Allan Rock

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 8th, 1996]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

[Justice, May 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is that an investigative brief is a collection of a summary of the evidence. I have done better than that in this case. I have given Mr. Kelly's lawyer all the evidence. He has had it in his office and Mr. Kelly has had it in British Columbia. They have got the evidence. They have got full disclosure. I am going to be fully briefed before I make the decision. We are going to do it in accordance with the rules.

[Justice, May 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will overlook the provocative nature of the question in order to first acknowledge that the hon. member had the courtesy of giving me notice before he asked it, although he did not tell me how he was going to ask it.

[Benefits, May 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, there is no need to clarify Bill C-33; it speaks for itself. It deals not with benefits, it deals not with marriage, it deals not with adoption. It deals with discrimination, which we are against.

In terms of benefits and logic, I point out to the hon. member that in the years since March, 1994, when that quote was recorded, the Supreme Court of Canada decided the case of Egan and Nesbit. It decided that notwithstanding that sexual orientation is a ground within section 15 of the charter on which discrimination is prohibited, the benefits do not automatically follow; so much for logic, and that is the law.

[Benefits, May 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what vote my hon. friend is referring to.

What the government has acted on is discrimination. That is what Bill C-33 is about, and any effort to divert the discussion from discrimination to collateral matters such as benefits or provincial matters such as marriage or adoption is simply an effort to avoid the true issue of Bill C-33.

[Benefits, May 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I can understand from recent events why the hon. member would be afraid of public discussion of ideas. There seems to be a price to be paid for it in his party.

I do not have to claim same sex benefits. There are parties before the courts all the time doing that. As Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada I am obligated to respond on behalf of the government. In the discharge of my responsibilities I am preparing discussion papers which will frame a discussion of the policies and approaches to deal with those claims.

If the hon. member's reference is to Bill C-33, the bill speaks for itself. It does not deal with benefits; it deals with discrimination.

[Benefits, May 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious the hon. member thinks he is on to something here, which might be his first argument against Bill C-33. We would think for a party that speaks so much about firearms it would know the difference between finding a smoking gun and shooting blanks.

The hon. member should know the protected document that was taken from my files refers to a discussion paper enabling the government to participate in tribunals and before courts in which there are claims for same sex benefits under federal programs.

As Minister of Justice I am obligated to defend those claims on behalf of the government and I would expect to find in my office a paper that discusses just how I will defend them. That is what the document is about.

[Referendums, May 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the Government of Canada was named as a third party by Mr. Bertrand in his civil suit, so we are involved in the legal proceedings.

The hon. member speaks of improvisation. What the House of Commons and the Canadian people are seeing is follow through. The government said in the throne speech in February that if there is to be another referendum the consequences will be clear and all Canadians will have a say. We are acting on that commitment. This is follow through on that commitment.

If we do decide to intervene in the case it is because we are responding to a proposition which is wrong in principle and wrong in law because it is impossible to say the Constitution and the courts have no relevance to the process by which some would see Quebec accede to sovereignty.

[Referendums, May 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the question is not the legality of referenda. That is not the issue that has attracted the attention of the national government. Nor have we the least interest in the various positions by Mr. Bertrand.

Mr. Bertrand started his civil proceedings a number of months ago, in August of last year.

We have not been involved in that litigation at all. We have no interest in the various positions taken by Mr. Bertrand. Our interest is in the position taken by the Government of Quebec during these past several weeks.

That has not to do with the legality of referenda. It has to do with whether the Constitution of Canada or the courts have a role to play in the whole process by which the separatist Government of Quebec aspires to sovereignty and independence.

That is a fundamental issue. It is one on which the Attorney General of Canada may well be able to assist the court. We are considering intervention on that point in the public interest.

[Referendums, May 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it was in fact the position Quebec took in this matter that caught our interest. We have no interest in Mr. Bertrand's position nor in the points he raised.

However, the Government of Quebec said clearly, a few weeks ago, on this case, that neither the Constitution nor the courts of Canada had any say in Quebec's sovereignty.

This is quite extraordinary.

So, as the Attorney General of Canada, I must consider whether I can help the court with this question, because the position of the Government of Quebec is extraordinary.