Canada. The government seems to do a lot of drafting of bills and setting things up so that lawyers have more work to do. That is wrong. The bill should not be about lawyers. It should be about people living together and depending on each other. Sex should not be involved in the bill.

On June 8, 1999, parliament passed a motion with 216 in favour and 55 against. The motion called on parliament to take all necessary steps to preserve the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. I was very proud like many of those other hundreds of people here to vote in favour of that bill. One would have thought this bill would have presented the government with an opportunity to enshrine this motion, but not a word.

It seems the Liberals have a problem with the institution of marriage. Simple recognition of this institution would have gone a long way in fostering support for Bill C-23. The bill gives out marriage-like benefits by failing to define marriage. What is the problem with the government? Is it afraid to define marriage?

Let us be honest. We all know why we have the bill before us today. I feel sorry for the legislative drafters at justice. They must have burned a lot of midnight oil over the last week or so in putting the bill together. Imagine the rush they were put to. All this was in an attempt to deflect attention away from the debacle at human resources.

How obvious can one get in one's attempt to salvage the squandering of one billion dollars? I would have thought the spin doctors in the PMO would have come up with something more novel and creative than this. It is an insult to think that one can detract attention away from an issue that has shaken the faith of Canadians in the system, but this government always tries that.

The finance department estimates that 1.6% of couples are gay which would indicate some 140,000 homosexual couples. In preparing this rush job to save its political skin, did the government consult, contact or discuss the situation for others who were in dependency relationships but who were not engaging in sexual activity? In a bill like this one would we not think that would be important? When we are taking a major step, how much time did we take to talk to people who were not engaged in sexual activity? It looks like very little if none.

Canadians have a right to ask why we are moving forward a step at a time. Why are we moving one step? Which couple will be the first to go to the supreme court and say “We do not have sex but we think we also have rights?” That couple will go to the supreme court and win, and we will be back here drafting more legislation. Why do we not get it right the first time? Let us get it right before we proceed.

Did the government for a moment give that element any thought? The Minister of Justice is a master at consulting for years and years on other issues. On the Young Offenders Act it was years and years. On drunk driving it was years and years. On consecutive sentencing it was years and years. I could go on and on. The minister is an expert at consulting and getting no bills through the House.

What makes this issue any different? The minister got orders from her political masters, the supreme court. If the Liberals had it their way, all legislation would be drafted by the court.

The government loves this judicial activism. If the court says so, we must comply. On the other hand the court has used and abused the charter for its own purposes and with the inertia of the government it is the court making the laws.

With the introduction of the charter to the Canadian constitution, a great departure began from the historic division of responsibilities between parliament and the courts. The consequences of this departure include the replacement of the supremacy of parliament with the supremacy of the constitution as interpreted by judges. Power has been transferred from parliament and legislatures to the courts.

Furthermore, this charter has thrust unelected judges with no direct accountability to the people into the realm of decision making and political activism. I do not think Canadians ever wanted their judges to be involved in political activism. That is what is happening in this country because of the Liberal government and the Tory government before it.

The consequences of this new but improper alignment of the roles of parliament, the administration and the courts have been far reaching and dangerous. Frankly it is time to re-establish several hundred years of constitutional convention whose premise is that parliament makes the laws, the administration administers the laws, and the courts are there to interpret the laws.

We have seen the Prime Minister get up in the House many times when we have talked about the Senate. He has said that we have done things traditionally for a long time and that it was good for this country. He has changed in these areas; he should also change on the Senate.

Any delegation of law making by the executive to the courts by default, which is what the government does, or any proactive assumption of law making by the courts is a violation of the basic constitutional principle. It needs to be corrected.

The government has given tacit approval to this misalignment of responsibilities by its vagueness in drafting laws and passing the buck to a supreme court only too eager to employ the charter in each and every instance. We have to get away from that.

This parliament has to draft laws that do not need big interpretations and then come back to parliament. We should be doing our job in the House and we should not have to blame any judges. But we are not doing the job in the House. The minister admitted that this morning by saying that this law is not perfect and that we have to look after all these other people. Where is it? It is not in this bill. What is the rush? Let us get it right before we proceed.

By its vagueness in drafting laws and passing the buck to the supreme court, which I mentioned is only too eager to apply the charter in each and every instance, the government provides every opportunity to the court to flex its charter muscle. The government plays cat and mouse with the court, particularly on sensitive national issues and thus encourages and nurtures the role of the court as a law maker rather than an interpreter of the laws. The Reform Party would put an end to this charter madness and judicial activism by way of a three part program.

First, an all party judicial parliamentary committee should be struck to review the fitness of all supreme court nominees. It is time the people had some say, not just the leader of the government. We have a three part plan which makes some sense.

Second, all legislation should be reviewed for its charter compatibility before it becomes law. My colleagues on the Liberal side seem not to understand this. They are not doing their jobs on that side. They are producing laws that are being shot back to us from the supreme court all of the time. They should be ashamed of themselves for making laws that keep on coming back here from the supreme court.