Jason Kenney

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, October 26th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, with respect to the question just put to my hon. colleague from Vancouver Quadra I would like to quote from a article published in today's edition of the National Post by a gentleman known to the member for Vancouver Quadra, Mel Smith, former principal constitutional adviser to the Government of British Columbia for over 15 years. He referred to the deal and wrote in part:

This represents a significant diminishment of the legislative powers given to senior governments by the Canadian Constitution, to a new kind of government unknown to the Constitution.

To be specific, the Nisga'a agreement would make Nisga'a laws constitutionally paramount on at least 17 province-like subject matters. This would include Nisga'a laws on: education...higher education...the delivery of health services, child and family services; business, trades and professions...land use; land registration; laws related to Nisga'a fish, aquatic plants and wildlife entitlements. The list goes on.

Couple this diminishment and divestment of legislative powers with the fact that these aboriginal government rights cannot be retrieved in the future, and...the treaty makers have stepped beyond the bounds of the Constitution. They have, in these respects, given away forever the constitutional right of the B.C. Legislature to make laws applicable throughout the province. This they simply do not have the right to do.

How would the member for Vancouver Quadra respond to the thoughtful argument brought forward by Mr. Smith, former principal constitutional adviser to the Government of British Columbia?

[Speech From The Throne, October 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this coming from a member whose government takes $6 billion a year from people earning under $20,000 a year. It is a government that takes $12 billion a year from people earning under $30,000 a year. It is a government that has put 900,000 low income people on the tax rolls through its back door tax increase called bracket creep. It is a government that gives billions of dollars of subsidies away to its big business friends like Bombardier.

When I hear the millionaires who populate the front bench of the government talk about concern for the poor, whom they put on the tax rolls and from whom they extract billions of dollars, it is a little bit disingenuous. The reality is that the top 1% of income earners in Canada pay over 20% of federal taxes. They are paying their share. Maybe it is time the millionaires on the front bench of the government paid their share.

[Speech From The Throne, October 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question. I can only assume that the answer is that the members of the Liberal government honestly believe, and I grant them that they believe this sincerely in their little red Liberal hearts, that they and their bureaucrats here in Ottawa know better how to spend an extra buck than a taxpayer in Fundy—Royal or Calgary Southeast. That is fundamentally what drives the philosophy of this throne speech and this government. It is a philosophy which has been abandoned by virtually every other government of the developed world.

Let us take again the case of Ireland. It had a subsidy drenched subsistence economy with the highest taxes in Europe, whose only major export was its young people. They could have kind of moped along and said “Oh, well, we politicians and bureaucrats are going to keep on subsidizing, raising taxes and intervening in the economy”, but they had the courage to do something different. They took a risk. They went out and cut corporate taxes from 40% to 10%. They cut income taxes. They cut their capital gains taxes. What they saw was a massive explosion in that economy, so that now 20% of the direct investment in Europe is going to a country with only 1% of Europe's population. They became the second largest software exporter in the world. Ireland's population is now growing for the first time in 150 years.

I cannot hesitate to remind my colleague from Fundy—Royal that, unfortunately, it was his party's government which oversaw the largest decrease in after tax disposable income in modern Canadian economic history because of its 72 tax increases, but I will not mention that.

[Speech From The Throne, October 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise on debate on Her Excellency's Speech from the Throne.

As the member for Parkdale—High Park said in her articulate defence of anti-Catholic government funded pornographic art, this budget was filled with all kinds of marvellous Liberal-style investments. It was a return to old fashioned liberalism, namely the arrogance of a tax and spend philosophy which believes that politicians and bureaucrats in Ottawa know better how to spend a scarce dollar than do a homemaker, a small business person, an entrepreneur or a taxpayer. That is the philosophy of the Speech from the Throne which we heard earlier this week.

The government devoted a couple of words in the speech to some token talk about tax relief, but it also said that the government has already cut taxes. We know we cannot believe the completely specious commitment to tax relief from the government given the fact that it has not yet delivered any tax relief. In fact what it has delivered are tax increases. It is tax grief for Canada, not tax relief.

If the government has lowered taxes, then why is it bringing $40 billion more into the federal treasury than it was six years ago? Why is it that federal taxes are up $4,200 or 30% for an average family since 1993? Why is it that federal revenues as a percentage of our gross domestic product, the most objective measurement, are at their highest level ever at over 18%?

Why is it that we continue to see, according to the major economic firm Wood Gundy that “the net impact of the last five Liberal budgets has been to raise Canada's tax bill some $6 billion in 1999-2000 above what would have been paid under the 1993 tax regime”? Wood Gundy also said “from a tax competitiveness standpoint, Canada ranks dead last in the G-7. While virtually every other G-7 economy lowered its personal income tax burden over the last 15 years, Canada's rose sharply, both as a percentage of GDP and of household income”.

But we do not have to quote the experts or look at the stats that the government ignores because we do not have to make this case to Canadians. They know when they get their paycheques. They know when they look at their pay stubs that they are going home with less than they did in 1993 when this government came into power with a pledge never to raise taxes.

I remember the Prime Minister saying when he was asked if he would raise taxes, “Well, I can't rule it out, there might be a war or something”. Well there has been a war. It has been a war on Canadian taxpayers and they are paying more than they ever have before.

The huge and growing tax burden has had a tremendous impact on Canadians. Just in the last couple of days while we have been debating the throne speech our dollar has gone down again by another half cent. That is the ultimate measurement by the international markets of the value of our economy, of our currency and it ultimately reflects the fiscal policy of the government. It is a reflection of the impoverishment of Canadians, Canadians who are coming home today with about $900 less after tax than they did in 1989, Canadians who are working harder but coming home with less while the average American taxpayer is coming home with an average after tax disposable raise of $2,000 over the same period of time. Americans are getting richer while Canadians are getting poorer.

The Liberal government loves to bash the United States. The United States has its fair share of problems, but I do not think we should take pride in becoming poorer as they become richer. I do not think we should take pride in what the Minister of Industry said last February, that had Canadian productivity, competitiveness and growth kept pace with that of the United States over the past two decades the average family in Canada would be $28,000 a year better off. That is apparently the moral high ground that the government takes in its posturing and its bashing of an economy which is growing much faster than our own.

We do not have to debate the statistics; we have to look at real people's lives to see the impact this is having. I spent all four weeks of September in nine of the ten provinces and in nearly 30 communities speaking to business people, entrepreneurs, chambers of commerce and small business folks. I was on university campuses and in high schools. Again and again in every region of the country I heard that we have a huge and growing drain of talent and entrepreneurialism out of this country, not just to the United States but to other more competitive, faster growing and lower tax jurisdictions.

This summer the Conference Board of Canada released a major study wherein it indicated that the number of Canadians who are going to the United States increased from 17,000 in 1986 to over 98,000 in 1997. The government denies it. The Liberals put their heads in the sand and say the problem does not exist.

Why then is it that nearly 70% of our computer science graduates are now leaving this country? These people will be creating untold future wealth and economic opportunity, and contributing to a tax base to finance health care, education and pensions. We want these people here, contributing to our tax base so that we can afford to pay down the debt, to grow the economy, to pay for health care and to pay for a civil society. We are literally eating away at the productive capacity of our economy.

I was on a university campus this summer where 120 of the 130 kids who graduated from computer science last year took placements outside Canada because they could not find economic opportunities here. The capital was not here to invest and create new cutting edge, information technology businesses and economic opportunities for those kids.

But this is not just a question of stats and dollars and taxes; it is a question of lives. Every one of those kids who has left the country represents the hopes and dreams of Canadian families who believed that if they worked hard, played by the rules, paid their taxes and invested in their children's education they would see their children and grandchildren raised happily and in prosperity in Canada. What do we have instead? We have thousands and thousands of broken dreams because of the broken economy delivered by this government's high tax, high regulatory, high debt, high spending policies.

We in the official opposition have a proposal to cut the tax burden overall by 25% through a whole suite of broad based tax cuts that would lift over one million low income people off the tax rolls, people who ought not to be paying taxes in the first place, single moms with minimum wages, and low income, fixed income seniors who are paying taxes today but were not six years ago because of the government's heartless and insidious bracket creep tax on the poor which forces low income people onto the tax rolls. That is our top priority. We want to relieve those people entirely of their tax obligations, which finance government investments like Bubbles Galore .

Reformers also believe it is critically important that we generate new investment and capital formation to create opportunities for those young people who are leaving today, as well as to cut the insidious tax on wealth creation called the capital gains tax. Canada has an effective capital gains tax rate of nearly 40%, while in the United States the effective rate has been lowered to 18% and Congress has just passed a law that would take it to 11%, fully indexed.

The United States is not going to stop there. The chairman of the federal reserve, the leading economic authority in the world today, has called on Congress twice publicly to eliminate the American capital gains taxes, as has been done in Ireland, Hong Kong and so many other jurisdictions. How can we believe that we can retain capital in this country to create wealth, jobs and quality of living as long as we have this enormous and growing differential?

Yesterday the finance minister made a specious claim. He said that the Reform Party would have to cut spending, and he picked some absurd number out of the air like $50 billion or some such fictitious nonsense, in order to finance our $25 billion in total tax cuts. The finance minister knows perfectly well that if he did not increase spending, as he plans to do, we would see surpluses of about $25 billion a year within five years.

That is not all. Every jurisdiction in the world that has cut tax rates has seen revenues grow. Ireland has cut its corporate tax rates from 40%, the highest in Europe, to 10%, the lowest, and it has seen an explosion in revenues and economic growth. It is the fastest growing economy in Europe.

The United States cut its taxes in 1962 and in 1982, its high marginal rates and capital gains rates. In both instances it saw an explosion in revenues from those sources.

Right here at home, of course, Mike Harris and his common sense revolution cut income taxes by 30% and saw a massive growth in revenues from the income tax.

The moral of the story is that tax cuts are necessary to grow the economy.

The government says we have to wait for growth before we can cut taxes. We will never get to that kind of real growth if we wait to cut taxes. It is time that we got our priorities right. It is time that we let those young people who are leaving stay here to build a brighter future so that their parents can see their dreams realized here at home in Canada.

[Speech From The Throne, October 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of time for the hon. member and I appreciate her commitment to the arts. It is very heart warming.

However I would like to know what the member thinks about what the federal government actually does with its so-called investments, that is to say wasteful spending in arts and culture. What does the hon. member think of the quarter of a million dollar investment of the minister of heritage in Bubbles Galore ?

Does she think the federal government's cultural agenda should include producing pornographic films? What does she think about Hanging the Dead Rabbits ? Does she think that is an important investment in the cultural future of Canada in the 21st century? Does she think that is necessary to defend our cultural sovereignty?

A few years ago, in part through a federal grant, the Vancouver Art Gallery exhibited something called Piss Pope, a picture of the Holy Father submerged in a jar of the artist's urine. That was another expenditure by the federal government of our tax dollars.

We could go on and on and on about the kind of absurd, disgusting, wasteful excuse for art which the government finances. How does the hon. member apologize for that?

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve for having made an important intervention in this debate and for the passion of his convictions. He has made a special contribution by demonstrating disagreement, contrary to the assertion of the hon. attorney general who said this morning that there will be no disagreement inside this House on this point.

Could the hon. member clarify for me that he does intend to oppose this motion because he supports the idea of changing the current legal definition of marriage to make it possible for those other than heterosexual relations? Will he be opposing this motion and will his party be supporting or opposing the motion? I would like to understand what they intend to do.

Does he not agree as he started with his remarks that this is a subject worth debating? Although he and I may disagree on the conclusion, would he agree this is a subject appropriate for public debate in this parliament?

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, the member for Crowfoot makes the point very well. We all support appropriate judicial review where the courts narrowly use their appropriate constitutional authority to interpret and define the laws. But for the courts to invent rights in the charter which are not explicit, which were not enshrined in it by the framers in 1982 is illegitimate in our view. That is why we must speak, to make it clear and plain to the courts that no jurisprudence can change the common law understanding of marriage. This parliament will take whatever action is necessary to uphold marriage contra any decision by the courts.

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, absolutely, and I appreciate the intervention.

Politicians seem to think that we can change the ontological meaning of words, of concepts. Marriage has enormous meaning. It has a certain objective meaning. It is tautological to say that marriage is a committed relationship between a man and a woman. It is tautological. Of course marriage means that. Not even the Parliament of Canada, not even a bunch of judges can change a metaphysical reality. That is what a marriage is.

People will come before the courts seeking to change the legal privileges given to married people and to expand them. However, there is a certain reality. Marriage is marriage. It is between a man and a woman and it can be between no others. We are simply affirming that basic metaphysical reality through this motion.

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in debate on the motion brought before us by the official opposition, which reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary, in light of public debate around recent court decisions, to state that marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and that Parliament will take all necessary steps to preserve this definition of marriage in Canada.

The definition included in the motion before us is the standard common law definition which the government affirms, for instance, in its response to the many tens of thousands of petitions brought before this place.

We are simply seeking to reaffirm what has been the legal common law understanding of the past 150 years or more in Canada and the Commonwealth and, more importantly, to reaffirm the normative understanding of an essential social institution, the basic institution of civil society as it has been understood for millennia, through all of human civilization.

Some members opposite, including the member for Thornhill, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, have indicated that this is a moot point and a redundant motion insofar as no one is proposing any changes.

I find this quite unbelievable because I have several times today quoted from what I think is a relatively important authority which has proposed a change to the law in this respect and that institution just so happens to be the Liberal Party of Canada.

First, I want to commend members opposite for supporting this motion, and I commend the many members who have stood in the House to indicate that they share our view, that this is an important debate to have so that we can place on the official parliamentary record the importance of reaffirming the common law understanding of marriage. Yet we have heard from certain members opposite, such as the member for Thornhill, the member for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, the parliamentary secretary to the attorney general, and the attorney general herself, who said this morning: “Why use the already limited time of the House to debate a motion, on which, I suspect, there will be no fundamental disagreement inside or outside the House?”

Just as I was standing, the hon. member for Thornhill said that no one is proposing any changes to the definition of marriage. Then why is it that I have in my hand a resolution passed by the duly elected delegates of the Liberal Party of Canada at their policy convention last summer, where I stood as an observer, which reads:

Be it resolved that the Liberal Party of Canada strongly urge the federal government to recognize same sex marriages in the same way it recognizes opposite marriages—

Just a moment ago the member from Thornhill said that no one is proposing a change. The Liberal Party of Canada is proposing a change. The Government of Canada may not be responding to its party members. That is its own business. It can govern its own affairs as it wishes.

I think it is absolutely incumbent upon us to point out that people are proposing change in an institution no less than the Liberal Party of Canada. Hon. members say that we should let the courts tend to their business of judicial review, that we have the charter and the charter will be interpreted fairly by the courts and members of this parliament can sit by as passive observers and watch that process unfold.

If one were to have suggested at the time of the introduction of the charter of rights that the legal definition of spouse would be fundamentally changed, people would have said that is unbelievable. That is fearmongering, they would have said.

One of the major decisions in the charter era was the Morgentaler decision striking down section 251 of the Criminal Code in 1988. Yet back in 1981, when the charter was debated in this place, the then attorney general, the current Right Hon. Prime Minister, was asked at committee whether any section of the charter could possibly be used to strike down the criminal provisions with respect to abortion and the then attorney general, the now Prime Minister, said, “Oh, no”. He said it in Hansard . We can reference it. The point is that we cannot predict with any degree of certitude what the courts are likely to do in their increasingly expanded understanding of judicial review.

That is why it is incumbent upon us to accept the invitation of the judges, of the courts, to enter into a dialogue. A dialogue is a two way conversation. It is not a monologue. To date we have merely had a monologue from the courts on issues of this nature. It is now time for parliament to speak so that we are on the record as asserting the current legal common law definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.

I cannot imagine why this would be a controversial motion. I cannot imagine why the Liberal Party would propose to scrap this definition. I cannot imagine for my own purposes why the courts of Canada would choose to change substantively the nature of marriage in law as they have essentially done through the M and H and other related decisions regarding spousal relations.

Let us be clear. The Liberal member from Mississauga quoted Mr. Corbett from the Foundation for Equal Families as saying that at this point the question of the definition of marriage is premature, from which a reasonable person could infer that his organization and like-minded individuals will use their democratic right to go to the courts to seek a redefinition of marriage; not at this time, because they do have an incremental legal agenda, and that is quite understandable, but at some point in the future. I do not think any reasonable person can have any doubt that a litigant will come before our courts seeking to strike down the current exclusionary definition of marriage, the common law definition, using as a basis the charter of rights. The government's posture, as articulated today, would be to sit back passively and allow the courts possibly to redefine the meaning of marriage at that time.

That is why we have come before the House today in 1999. That litigation might not occur this year. It might not occur for three or four years, but sooner or later it surely will occur. If we pass this motion tonight the Parliament of Canada, the supreme lawmaking body of this country, will have spoken and will be on the record affirming the age old common law understanding of the institution of marriage, which is absolutely central to a healthy civil society.

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Thornhill once again, as some of her colleagues have done, expresses curiosity at why we should be discussing this motion here today, as though no one in the country, as the attorney general suggested earlier, is even discussing the question of the redefinition of marriage. We have plainly had it proposed right here in the House today by members of this place.

The hon. member went on to say at the end of her remarks that it was not the policy of the Government of Canada to change the legal definition of marriage, but eight or nine minutes of her ten minute talk was a lecture on the importance of judicial review.

No member of the opposition or nobody who understands the constitution would disagree with the necessity of judicial review, that is to say, the appropriate interpretation of statutes in light of our charter and constitutional framework. Objections are raised by us and others when the courts go beyond interpretation to legislate from the bench without an appropriate authority in the charter.

I see nowhere in the charter a basis for changing the legal definition of marriage. Yet we have recently seen a change in the legal definition of spouse, so this is a reasonable question. The hon. member said that the government does not have a policy on this. Her party does. I was at the Liberal Party convention last summer where a policy was passed that said:

Be it resolved that the Liberal Party of Canada strongly urge the federal government to recognize same sex marriages in the same way that it recognizes opposite marriages—

I simply ask the hon. member for Thornhill how this question is not relevant. How is it not a question of public debate when her own party introduced it as a matter of public debate and urged her government to change this policy?