Elsie Wayne

[Supply, September 16th, 2003]

I will bring them here for the hon. member to see. They come from British Columbia right through to Newfoundland, and the people are begging us not to redefine marriage. The other way, I have only so many. That is exactly the way it is. Here is what I want to know from the hon. member. The polls say 48% are for and 43% against, and then the next day it is even. I can tell the House that it is not. In my opinion, 28 million people across this country are for the traditional family, and maybe there are 2 million the other way. I would like the hon. member to tell me how he feels about it.

[Supply, September 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member very much for his presentation, but my question has to do with the polls. I have in my office, and I would be happy to bring them over, letters that stack so high.

[Supply, September 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the hon. member is aware of this but I have a copy of a letter sent to me which was dated August 10, 1999 when the present Minister of Health was the then minister of justice. At that time she had received I believe a petition about changing the definition of marriage. She wrote a letter to the gentleman in B.C. and explained to the man that his concerns were serious however the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others was already the clear law in Canada, and she stated she would like to take the opportunity to clarify why.

The minister said that the definition of marriage in federal law was not in a statute passed by Parliament but was found in the federal common law dating from 1866, the British case of Hyde and Hyde v. Woodmansee. She said that the case had been applied consistently in Canada and stated that no marriage could exist between two persons of the same sex.

I do not know if the member is aware of that.

However since 1999 the present Minister of Health, who was the then minister of justice, has stated unequivocally that marriage is between man and woman and can not be between anyone else. I cannot understand why she would even think of voting in favour of this. Can the member understand it?

[National Defence, September 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Jane's Defence Weekly military magazine reports that our Canadian Forces are in a state of crisis caused by reduced spending on military equipment and personnel, but while it argues that the damage will be irreversible, the minister insists “we are making progress”.

Well, if we are making progress, where are the Sea Kings' replacements? Where is the money for the parts for the Hercules? Where is the $200 million he needs to find? Why is the minister so impotent when it comes to the military? When is he going to get some money?

[National Defence, June 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, as the Sea King contract delivery schedule is currently written, delivery of the replacement vehicles is prohibited to no sooner than 48 months after the contract is awarded. Yet the industry officials insist that they could deliver within 35 months of the contract being awarded.

Why is the government prepared to wait another full year for delivery? Why is the minister delaying the replacement for another year before he will receive the equipment that is needed, the Sea Kings, when he has said he will have them as fast as possible?

[National Defence, June 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, two years ago Alfonso Gagliano told the House that the Sea King replacements would be delivered in 2005. Two weeks ago the defence minister told the House that the government wants to replace our Sea Kings “as fast as possible”. Yet all the documents for the delivery of the new helicopters clearly prohibit delivery before 2008.

Will the Prime Minister inform the House why we have to wait until 2008, 17 years since the cancellation of the EH-101 contract, for new helicopters?

[Canada Elections Act, June 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a sad duty for me to rise today to speak to a piece of legislation that is being imposed on the people of Canada in the dying days of the spring session of the House. This is one of those bills on which we must all agree in principle but in which we find the real devil in the details.

At a previous stage it was my right hon. colleague from Calgary Centre who spoke to this legislation. He argued, and I agree, that had the government truly been interested in the process of reforming our system of political donations, it would have introduced this legislation in a manner that would have better ensured the full consideration of this great Parliament. Instead we have again been rushed in our deliberations.

One of the most significant concerns that I have about this legislation relates to the fact that it would put into place a formula by which the amount of money that a political party would receive would be based upon their results in the last election. As my friend, Mr. Irving Gerstein, has said, that would be the same as saying that we would calculate one's next mortgage based upon the value of one's last house.

This process would give the party of government a clear advantage over all the rest of the parties in the House and in Canada, even if its popularity had fallen significantly since the time of the last election. If the government of Kim Campbell had introduced this legislation prior to the 1993 election, the current Prime Minister would have opposed it vigorously. He would have said that given the place of the parties in the polls at the time, it would have been grossly unfair to award them funding based upon the results of the 1988 election.

There is another matter here that strikes me as being equally unfair. As the legislation currently provides, it will be the tax dollars of the people of Canada that will effectively be used to fund our political parties. In the past, we have said that people had a democratic choice in Canada. If one had wanted to support the Progressive Conservative Party, the Liberal Party, the Alliance Party or the Bloc, one had the choice to do so as a free-minded Canadian citizen. Now however, we are saying that the Canadian people will have to donate to every political party through their hard-earned tax dollars, even if they would never have supported four or five of the parties in a million years.

They are saying that the tax dollars of my son, who lives in Calgary, would go to the Bloc, to the Alliance, to the Liberals, to the PC Party, to the NDP. That is not how he feels about this, I can say that. He would pick and choose himself whom he supports. They are saying that Lucien Bouchard's tax dollars would go to the Canadian Alliance. I am sure the Bloc wants that and I am sure he does as well. My tax dollars would go to support the Liberal Party. Mr. Speaker, do you want to ask me if I agree with that? I can tell you right now it does not seem very fair to me.

When did we lose the freedom of choice in our democracy? When did we give that up in Canada? When did we lose the right to support our political party of choice and only our political party of choice?

I know that the government House leader would argue that all of us who received 15% or more of the popular vote in the last election received a certain refund from the government, but that was based upon the results of that election. The money returned was based upon the costs of that election, not of the 1997 election or even the 1957 election. There was a direct relationship between that rebate and the election at hand. This bill offers something completely different.

There is an issue that I have not heard discussed in this debate prior to today. It is the power that the bill gives to the Prime Minister and a select handful of people, the power to eliminate with the stroke of a pen any Liberal association that he wishes. That is not democracy.

There is a leadership convention taking place on the government side at this point in time. We know that if we pass the bill, the Prime Minister can eliminate a lot of the businesses that supported those who are running in the leadership. That is not right.

Section 403.2 allows, on the application of any party leader and two of its officers, the deregistration of one of the party's registered associations by the Chief Electoral Officer. This puts too much power in the hands of party leaders.

I do not believe that this important issue has been significantly considered by the House. We should not be making a decision on this at this time. We should be sitting down and discussing it. I think that if we went across this nation we would find that Canadians are very upset about the bill. Canadians do not believe that this is right. They never thought that in Canada the day would come when legislation such as this would be before the House.

What if the Prime Minister wanted to deregister all of the riding associations organized by the member for LaSalle—Émard? He could do it if we pass the bill. I cannot believe that anyone sitting on either side of the House could agree to this. It could be done and certainly we could conceive of it.

I have to say that the Progressive Conservative Party is very concerned about the bill. We are very concerned about the fact that it takes away from us our rights that we have had in the past for those people who wish to support my party. It takes away the rights of people who feel that some of us do come here to the House of Commons to represent them and our citizens back home. They feel very strongly that they want to support us. I have to say there are many people who do not feel that their tax dollars should be coming here and given to the parties in the House of Commons. That is now how many people see this.

Then there are people out there in the private sector who want to support a party. I am not opposed to the fact that perhaps the Liberal Party gets a whole lot more support than some of the rest of us. That is the system that is out there. That is the democratic system that is out there.

However, passing Bill C-24 and going to all Canadians is not right. I have stated that I do not think Lucien Bouchard wants his tax dollars to go to the Canadian Alliance or the PC Party or the Liberal Party. No, that is not what he wants. That is the situation with a lot of Canadians. I have used Lucien Bouchard as an example.

I am saying I want to see an honest and democratic process in place. If the Prime Minister feels that what we have had as a process is not fair and just, then there are ways to make changes. There are amendments that have been put before the House with regard to the bill. One was just moved. I also had an amendment, but because of the amendment that has been put forward I will not place my amendment on the floor.

I will say that having spent 10 years in the House of Commons, I really am dismayed that Bill C-24 is before the House. I ask that we not endorse the bill at this time. I ask that all members go back to the process that we had which was fair and just, and Canadian.

[Statutory Instruments Act, June 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to express my support for Bill C-205, an act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act.

The bill introduced by the member for Surrey Central would provide a statutory basis for the current disallowance procedure and extend the application of that procedure to regulations made by persons or bodies other than the governor in council or ministers of the crown.

Bill C-205 is in keeping with a long-standing all party consensus of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations for the reform of the current disallowance procedure.

I would like to take a few minutes to deal with one particular feature of the bill. I refer to proposed subsection 19.1(10), which provides that a disallowed regulation is deemed to be repealed at the expiration of 30 days following the day on which the disallowance of the regulation was adopted by the House. It has been argued that this provision would create a situation in which the government would be deprived of the flexibility it needs to consider the implications of a disallowance ordered by the House.

A comparison between the procedure proposed in Bill C-205 and statutory disallowance procedures in other jurisdictions or with negative resolution procedures in existing federal statutes will show that the suspension of the effect of a disallowance for a full 30 days that is proposed in Bill C-205 is unique. In most other jurisdictions, as well as in federal statutes, a regulation is repealed immediately upon disallowance.

In light of these various precedents, including federal precedents, I would argue that in suspending the effect of a disallowance resolution for 30 days, Bill C-205 would provide for far greater flexibility than any other similar procedure. It is precisely in order to preserve the ability of the government to establish an appropriate alternative temporary regime where one is needed that Bill C-205 delays the effective date of revocation by 30 days. That provision strikes an appropriate balance between the need to have a disallowance procedure and the need to give a regulation making authority sufficient time to formulate an alternative course of action.

It is also of interest to note that the usual notice and comment period for proposed regulations following pre-publication in part 1 of the Canada Gazette is 30 days. If the government considers this a sufficient period of time for citizens to assess and comment on a proposed regulatory initiative often involving many pages of regulations, one wonders why a similar period, which is in addition to the minimum of three weeks provided before a resolution becomes an order of the House, would not be sufficient for civil servants to assess and react appropriately to the disallowance of a statutory instrument. Are members expected to believe that our public service is incapable of dealing with a proposed revocation within a period of 51 days while it is perfectly possible for their Australian or Quebec counterparts to do so within 21 days?

In her intervention, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage emphasized the argument that a statutory disallowance procedure would deprive the government of the flexibility needed to gauge the impact of revocation. Revocation might create a legal vacuum, it was said, and the government could find itself hard pressed to determine the alternative legal measures required to fill the legal vacuum.

Interestingly, the parliamentary secretary chose to illustrate her argument by referring to the disallowance of section 58 of the “Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Regulations” by the House on October 3, 2001. That particular case provides an excellent example of the approach taken by the joint committee with regard to disallowance.

First I would note that the disallowance of section 58 of the fresh fruit and vegetable regulations did not create a legal vacuum, and this was no accident. In electing to disallow section 58, which provided for cancellation of a registration, the joint committee deliberately left section 57 in place, knowing that this section would allow the suspension of any registration where an establishment was found to have contravened the applicable regulations.

The standing joint committee was very careful to propose the disallowance in such a way that the repeal of section 58 would not impair in any way the enforcement capability of those administering the regulations.

The government took a full eight months to comply with the disallowance order of the House, a delay that many would say is not acceptable. The decision to proceed with the amendment of other regulations at the same time as it complied with the disallowance of the House was a decision the government made. It was neither required nor inevitable.

Effective parliamentary scrutiny requires effective parliamentary control. At present there exists a gap between the two, and Bill C-205 is intended to bridge that gap by ensuring that all regulations are subject to oversight by the House of Commons. This can only be achieved by the means of legislation and this is what Bill C-205 is about.

There has been much talk lately of a democratic deficit. Full parliamentary control of delegated legislation, with such exceptions as are warranted, would significantly reduce that deficit. It is simply an anomaly for the House of Commons to have the authority to disallow a regulation important enough to be made by the governor in council or a minister, but to lack any authority with regard to a regulation made by secondary delegates such as the Canadian Transportation Agency or the CRTC. When they exercise regulation making powers, those entities are exercising a power that was given to them by the House and the House has a right to control the exercise of that power in appropriate circumstances.

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Surrey Central on Bill C-205 and I want to state that we support the bill.

[Lobbyists Registration Act, June 4th, 2003]

Who is he representing?

[Petitions, May 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition on behalf of the rural route mail couriers in Canada.

The private sector workers who deliver the mail in rural areas have collective bargaining rights, as do public sector workers who deliver mail for Canada Post urban areas. However the rural route couriers are denied basic rights and help through Canada Post, keeping the wages and working conditions of RRMCs at an unfair level and discriminating against the rural workers.

Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to repeal subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act. today.