Gerald Keddy

[Spirit Drinks Trade Act, November 3rd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, the issue of general definitions is one that we should not take lightly. I do not think a general definition would affect any future definitions of possible new products going into new marketplaces. That would be the most important aspect of having a definition. We know the parameters of our products going into existing marketplaces, but we do not know the parameters of our products that would go into new marketplaces. I would want to fully explore that.

Pre-existing inventories or inventories that are not included under the bill after June 1, 2006 have been left out of the bill. We need to make arrangements, through this piece of legislation, to ensure that vendors who own pre-existing inventories after June 1, 2006 are not found in non-compliance of the act.

[Spirit Drinks Trade Act, November 3rd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House to speak in support of Bill S-38 today. Upon careful review, there are some glitches in the bill and more amendments will be needed. The gist and thrust of the bill are certainly something that the Conservative Party will support.

It is important to note that the bill would implement the final part of a bilateral agreement between Canada and the European community to provide wine and spirits with more certain trade rules and a framework for managing any future grievances in a cooperative manner.

It is also very important to note that the Conservative Party of Canada always has been in favour of rules based trading. This agreement is an example of that. It is meant to offer a simplified certification process for the export of Canadian wine and, more important, protection for Canadian and European wine and spirits geographical indicators.

Examples of Canadian designations that will benefit from these protections include the Okanagan Valley, the Niagara Peninsula, Canadian rye whiskey and grapes that are grown in the Annapolis Valley of great province of Nova Scotia. Most of the provisions of the agreement were implemented prior to the agreement coming into force in June of last year.

Bill S-38 would protect certain foreign spirit drink names by recognizing that these spirit drinks are exclusive products of the countries indicated in the schedule belonging to Bill S-38. Under the terms of the Canadian-European community agreement, the measures spelled out in Bill S-38 must be completed by June 2006.

Bill S-38 also would house existing trade obligations to protect other foreign spirit drink names, such as Canada's obligation under the North American Free Trade Agreement to protect certain Mexico and U.S. spirit drink names. The previous speaker already mentioned those names, tequila and bourbon whiskey. Provisions to protect these names are currently part of the food and drug regulations. However, it is important to note that Justice Canada has advised that these provisions are more than likely ultra vires the Food and Drugs Act. That means in layman's terms that they are beyond the power or authority of the Food and Drugs Act.

The bill would prohibit the use of certain spirit drink names other than in accordance with the schedule in the act. It also would provide for exceptions, including for existing trademarks which were registered or applied for before the January 1, 1996 date.

Bill S-38 would allow for cabinet to amend the schedule to allow for implementation of similar obligations in the future, international trade agreements. It also would imbue cabinet with regulation making authority to carry out provisions of the act. Of all the categories of the act, that is probably the most important. It would allow for cabinet, the government, to amend the schedule to allow for implementation of similar obligations in future international trade agreements. We have to give government the power to negotiate on behalf of Canadian industry. The bill would give the agriculture minister the power to designate inspectors and analysts for the purposes of enforcement of the act and spells out their powers and responsibilities.

Bill S-38 also includes provisions for offences and punishment. On summary conviction persons found guilty of contravening the act would be liable to a fine not exceeding $50,000 and/or imprisonment not exceeding six months. These are fairly stiff penalties which should prevent anyone in contradiction of the act. On conviction or indictment persons guilty under this act would liable to a fine not exceeding a quarter of a million dollars and/or imprisonment not exceeding three years. Again, these are quite strict regulations and a serious detriment to anyone trying to break the regulations. This bill also stipulates that the act would come into force on June 1, 2006.

With respect to certain amendments, and as a matter of due diligence, the definitions section of the act fails to give an explicit definition of what a spirit drink is. This is a part of the act that we would want to look at further. For instance, the Excise Act defines a spirit as any material substance containing more than 0.5% absolute ethyl alcohol by volume other than: (a) beer; (b) wine; (c) vinegar; (d) denatured alcohol; (e) specially denatured alcohol; (f) an improved formulation; or (g) any product containing or manufactured from a material or substance referred to in paragraphs (b) and (f) that is not consumable as a beverage.

As the bill contains a provision to allow cabinet to expand the act's schedule to accommodate future international agreements, there might be a need, and I believe there is a need, to have an explicit and unambiguous definition of spirit drink to guide the interpretation of the act for its future possible expansion. At a minimum, there needs to be an explanation as to why the Excise Act gives such a definition, but the spirit drinks trade act fails to do so.

The provisions of this act with respect to foreign spirit drink names under NAFTA are being introduced in this act partially because Justice Canada has advised that Food and Drugs regulations, which currently have these provisions, are likely unenforceable. As a matter of legislative and regulatory housekeeping and as a possible amendment, there should be consideration given to a provision in Bill S-38 that repeals the relevant portions of the Food and Drugs regulations.

Again, once passed, this act comes into force on June 1, 2006 and the government has not explained what allowances, if any, would be made with respect to old or pre-existing non-compliant inventories after this date. Would spirit drink vendors who have pre-existing inventories be fully subject to the offence and punishment regime of Bill S-38? Would they have to destroy these inventories to avoid fines and possible imprisonment? Are there no known, non-conforming spirit drink products in the Canadian market right now? It is a very remote scenario, I admit, but it is a scenario that must be considered nonetheless.

All trade bills should bring more security to existing trade related jobs and create new employment opportunities. Our trade agenda must focus on diversifying both the products we sell abroad and the markets into which we sell those products. We need to secure access to international markets through a rules based trading system.

A Conservative government would certainly strive to maximize all the benefits we have as a free trading nation, emphasizing the need to establish trading relationships beyond North America.

There also are financial implications under the act. Any fines levied under the act would generate revenue for the federal Treasury. As well, the bill is silent on how many analysts and inspectors the Minister of Agriculture may designate for enforcement of the act, and on their levels of compensation.

Also policy considerations must be taken into consideration. According to the government, the agreement, which this legislation helps implement, will uphold existing provincial Liquor Board policies and facilitate access to the European Union market for Canadian wine and spirits. The government asserts that the agreement has the support of stakeholders, Canadian wine and spirit producers. The government also maintains that the legislation will have no negative impact on the Canadian spirits industry because the spirit drink names protected under the legislation are not currently used on Canadian spirit drink products.

In terms of long term economic impact, the legislation would prevent the emergence of new, non-compliant spirit drink products on the Canadian market. It must be stated that Canada's existing system of protection for geographical indicators will not be undermined by this act.

It is all well and good to take the government's word on the limitations and the parameters of this bill, but as members of Parliament we need to accurately and clearly check its parameters to ensure that it will do what the governments says it will do.

Parliament's focus should be on due diligence and housekeeping amendments to ensure that a spirit drink is defined in the bill. We should also consider a provision that would suspend the portions of the food and drug regulations that this bill would replace and which have been declared by the justice department ultra vires under the Food and Drugs Act.

With respect to the remote possibility of pre-existing, non-compliant inventories, we might want to inquire as to what the government's thinking is on this issue. I would be very interested to know that. I would also like to know what allowances the government would be prepared to make for vendors with these pre-existing inventories.

Conservatives are supportive of rules-based trading systems which would help secure international markets for products produced in Canada and would help ensure that Canadian consumers have access to high quality products produced in other countries. In general, we support the thrust of this bill and the agreement that it would help to implement.

For the purposes of due diligence and legislative housekeeping, we are prepared to consider amendments to this legislation to make it better. As such, we have a couple of ideas which I have already mentioned.

We want clear assurances from the government about its assumption that there are currently no instances of products in Canada that are non-compliant with this bill. We also want clear assurances from the government that vendors would not be unfairly penalized once this bill comes into existence.

[Unanticipated Surpluses Act, October 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, that was really something. I know that the hon. member is an experienced member in this place and certainly he has been an experienced member of government, but he is simply all over the map. I will be asking him a couple of questions.

How does the government have an unanticipated surplus? How does that happen? If a person has some business savvy, understands how the country is being run and has a good handle on the money coming in and the money going out, how does that person have an unanticipated surplus? We are talking about a major surplus, such that we are going to have to pass a bill through Parliament to bring in additional spending to somehow get rid of it, instead of simply putting it on the debt, which would give us an immediate return and give future generations an immediate return.

I am going to suggest to the member that perhaps Bill C-67, an act respecting the allocation of unanticipated surpluses and to amend the Income Tax Act, could be changed. I would suggest that it be changed to state that it is an act respecting the anticipated election--not the anticipated surplus but the anticipated election--and an unashamed, bald-faced attempt to buy the votes of Canadians.

[Fisheries and Oceans, October 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on February 23 the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Government of Canada announced a $30 million Atlantic salmon endowment fund. It has now been eight months and not one penny of this money has been delivered.

The Atlantic Salmon Federation and other organizations needed this money 10 years ago. When can they expect to receive it?

[Criminal Code, October 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley raised a very important point.

We only have to look at the overall security of the country and the lack of willingness by the government to deal with it. We only have to look at the contracts that a lot of municipalities and small towns have signed with the federal government, or directly with the RCMP, for RCMP coverage. The RCMP puts 10 or 12 officers in a detachment but if two of those officers are sick or injured and not able to report for duty, the government does not see any reason to fulfil its contract by bringing two other officers in. Actually, the municipality or town pays for 12 officers but only receives the attention of 10 or 8 officers some of the time.

Would the hon. member care to comment on that?

[National Highway System, October 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on October 18 the Government of Nova Scotia and the Government of Canada announced that Highway 103, spanning from Halifax to Yarmouth, would become part of Canada's national highway program.

This very important step recognizes both the national strategic importance of the Highway 103 system and its regional significance for the movement of goods and services. In the past six years alone, the federal Liberals have collected more than $800 million in gas taxes from Nova Scotia drivers. Only a paltry portion of that amount, $31 million to be exact, has actually been spent on Nova Scotia highways.

The Government of Nova Scotia is calling for a significant long term federal highway funding program. The Highway 103 committee has lobbied for years for that very same thing. This can only be accomplished if the federal government stops playing politics with Nova Scotia's gas tax.

[Fisheries, October 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, after years of unsuccessfully waiting for federal help, the Nova Scotia Salmon Association and the Atlantic Salmon Federation have a liming project under way on the West River. These non-profit, volunteer-driven organizations were forced to raise $270,000 on their own without any funds from the federal government.

Sweden and Norway have working liming programs, but in Canada the government is content to leave Atlantic salmon on the species at risk list. The Liberal government has a responsibility to support liming in order to mitigate the effects of acid rain. Why is it not?

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, there were several questions. I will be very quick. I think the one question I would like to answer is actually about the fact that this is an issue that divides Canadians. Like the member, I represent a rural riding. It is a very difficult and complex issue. I think the member may have said that the majority of people favour this issue. In my riding, my constituents are very clearly divided, fifty-fifty. There is another 20% who actually have not said where they stand or have not determined where they stand.

For me, the issue is that this puts the ball back in our court. We have a responsibility as parliamentarians. We have a responsibility to be straightforward, clear and honest in our debate on this issue and then to vote on it, and then to move on and hopefully represent our constituents and Canadians who want nothing more here than equality before the courts and equality with civil marriage.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, that is not an area of expertise that I have. I do not know how many other countries actually include marriage in the charter. That is my honest answer.

There is a question that I constantly ask myself about the civil marriage argument versus the civil union argument, and quite a few people use the member's question to lead into it. What would have happened in this country in the days when we first brought in civil marriage for opposite sex couples had we brought in civil unions? Had we done that, I think the civil union argument would work. We did not do that.

We also should ask ourselves why we have civil marriage. We brought in civil marriage because our religious institutions refused to marry certain people. Therefore, to give women proprietary rights and hereditary rights when their husbands died, we brought in civil marriage; if they were not married in a church they did not have those rights. We also brought in the civil marriage act to legitimize children born from those marriages.

We have to ask ourselves a number of questions. I appreciate the member's question, but I think there is a real legitimacy to having civil marriage and having it recognized by Parliament.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honour to stand and debate Bill C-38. It is certainly a debate that has caused a lot of division among Canadians, and it is one where I think many of us are searching to find something within the debate that will actually unite us.

Unfortunately, I think this is an issue that Canadians have decided. They are either on one side of the debate or the other. I really suspect that we will not change a lot of opinions, that we will not turn many heads, and I do agree that it is time to have the debate out on this, to have the vote on it, and to move on as a Parliament.

Certainly the debate on same gender civil marriage--and I do want to emphasize the word “civil”--is an issue on which I have spent a great deal of personal time and research, and it is one where I have struggled to find balance. This is not an easy issue for many, but it is also not an issue on which I intend to abrogate my responsibility as a member of Parliament.

I can say to anyone in South Shore—St. Margaret's, the riding I am fortunate to represent, that I have approached this issue in an honest, straightforward, and methodical manner, and I plan to continue in that manner.

From the beginning of the discussion on same gender civil marriage, I have maintained that all of our religious institutions must be free to decide for themselves whether to sanction same gender marriage. Allow me to be very clear on this point. Paragraph 2(a) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives extremely clear and unambiguous protection for religious freedom. People who say differently are using scare tactics. Our churches, mosques, synagogues, and temples in Canada will decide their own future on religious marriage, as they have up to this point.

I think it is extremely important to mention that we already have same gender religious marriage in Canada, that the United Church of Canada recognizes and some of our Anglican churches in Canada recognize same gender marriage now. They moved on this point before the Parliament of Canada. They did not wait for the Parliament of Canada. That is up to the churches. We could not say yes or no to them because they are independent of the legislative process.

Bill C-38 deals only with civil marriage, but it does go so far as to actually reinforce the protection for religious marriage in the preamble of the bill. Again, I think this is the strength of the bill, whereas nothing in the act affects the guarantee of freedom of conscience and religion, and in particular the freedom of members of religious groups to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.

Every day our churches refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs. The Catholic church refuses to marry divorced couples. The Anglican church that I was brought up in refuses to marry divorced couples. Someone might find a priest who is friendly and may marry them, but that is their doctrine.

The church has always been clearly separate from the legislative process. They have always set their own rules. They have always had the ability to change the rules should the church itself decide to change them. I am very afraid that we could set a precedent in Parliament that turns that around, that we do start to tell the churches who they can and cannot marry. If we do not pass same gender civil marriage, are we de facto then saying to the United Church of Canada and the Anglican church that they cannot recognize same gender marriages, that they should not marry same gender couples, that they are not an independent religious institution? That is a question we should all be asking ourselves.

Parliament, on the other hand, has a responsibility to legislate same gender civil marriage. The only way Parliament cannot allow same gender civil marriage is to use the notwithstanding clause. I adamantly believe that this would be an abuse of civil rights which could lead to the erosion of other civil rights that Canadians have long carried. If we use the notwithstanding clause on this issue, what would prevent us from using it on other issues? I am not willing to agree to that in any way, shape or form.

I believe that my job as a member of Parliament is to be informed of all the ramifications surrounding an issue and vote on that issue to reflect the will of my constituents. I am well aware that every time I vote a group of people in Canada and a group of my own constituents will disagree with my position. Therefore, I try to the best of my ability to base my decisions on fact, not on fear, and on reason, not on instinct.

I am well aware of the sensitivity of this issue and the almost visceral response that some people have to it. I have saved all the e-mails that have threatened my life, my kids and my family because that is a stance that is unacceptable. It does not matter which side of the debate one is on, that is unacceptable.

None of that, however, changes the fact that Parliament has to deal with same gender civil marriage. I have not made a rash or uninformed decision and I fully understand, I believe, that people are split roughly fifty-fifty on this issue. I have certainly considered the fact that the overwhelming majority of the public is willing to recognize same gender civil marriage but wants religious marriage to remain under the jurisdiction of our religious institutions.

I explained earlier that section 2(a) of the charter protects religious freedom. Parliament's responsibility is to study and make informed decisions about same gender civil marriage based on Parliament's role to legislate, guided, I would add, by the parameters of our Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It would be intellectually dishonest of me to say that Parliament does not have to legislate this.

Today Canada has varying forms of same gender marriage in eight provinces and one territory. This includes a decision by the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia that has led the way to same sex civil marriage in my own province. A recent decision has led the way to same sex civil marriage in the province of New Brunswick.

I am absolutely satisfied that churches are protected and are masters of their own destiny. I have explained in a couple of instances already where that has proven to be true throughout the ages. Therefore, they can refuse to marry same gender couples or, like some of our churches today, they can choose to marry same gender couples. It is clearly their decision for religious marriage, not Parliament's.

For civil marriage, however, government has only two options. The government can challenge the provincial supreme court decisions, which the provinces have already chosen not to do, or it can legislate civil marriage. I have carefully reviewed both options and agree with the government's decision to proceed with legislation on same gender civil marriage, as eight provinces and one territory have already done.

I am frankly astounded by the reaction of some parliamentarians, who in the past have criticized the Supreme Court of Canada for making decisions they thought should best be left to parliamentarians. Now, some of those same parliamentarians are saying the government should litigate and not legislate.

Frankly, I am also surprised at the clarity of the language in Bill C-38, at the lack of ambiguity and the clear protection for religious marriage because of the protection of the charter. I am not used to this type of clarity from the Liberals and generally expect to find legislation riddled with mistakes. Bill C-38 is one of the few pieces of their legislation I have analyzed that is not.

In summary, I note that Bill C-38 has done what I believe it has needed to do in order for me to support it. It has clearly protected religious marriage while allowing for the civil marriage of same gender couples.

I realize that not everyone will agree with same gender civil marriage. Some will continue to say that a civil union is good enough, but I respectfully disagree. This was the same argument that was used to justify segregated schools in the United States and was struck down in the now landmark Brown v. Board of Education case, which ruled that separate is not equal. I feel certain that the same result would befall any similar legislation here.

I also know at first hand the entrenched views of many people who would deny the right of civil marriage to same gender couples, yet I know that there is a lot of tolerance in this country. Often I hear that there is less tolerance in rural Canada, but I believe there is as much tolerance in rural Canada as there is in urban Canada, whether the issue is same gender civil marriage or any other issue that is put before people. I represent a rural riding in a very conservative part of the country that is as religious as any other part of this country. I can say for a fact that there is room in most of this country to accept divergent views and to accept the right of couples who are in a committed relationship to further commit to that relationship through civil marriage.