Paul Devillers

[Committees Of The House, May 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to its order of reference dated December 2, 1999, and provisions contained in article 233 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights was established to conduct a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

In accordance with its mandate, the subcommittee held public hearings in Ottawa and in many other cities in Canada. It also visited all levels of correctional facilities in various locations in Canada and attended conditional release hearings.

In the course of these visits, in camera, it heard management teams, correctional officers, conditional release officers, members of program staff, members of the parole board, inmates, members of citizens' advisory committees and other witnesses.

The subcommittee presented to the standing committee the following report entitled “A Work in Progress: The Corrections and Conditional Release Act”. The standing committee adopted the report.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to touch on a few of the points raised in the debate this afternoon: first, the question of the meaning of the word conjugal in the legislation; second, the amendment to include the meaning of marriage in the interpretive clause; and third, comments made by members across the way, in particular one to the effect that only married couples, not even common law opposite sex couples, should receive benefits under this legislation.

With respect to the definition of conjugal, I would like to read from a brief presented by the Canadian Bar Association to the committee. At page 6 of the brief it reads:

Concerns have been expressed on two fronts with respect to the use of the word “conjugal”. First, there is a concern that benefits are being based solely on sexual activity. We note, however, that this terminology is not new in the law. Most legislation currently defines heterosexual common-law spouses in terms of whether there is a “conjugal” relationship. We would also suggest that a “conjugal” relationship has been defined by the courts to include more than just sexual activity. Second, some have questioned why benefits are not being granted to those cohabiting in non-sexual, familial relationships. However, this Bill is principally intended to remedy the government's failure to extend rights and obligations to gay and lesbian couples living in conjugal relationships when it extended such rights and obligations to heterosexual couples living in similar relationships.

Governments may wish to discuss extending rights and benefits to non-sexual relationships, but that is an entirely different question. The CBA has no position on whether benefits should be extended in this manner. However, it does believe that this Bill should pass now, with consideration being given to extended family relationships after thorough consultations on the public policy implications.

That is exactly what is happening. The minister has referred the question of extending benefits to persons who are in positions of dependency to committee. The government intends to pursue that matter as suggested in the brief of the Canadian Bar Association, after holding consultations on the full public policy implications.

Much has been made about the definition of conjugal, but as the brief from the Canadian Bar Association sets out, this has been used in the heterosexual context for quite some time and is a system that has been functioning without any undue hardship, so it is difficult to understand why it should be such an issue in the context of Bill C-23.

The second point I wish to speak to deals with the government's amendment to include in the interpretive clause the meaning of marriage.

I understand that some members opposite have made reference to a legal opinion obtained from Mr. David M. Brown, who is a partner in Stikeman Elliott's civil litigation department in Toronto, who practises commercial and corporate litigation and administrative law. In that opinion Mr. Brown indicated that if parliament, by introducing this amendment, was trying to make marriage, as a matter of federal law, the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, this amendment would not do that. I submit that was never the intent of the amendment.

At the outset, in tabling the bill, the Minister of Justice made it quite clear that Bill C-23 would have no impact and no effect upon marriage. That was the government's position and that remains the government's position. This amendment has been added for greater clarity in the interpretation clause because the issue was raised by the opposition, by others and by witnesses at committee who felt that Bill C-23 would somehow affect marriage.

Bill C-23 would not affect marriage, and that was not its intent. Bill C-23 also would not affect the five principles of the Canada Health Act. However, there is no amendment in the interpretation clause to say that Bill C-23 would not affect the five principles of the Canada Health Act because no one at committee, in the House or elsewhere has alleged that it would. An amendment is being inserted by the government in the interpretive clause of Bill C-23 to the effect that it would not affect marriage because of the allegations made by some that it would.

It is obvious that the common law case law has provided the meaning of marriage. That case law remains in place, so the state of the law has not changed. It never was the intention of the government in introducing Bill C-23 to change it.

The third point I wish to raise deals with comments made by members opposite that federal laws should only recognize married couples, as they would support committed relationships that would be the best to raise children. In other words, common law couples of the opposite sex with children should not receive these benefits. The obvious difficulty with that proposition is that by extending benefits to married couples only would effectively reintroduce the concept of illegitimacy which Bill C-23 removes from our law.

The Government of Canada continues to emphasize the importance of families and the importance of supporting families, most recently in the last Speech from the Throne. The government wishes to aid all families with children—married couples, common law couples and lone parents—so that the children will not be discriminated against. That is what we should bear in mind, the well-being of the children.

To suggest that children who are being raised by lone parents or by common law parents be ignored and that benefits be given to married couples only risks disadvantaging some children. This would be as if the government were reintroducing the notion of illegitimacy, recognizing only legitimate children.

The second point would be that if obligations in Bill C-23 and other federal statutes were limited only to married couples, this might open the government to accusations that the law actually discriminates against married couples. In fact the Income Tax Act was amended to include common law opposite sex couples, not because common law couples asked for that change but because married couples complained that they were paying more taxes than their common law equivalents.

One example would be that it would make sense for the government to continue to apply the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to married couples only, as is currently the case. The effect of Bill C-23 would be that the provisions of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act would apply to all couples, common law opposite sex couples and common law same sex couples, in addition to married couples.

At the present time any transfers of property just before someone files for bankruptcy are reviewed to see if they were intended to defraud creditors where someone was married, but not where they were in a common law relationship. Bill C-23 would have the effect of bringing equity to all of those relationships.

It is important to bear in mind that indeed the purpose of Bill C-23 is to apply equity to all relationships, whether they are same sex common law, opposite sex common law or married couples.

[Petitions, March 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present pursuant to Standing Order 36. It is signed by 119 people in my riding who petition parliament to fulfil the promise in the 1989 House of Commons resolution to end child poverty by the year 2000.

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, February 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to contribute to this debate because I firmly believe that, as indicated in the title of the bill, we must give effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion offered by the Supreme Court on August 20, 1998. However, I notice that, in this debate on the possibility of a future referendum, political observers tend to ignore one question that is at the heart of this debate: Why hold another referendum?

The only thing that motivates separatist leaders is that they are convinced that the small gap that separated the yes from the no on October 30, 1995 could be filled in a future referendum. You will certainly agree with me that it is not the best of reasons. So I will explain, in the time available to me, why another referendum should not be held in Quebec.

Let us agree on one thing. In the minds of separatists, it is absolutely essential to hold another referendum because Quebec's situation within Canada is unbearable, or so they say. This is false. Quebec was able to develop in every sphere of human activity and to assert its distinctiveness, particularly in terms of language and culture. Quebec has become a dynamic and modern society within Canada. In short, Quebec can be itself and develop within Canada.

Since it took office, our government has undertaken several initiatives to modernize the Canadian federation. Here are a few examples.

First there is the limit on the federal spending power, to which the government committed in the 1996 throne speech. The social union agreement reached on February 4 of last year actualized this commitment and restricted the federal spending power.

This agreement, into which the Bouchard government refused to enter, will nevertheless ensure the viability of our social programs. It highlights principles which are based on fundamental Canadian values such as equality for all, respect for diversity, fairness, human dignity, individual responsibility and solidarity.

The agreement provides, among other things, that new social policies should not hamper mobility. Also, governments undertook to be more transparent and accountable to Canadians.

Then there is the regional veto legislation and the distinct society resolution. This resolution recognizes that Quebec is a distinct society within Canada, with a French-speaking majority, a unique culture and a civil law tradition.

Moreover, the primary federal transfer to the provinces was made less uncertain through the creation of the Canada health and social transfer.

Equally important are the agreements entered into with the provinces and territories, including Quebec, in the area of labour and on the implementation of the national child benefit system, to say nothing of the harmonization of the federal legislation with the new Quebec civil code.

The agreement on internal trade is another accomplishment our government is very proud of, as we are of the very successful infrastructure works program.

In the area of international trade, team Canada efforts have resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in business for our companies.

The constitutional amendment regarding school boards in Quebec showed that we do not hesitate to go the constitutional way when warranted.

As you can see, we did not idle, watching the train go by. We took action, and Quebecers know it. What is very clear is that Quebecers do not want another referendum. Should there be another one, Quebecers want the question to be very clear. This is what recent polls have shown.

On October 30 a CROP poll released by the federal government revealed that 93% of Quebecers feel it is reasonable to require a clear question and 72% a clear majority. Sixty-one per cent believe that the 1995 question was not clear and 60% feel that 50% plus one does not constitute a clear majority. In my opinion, those numbers speak volumes about Quebecers' opinions on a future referendum.

Other data from the poll shed some light on Quebecers' so-called right to declare independence unilaterally. On November 23, Mr. Bouchard claimed that the supreme court's opinion opened the door to such a possibility in the event of bad faith on the part of the Government of Canada and that Ottawa's desire to have the requirement for clarity respected was an example of such bad faith.

Nevertheless, the majority of the CROP poll respondents, 66%, believe that it is reasonable that Quebec conclude an agreement with the rest of Canada before declaring independence. Only 23% felt otherwise.

A majority of 68% believe that the opposition parties in the National Assembly of Quebec should have a say in how the question is worded. Fifty-eight per cent believe that the Government of Canada has a role to play in that regard, as do 56% with respect to the rest of the country. Sixty per cent of Quebecers feel that a slim majority for the yes would leave the province deeply divided. Eighty-four per cent believe that it would be difficult to effect secession under those conditions.

These figures show the deep confusion generated by the separatist proposal. Since they refuse to banish the spectre of the referendum, the federal government has no choice but to remove any ambiguity, should another referendum be held. It is in this context that the government wants to make clear under which conditions it would have to negotiate the secession of a province.

Mr. Bouchard has reiterated his commitment to hold another referendum. Mr. Facal has said that he is working on this full time. In a speech delivered on November 28, the Prime Minister has encouraged the Bouchard government to set aside its referendum plans for the next four years.

The PQ government and the Bloc Quebecois immediately refused. But, according to a CROP poll carried out last September, a strong majority of 71% of Quebecers do not want another referendum.

Quebecers do not want another referendum, and they do not want separation. They have the right to demand that governments deal with their everyday problems. That is what our government is doing with determination, but, because of the referendum obsession of separatist leaders, we have no choice but to deal with this issue that concerns the survival of our country.

We believe that our country is worth saving and that the well-being of Canadians is worth addressing, not in a spirit of division but in a realistic and constructive way. A referendum would only divide the population. Instead, we should be devoting all our energies to children, to education, to the environment and to all the challenges of the next century.

We have a duty to clarify the circumstances under which our government would feel bound to negotiate the secession of a province. I am convinced that on a clear question, Quebecers will say, for a third time, that they do not want to separate from Canada.

[Petitions, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions, pursuant to Standing Order 36, containing 54 signatures.

The petitioners call on parliament to affirm the duty and responsibility of parents to raise their children, and for the Department of Justice to vigorously defend section 43 of the Criminal Code.

[An Act For The Recognition And Protection Of Human Rights And Fundamental Freedoms, December 6th, 1999]

Nonsense.

[Nisga'A Treaty, November 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-9, an act to give effect to the Nisga'a Final Agreement, has now been debated in the House of Commons for close to 14 hours. This is not a myth but a reality.

Last week, the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs conducted five days of consultative hearings in British Columbia. That too is the reality.

Another reality is that the Government of Canada recognized the existing rights of aboriginal peoples in the 1982 Constitution Act, following a Canada-wide consultation.

The Nisga'a treaty, which is to be part of the existing Canadian legal framework, confirms the rights that were recognized in 1982. Also, it is clearly stated in the final agreement that the treaty complies with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The reality is that this legislation is the result of many years of discussions and negotiations with numerous stakeholders.

The reality is that we must assume our responsibilities and move forward.

[Criminal Code, June 7th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, much has been said this morning about this debate being a battle of the backbench against the government. There are many members on the backbench who are not in government and have extreme difficulty with this bill and with the fact that it has not been voted through the committee system.

The amendments that are the subject of today's vote were negotiated while the debate at report stage was carried on. There are many issues that should be studied. Certainly many of us feel that this bill should be sent to committee.

There are some factual errors. For instance, what is a sentence for first degree murder? It is life without eligibility for parole for 25 years. In fact, the average sentence served in Canada is 28.4 years. Some members disputed or denied that, but those facts and figures are available from Corrections Canada.

We had those amendments reviewed by Professor Allan Manson, who is a professor of law at Queens University. He said that in his opinion “Bill C-251 in its present form is unsound constitutionally, an example of regressive, inconsistent and unjustified penal policy and the product of an irresponsible process of legislating penal reform”.

In those circumstances certainly because of the timeframes that were imposed upon the House and the lack of the bill being referred to committee there has not an opportunity to properly study this bill.

The motives for this bill are certainly commendable. Everyone empathizes with the plight of victims. In our penal system life does mean life, but there is the opportunity for rehabilitation. I think that is very significant and should be retained.

[Month Of Communication, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the month of May is the month of communication, a theme that is particularly important in the context of a world rapidly changing. However, beyond the great technological advances of this century, is it not appropriate to wonder if the time has not come to redefine human communication?

It is all very well to communicate from one end of the planet to the other, but sometimes we forget the first meaning of communication, which is understanding—understanding between world powers, generations, parents and children and employers and employees.

In short, is it not time to get back to basics in this art of communicating, which first and foremost is the art of understanding one another in order to resolve conflict and problems peacefully?

[Aluminum Industry, April 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in Chicoutimi this morning, the Government of Canada announced a new initiative to create a technological road map.

This working tool will target the future needs of Canadian industry in technological and product terms. In regional terms, it will be used in the creation of a development plan for second and third levels of aluminum processing.

The implementation committee will comprise people working in Canada Economic Development, Industry Canada, the National Research Council, the Aluminum Association of Canada, Alcan, as well as the Quebec aluminum research and development centre.

Our government is concerned about development in the regions in Quebec. An initiative like the one announced this morning is another example of our concern for working together with the stakeholders in the community and with the Government of Quebec.