Leon Benoit

[Agreement on Internal Trade Implementation Act, May 4th, 2005]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-376, an act to amend the Agreement on Internal Trade Implementation Act (approval of a proposal).

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present this bill, which would help make the agreement on internal trade, signed 10 years ago, more effective by changing the implementation formula. We all know about the particular problems that farmers, ranchers and people in the transportation industry have had in operating a business in more than one province. This issue has caused serious problems. This private member's bill would allow the agreement to be amended so that we could reduce these barriers in trade between provinces.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Civil Marriage Act, May 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against the Liberal government's same sex marriage bill, Bill C-38.

Renowned expert Eugene Meehan, a former national president of the Canadian Bar Association and former executive legal officer of the Supreme Court of Canada, has ruled in a legal opinion: first, that Canada's highest court has not required Parliament to amend the traditional definition of marriage, as many Liberal MPs have indicated; second, that gay marriage has not receive protection under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and third, that the federal government has no power to protect from human rights complaints religious officials who do not want to perform gay marriages, as such powers rest with the provinces.

In my speech today, I will give a brief summary of what was determined by this esteemed expert, Mr. Eugene Meehan, and what the Leader of the Opposition as prime minister with a Conservative government would do with this important issue.

The first question Mr. Meehan answered was this. Would the Parliament of Canada be acting consistently with the same sex marriage reference opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada if it were to enact the statutory definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman for life to the exclusion of all others?

To answer this, he broke the question down into three separate questions, A, B and C.

Question A is: Does the reference require Parliament to amend the common law traditional definition of marriage, as many of the Liberal MPs have in fact claimed? His answer is, no. The answers provided in a federal reference are an advisory opinion only to the governor in council, or in other words, to the government. In addition, in the reference, the Supreme Court did not address the question of whether an opposite sex definition of marriage would fail to meet charter requirements.

He said that the same sex marriage reference did not require Parliament to amend the common law definition of marriage for the following reasons. First, the Supreme Court has recognized that answers provided in a federal reference are by nature advisory only. Second, the federal government took the position before the Supreme Court of Canada in the same sex marriage reference that it was not bound by the court's answers. Third, the Supreme Court did not address the question of whether an opposite sex definition of marriage would fail to meet the charter requirements. Fourth, ultimately the decision of whether to follow or not a reference opinion is political, not legal.

Question B is: Should it be the case that the purpose of the common law definition of marriage arose out of Christendom, is it consistent with the constitutional precedent for the Parliament of Canada to nevertheless define marriage as the union of one man and one woman for life, to the exclusion of all others, so long as the purpose is secular and consistent with section 1 of the charter?

Mr. Meehan's answer is, yes. Legislation pertaining to the legal capacity for civil marriage falls within the subject matter of section 91.26 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which pertains to the exclusive legislative competence of Parliament.

As we know, traditional marriage is supported by all of the world's main religions and by non-religious people as well.

Question C is: Would Parliament be acting consistent with jurisprudence if it determined that for the test under section 1 of the charter, the purpose of the restriction of the statutory definition of marriage to one man and one woman is exclusively to serve the best interests of children and to create a public institution that makes it more likely that a child will be raised by the child's own mother and father?

The answer to question C is, yes. The Supreme Court has previously recognized the importance of protecting the best interests of children in a variety of contexts.

It is therefore constitutionally possible that a law defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, specifically promulgated with the secular objective of the best interests of the children, could be perceived by the courts as a pressing and substantial objective.

In light of the fact that under section 1 charter analysis it is the government that has the evidential burden, proof would need to be tendered as to why and how a restrictive marriage definition is required to protect children in Canadian society and how it advances the well-being of the interests of children generally.

If the new federal act included assurances that despite a restrictive statutory definition of marriage for purposes of federal law, all rights, benefits and privileges accruing to the opposite sex couples in marriage would apply equally and without discrimination to those in same sex relationships, this could augment the constitutional chances of new legislation withstanding a charter challenge.

I wish to note that this is exactly what the Conservative Party of Canada and what a Conservative government will do, but I will discuss that later.

The second question that the Lang Michener letter reviews is Meehan's opinion on the religious freedom concerns that will likely flow from the enactment of Bill C-38 should it pass. The main question was: What religious freedom issues would Canadians face should Bill C-38 be enacted as proposed?

Mr. Meehan broke the question into three parts, which were A, B and C.

Question A: Does the Parliament of Canada have the constitutional jurisdiction to protect by statute the freedom of religious groups or officials to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with the group's religious beliefs? His answer, in his legal opinion, was no. He said that provincial governments, pursuant to section 92(12) of the Constitution Act, 1867, had exclusive jurisdiction with respect to the solemnization of marriage.

Question B: If Bill C-38 is enacted could religious groups or officials who refuse to solemnize a marriage become the subject of actions by others? His answer was yes. He said that a punitive same sex spouse who is refused a marriage licence or a place to hold a wedding would have a variety of options to assert his or her rights. I would like to note that this has already happened, so it is not at all a hypothetical question.

Question C: Does the Parliament of Canada have the power, through Bill C-38 or otherwise, to protect religious groups or officials from the actions referred to above? His answer was no. He said that the Parliament of Canada cannot protect religious groups or officials from the actions referred to above because the solemnization of marriage lies within the exclusive competence of the provinces.

Therefore the claims made by the government in that regard simply are not true.

This legal opinion, which was delivered by Mr. Meehan, an esteemed expert, is supported by 35 legal counsels who maintain active practices or academic interest in litigation, human rights, religious, charity or constitutional law.

It is clear, therefore, that only the federal government can legislate a definition of marriage for the entire country. The Leader of the Opposition has indicated that as Prime Minister he will do so. That definition will be the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Our legislation would also maintain and protect in law the rights, benefits, obligations and responsibilities of other types of unions.

The Leader of the Opposition intends to protect the traditional definition of marriage while equally recognizing other types of unions. This is a reasonable compromise position that most Canadians support. Why do the Liberals refuse to support our actions and our proposals in this regard when they know that a majority of Canadians support this position?

The fact is the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party want to change the definition of marriage and they are out of step with Canadians on this issue.They want to shift the discussion to the debate about rights and the courts because they know their position on the definition of marriage itself is not consistent with the views of Canadians.

Like the bill before the House today, our legislation will be subject to a free vote by all members of the Conservative caucus. I sincerely hope that the other parties in the House will recognize that each member of Parliament should represent their constituents on this important issue. No party, except the Conservatives, is allowing a free vote on this issue in the House.

I will continue to stand and fight for marriage, for the family, and for a strong and healthy society. I will help defeat the government and the same sex marriage bill.

[Petitions, April 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy and proud to present on behalf of constituents a petition on marriage.

The petitioners state that the family is the foundation for raising children and that the institution of marriage is the union of a man and a woman and that is being challenged. They call on Parliament to do everything it possibly can to recognize marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Committees of the House, April 21st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the member who has just spoken about the issue of compensation. We heard one of my colleagues earlier clearly describe in some detail the situation. I think the member described how a person on an acreage used peacocks to decorate and make their home an extremely attractive place. The CFIA came in and destroyed the birds in a way that seemed ridiculous. That is not the issue I am asking about.

To my knowledge, and I believe this is accurate, there has been no compensation whatsoever offered to this individual for $100,000 or tens of thousands of dollars worth of birds that had been raised over the years.

I would like to ask the member about the issue of compensation. Does she believe that we should have property rights enshrined in the Constitution in this country? If the government removes property from an individual, and from time to time that is required and I acknowledge that, there will be fair market value compensation.

With respect to that flock of birds which had taken years to raise, it was worth a lot of money. There has been no compensation forthcoming. The destruction of the birds was done when there was no evidence that they could make the problem worse.

[Committees of the House, April 21st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary talked about political rhetoric. We have heard an awful lot of political rhetoric from him.

It is interesting that he said not to judge what is in place now by what happened then, as if it were 10 years ago. Then was a few months ago. We should be looking at how the government did not handle things appropriately a few months ago. For the parliamentary secretary to pretend that things have been fixed since then is simply not factual. It is not the case.

There are a couple of different aspects I want to ask the parliamentary secretary about. I want to make the point that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has some extremely good people working for it. They are very capable, well trained, well educated people. The country is very fortunate because those good people certainly do protect our food supply in most cases.

Most often when problems arise, it is due to political interference by the government or due to the top brass at the CFIA who seem to lack respect for the individual farmers they are dealing with and also people who are working in the food processing industry. That is where the problems arise. It is not with the good people on the ground at the CFIA.

The parliamentary secretary said that the government is moving forward on an action plan and that it is preparing to meet another crisis. If the BSE mess over the past two years is not enough of a warning for the government to prepare itself for a crisis like this, then nothing will. We will have to change government to change that attitude and that lack of action. He said that the government is moving forward now. Why was it not moving forward before this happened? Why had the government not prepared before the avian flu outbreak happened, especially with the warnings that came from the BSE crisis? It is hard to imagine.

I would like the parliamentary secretary to answer that. I also have some important questions to ask about property rights and why fair compensation is not occurring in many cases, but I will ask them if I get another opportunity.

[Committees of the House, April 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Mississauga South has been a good member of our committee but today I think he became very partisan in his presentation in the House.

The member talked about the fact that only 9 out of 20 committees reported the main estimates back to the House. That, no doubt, is true but why is that? The reason is that the information given in the estimates simply does not tell the story. It hides information rather that divulging information. For that reason and many others, many members of the committee simply do not see it as a useful thing to do, even though most committees do look at the estimates and do review them to some extent.

If the performance reports were being done appropriately by government they would give good information that would allow us to judge whether the government had carried through on what it promised to do in the budget, through the estimates process and so on, but they are meaningless. Interesting enough, in the performance reports no department ever does anything wrong, and we all know that simply is not the case.

I think part of the reason that many committees do not spend the time that they should on the estimates is that the information given simply does not make it a worthwhile exercise. That is wrong and that will change under our government.

The member talked about the firearms registry and claimed that no one questioned the spending on the registry. The fact is that my colleague, the member for Yorkton—Melville, on every occasion that a minister appeared on the estimates, asked the question about spending on the gun registry and the government hid the information. It did not give the information that we needed to know on that.

What is wrong with this process is that he government hides information instead of giving information.

[Committees of the House, April 20th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member who just spoke is a very valuable member of our committee. She brings with her a lot of experience and is certainly very helpful to the committee when it comes to personnel issues in particular but on other issues as well.

The hon. member seems to be doubting whether the motion we brought forth about 21 days is reasonable. I want to argue that it is.

The parliamentary secretary in his presentation said that if the 21 day rule had been in place, the government would have had to have presented its supplementary estimates B sometime in the first part of February. What is wrong with that? The end of the fiscal year is March 31. Is it unreasonable for government to have decided on its final spending for that year ending March 31 in mid-February? I would argue that it is not unreasonable at all.

We must keep in mind that for true emergencies a contingency fund has been set up. The money is there.

Why is it that government, in just that short time, the middle of February, which would give the 21 days required, cannot plan its final spending for the year? To me that seems absurd. I believe that 21 days is reasonable. I also believe that we should pass this motion.

If there is discussion after and we agree to bring another motion back to the House and shorten it somewhat, I would be open to discussing that, but I do not think the 21 days is unreasonable and I think we should pass the motion.

I would just like to ask the hon. member whether she feels it is unreasonable to have the government present its final spending estimates a short month and a half before the end of the fiscal year.

[Committees of the House, April 20th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I was pleased to see the parliamentary secretary rise to speak directly to our report and to the problem. He acknowledged that there is a problem and has claimed that the 21 days is the problem.

Certainly, the committee came up with 21 days without considering details, although we did discuss it. However, we did not have as long a debate as we could have had as to whether 15 days or 21 days makes more sense. I would certainly be open to a discussion on that. We were upset enough when we were only allowed one day in which we could possibly review the supplementary estimates (B) in committee. That day was already scheduled. We had it scheduled weeks before.

The committee was upset enough that it brought a report before the House. I think the report is a very good starting point. I think we should pass it. If the government, whether it is us or them in a few months down the road, wants to change that figure, we can talk about it. We would be open to that debate.

He said 21 days is too long, that we would have to figure out the supplementary estimates (B), in other words the final spending for the year, in February. What is wrong with that?

I had a secretary back in the days when we had secretaries, who had a notice posted above her desk that read: “A lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine”. I think that sums up the situation. The fact that the government does not plan far enough ahead to give the committee this appropriate amount of time to deal with the supplementary estimates (B) is something that the government and the department should fix from their side. The committee feels that it is critical that it should have ample time to examine the supplementary estimates (B) on behalf of Canadian taxpayers.

We take the job of scrutinizing the spending of hard-earned tax dollars very seriously and we need ample time for a review. The government can certainly make a lot of other changes that would be extremely helpful. Those are changes in the way the numbers are reported, by giving ample time for the committee to look at them, and through meaningful performance reports. We just simply do not have that right now and there are lots of other things the government can do. The committee could make some changes too, and we are working on that right now. I would certainly welcome more questions.

[Committees of the House, April 20th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, after the three hours of debate and after everyone has had their say, there will be a vote. I am confident that the vote will pass. I do not know why it would not pass. It would be really hard to figure out, that the government would reject the concept of giving us just 21 sitting days to examine the supplementary estimates B and report them back to the House.

I would assume this motion will be passed. It is only a small step, but a significant step in allowing a better job of examining this information.

[Committees of the House, April 20th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, as chair of the committee I want to answer this very carefully. I would say no, we have not seen any effort on the part of the government. On the other hand, all members of the committee have been cooperative and have really tried to do a good job of providing that scrutiny. That includes the government members on the committee. They are really trying to do a good job. We work together in a very non-partisan fashion.

If the member is asking me if the government has driven any movement to try to provide more meaningful information, to try to have performance reports that actually reflect the performance of the department, and for all that the answer is no. They do not want the information to improve. There is a lot of talk about improvement. The current President of the Treasury Board has talked a lot about how he will change things at Treasury Board and that we will have better reporting. However, it has not happened.

I doubt we will ever see the government improve that process. It will be up to us in the time we have remaining before the election.

This is an important thing to remember, and It will be up to us. Should we form the government after the election, and I believe we will but that is up to voters, I do not want to prejudge, then it is clearly still up to us to ensure the committee functions a lot better. It is up to us as government then to ensure the information given to all committees is information that will allow them to figure out how the money is spent, not to hide it as is too often the case right now.