SPRI Committee Meeting

SUB-COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

SOUS-COMITÉ DES AFFAIRES ÉMANANT DES DÉPUTÉS DU COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA PROCÉDURE ET DES AFFAIRES DE LA CHAMBRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, September 30, 1998

• 1556

[English]

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP)): Go ahead. Tell us what you think we need to know—in five minutes.

Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): I'll take less than five minutes.

I have circulated a memo to members of the committee about the idea I would like to have some House time for and a vote on, which is the idea of a Tobin tax. It's an idea that was first presented by Nobel Prize winner Dr. James Tobin—not Brian Tobin—in the 1970s. He suggested a small tax on international currency transactions or foreign currency transactions in order to try to curb some of the speculation in the currency market, with this tax being used as a fund for international global development.

For a couple of reasons, I think this is a very relevant thing. We're involved now in a crisis in currencies around the world, as is evidenced by what is happening in the Asian market, particularly in Japan, and also in Russia. They've had to come up with some new ideas as to how we globally tackle this particular challenge, which is having an impact on all of us.

Just yesterday, Alan Greenspan, head of the U.S. Federal Reserve, announced a lowering of interest rates by one-quarter of a point to try to stem some of the problems around the world in terms of the speculation and the currency markets. We had the collapse of the big hedge fund in the United States a few days ago, which could have set off a domino effect if it hadn't been rescued by the U.S. treasury department. They considered it too large to be allowed to fail.

We have all of these kinds of issues, which we all know about. And one of the ideas out there is to bring in what's called a “Tobin tax”, a very small tax on all currency exchanges. One suggestion is that it be 0.1% of all transactions, which is really $1 on a $1000 transaction or $100 on a $100,000 condominium. It's a very small tax. If you use 1995 figures, such a tax would have resulted in about $175 billion going into a global fund, a fund that could be used for many different purposes.

I also think we have to start talking about a new global vision. Nation-state powers are diminishing very rapidly, as we all know, and many things we did nationally can now be done at the international level. I think that's one reason why we need a global fund. Think of the problems in the Ukraine and in Chernobyl and the need for a cleanup in that part of the world. Think of international global development for developing countries for job creation and poverty, hunger and starvation. Many different issues have to be tackled globally.

• 1600

I think this will also set off a bit of a debate on our vision of the world. I remind the committee that we're talking about massive sums of money. In the 1970s, in terms of currency exchange, roughly $18 billion a day moved. That is now up to $1.3 trillion a day. Global trade, by the way, is $4.3 trillion per year, so we're talking about a massive amount of money.

The Liberal Party is not here today, but let me say that the Minister of Finance has expressed support in principle for the idea of a Tobin tax. I think the Prime Minister's Office has actually done the same thing.

And Mr. Martin was concerned that this idea may not have as much currency as it should because of opposition in Germany and Britain. Since that time, there has been a change of governments in both countries, in Germany last Sunday, and in Britain a year or so ago, with, I think, an openness to the idea of the Tobin tax.

I think it is something we should debate. I don't want to go on at great length, Mr. Chair, but it is something we should debate. Maybe it's an idea whose time has come. And what's Parliament for if it's not to debate new ideas and new concepts? We have a diversity of parties here, and a diversity of opinions, so let's put this on the floor of the House and see what the members of Parliament think about it.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Bill Blaikie): Are there any questions?

Madame Dalphond-Guiral.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): When you talk about financial transactions, are you referring specifically to stock market transactions or all transactions, such as real estate purchases?

[English]

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: That's a very good question and it's one of the detailed things we should debate. My idea is to have it on all transactions, not just the stock market transactions. It's a minuscule tax. The idea here is 0.1%. It's one dollar on a thousand dollars. If you go to the United States and spend $1,000 you get taxed $1 on it. If you buy a condo in

[Translation]

the Riviera, in the south of France, for $100,000 Canadian or—

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: You can't buy a condo in the south of France for that price.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: —let's say a big cottage, a tax of 0.1% on $100,000 would come to $100. However, the most important thing is to tax major speculation, transactions involving billions and billions of dollars.

[English]

Today, most of the money that moves in the world is moved instantly by computer. Huge amounts of huge funds go back and forth. Our dollar was a victim of this kind of speculation recently, when people lost confidence in the Asian market and in what was happening in Russia. There is great confidence in the American dollar, so speculators move the money into American dollars and it affects us in this country.

[Translation]

That is another reason why should have legislation in place here.

I apologize. I absolutely we must leave.

[English]

Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Lorne, do you have any feedback on how the markets and the currency exchange people feel about this? Would they be willing to give up this “small but large” amount of cash, or do they see it as another tax and say “drop dead”, or what?

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: In general they would probably be negative, Deborah. It's a small tax and it really wouldn't affect ordinary citizens, but I think they would probably prefer not to have it.

I want to stress one thing here, Deborah. This is an idea that works only if it has the support of a large number of nations in the world. It doesn't matter if Zaire or Burundi isn't there, but to make it work, it matters that Germany and the United States are.

I think it's an idea that we, as Canadians, can be promoting. We can try to lead the way in something that's new and novel and may curb some needless speculation in the world—which affects all of us—and develop a global development fund, which I think would be very useful for all kinds of purposes.

Miss Deborah Grey: Tony Blair got in recently in Britain and you said that you thought there may be a better sentiment toward this now. Do you have any knowledge of that?

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Oh yes, from the statements of the Blair government, they are certainly open to the idea. Same with Chancellor-elect Schroeder in Germany, which is a contrast to what Kohl—

Miss Deborah Grey: He has commented on this very thing already?

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Not already, but he has commented on it in the past.

Miss Deborah Grey: Okay.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Yes, he has shown an openness to the idea of a fund of this sort.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: We will see whether he has changed his mind.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: This time, I don't know, but there have been significant changes in government throughout the world, including France, in the last 12 to 18 months.

[English]

It's just something new we should be debating in Parliament, I think, looking to the future.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: We should talk about this with the people on the Council of Europe.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Yes.

[English]

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Bill Blaikie): Are there any other questions?

[Translation]

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Is that all? Thank you, Mr. non-partisan Chairman.

• 1605

[English]

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Bill Blaikie): Mr. Jordan is here now and I would be quite willing to hand over the chair to him.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): No, thank you.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Bill Blaikie): Then I'll continue.

Mr. Gilmour for Mr. Garry Breitkreuz.

Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you just stated, Garry is away. I'll be presenting his bill and hopefully it will be votable.

As members of this committee are no doubt aware, this is the 50th anniversary of the signing of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 17 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads:

1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Despite the fact that Canada ratified the UN Declaration of Human Rights, Canadians are being arbitrarily deprived of their property. In his book Constitutional law of Canada, the third edition, Professor Peter Hogg wrote:

The omission of property rights from Section 7 [of the Charter] greatly reduces its scope. It means that section 7 affords no guarantee of compensation or even fair procedure for the taking of property by the government. It means that section 7 affords no guarantee of fair treatment by courts, tribunals or officials with power over purely economic interests of individuals or corporations.

Professor Hogg also wrote:

The product is a section 7 in which liberty must be interpreted as not including property, as not including freedom of contract, and in short, as not including economic liberty.

Former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau argued long and hard for better protection of property rights, first in his 1968 paper entitled, “A Canadian Charter of Human Rights”, tabled when he was Minister of Justice, secondly in his 1969 paper, “The Constitution of the People of Canada”, and once again in 1978 when he introduced Bill C-60, the constitutional amendment bill. Mr. Trudeau tried to get property rights included in the charter in July 1980 and again in January 1981.

Finally, in April 1983, he said in the House of Commons:

I would say that if we can have the agreement of the Conservative Party to introduce an amendment on property rights and pass it in 24 hours.

Rather than try to amend the charter of rights and freedoms, Garry's private member's bill, C-304, proposes to provide adequate protection of property rights in federal law by strengthening the property right provisions in the Canadian Bill of Rights, not the Constitution, something that is much easier to do.

Garry's bill would specifically guarantee that every person has three things: one, the right to the enjoyment of their property; two, the right not to be deprived of their property unless they are given a fair hearing and paid a fair, timely and impartially fixed compensation; and three, the right to appeal to the courts if their property rights have been infringed upon.

Garry has received impressive public support considering he's had little time to promote this. He has received 491 pages of petitions signed by 11,292 Canadians from across Canada. There is strong support for this type of bill. He has also received support from the Canadian Real Estate Association, which represents more than 200 real estate boards in every province.

It's an important issue that needs three hours of debate in the House. The bill meets all the criteria for the selection of a votable item.

I'm open to your questions.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Bill Blaikie): Are there questions for Mr. Gilmour?

Miss Deborah Grey: You talk about it being easier to make changes to the Bill of Rights rather than the Constitution. Do you or Garry have any sense of how much support there would be for this across the country? Because, as you know, as soon as we talk about changing the Constitution, everyone's eyes kind of glaze over.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: I think that is the thrust of his bill. As soon as we go into the Constitution, everybody's eyes glaze over, but doing it through the Bill of Rights has a far better flavour. Impartially, we've had 50 years of successive governments that haven't done anything.

This private member's bill, made votable, would give all of us members from all of the parties in the House the chance to state our views and to have a vote.

And if that vote is favourable it gives us the chance to move it on to the government as a signal to the government that, yes, in fact, this is a key issue, an issue that many Canadians, from Nova Scotia to Quebec to British Columbia, are interested in.

• 1610

I think this should be a votable issue because it influences every one of our constituents. It's one issue that has been put on the back burner and needs to be brought forward in order for all of us to have our say on it.

Miss Deborah Grey: You can see that this would affect all levels of government, and probably at the federal level if you used weapons, for instance, because we're in this debate right now about C-68, property with firearms. But if you go to a more local level, where you are looking at a municipality, for instance, wanting to build a road through your property, that would fall under this category.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: It would. In fact, in my own view I think the municipalities are probably the most flagrant at not offering fair value. If you want the highway through through your property, or if that's the best use, that's fine, and this bill wouldn't stop that. All it says is that there should be fair compensation. The use is there and we need to have the highway, but you should be paid fair compensation for that right-of-way.

Miss Deborah Grey: Good.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Bill, apart from the highway, are there any other examples of what problems you're trying to solve?

Mr. Bill Gilmour: It's mainly private property—

Mr. Joe Jordan: I haven't heard people complain about expropriation of land.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Many people are unaware of it. They just don't know the basic law of having what you own compensated with, first of all, fair value, and secondly, if the owner doesn't feel it's fair value, the right to a third party to arbitrate.

Miss Deborah Grey: I had a situation in my riding where a logging company just sort of came in and helped itself to the timber on a guy's private land and was trying not to compensate him. That would be another example.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: I think it's a favourable bill for all of us as members, and I would encourage you to look at this as a votable bill because I think it's one that Canadians are interested in.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Bill Blaikie): I just want to say, without prejudice as to whether or not it should be votable, that I'm not absolutely sure the Bill of Rights would impinge on municipal expropriations, etc. One of the limitations of the Canadian Bill of Rights was that it was simply federal legislation and therefore applied only to the federal domain, which is one of the reasons there was pressure for a property rights amendment in the Constitution. This Bill of Rights doesn't cover everything. I'm not absolutely sure of that, but I think that's the way it goes.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: If in fact you are correct, and you may be, having this would also have a spinoff for the provinces and the municipalities, because it would then be in federal law.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Bill Blaikie): Again, without being argumentative, having been there at that time in the early 1980s when we were debating this, it was largely the provinces that didn't want the property rights amendment. They saw it as an intrusion on provincial jurisdiction.

The debate was sometimes characterized as being anti-property versus property when in fact it was actually a debate about federal-provincial jurisdiction as well. I say that just by virtue of information.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: I gather it was quite a heady time, filibustering—

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Bill Blaikie): It was great fun.

Are there no more questions for Mr. Gilmour?

Thank you, Mr. Gilmour.

I can't stand the responsibility, so I'm going to turn over the chair to the duly elected chair.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Thanks, all of you.

The Chairman (Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, my apologies for being late. I had to start off debate on second reading for Bill C-42.

I understand that we've dealt with items 1 and 2 and that Mr. Solomon is not appearing, so perhaps we can go to Mr. Dubé.

Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Merci beaucoup—

The Chairman: Excuse me. There's something wrong with the earphones.

Some hon. members: Yes.

The Chairman: The minute I take over the chair, it starts.

Mr. Jean Dubé: Or was it me?

The Chairman: Maybe it was, Mr. Dubé.

[Editor's Note: Technical difficulty]

The Chairman: Madame?

• 1615

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Okay. I will speak English. I will do it for today and stay in this committee même si—in spite of—the fact that we don't have translation. And I like to speak English with you—it's a pleasure—but you know, there's a way to do these things. Next time, I'm very sorry, but I will leave—not because I am a bad girl, but I do think that if you worked in the Quebec Parliament and the same thing happened to you, you would leave. So it is clear, and I want that expression of my feelings to be noted.

The Chairman: We appreciate your sentiments, and I certainly share them. I'm sure all members of the committee do.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I'm sure. I'm always right.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: You agree with me!

[Editor's Note: Technical difficulty]

The Chairman: Mr. Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean Dubé: Thank you very much for giving me an opportunity to raise this subject which is very important to me and to the government as well, I think. I am sure that it is important to all parties in the House of Commons.

[English]

The Chairman: Monsieur Dubé, I'm sorry. We're not getting translation. We need translation.

Madam Clerk, may we suspend for a few minutes until we see what the problem is?

• 1616

• 1626

The Chairman: Members of the committee, I think we're back on track here with the technology and the equipment and such.

Mr. Dubé, please.

[Editor's Note: Technical difficulty]

The Chairman: Okay, once again, Mr. Dubé, would you see if you can proceed, please?

[Translation]

Mr. Jean Dubé: Thank you very much for giving me an opportunity to raise a subject which is important to me and which is important to the government and all parties in the House of Commons, I believe. I'm referring to our young people, and the various programs offered to them by the federal government.

The Youth Employment Strategy was introduced in February 1997. It includes programs in 12 departments and a total of some 250 programs across Canada. The number of programs may cause accountability problems. There may be several programs, but it is crucial that they be productive and effective.

• 1630

I'm not here to condemn the programs that don't work, but to make the best programs better.

As we know, the youth unemployment rate in Canada is twice the Canadian average. This fact is often mentioned. You have often spoken about it as well. This is something we are going to have to deal with in order to improve the employment situation in Canada.

In New Brunswick, my native province, the unemployment rate among young people is 25%. That is much too high. And as members of Parliament, we must deal with the situation and try to improve it.

The first step, if we are to be responsible members of Parliament, is to determine whether the money we're spending at the moment is properly used. I don't mean that we should do a study based on the preconception that all programs are poor and worthless. If we find that the programs are useful and well-administered, so much the better.

The next step would be to make these programs better known to young people, for whom they're intended. The less effective programs take the resources away from the more effective ones. Given the high youth unemployment rate, a number of young people try to qualify for the programs. As parliamentarians, we should ensure the programs we set up for young Canadians are really there for them. That is the essence of my proposal.

I think we should be serious about the future of this country. The young people of today will be taking over from us. This is something we should be talking about in the House. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Dubé.

[English]

Questions?

Monsieur Harvey.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): I just have a brief question. Do you have any examples of a completely ineffective or inappropriate program, Mr. Dubé?

Mr. Jean Dubé: I hope the various departments evaluate their programs. I wouldn't want to go so far as to openly criticize a program, but I'm sure that departments have access to this information and could give it to us. I can give you an example of a program that works rather well. The Youth Internship Program seems to be working very well.

Before I entered politics, when I was in the private sector, I was involved with this program, and I can tell you that it was very effective. Once again, however, there was a shortage of resources. We should have been helping more young people. If we took the money spent on less effective programs, programs such as the one I mentioned could help more people.

[English]

The Chairman: Are there other questions for Monsieur Dubé?

Thank you very much for appearing before the committee.

Moving on to item 4, we'll hear from Mr. Riis, on motion 360.

Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and committee members.

The private member's motion that I'm bringing forward is simply an effort to make employer-provided transit passes a tax-exempt benefit.

• 1635

A number of things lead to this initiative: the fact that transportation is our largest source of carbon emissions; an interest in the Kyoto protocol and the call it's making on us as a country; recognizing that by the year 2000 80% of Canadians will live in urban areas where transit of one kind or another is available; recognizing that at the moment the ridership on public transit is actually going down; and the fact that it is now recognized that the cost per traveller on public transit is now higher than the cost of a single person commuting in and out of the downtown areas of cities.

So in an effort to encourage people to use public transit, the motion asks us to do what many other jurisdictions have done, and that is, to enable an individual to have a tax-exempt benefit if his employer provides a bus pass or a taxi chit or some form of public transit for the employee.

At the moment, that benefit is provided to people who bring their cars to work, in terms of parking. That is a benefit on which one is not taxed. This private member's motion would simply provide that same benefit for one who uses an employer-sponsored transit pass, in order to encourage people to leave their cars at home, use public transit, and make a contribution in terms of reducing emissions.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Riis.

Are there any questions?

Madame Dalphond-Guiral.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I'm curious about this. I worked for a very long time and my boss never offered me this type of pass. Do you have any idea how many and what type of company offers this service? It seems to me that if it is good for employers, it might also be good for ordinary people.

[English]

Mr. Nelson Riis: I don't have figures at this point. By the time we get to the debate we would have. The information is recognized. And based on the American model, taking this initiative would increase the ridership of public transit about 5%. Unfortunately, that's all. Of course in terms of numbers that's substantial, and not only in regard to higher ridership numbers and making public transit more affordable and more efficient. It would also eliminate a considerable 600,000 vehicles, I think, from the downtown area.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. Miss Grey.

Miss Deborah Grey: In terms of the tax-exempt benefit, Nelson, how would it show itself on tax forms? In terms of being tax-exempt, where does this benefit come in? Does the individual claim it as a benefit?

Mr. Nelson Riis: Yes.

Miss Deborah Grey: Not the company?

Mr. Nelson Riis: The individual would claim it. That's right. That's the proposal. The individual would claim whatever that taxable benefit would be.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Don't take this question the wrong way, because I think this is a good idea and I think it speaks to fuller costing in our processes, but what are the revenue implications of this? Are there any statistics on that?

Mr. Nelson Riis: The proponents of this—

Mr. Joe Jordan: It's worth every penny, mind you, but—

Mr. Nelson Riis: Fair enough. You're probably aware that across the country there's a sizeable campaign to consider a variety of perspectives. Their conclusion is that it would be relatively revenue neutral in that the loss in terms of taxes that this tax exemption would result in would be compensated by the fact that, again, those write-offs to those parking places that are presently used would not occur. Plus, the increase in ridership ought to result in more efficient public transit.

I could provide more specifics, but they say that in the experience of other jurisdictions, mainly in the United States, there seems to be a relatively zero cost.

Mr. Joe Jordan: But it's revenue neutral by their instruments, which don't account for environmental benefits or health benefits.

Mr. Nelson Riis: That's right, it's strictly on a dollars-and-cents basis.

The Chairman: Are there any additional questions of Mr. Riis?

Thank you very much of appearing before the committee.

Mr. Nelson Riis: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: We'll move on to item 5 and Mr. Wappel's C-225.

• 1640

While you're getting ready, Mr. Wappel, I will remind the committee that you were here in June and you chose to appear again today. Is that correct?

Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, thank you. You're right. I was here before and I'm back because there's been a change in the makeup of the committee and I wanted to have an opportunity to make my points to the new members and respond to any questions they may have. And with that, may I offer my apologies to those who have to listen twice to what I have to say.

This bill, Mr. Chair, deals with the institution we call marriage. It's very short and contains only four very brief sections. What is its purpose? It is to enshrine in statute that a marriage is valid only when it is a marriage between one unmarried man and one unmarried woman. Put another way, it defines in statute that a marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a single female. In other words, neither multiple parties nor parties of the same sex may get married.

Is this subject matter federal in nature? Yes. The Constitution Act, 1867, formerly known as the British North America Act, sets out in sections 91 and 92 the classes of subjects under federal and provincial jurisdiction.

Section 91.26, which is the federal side, provides that the Parliament of Canada has exclusive jurisdiction over marriage and divorce. We have enacted a Divorce Act, and yes indeed, we have a Marriage Act. And for the members of the committee who haven't seen our current Marriage Act, I have a few copies here. It contains three virtually incomprehensible sections.

It does not define marriage, because until recently everyone understood it to mean exactly what Bill C-225 says it is. Both Allan Rock and Anne McLellan, immediate past and current justice ministers, respectively, have confirmed in writing that, and I quote:

The definition of marriage in federal law is not in a statute passed by Parliament, but is found in what is called the federal common law dating from an 1866 British case of Hyde and Hyde v. Woodmansee. This case has been applied consistently in Canada and states that no marriage can exist between two persons of the same sex or between multiple wives or husbands.

Thus, the definition of marriage is already clear in law in Canada as the union of two persons of the opposite sex.

That's what the justice ministers have said in writing.

What is important to note in this statement is that the definition of marriage is to be found in federal common law. Common law is, plain and simple, judge-made law. Therefore, it can be changed at any time by judges. There is no statute to guide or restrain judges.

Second, it is not true to say that the definition of marriage is clear in law in Canada. Why do I say this? Because there are numerous continuing challenges in our courts to this definition, both by those who wish same-sex unions to be recognized as marriages and those whose religious beliefs permit multiple wives or husbands.

One case will illustrate the point. The case is Layland and Beaulne v. the Ontario Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and the Attorney General of Canada. In this case, decided by three judges of the Ontario Divisional Court, two male homosexuals sued to force the province of Ontario to issue them a licence to marry.

Now if, Mr. Chair, as the justice minister states, “the definition of marriage is already clear in law”, you would have expected a unanimous decision against the applicants. In fact, the decision was two to one. I would like to read you a brief excerpt from the dissenting judgment:

I am of the view that restricting marriages to heterosexual couples infringes and violates the applicants' section 15(1) charter rights and that such violation cannot be justified under section 1 of the charter. I also agree with the position of the church that there is no common law prohibition against same-sex marriages in Canada.

And in this case, the church was the Metropolitan Community Church of Ottawa.

Mr. Chair, if the law were as clear as the justice minister and the former justice minister would have us believe, then this judge should never have uttered this statement.

• 1645

The fact is that in the next such application the dissenting judge could find an ally and the next decision could be two to one in the opposite direction. This is entirely possible and predictable and it is the way common law works.

In the current law we can see the trend developing in such decisions as Vriend and Rosenberg. If the law is to be clear—as the justice minister would have us believe it is—it must be confirmed in statutory form so that a judge cannot draw the conclusions drawn by the dissenting judge in Layland.

I would argue that we must preserve the definition of marriage as we have always known it, and which is indeed the definition apparently espoused and affirmed by the Government of Canada. Of course, others take a different view and that's the point. It's vital that Parliament speak on this matter.

Indeed, in debate on Monday, June 8, my colleague behind me, from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, made the following comments, with which I agree. He said:

It is true that we would like the members of this House to make known their views on recognition of same-sex spouses.

He also said:

To be sure, a debate must take place. Reformers are right when they say it is unacceptable in a democracy to leave it to judges to make the decisions.

And he also said:

My colleague is right saying that this debate should be held in the House. We must vote on an important matter such as this.

He's absolutely correct, ladies and gentlemen. Bill C-225 is the vehicle through which to have this debate and this vote. The subject matter is federal. The subject matter is timely. The subject matter is important. The subject matter has not been previously dealt with in legislation in the history of this country. The subject matter confirms millenia-old tenets being challenged in the courts, with some judges rejecting what the justice minister erroneously believes is clear in law.

And the subject matter is as current as this month's headlines, one of which is from the province of Quebec, “Homosexual Couple Pursues Legal Marriage”, on September 15, 1998. A brief excerpt, if I may, Mr. Chair:

What could become a test case for civil liberties in Canada began as theatre yesterday with the couple and their lawyer going through the motions of seeking a marriage licence.

Hendricks and Leboeuf arrived at the courthouse, arms linked, gave media interviews and kissed for the news cameras on the threshold of the marriage licence office.

Mr. Chair, this issue is not theatre. Such fundamental changes must not be decided by the media, by special interest groups, or by the courts. Such matters must be debated openly by the people's representatives in the House of Commons.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Wappel.

Mr. Tom Wappel: If I may just—

The Chairman: We're running out of time, so you really have to wrap it up.

Mr. Tom Wappel: All right. Perhaps I'll have an opportunity to comment if anyone has any questions.

The Chairman: Are there any questions at this point?

It would appear not.

Thank you very much for your presentation.

Moving on to item 6 on the agenda, we have Monsieur Ménard, with C-309.

Monsieur Ménard, I believe this is also a second appearance for you. Merci.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for giving me an opportunity to appear before you a second time.

My bill is about legal recognition of same-sex common-law spouses. If it were passed by the House of Commons, it would result in amendments to about 70 pieces of legislation. In other words, in each federal statute that includes a heterosexist definition of "spouse", which entails certain rights and obligations, there must also be a homosexist definition of the word "spouse" which would entail certain rights and obligations for same-sex spouses.

My bill is topical, because our colleagues from the Reform Party were reminding us that the Rosenberg judgment was important because it amended the Income Tax Act for same-sex spouses.

• 1650

In its most recent annual report, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has estimated that in the year ahead, about ten common-law courts or administrative tribunals will probably have to rule on the issue of recognition of same-sex spouses.

I am convinced, as are my colleagues in the Reform Party and probably other colleagues around this table, that the debate must be held first among members of Parliament and that it is not up to the courts to decide on a matter such as this.

That said, my bill has nothing to do with marriage, the celebration of which comes under federal jurisdiction. At the moment, there are very few cases before the courts regarding marriage. The issue is whether same-sex spouses should be recognized. If we grant this recognition, we will of course do so under the Canadian Charter. A number of courts have held that not doing so was not in keeping with section 15 of the Charter, regarding equality rights.

I would like to close by telling you that 10 major Canadian cities, in the east and the west, have recognized same-sex spouses and that this has had very little impact on their respective treasuries. Two provinces, British Columbia and Nova Scotia, recognize same-sex spouses in their public services.

I hope we will deal with this important issue, which will be on the agenda of the courts in the months ahead. I will comply with the decision made by the House of Commons, but at the same time I promise to work very hard for a positive outcome to the vote.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Ménard.

[English]

Are there any questions?

Miss Grey.

Miss Deborah Grey: Réal, what was the bill we voted on that Svend Robinson put forward a year or two ago?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: That was a bill to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to include a prohibited ground for discrimination, namely sexual orientation. Svend has been fighting this battle for many years. In the end, the government itself amended the Act. This was done through Bill C-33, which amended the Canadian Act and prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation by all federally-regulated companies.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Are there any other questions for Monsieur Ménard?

Thank you very much for appearing today.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Ladies and gentlemen, we'll suspend this now for a minute or two. Then we'll go in camera, as you know, for deliberations.

[Editor's Note: Proceedings continue in camera]