Grant McNally

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

You did not appeal the Rosenberg decision.

[Acoa, April 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see the change of heart of the Minister of Veterans Affairs when it comes to ACOA.

When the party of Clark introduced it in 1988 he called it the Atlantic Canada overblown agency. The current heritage minister and the Deputy Prime Minister voted against it, and several others voted against it.

Why was it so bad then and so good now?

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

Madam Speaker, I want to focus my remarks, in opposition to Bill C-23, on three main areas. I will begin by stating that I do not support the amendments proposed by the member for Burnaby—Douglas, but I do support the amendments proposed by my colleague from Calgary Centre who attempts to strengthen a very severely flawed bill.

I will begin by making a broad overview of the philosophical underpinnings of the bill to explain the divide on this topic. The second area I want to focus on is what I call the language game being used by the justice minister and by some who support Bill C-23. I will conclude by mentioning some of the implications for proceeding along this path.

Why is the whole issue of same sex benefits such a hot topic? Is it simply because sex sells, as all good marketers know? I suggest that there is another more important reason why this topic strikes such an emotional chord. It is because this is an issue that forces people to confront their own philosophical core beliefs. The guiding philosophy of our day and our society, I would propose, is something called personal subjective relativism.

Some might wonder what I mean by this term. Let me explain it in terms that are familiar to all, which is the philosophy that “what is right for you is right for you, what is right for me is right for me”. I would define that as relativism. That seems to be the guiding philosophy of our day.

Let us take a look at this philosophical stance. At its core, the philosophy holds that man is the measure of all things and that there are no transcendent absolute truths. Truth is relative. One can pick out his or her truths, much like picking out items from a buffet or choosing a particular flavour of ice cream from his or her favourite ice cream parlour. On the face of it, this seems a reasonable way to proceed to those who espouse this philosophical stance. Many espouse to this stance without understanding that they themselves hold to this belief. They tacitly hold the belief, that is, they have it without really knowing on the face of it, that this is what they believe.

Many people would say “Yes, this is how I confront issues when confronted with issues”. That is all fine and good. The difficulty arises when people hold to such a view that their buffet plate of beliefs or their favourite ice cream cone of core issues is the one that everyone else should also choose. It is this difficulty which leads those who are relativists to have these kinds of conversations with others, those who may even be absolutists. They might say things such as “There are no such things as absolutes. Truth is relative”. Some might say, in response to them, “Really?” The relativists would respond “Yes, indeed and those who claim that there are absolutes are simply attempting to impose their morality on me”. “Oh, really”, would say the absolutist. “Yes there are no absolutes,” claims the relativist. In response, “So, is that an absolute that there are no absolutes?”

The house of cards argument falls in on itself. A person who espouses that there is no such thing as an absolute and there are no truths falls on their own petard, philosophically speaking, with stating this is the case. How can they claim that something is right or better than another thing when there is no such thing within their own definition of what is right and what is wrong?

That is a position that the government is squarely placed in, in proceeding on the pathway with this bill, Bill C-23.

Those who say there are no truths proceed quite comfortably to impose their own moral view or philosophical view on others, even when shown that they are holding to a self-defeating perspective. If one is a true relativist, why would he or she care if someone holds to an absolutist point of view? Should not anyone be free to choose their own perspective?

Some have tried to make Bill C-23 a religious issue. Proponents of Bill C-23 can use this tactic to paint opponents of Bill C-23 as religious extremists. They can marginalize it or minimize the opposition by saying that this is just a certain segment of society who are backward in their thinking and that we do not have to listen to them.

I would say that it is this philosophical divide that crosses religious boundaries. There are those, who would call themselves religious, who support Bill C-23, and those, who are not religious at all, who oppose Bill C-23. It is for this very reason that there is a philosophical difference in approach to the notion of same sex benefits before us, and on other issues as well.

For example, I have received hundreds of letters and phone calls opposing Bill C-23 from a wide cross section of constituents. I have received less than 10 letters and phone calls supporting Bill C-23. However, I do want to note one comment made by an ordained Reverend, Rev. Ken Baker from All Saints Anglican Church in Mission. He says “I wish you to note that I am in favour of Bill C-23 and I wish you to express my viewpoint in the House”. I make the argument that there are religious people who support Bill C-23. I would not include myself in that category. This is a man who wanted that on the record and it is now on the record.

Bill C-23 presents an issue before us that is not a religious divide. It is a philosophical divide between a relativistic perspective and an absolutist perspective. An absolutist is a person who believes that there are truths that can be known and on these truths the foundations of right and wrong within a society are built.

To summarize, the Liberals are saying to Canadians that there are no absolutes, that this bill is the right way to proceed. They then go on to argue as if there are absolutes and that this is the very reason why people should accept Bill C-23.

The minister and members have used terms such as this bill is the right thing to do, it is about equality and fairness, when it is really about something else. It is about those Liberal members on the other side imposing their moral perspective on Canadians.

This brings me to the second part of my discussion today, which is a tactic being used by the Liberals and those who would support Bill C-23. It is something I call the language game. The language game can be a very effective tool, especially when the groundwork has already been laid to erode the notion of truths or absolutes.

Let us talk about this language game being employed by the government. It is a well crafted technique and strategy that Liberals and those who support Bill C-23 use to try to intimidate, punish and scorn those who disagree with their claims on a philosophical perspective.

Those who claim to be promoters of tolerance will even resort to bringing personal lawsuits against those who speak out against them. These can cause a great deal of personal hardship and even economic ruin. I know an individual within my own riding who is faced with this because he has been on the public record as being opposed to this particular issue.

We have seen the creation of new words in the language game, again played by the justice minister to try to shut down those who disagree with the bill. We are well acquainted with the word homophobia, a word where people who believe that there is such a thing will say that it is a fear of homosexuals; a label used to brand those who object to the state's sanctioning of homosexuality.

I implore the government to note that the weakest form of any argument is name calling. When one's arguments do not withstand the test of its own merits, it is a sign of weakness within that argument. We have seen this tactic employed by the government when proceeding with this bill.

Redefining terms is another plank used in the language game. Because language is such a powerful tool, we have seen the government use this tool in branding others for various different reasons to try to shut down and stifle debate. On this particular issue, this is very clear.

If the meaning of a word or a phrase can be shifted to mean something else, then wide support can be granted for an idea. Who would be against equality? Who would possibly want to be perceived as anything but tolerant? Who could disagree with either of these statements?

Let us look at the term tolerance. What does the word actually mean in light of public policy? Tolerance on this topic of same sex benefits would seem to indicate that the state should not be allowed to intrude on private, consensual sexual relationships between adults as long as all involved consent and no one gets hurt.

What does the government call tolerance? What does the justice minister call tolerance? What does she mean by the words tolerance and equality? The minister believes that no personal sexual arrangement is better than any other, which can be defined as sexual egalitarianism, and that anyone should be allowed to participate in whichever arrangements they choose or are predisposed to. That is the first part of tolerance.

In conclusion, the minister goes well beyond this definition and redefines tolerance to mean social acceptance. She wants to legislate the benefits reserved for married couples or extended to others, that there is no difference in law between those who are married, a common law heterosexual or same sex relationship.

I would implore my colleagues to look at the philosophical underpinnings of this debate and see that it really is a divide on philosophical grounds. Those who oppose it, oppose it on such. This marriage amendment that is being proposed by the justice minister is nothing more than a shell game, which my colleagues will expound on in the House today to let Canadians know that this bill is simply wrong.

I implore Canadians not to be fooled by this trick of putting forward an amendment as some saviour to marriage, because it certainly is not. It goes down the wrong road and Canadians should be aware of that.

[Human Resources Development, March 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, what is unbelievable is that this minister tries to downplay the kind of scandal that is going on in her own department with these kinds of comments. It is unbelievable.

Let us go back to this report and look at another quote. In this report it says that the communication on the importance of ethics has not taken place at the operational level. Why not?

[Human Resources Development, March 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I think statements by ministers are at 3 o'clock. Let us get back to the news.

What is actually bizarre is that this minister did nothing about this audit since 1998, until an access to information request was filed by the official opposition. The minister says that she knew nothing about this problem until November but the audit clearly indicates that there were problems as far back as 1998. It is a disaster for her anytime one of these internal audits happens to slip out of her fingers because Canadians get to look at the rot that is going on in her department.

Here is a quote from this report “Employees were not convinced that they could report suspected contraventions of ethics without fear of reprisal”. What kinds of reprisals did employees in her department fear?

[Petitions, March 24th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from many petitioners in my riding who are asking the government to oppose any amendments to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or any other federal legislation which would provide for the exclusion of the reference to the supremacy of God in our constitution and laws.

[Petitions, March 24th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present two petitions on behalf of the good people of Dewdney—Alouette. The first petition has to do with the high rate of taxes in Canada imposed by the Minister of Finance.

The petitioners ask the Minister of Finance to reduce taxes substantially, by 25% in the budget which was just brought down and in the next three budgets.

[Human Resources Development, March 24th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, while the auditor general talked about facts, let us talk about some other facts. The parliamentary secretary talked about facts.

The minister took no action until she was caught. That is a fact. She tried to bury the audit for months and hoped that it would not be found. That is a fact. When she was outed by an access request she reluctantly released the audit. Since then she has stonewalled every attempt to get to the truth. That is a fact. She has not so much as apologized for this billion dollar bungle.

With this kind of track record, how can anyone expect anything but a repeat of this disaster as long as this minister is still in charge?

[Human Resources Development, March 24th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party will not apologize for continuing to keep this government accountable. The auditor general has warned against political interference in his report and the Deputy Prime Minister knows it.

Just to refresh the minister's memory, that is when the boss puts pressure on the department to dole out cash for fountains and shifty hoteliers, or when she goes against the rules of her own program and drops millions of dollars into her own riding. Political interference will get in the way of any plan to restore integrity to the way grants are doled out at HRDC.

It is the same players and the same programs. How can it be expected that there will be anything different this time around?

[Human Resources Development, March 23rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, while the minister speaks about transparency, we can see right through her. The minister has HRDC audits sitting on her shelf, yet she refuses to release them. She is ignoring ATI guidelines. She is ignoring Treasury Board guidelines. This can hardly be described as transparent. Why will she not simply release this information immediately?