JUST Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE ET DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, March 23, 2000

• 1541

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.)): I call this meeting to order.

Shall clause 15 pass?

(Clause 15 agreed to)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I wonder if you might again inquire as to whether we might consider block voting here and do many clauses at a time.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): That's a good idea.

Mr. John Maloney: Is there agreement that we could consider this again?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would agree to block voting if I can put on the record a particular statement on behalf of the Reform Party, in that although I'll agree to block voting, on behalf of the Reform Party I'd like to register our concern about the term “common-law partner”.

This committee has heard my concerns on this particular term throughout our hearings, the term “common-law partnership”, which is defined as two people living in a “conjugal relationship” regardless of gender. The term “conjugal” is not defined in the bill. Therefore, we have serious concerns about the term “common-law partner”, because it's not clear who qualifies and who does not qualify. We're chagrined that this bill does not make it clear as to who is in and who is out; it leaves it vague, and that, in our opinion, is very wrong.

It is for that reason that this morning, when we started clause-by-clause, we were wanting to register our concern that this term “common-law partner” does not work. That's why we were forcing the committee to go through this step by step and vote for a term that, in our opinion, doesn't work. We want it registered that it doesn't work and we wanted to vote against it.

But having that on the record, I don't want to be a pain to this committee, necessarily. There are some articles I will be asking for a recorded vote on that don't have to do with that issue, but they're few. So if I can—and I guess I have—put that on the record, then I would agree to block voting.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Mr. Lowther. I consider that a fair statement on the record.

Mr. Robinson, do you have something to say?

Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Chairman, I have absolutely no objection to proceeding in the manner that has been suggested by the parliamentary secretary.

I, as well, did have just a couple of brief questions of a general nature that don't link to a particular clause and that I think probably are appropriately put at this time with respect to a number of issues. I will be brief. I'll put all three of the particular issues—and some of them I've raised with the minister previously.

I just wanted to get clarification from the parliamentary secretary, Mr. Maloney, with respect to the provisions of the Criminal Code on hate literature.

The minister indicated in her appearance before the committee that these were being reviewed in consultation with provincial attorneys general with a view to including sexual orientation in the prohibited grounds, and I'd like to get an assurance from Mr. Maloney that, indeed, that review is underway, and some sense of when we might expect a report on that issue.

Mr. John Maloney: A review is underway. Timing...just give us a minute...perhaps you can go on.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Of course. Actually the other two issues are both with respect to timing as well. One is the review of the Evidence Act. I know that there is a comprehensive review underway with respect to the spousal compellability provisions generally, but I'm wondering what is the timetable or likely timeframe on that.

• 1545

Then, finally and most importantly, Mr. Chairman, there are the provisions of the Immigration Act with respect to gay and lesbian partners. This is an issue of great concern in the gay and lesbian community. It is not encompassed within the framework of this bill, but we've been told that it will be coming forward. I wonder, again, if the parliamentary secretary could indicate the likely timetable on that issue as well.

Mr. John Maloney: I will consult with officials in that respect.

While we're doing our consulting, do you want to proceed? Certainly before we terminate tonight, I'll give you some idea—

Mr. Svend Robinson: That's fine.

Mr. John Maloney: —if we can.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Lowther was also going to be providing some material for the edification of at least this member of the committee, if not all members. I'm not sure if he has been able to find that material with respect to the choice of lifestyle.

Mr. Eric Lowther: No, not in the time we've had.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I look forward to receiving it, Mr. Chair.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): In order to facilitate the block voting, could we get the numbers you have concerns with so we could stop at those points and address your concerns?

Mr. Eric Lowther: Yes. Clauses 89 to 90 are clauses of concern. Also, clause.... Just a moment, please.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): If time is going to be saved, let's do it right.

Mr. Eric Lowther: I also have an amendment to move when we get to just after.... My amendment to add a preamble would also be one I would include, just before we ask if the title shall carry, so that would be another one. There's one other. For clauses referring to the Old Age Security Act, I don't have those clauses right in front of me, but when we get there I'd want to move some amendments or actually have some discussion and possibly deletions in some of those clauses.

Beyond that...that's about all I have.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you.

Mr. Robinson, do you have numbers?

Mr. Svend Robinson: I do, Mr. Chairman. The clauses on which I have either questions or comments particularly are the following: clause 45, clauses 90, 91, 93, 102 and 109, 130, 176, 192 and following—those are the Old Age Security provisions—and clause 254.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): I clearly have no objection to block voting on these clauses. By and large, any block initiatives are good for society.

With regard to the Minister's statement on the Naskapis and Crees, I spoke with their representative, Mr. Pratt. According to my understanding, a clear commitment was made to ensure that none of the provisions affecting them would come into effect until after negotiations had taken place. When I put the question to the Naskapis, I understood that they were not opposed to their being recognition of same-sex spouses on their territory. Of course, they explained to us that, since Whites were not eligible, there would be a problem in the case of a relationship between a white person and an Indian.

I would like to have some clarification on this point. In any event, you have raised the question of clause 89, which concerns them, and I would like to get this straight before we vote on a block of provisions that might affect them.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Mr. Ménard.

Mr. MacKay, we have an informal agreement here on block voting on the clauses. We made that agreement before you arrived. Do you have any particular clauses you would like to make a comment on, just so we won't go past those clauses?

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): No, I'll follow along, Mr. Chair. I'm fine. I'm prepared to speak to the objections that have been put forward.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney: Mr. Chair, we will be posing amendments in clause 145 as well as in schedule 2.

A voice: Of what?

Ms. Michelle Gosselin (Project Manager, Modernizing Benefits and Obligations Team, Department of Justice): Referring to clause 142...the Income Tax Act.

Mr. John Maloney: It's clause 145 referring to clause 142, so it's clauses 145 and 142. Schedule 2 is clause 142 and in the body of the act it's clause 145. It's the Income Tax Act.

• 1550

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Mr. Maloney.

There's something I'd like to say here. It's sometimes the perception that opposition members have a difficult time in committee because the chair, almost always, is a member of the government party. I've done the very best I could. In fact, I think I've leaned over backwards to accommodate the opposition, because I realize the position you're in. I must have done a good job because my own members here have been criticizing me, so I must be doing it right.

I also would like to tell you that when we use procedural wrangling to hold things up, don't forget that we're on the taxpayer's ticket. I think the taxpayer is going to be delighted with the decision the opposition parties have made. I thank you, and I know the taxpayers will thank you as well.

Now, the first block: shall clauses 15 to 44 carry?

(Clauses 15 to 44 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 45)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Shall clause 45 carry?

Mr. Robinson has an objection.

Mr. Svend Robinson: No, not an objection, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to seek some clarification.

On clause 45—at page 77 in the briefing book—this is the clause that deals with the provisions on the Canada Pension Plan and, in particular, the survivor's pension under the Canada Pension Plan. I'd like to just seek some clarification. I note that in subclause 45(2) there's reference to a common-law partner becoming a survivor “on or after January 1, 1998”.

I appreciate that this is a transitional provision. My concern is with respect to those individuals who were involved in relationships that meet the criteria of the statute, but whose partner died before January 1, 1998 and who had filed or will have filed claims by the time this bill gets royal assent.

I know of one particular individual—and I've mentioned this individual before to the officials of the justice department—a woman named Donna Wilson, who lived in a committed loving relationship with her partner. They raised children together. Her partner died of cancer, in 1992, I believe. She then went to the CPP office, applied for a survivor's pension on behalf of her partner, and was told, no, your relationship is invisible, it doesn't exist, we don't recognize these relationships. She did in fact file a complaint under the provisions of the Charter of Rights, and that complaint has been wending its way through the system for a number of years now.

I appreciate, of course, that Egan and Nesbit was a decision in 1995, but in circumstances—and I believe it's a very small number of circumstances—in which individuals have filed claims relating to the death of a partner after the Charter of Rights came into force in 1985 and up until royal assent of this bill, I would ask that there be clarification that these claims will be viewed sympathetically and will, hopefully, be settled in accordance with the principles of this law we're adopting.

Mr. John Maloney: As you can appreciate, whenever we have a transitional statute, Mr. Robinson, a date must be set. Those who don't make it under the umbrella are there, they're being considered, and a policy position will be taken on those, but we have to start from somewhere. There—

Mr. Svend Robinson: I don't disagree with that, Mr. Chairman. My concern is as I said before. Perhaps one of the justice officials who's familiar with these particular instances—

Mr. John Maloney: Perhaps my assistant could—

Mr. Svend Robinson: Yes. If Ms. Hitch could clarify the position on this, I'd appreciate it.

Ms. Lisa Hitch (Senior Counsel, Chief Policy Coordinator, Modernizing Benefits and Obligations Team, Department of Justice): As is usually the practice, as you know, when a law changes, there is some date set in the law for notifying Canadians as to when the law will take effect. Anything that is in the system in terms of claims, appeals, court cases, or challenges under the Canadian Human Rights Act, will be dealt with, as it always is, after policy decisions are made government-wide as to what should be done with those cases that will not meet the statutory date.

• 1555

Mr. Svend Robinson: Do we have any indication at this point of how many cases are actually in the mill at this time? I asked for this information at the time the minister appeared. I want to know roughly how many cases were in the mill at the time the minister appeared, just to give us some sense of what we're talking about. Do we know that?

Ms. Lisa Hitch: With apologies, we are still counting. The list we were first given by the legal service units indicated that there were a number in the field that had not been reported through their legal service units. That count is being done. We have a response from several departments but not from all of them. I sent them another e-mail during the break to remind them that it must be done by the end of today, so I expect to have something to give the committee early next week.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Okay.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, on the point of the survivor's pensions, I understand that a policy decision has to be made with respect to those whose partners died before January 1, 1998, and I appreciate that there has to be a date in the bill, but I assume that part of that policy decision will be what is the final cut-off point, whether it is the date the bill was tabled or the royal assent of the bill. I understand that decision hasn't yet been made. Is that correct?

Ms. Lisa Hitch: That's correct. That decision has not yet been made.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I would just encourage the government, through the parliamentary secretary, to view this issue with compassion and with sympathy. I expect there would not be a significant number of individuals, but certainly it would be a very important sign to view sympathetically and compassionately the claims of those who do file before royal assent of this bill. I would ask the parliamentary secretary for his undertaking of that.

Mr. John Maloney: I can't give you an undertaking, but I can assure you that your comments will be taken into consideration. We've always been a compassionate government, and I hope that will continue.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I would agree, Mr. Chairman, that I hope that would be the case.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Mr. Robinson.

Shall clause 45 carry?

(Clause 45 agreed to)

(Clauses 46 to 88 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 89)

Mr. Eric Lowther: I have some concerns on clause 89, Mr. Chairman.

We had the Naskapi Nation before us, and I believe clause 89 refers to some of the same concerns the Naskapi Nation had. Their case to the committee was that they were concerned this bill would override some of their own treaty agreements. They felt they would like to be consulted on this piece of legislation and on how it would impact them and their treaty agreements.

On their behalf—and I'd submit that probably a lot of other Canadians would like to be in the same boat—I just submit that these particular amendments that impact these agreements with the native peoples, the first nations people here, be struck from this particular bill in respect of the fact that they have treaty agreements which would preclude them from having to follow the dictates of this particular bill, as was their request.

So I would just submit that.... Well, certainly for my own sake I'd be voting against it, and I guess I'd be saying to the committee that I would move that these particular clauses 89 to 90, which deal with this, be struck from the bill.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Are there any other comments?

Ms. Parrish.

Mr. Svend Robinson: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, if I may, I believe that procedurally the way to register opposition to a clause is not to move to strike it—I don't believe that's in order—but to vote against it.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Mr. Chair, that is correct. I stand corrected.

So let me just appeal to the committee that we vote down these clauses in respect of the request of the first nations people before this committee, who said that this bill does in fact infringe upon—at least in their estimation—treaty agreements they already have in place.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Ms. Parrish.

• 1600

Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): I have some communication here from the people in question. It suggests that they are in full favour—and I understand this didn't come out in the hearings—of the bill. Also, my understanding is that it won't be fully enacted until they're further consulted.

I am more than willing to share this communication with you, but I think the nations are quite in compliance with this bill and are encouraging us to pass it. So if you're speaking on their behalf, perhaps you would like to look at this.

Mr. Eric Lowther: I certainly would. I'd like you to table that document, if you would. I would appreciate getting it because that was not the instruction or the concerns they had passed on to us. That's in direct conflict to what I was told by them, so it will be interesting to get it.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I would like to ask three questions.

With regard to the Aboriginal nations in question, can you assure us that, from a legal point of view, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, in its present form, applies to these nations? That's my first question and I would have two others.

[English]

A voice: The answer is yes.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): I'm sorry, but could the witness introduce himself?

Mr. Terry Henderson (Director General, Implementation Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Yes, I'm sorry. My name is Terry Henderson. I'm director general of implementation branch for Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Here is my second question: is it possible for positive law, for a law like this one, to change a treaty?

[English]

Mr. John Maloney: Actually, that's one of the reasons why we have to consult with them, Mr. Ménard. That's one of the reasons for the consultation.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: This committee needs details on three points. On the one hand, the nations in question are telling us that the Charter does not apply to them. I acknowledge that Aboriginal nations have specific rights and that there may be special negotiating processes that apply to them. On the other hand, I would not be comfortable with the idea of setting aside these provisions, if this is the committee's decision, which would mean that there would be a category of citizens who would not be affected by recognition of same-sex spouses.

Here is what I need to know. Yes, the Charter applies to them. Yes, it is possible to negotiate or amend a treaty by means of a statute like this one, and that is what we are preparing to do. Thirdly, the Minister told us that none of the provisions affecting them, namely clauses 89 and the following ones, would come into force until after negotiations had taken place. Where are we at in the negotiations? Yesterday, I met with the lawyer for the Naskapis, Mr. Pratt, who told me that they had never heard any mention of a negotiation process and that they had been faced with a fait accompli. This is important news for the committee.

[English]

Mr. Terry Henderson: If I may, Mr. Chairman—

Ms. Lisa Hitch: I will just answer from the legal perspective first and then turn to my colleague from the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs to answer the question about the state of the negotiations.

From a legal perspective, it remains the position of the government that the charter applies to aboriginal peoples.

The second question is, can a positive provision in a statute override or amend a treaty? The government has not expressed a definite position on that aspect and that is why, given the specific nature of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, which is a statute that is very different from anything else in this package as it is the legislation implementing the federal aspect of the James Bay treaty.... This particular statute has been drafted in a way that is very different from others, given its legal different status—and therefore the requirement for at least discussions with the Cree and Naskapi before decisions are made as to exactly how this will be implemented.

You will notice that the provisions have been written so that there is a possibility for, after further discussion, some regulatory approach, which may differ slightly from the current approach, with regard to determining who will qualify for the specific purposes of the definition of “Inuk of Fort George”.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Before I direct another question to the Parliamentary Secretary, read me the provisions that allow for the flexibility to which you are referring. What page is it on in the briefing book?

• 1605

[English]

Ms. Lisa Hitch: This is at page 154, at clause 89. You will notice that what is being affected here is specifically the definition of “Inuk of Fort George”. The definition of “Inuk of Fort George” would now read, “is a prescribed spouse or prescribed common-law partner” of a person described in the other paragraphs. That would allow for some possibility of a different approach, which might accommodate some of the concerns about the possibility of a large number of non-aboriginal people now being caught under this definition. That would be done after full discussions with the community.

Now, if I may, I will just turn to my colleague to answer the question about the discussions with the community.

Mr. Terry Henderson: Certainly.

Mr. Ménard, there have been various communications and discussions with the affected groups of these amendments to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act—the Cree of James Bay, the Inuit of northern Quebec, as well as the Naskapi Band—dating back to early February. There have been pieces of correspondence flowing and there have been telephone discussions as well as face-to-face meetings with the James Bay Cree and the Naskapi Band. The Inuit chose not to attend that because they did not feel they had a particular interest in pursuing it further.

The Naskapi were consulted at that time. They were offered further discussions, if they chose to have those. We have written and discussed as recently as yesterday a letter that went to the representative from the Naskapi Band, Mr. Robert Pratt. He wrote back. Basically the position was that they simply wanted the amendments to be withdrawn.

With that, we are certainly prepared to continue to discuss. We will continue to follow up with them and see if we can find an opportunity to discuss with them throughout the parliamentary process and even once the bill is passed, an opportunity between passage and actually bringing the changes into effect through proclamation. There will be an opportunity, and we are committed to having those forms of discussion with them.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I have two questions. Are you conducting these negotiations yourself? Are you negotiating on behalf of the department?

[English]

Mr. Terry Henderson: I was not present on February 28. I was out of the country at that time, so it was a director of the James Bay implementation office who reported to me. Present at that were Ms. Lisa Hitch and others from the Department of Justice. We had those kinds of discussions with them, and we would see similar kinds of discussions unfolding. I'm certainly willing to participate in those discussions as needed.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: In closing, I gather that if we vote on clauses 89, 90 and 91, and if we adopt them and the committee Chair reports the bill to the House, this will be an integral part of the report and will be tabled at third reading, but that when the government proclaims the coming-into-force of the provisions that will be subject to the regulatory process familiar to us, the clauses in question will be delayed if there have not been positive or conclusive negotiations with the affected Aboriginal nations. Do I understand correctly?

[English]

Mr. Terry Henderson: Yes. You used the term “negotiation”, sir, and I'm not using that term. I'm using the term “discussion”. I believe it is my minister's intention—Minister Robert Nault—to proceed with the passage of these amendments to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, but only with discussions with the groups, to hear them out, to discuss the implications of those particular changes to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act and how best they could be implemented.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: What do you propose to do? In politics, there are hawks and doves. Perhaps you are one of the hawks and I am one of the doves. What do you propose to do if you do not come to an agreement and the discussions do not lead to an agreement by the nations concerned?

[English]

Mr. Terry Henderson: I'm sorry, sir. With all respect, at this point I cannot speculate on what the outcome of those discussions could be and on how the government may decide to proceed.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: As a member of Parliament, I am asked to vote and I am prepared to make a distinction between discussions and negotiations. Discussions are far less binding than negotiations. What I want to understand this afternoon is this: do we have any assurance that none of the provisions affecting them will come into force without their consent? Since they are covered by the Charter, they will in any event be subject to this bill.

• 1610

[English]

Mr. Terry Henderson: Sir, I cannot guarantee that.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: So, it is possible that, eventually, the provisions would apply to these communities without their consent.

Mr. Terry Henderson: Yes.

Mr. Réal Ménard: It is possible.

Mr. Terry Henderson: Yes.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Fine. It just has to be spelled out. Thank you.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, I just want to pick up on the last point because I fully agree with the suggestion that there should be discussions with the people affected. I regret, frankly, that this didn't happen before the bill was tabled, and it's not clear to me why that didn't happen before the bill was tabled. It would have avoided some of the difficulty we now find ourselves in.

That having been said, we can't roll back history, so I take the commitment that there will be serious and meaningful discussions on the application of these provisions. I appreciate and understand and frankly agree with the comment that has been made that there can't be any commitment, effectively, no matter what the outcome of those discussions is, unless the Cree-Naskapi agree that these provisions will not be proclaimed. I'd be troubled by that because it would set a very disturbing precedent in terms of the application of the charter generally with respect to aboriginal peoples and treaties. I think we have to be cautious about that.

But there is a coming-into-force provision, clause 340 of this act, and that coming-into-force provision does allow for the coming into force “on a day or days to be fixed”. Presumably, Mr. Chairman, through you to the parliamentary secretary, that's what would be invoked: that would be the possibility of delaying the coming into force of these provisions until there has been serious and substantial discussions with the Cree-Naskapi.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney: The way this legislation is drafted, it can be delayed specifically for each clause as it comes through. Whenever it's ready to come through, it can be proclaimed.

Mr. Svend Robinson: And there will be serious and substantial discussions with the Cree-Naskapi before it's proclaimed with respect to them, will there?

Mr. John Maloney: Yes, but as I say, no one can speculate as to the result of those discussions, that's for sure.

Mr. Svend Robinson: No, I appreciate that.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Lowther, please.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have just a couple of points of clarification. I appreciate the letters from Ms. Parrish here on the support of the native peoples for this bill, although there is no reference that I can see in any of these letters to the Naskapi Nation in particular. It was the Naskapi Nation that came before us and it is the Naskapi Nation that's at issue in clauses 89 to 90.

I just point out to the committee again that what we're doing here, actually, with this piece of legislation, albeit there may be some discussion, is imposing this particular approach to conjugal common-law partners. The Naskapi Nation were very clear in this committee that they were not comfortable with that, that they'd like to have a referendum in their own community before they step into that kind of structure.

Now we're now saying to them that they're going to get there anyway and that we might negotiate with them as far as “when”, but not “if”. That was clearly not what they requested. I think I even heard the representative from Indian Affairs saying that even at their most recent discussion they are asking for this committee to repeal these particular amendments—unless I got that wrong.

I thought that's what you said.

So they're still out there saying, look, if you want us to embrace this, come and talk to us first, let us see where the people are at, and then bring us on board. They're saying not to do it the other way around. So in regard to clauses 89 to 90, I still appeal to the committee to strike them on that ground.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, I have just two questions. I wonder if we could get some explanation as to why the Cree-Naskapi Nation in particular, of all of the aboriginal nations in Canada, has these provisions in the legislation. Is this the only nation that has an act that includes provisions relating to benefits accorded to...? Well, I see the word “consorts” there; I've never seen that word before in the context of federal legislation. Could we get some clarification on why the Cree-Naskapi is the only nation affected by this bill in this way?

Mr. Terry Henderson: Yes, Mr. Robinson. It's my understanding, following a search that was done of all of the legislation, that there were only two bills within the purview of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development that were in fact affected by these charter provisions, one being the Indian Act, which is another number of clauses later on, and then this Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act. It was by virtue of the wording that was used in those particular acts, which generated a reaction, that need for a change in that wording to bring it into consistency with the charter.

• 1615

Mr. Svend Robinson: On that point, we're going to be coming to the Indian Act: have there been consultations with the Assembly of First Nations with respect to the changes in that?

Mr. Terry Henderson: There have, sir. I'm not the owner of that particular file, but there definitely have been discussions and consultations.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Do we have any indication as to the position taken by the AFN on this issue?

I'm jumping ahead, but it's the same issue, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Roy Gray, Acting Director, Policy, Litigation and Moneys Directorate, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Mr. Chairman—

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Would you identify yourself, please?

Mr. Roy Gray: My name is Roy Gray. I am the acting director of policy, litigation, and moneys at the Department of Indian Affairs.

I can tell you, Mr. Robinson, that we have engaged in discussions with the Assembly of First Nations and also with the Native Women's Association of Canada. We've had a couple of meetings. There has been an exchange of telephone calls.

The AFN in particular requested some particulars as to the nature of the amendments. We've sent those along. They sought some assurances, like, for instance, an assurance that the proposed amendments would not lead to increased costs for the bands. We've provided that assurance and also clarification as to what the amendments would not affect in terms of, for instance, entitlement to status, landholding on a reserve.

I guess what I can say is that those discussions are continuing. We've extended an invitation to the national aboriginal organizations to continue the dialogue.

Mr. Svend Robinson: If I could just get clarification, then, you mentioned that there were some undertakings given with respect to increased costs and that there would not be any increased costs as a result of these amendments.

Mr. Roy Gray: That's correct.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I take it those same undertakings would be given to the Cree-Naskapi. Would they?

Mr. Terry Henderson: We're certainly interested in hearing from them what kinds of discussions they would like to have and what the costs of those discussions would be at the individual representative level or at the community level.

Mr. Svend Robinson: That wasn't what I asked. I asked if the same standard that applied to the Assembly of First Nations provisions under the Indian Act would apply to the Cree-Naskapi.

Mr. Terry Henderson: No. The Naskapi Band does not fall in under the Indian Act any longer. The Naskapi Band falls in under the Cree-Naskapi Act. In fact, the Cree-Naskapi Act replaced the Indian Act, for all intents and purposes, with respect to those status Indians, as it did for the Cree of James Bay.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I understand that, but all I'm suggesting is that if there is a particular standard under the provisions of the Indian Act and if there are some undertakings that have been given to those nations that are affected by the Indian Act, I would hope that it is not the case that just because the Cree-Naskapi are under a separate act they would not be given the same undertakings and same assurances.

That's what I'm asking the witness, through you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Terry Henderson: Sir, we are certainly willing to discuss with the Naskapi Band and to hear what they have to say. We would assure them the full opportunity of presenting their interests, their evidence, with respect to these changes, and to influence the implementation of these particular changes.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Maybe I'm not being clear enough. I'll try again.

The previous witness indicated that certain undertakings were given to the Assembly of First Nations with respect to those nations that come under the provisions of the Indian Act. All I'm asking is whether those same undertakings would be given to the Cree-Naskapi, who come under a different act. Yes or no?

Mr. Terry Henderson: Well, I'm not certain exactly what those undertakings are, sir.

Mr. Svend Robinson: You just heard the witness—I hope. Did you hear what he said?

Mr. Terry Henderson: I may have missed some of that, sir.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Well, let's try again, then.

Sir, perhaps you could indicate what those were, and then we could have an assurance that they will also be extended to the Cree-Naskapi.

• 1620

Mr. Roy Gray: Mr. Robinson, the first thing I would say—and maybe our colleagues at Justice could comment on this—is that my understanding is that the nature of the amendments being proposed to the Cree-Naskapi Act on the one hand, and to the Indian Act on the other hand, are different.

Having said that, it was in the context of the specific amendments to the Indian Act that are on the table that we made that...I don't know if the word is “undertaking”. You could use that word, but we did make the statement that those amendments, those specific amendments to the Indian Act, would not increase any costs to the bands. But again, it was only in the context of that legislation.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Well, do we know yet? Has there been any analysis done of the financial impact of these amendments with respect to the Cree-Naskapi?

Mr. Terry Henderson: There has not been that type of analysis done. We are anticipating that in terms of materiality it's not very high, but we would certainly be prepared to discuss and arrange with them whatever budgetary considerations there are as a result of the implications of the amendments to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act.

Mr. Svend Robinson: That's exactly what I wanted to hear, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

My final question is with respect to the process of consultation with the Cree-Naskapi and, for that matter, with the Assembly of First Nations. I take it that these discussions with the Assembly of First Nations are still underway, are they?

Mr. Roy Gray: Certainly.

Mr. Svend Robinson: So I guess I would ask both witnesses for an assurance that there will be efforts made to reach out to gay and lesbian members of both the Assembly of First Nations and the Cree-Naskapi Nation—or “two-spirited people”, as they describe themselves—and that there will be an effort made to include them in the process of dialogue and discussion.

Mr. Terry Henderson: I'm not in a position, really, to speculate on how far the discussions will go and on how pervasive they will be, but clearly, if the Naskapi wish to take these discussions to the community level, then we would definitely want to be very inclusive of the people who were consulted at the community level. Largely we would leave it up to the Naskapi Band, which is a local governing band, to make that determination.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I appreciate that they're a local governing band, but I would hope that you would at least make every possible attempt to ensure that their discussions and their dialogue included people who are directly affected by this bill.

Mr. Terry Henderson: We will make a point of raising it, sir.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Good—and I assume the same would be the case with the AFN, would it?

Mr. Roy Gray: Yes.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney: Mr. Chairman, can I call for the question?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Then I'm going to ask, shall clause 89 carry?

Mr. Eric Lowther: A recorded vote, Mr. Chair, please.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Would it be the will of the committee if we could group three here—clauses 89, 90, and 91—and have a recorded vote on them?

Mr. Svend Robinson: Not clause 91: that's the Criminal Code, isn't it? You mean clauses 89 and 90.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Okay, it's clauses 89 and 90. That's what we're voting on, then.

(Clauses 89 and 90 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 1)

(Clauses 91 and 92 agreed to)

(On clause 93)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Shall clause 93 carry?

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, on clause 93 I think we might need the assistance of Ms. Hitch. Clause 93 is the provision which, in addition to extending references to common-law partners, also substantively changes the Criminal Code with respect to obligations to spouses and children. I wonder if we could just get some clarification, either from the parliamentary secretary or from the justice department officials, as to the basis for this.

• 1625

I assume that the argument is that this falls under provincial family law statutes and would be more appropriately dealt with there as opposed to under criminal legislation. Is that the essence of the reason for the repeal?

Ms. Lisa Hitch: It is. You will notice at page 161 of the clause-by-clause book that this is actually stated as the reason for the change, that the presumption

regarding abandonment and the failure to provide maintenance would only apply to children, rather than to children and spouses, as provincial family law is considered a better mechanism to address issues of spousal abandonment and failure to provide support.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Of course I've read that. What wasn't clear to me was why a distinction was being made between children and spouses when of course under provincial family law that also applies to children.

Ms. Lisa Hitch: That's correct, but a spouse has the capacity to be able to pursue their rights under provincial family law, whereas a child may not, so this would provide additional protection, which may still be needed for children who are not provided with the necessities.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Under the provisions of the Criminal Code....

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Mr. Robinson.

(Clause 93 agreed to)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Shall clauses 94 to 101 carry?

Mr. Eric Lowther: Mr. Chairman, I'd like a recorded vote, please.

(Clauses 94 to 101 inclusive agreed to: yeas 11; nays 1)

(Clause 102 agreed to)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Shall clauses 103 to 108 carry?

Mr. Eric Lowther: I'd like a recorded vote, please.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order—

The Clerk of the Committee: He's out of order until the vote—

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): I'm sorry, not during the vote—

Mr. Svend Robinson: No, the clerk has made a mistake. I asked for clause 107 to be considered. We shouldn't be voting on clauses 107 and 108. I don't know why—

The Clerk: I don't have clause 107 here.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): We don't have clause 107 here, but that can be easily corrected. Let's go back, then, and we'll negate the vote we've taken so far.

Shall clauses 103 to 106 carry?

Mr. Eric Lowther: With a recorded vote, again, Mr. Chairman, please.

(Clauses 103 to 106 inclusive agreed to: yeas 11; nays 1)

(On clause 107)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I want to first of all say that I strongly support the provisions of clause 107 which, as I understand it, would ensure that where gay and lesbian partners are raising children in a jurisdiction in which they are not legally able to adopt those children, benefits can in fact be extended to them under the Employment Insurance Act. Is that a correct understanding of what this provision is about?

• 1630

Mr. John Maloney: Go ahead, Mr. Leduc.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I'm sorry, but who are you?

Mr. Luc Leduc (Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Human Resources Development): My name is Luc Leduc. I'm legal counsel, from legal services with HRDC.

I'm sorry, but could you repeat the question?

Mr. Svend Robinson: Yes, of course.

I was asking about the provisions of clause 107 taken together with clause 109, which, as I read them, would recognize that there are gay and lesbian partners who raise children, and that those children, in some cases, are raised in jurisdictions in which the partners are not in a position to legally adopt their children. Of course there are provinces in Canada in which it is possible for gay and lesbian partners to legally adopt, but there are other jurisdictions in which it's not.

I just want to make sure that I understand correctly: that under the provisions of this clause those families would indeed be eligible for employment insurance even though they cannot legally adopt their children, that they would be eligible for the provisions set out in this section de facto. Is that the purpose of this?

Mr. Luc Leduc: The purpose of the amendment is to enable regulations to be made, and once the regulations are made, to in fact allow couples, which you have just described, to be able to or to be entitled to receive parental benefits once regulations are made pursuant to section 54.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Right.

Ms. Lisa Hitch: Could I just take one second and clearly state that we are talking about a step-parent situation, not about an unrelated child? There is a clear distinction in law.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Could you clarify that?

Ms. Lisa Hitch: We're talking about a child that would be present in the household because the child is legally the child of one of the partners.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Right. I understand that.

Ms. Lisa Hitch: We're not talking about adoption in a situation where the child is unrelated to both partners.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I understand that, absolutely. Could I get clarification, then? Under clause 109, or the new proposed section 54 of the act, there would indeed be consultation with provincial governments with respect to the provisions to carry this out. Have those consultations started yet?

Mr. Luc Leduc: They have not begun.

Mr. Svend Robinson: They have not begun. What timeframe would you envisage for these consultations?

Mr. Luc Leduc: We have not determined any timeframe as of yet.

Mr. Svend Robinson: You don't have any idea at all of when this might start and when it might conclude...?

Mr. Luc Leduc: There hasn't been discussion.

Voices: [Inaudible—Editor].

Mr. Luc Leduc: I'm sorry. There was one consultation, not for the purposes of this clause, but essentially the department did send a letter to all social services asking them where they were with respect to adoption in these types of cases in their legislation. Part of the consultation could be considered to have begun.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I'm glad to hear that, because that would be a logical step to be taking in preparation for this legislation coming into force. Perhaps we could receive a copy of that letter as well as any replies that have been received from the provinces. Could I ask that, through the chair, to the parliamentary secretary?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Mr. Robinson.

Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Just following up on that, what consultations have taken place, keeping in mind that, as has previously been pointed out, all of the provinces are not uniform now on this approach? I would just like to know what consultations took place with the provinces specifically in relation to this provision, where this will, for all intents and purposes, unify.

Mr. Luc Leduc: With respect to this particular provision, no consultation, to my knowledge, has taken place as of now.

Ms. Lisa Hitch: I apologize. It is at a more preliminary stage than that. There was a general request for information as to the state of law in each of the jurisdictions, asking for that information and explaining that there would be follow-up consultations.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Eric Lowther: I have a couple of questions to department officials since we're on this today, Mr. Chairman.

• 1635

Have we ever made any estimate, or has the department made any estimate, of how many people would actually fall under this clause, would be able to take advantage of this clause?

Mr. Luc Leduc: No. There may be estimates that were done, but not with respect to this particular clause. There may have been, at one point, some estimates made with respect to people who voluntarily leave their employment. There's a previous amendment. With respect to this particular clause, to my knowledge, there has been no estimate.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Is this clause, then, just to follow up on Mr. Robinson's comments, extending some of the parental benefits to the other partner, the non-parental partner in the relationship? Is that what it's doing?

Mr. Luc Leduc: Essentially this will give parental benefits to a person who is not a natural parent or an adoptive parent.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Right. Okay. I would assume that there would be some additional cost to that, yet.... Correct me if I'm wrong: would there be some cost to extending these parental benefits?

Mr. Luc Leduc: Yes, there would, obviously—

Mr. Eric Lowther: Yes.

Mr. Luc Leduc: —because presently they're not entitled under the act, so there would be a group—

Mr. Eric Lowther: But we don't know how many people would qualify.

Mr. Luc Leduc: To my knowledge, there has been no estimate of the number of people who would qualify because we don't yet know the nature of the regulation and the groups or all the couples that would fall under it.

Ms. Lisa Hitch: If I could point out, just to add to that, that of course people will not qualify from those provincial jurisdictions that already allow step-parent adoption for same sex-couples, and those would be Ontario and Alberta.

Mr. Eric Lowther: So they would have basically what.... They would adopt and then they'd enter in under the adoption provisions of the province and this wouldn't apply. But if they can't adopt, then, this does apply, if I understand that. Maybe I'm simplifying it a bit.

My concern would be that we don't know how many people qualify but we do know there's a cost. We've heard that this bill is basically revenue neutral. In fact, some people have said it's actually going to make some money for the government. I'd have some concerns about these amendments just on those bases alone. The credibility of some of the arguments we've heard now becomes a bit suspect in light of the information you shed on these particular amendments. That concludes my comments.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, I wasn't going to make any further comments, but Mr. Lowther has raised an issue and I think it's important to clarify what's going on here.

Gay and lesbian people contribute to the employment insurance scheme in this country like all other workers, and all this provision does is to ensure that when a person is in need of benefits to assist a child—and I know the Reform Party is deeply concerned about children—because of circumstances beyond their control and they're out of work, that child is looked after, there's some income to look after the child.

Now I can't imagine that even Mr. Lowther would be opposed to looking after children in circumstances in which parents find themselves out of work. If he is, I'd like to hear about it, Mr. Chairman.

The other point is that surely we recognize that while some provisions of this bill are revenue neutral or will in fact generate funds for the federal treasury, the Income Tax Act provisions, on balance, it has been estimated, will in fact mean a net surplus of about $10 million. Others obviously will involve cost. We've dealt in earlier clauses with the survivor pensions for Canada Pension Plan. I don't recall Mr. Lowther raising any issue about the cost of that.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist, Mr. Chairman, to figure out that if you're going to extend survivor pensions to people who don't get them now, that costs money, but we're talking about justice and equity and fairness here.

Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): There's a cost to not spending money, and that hasn't been estimated either.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Well, there certainly are a number of costs, including very real human costs, to not extending them.

Mr. Chairman, I think the record should show clearly that what this amendment is about—and why I strongly support it—is supporting families. If Mr. Lowther wants to vote against supporting families and children, he's welcome to do so.

• 1640

Mr. Eric Lowther: Mr. Chairman, I take exception to that comment and I'd just like to add some comments, for clarity, for the committee. I would assume that these children that are being adopted or are being cared for, I guess, by a homosexual couple, do have two natural parents, because all children do. I'm just wondering, for the other natural parent who is no longer part of the equation—

Mr. Svend Robinson: Natural as opposed to others...?

Mr. Eric Lowther: —when homosexual parenting is going on, does that father or mother who is not now part of that child's life not have...? Is that parent now excluded from some of these benefits that they would have had previously in a parenting situation?

Mr. Svend Robinson: I'm sure the witness could answer that question.

Mr. Luc Leduc: There shouldn't be any, because the natural parents or the parent there—

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Biological.

Mr. Luc Leduc: Pardon?

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Biological parent.

Mr. Luc Leduc: The biological parent would have had access to parental benefits when the child was born, and then essentially we're talking about children who have grown up, who are three, four, five, or six years old, possibly older, so that biological parent would no longer qualify under the act to receive parental benefits.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Why is that?

Mr. Luc Leduc: Because the parental benefits are payable in two circumstances at present, and will be extended to a third. When the child is born, there is a period of 10 weeks of parental benefits for taking care of the child—when the child is born to the natural parents—or 10 weeks where a child is adopted, irrespective of the age. So the biological parent in the example would have had his entitlement when the child was originally born and would no longer have an entitlement once the child is older and is being taken care of by step-parents.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to have a recorded vote on this motion for support of the family and children—

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): There's no point, then, in me asking if it carries. There will be a recorded vote on clause 107.

(Clause 107 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 1)

(Clause 108 agreed to)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Shall clause 109 carry?

Mr. Eric Lowther: A recorded vote, please.

(Clause 109 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 1)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Those three were requested to be considered separately, so I did.

Shall clauses 110 to 129 carry?

Mr. Eric Lowther: A recorded vote, please.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): [Inaudible—Editor]...it's pretty clear what it is.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Well, we can go one by one, if you like, Ms. Bennett. In deference to the committee, I am allowing grouping, but if you'd like to go one by one, we can do that.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Go for it.

(Clauses 110 to 129 inclusive agreed to: yeas 11; nays 1)

(On clause 130)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, we are now into the provisions of the Income Tax Act, and this was the other section that I had flagged, just to get some clarification.

Is this our finance person here? What's your name, sir?

Mr. Louis Lévesque (General Director, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance): My name is Louis Lévesque.

• 1645

Mr. Svend Robinson: And your position...?

Mr. Louis Lévesque: I'm general director for tax policy in the Department of Finance.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thank you.

One of the most glaring inequities in the current law is the provision whereby RRSPs are required to be declared in the year of the death of one's partner if you're in a gay or lesbian relationship, even if you've been in that relationship for many years. I've had many people raise this issue with me. That relationship doesn't exist in the eyes of the RRSP authorities. I understand and I trust that this legislation will respond to that concern. I'd like to get clarification that this is indeed the case, that RRSP rollovers will be permitted to those who meet the criteria for common-law partners under the Income Tax Act, and I'd also like to ask, when would that take effect?

Mr. Louis Lévesque: The answer to your first question is yes. In terms of common-law partners, same-sex partners, that will be recognized for rollovers of RRSPs. As for the time of application, like the other provisions, the way it is in the proposed legislation is that this is automatically applicable as of taxation year 2001, but people can elect to have the regime applied to them for taxation years 1998, 1999, and 2000.

Mr. Svend Robinson: So that would be as of January 1, 1998, for taxation purposes?

Mr. Louis Lévesque: If like partners elect into the regime.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Right.

Now I would ask the same question here that I asked, of course, with respect to the provisions on the Canada Pension Plan survivor benefits. There were a number of individuals, including, again, Ms. Wilson, who felt a sense of anger, inequity, and injustice that they were forced to declare all of that income even though they had saved under the provisions of the RRSP legislation, and who filed complaints that this was discriminatory and in breach of the charter.

I would ask either the parliamentary secretary or, through the parliamentary secretary, the officials, if they will be applying the same standard in this area as is being applied with respect to the Canada Pension Plan survivor pensions?

Ms. Lisa Hitch: The same standard will apply. The same policy decisions will be made. There will be a uniform decision made across the federal government with regard to all of the claims in the system.

Mr. Svend Robinson: And it will be made with the same degree of compassion to which Mr. Maloney referred earlier...?

Ms. Lisa Hitch: As you may have noticed, there is some degree of compassion already reflected in the bill in that the provisions are not applying from coming into force forward, as often happens, but have been given some retrospectivity.

Mr. Svend Robinson: But for those who have claims in the system prior to January 1, 1998, those claims will be viewed with sympathy and compassion, I trust...?

Mr. John Maloney: We'll certainly give them as much as we can, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Mr. Robinson.

Shall clause 130 carry?

I'm sorry, Mr. Ménard, do you want to speak to this?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): I'm sorry. That's my fault.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: That's okay, Mr. Chairman.

In the Rosenberg case, the Department of Finance was asked to produce, for the court, documents assessing the number of homosexual couples who might be affected if same-sex spouses were to be recognized by lawmakers.

Mr. Lévesque, it seems to me that your name was mentioned at that time and that you were said to be someone who was knowledgeable on this question. Could you once again describe to us the information that you have regarding the impact of the future recognition of same-sex couples on the Consolidated Revenue Fund especially from the point of view of the GST, income tax and the various benefits that exist?

If you don't have details, that's no problem. It's just for our information.

Mr. Louis Lévesque: As far as cost estimates are concerned, we believe that the costs would be minimal. Of course, there might be a small cost or a small benefit for the government. This is due to the fact that there is no database containing the exact number of same-sex couples, information on their economic situation, and so on.

• 1650

The data that the department had produced for the Rosenberg case, to which you referred, are based on analyses of Statistics Canada data. In the Consumer Finance Survey and in the Family Expenditure Survey, there is information on the housing situation of respondents. We looked at the number of people who were not living with a related person, and we ran age tests to eliminate situations such as students living together without being common-law partners. This analysis produced estimates of the number of households which might be affected. I think that the numbers range from 130,000 to 140,000.

If I were asked, as a senior official of the Department of Finance, what I thought of these figures, I would say that they are reasonable but that I would not give them more weight than any others. There is no very reliable database in this area.

Why does the government maintain that the costs will be minimal, based on these estimates? There are essentially two factors that come into play.

First, there is the fact that obligations are imposed. Under the current system, two same-sex partners or common-law spouses who live together may each separately claim a refundable credit for the GST; they do not have to combine their incomes. Under the proposed legislation, starting in the year 2001, their incomes must be combined, which means that many of the credits that are currently payable will no longer be payable.

There will be some fringe benefits awarded, though. For example, things such as the spousal credit or the transfer of medical expenses will be allowed.

We believe that the two effects will cancel each other out, which means that there will be no substantial net financial impact for the government. That is basically how we understand the situation.

If someone were to tell me that there would be a small cost or a small financial gain for the government, I would certainly not be able to refute this. It is safe to say that there will not be any major financial impact, but it is very difficult to arrive at a very accurate estimate.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I wanted to share this information with our colleagues in the Reform Party.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Mr. Robinson, please.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Just to follow up on Mr. Ménard's question, I'm not sure if Mr. Albert E. Wakkary is still working with the Department of Finance. Is he?

Mr. Louis Lévesque: He is.

Mr. Svend Robinson: He's one of your colleagues, is he?

Mr. Louis Lévesque: He's one of my employees.

Mr. Svend Robinson: One of your employees.... Are you familiar with the affidavit he filed in the Rosenberg case in 1994?

Mr. Louis Lévesque: Yes.

Mr. Svend Robinson: You're aware of the fact that in this sworn affidavit your employee stated that, according to this estimate, extending spousal tax treatment to same-sex couples would result in an overall cost savings to the federal government of about $10 million per year.

Mr. Louis Lévesque: Yes, that's what's in the affidavit in terms of money.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Do you have any reason to take issue with that estimate?

Mr. Louis Lévesque: As I said before, it's not that I take issue, particularly, with that estimate. First of all, the basis on which this was done is older data than what we currently have, so that's one basic change. Second, there are already a number of changes that have been implemented since that decision, notably because of the Rosenberg decision, things like spousal benefits, like pensions, have been given, like the Moore and Akerstrom decisions, like PHSP coverage was already there. There are a number of new facts since then.

It goes back to my basic point. Did I find that this was an unreasonable number? No, given the facts that were there. Given the new facts we have in terms of new databases, generally I'm more comfortable with the notion at this point that this is closer to a wash, but again, it goes back to my basic point. Since we don't know the exact number of households.... You have to bear in mind that the $10 million has to be put in perspective: the federal government collects about $80 billion in income tax revenue, like in this current fiscal year. So in terms of materiality of impacts, where you have changes both in granting new benefits and in getting obligations, a difference of $5 million more or minus $5 million is not exactly material in the scheme of things. You can come up with an estimate that would show a cost of five or a gain of five to the government and I would say that these are reasonable estimates.

• 1655

I think it would be misleading the committee to say that this one number is a better number than the other number. I think the balance of evidence we have today is more with new data and the kinds of estimates of costs, because we're extending to other programs, too, which are not included in that, and we already have done other things. We're more comfortable with the notion of minimal costs, if anything at all, but I'm not really disputing what's in this affidavit.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Mr. Robinson.

(Clause 130 agreed to)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Shall clauses 131 to 133 carry?

Mr. Eric Lowther: A recorded vote, please, Mr. Chairman.

(Clauses 131 to 133 inclusive agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you.

Shall clauses 134 to 143 carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Eric Lowther: No. I want to address clause 142.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Oh, I'm sorry. I'm just checking my figures here.

Mr. Lowther.

Mr. John Maloney: You're on, Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Eric Lowther: I'm on clause 134. Did you have a concern on clause 132?

Mr. John Maloney: Clause 142.

(On clause 134)

Mr. Eric Lowther: Okay. On clause 134, I just wanted to point out to the committee that although we've heard much testimony here that this doesn't affect marriage, that it's just about extending benefits to common-law relationships and nothing else, here in clause 134—I don't know if you have the bill in front of you—we actually had, prior to this bill, a definition of “family” clearly laid out in law.

We actually had the justice minister before the committee saying that we don't have it in law anywhere. I think—and I'm paraphrasing, so I had better be careful—she meant maybe in certain types of law. But here in this Income Tax Act we did have a definition of family: basically parent-child or married couple or married couple with children.

We have now, with this bill, Bill C-23, substantively changed in law the definition of family. I am concerned that we've done this without the awareness, really, of a lot of Canadians of the impact of that. Many of them have not had input to comment on that. To have family defined in a completely different context in this piece of legislation is wrong, in my estimation, in our estimation. I would encourage the committee to vote against redefining family in Bill C-23—which is what they've done.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure if Mr. Lowther has actually read the amendment in its context. As I understand it, and as the explanatory notes provide, this applies to one specific group of people only, and that is Hutterite colonies. I appreciate that there are some serious concerns about Hutterite colonies and the impact of the bill on Hutterite colonies, but for the life of me, I don't understand how this threatens “family” in Canada. Maybe Mr. Lowther can explain it.

Mr. John Maloney: Mr. Chairman—

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Is everyone finished? Shall clause 134 carry?

Mr. Eric Lowther: I thought Mr. Maloney had a comment, and then I may follow after him.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): I thought you were clause 142...?

Mr. John Maloney: Yes. On this particular discussion, I just want to refer Mr. Lowther to the comment on page 222 of our briefing books, which amply explains the situation under clause—

A voice: Page 225.

Mr. John Maloney: What did I say?

A voice: Page 222.

Mr. John Maloney: It's page 225, which explains the reasoning behind clause 134. That being said, we're ready for a vote.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Mr. Chair, I just—

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Eric Lowther: —continue on with the fact that the precedent has been set here. We have changed law. Albeit it's applying to a particular group, we have, in this piece of legislation, changed the law from a definition of family to something different from what was there before. That has never been communicated to the people of Canada or to the people in this committee that came before us as witnesses. That is a concern of mine, and it goes well outside the stated intent of this piece of legislation. I think it violates the trust that Canadians who put us here have in us.

• 1700

Again, I say that it's inappropriate to be redefining family here, for whatever community it is, particularly without their consent. I would suggest that we would be wise to vote against this particular clause, clause 134.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you.

Shall clause 134 carry?

Mr. Eric Lowther: A recorded vote, please, Mr. Chair.

(Clause 134 agreed to: yeas 9; nays 1)

(Clauses 135 to 141 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 142)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Mr. Maloney, you wanted to address clause 142.

Mr. John Maloney: Yes. I would like to make a motion, Mr. Chair:

That Bill C-23, in Schedule 2, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 3 on page 154 with the following—

Mr. Svend Robinson: Sorry, but what page are you on?

Mr. John Maloney: Page 501.

Mr. Svend Robinson: No.

Ms. Lisa Hitch: In the book, clause 142 is page 238 here, and then it refers to schedule 2, which is page 501.

Mr. John Maloney: So people can follow, I'll just say it again. We're suggesting that it be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 3 on page 154, which is actually page 501—

Ms. Lisa Hitch: Page 154 in the bill.

Mr. John Maloney: —with the following, “common-law partner” and “spouses or, so basically what we're doing is changing “and” to “or”.

Ms. Michelle Gosselin: In English only.

Mr. John Maloney: Yes, in English only.

An hon. member: Agreed.

Mr. John Maloney: It's a technical amendment. Clause 142 refers us to schedule 2.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Number two is the schedule that's being amended.

Mr. John Maloney: No. We're amending schedule 2 in line 3 on page 154 in the bill.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Does the amendment carry?

The Clerk: No. It's just clause 142 that carries. We do the amendment at the schedule.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): That's what I thought in the first place. I get varying advice here. Shall clause 142 carry?

(Clause 142 agreed to)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Shall clauses 143 and 144 inclusive carry?

(Clauses 143 and 144 agreed to)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): John.

Mr. John Maloney: Clause 142 carried as amended...?

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order—

Mr. John Maloney: As amended in the schedule.

Mr. Svend Robinson: No.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I'm sorry. We're not amending clause 142. We're amending schedule 2, period.

Mr. John Maloney: Okay.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I think by unanimous agreement we can proceed to amend schedule 2 as set out in the proposed amendment.

Mr. John Maloney: Agreed.

An hon. member: Exactly.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Lawyers...you get more opinions.

Do we have unanimous approval?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Amendment agreed to)

(On clause 145)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Someone wanted to address clause 145.

• 1705

Mr. John Maloney: Yes, Mr. Chair. I'd like to move an amendment to Bill C-23 in clause 145, that it be amended by replacing lines 8 to 14 on page 68 with the following:

145. Where, but for the application of sections 130 to 142, paragraphs 56(1)(b) and 60(b) of the Income Tax Act would not apply to amounts paid and received pursuant to an order or a written agreement made before the coming into force of this section, those paragraphs do not apply unless the payor and the recipient of the amounts jointly elect to.

If I may give you an explanatory note, section 145 stipulates that the provisions of the Income Tax Act relating to alimony paid and received under an order or a written agreement made before the coming into force of that section do not apply unless the payer and the recipient jointly elect otherwise. As currently worded, that section would require that all payors and recipients of alimony to which paragraphs 56(1)(b) and 60(b) currently apply file a joint election to maintain that tax status. This is clearly unintended. This amendment corrects this anomaly by restricting the application of section 145 to those individuals who, as a result of this bill, become common-law partners for income tax purposes.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Shall the amendment to clause 145 carry?

(Amendment agreed to)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Shall clause 145 carry?

(Clause 145 as amended agreed to)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Shall clauses 146 to 175 carry?

Mr. John Maloney: Mr. Chair, first I'd like to stand down clauses 159 to 169, perhaps not to be dealt with today. We're not going to make it through the whole bill. We'll perhaps deal with those at the first of the week.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): The chair will correct that.

Mr. John Maloney: We could just eliminate that. It's no longer necessary. We'll just proceed as you originally suggested. I apologize to the chair.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Everybody gives me advice. You know what it's like. When I get into trouble, I'm only going to hire one lawyer.

We're voting on clauses 146 to 175.

Some hon. members: Carried.

Mr. Eric Lowther: On division, and could I get a recorded vote on that last one, Mr. Chair?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Certainly.

(Clauses 146 to 175 inclusive agreed to on division: yeas 8; nays 1)

(On clause 176)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): I have noted here that someone wanted to address clause 176.

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to get clarification from the witnesses with respect to.... This is a bill that actually affects us as members of Parliament. In the amendment to the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, there's a definition of “child”, which is being changed to include children who are adopted “either legally or in fact by a member or former member”. Again, if the amendment is as I understand it, I support and welcome the amendment, but I'd just like some clarification of the impact of this change.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Madam.

Ms. Joan Arnold (Director, Pension Legislation Development, Pensions Division, Treasury Board Secretariat): My name is Joan Arnold. I'm the director of pension legislation development at the Treasury Board Secretariat pensions division.

I believe the import of this particular amendment is to, first of all, remove the word “natural”, and also to allow for adoption either legally or in fact, so that it would not be just restricted to legal adoptions, which are not allowed in some provinces, I believe.

Mr. Svend Robinson: That's what I wanted to get at. As I understand it, then, what this is to provide for is that for those members of Parliament who are involved in a gay or lesbian relationship who are raising children but are not legally allowed to adopt those children under the law in force in their home province, this would extend the provisions of that retiring allowances act to them. Is that correct?

• 1710

Ms. Lisa Hitch: If I could just clarify this, the impact would actually be wider than that, in that any child who is present in the household, would be covered by those words, whether it's a household of a married spouse who has married someone who already had a child, or a common-law, opposite-sex couple where one has a child and has brought that child into the relationship, or, as you're pointing out, a same-sex, common-law situation where there's a child who's brought into the relationship.

I should also just clarify that the word “natural” is removed simply because it's redundant in law; “child”, by itself, has that meaning.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Just as a point of clarification, then, on adoption “in fact”, are we saying that it's analogous to adoption in law or...? This is a new term in law, as far as I know, at least as related to adoption. Adoption “in fact”: what does that mean? Is it not a new term? I see you shaking your head.

Ms. Lisa Hitch: I do apologize. It is not a new term in law. It's actually one of the statutes that does not currently have that particular provision. Adoption in law or “in fact” is a fairly generally used term in federal legislation, simply because adoption per se is within provincial jurisdiction, and yet federal benefit programs wish—for policy reasons, in many instances—to cover those children who are part of the household on a factual basis.

Mr. Eric Lowther: How do you determine that? How do you determine that it's a factual basis? Is it just based on the claims of the adults in the home? Is that how it works?

Ms. Lisa Hitch: It's determined as a question of fact. The adult who is applying for the benefit on behalf of the child would have to show that the child is present in the household, that there's care and control of the child, and what the situation of the child is. In other words, there would have to be some evidence to show that the person who is not the parent has been acting as a parent to that child.

Mr. Eric Lowther: I see. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Mr. Lowther.

(Clause 176 agreed to)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Shall clauses 177 and 191 carry?

Mr. Eric Lowther: A recorded vote, please.

(Clauses 177 and 191 agreed to: yeas 8, nays 1)

(On clause 192)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Someone wanted to address clause 192.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Mr. Chairman, this particular section of the bill deals primarily with the Old Age Security Act. Our concern relates back to the Egan case, where we had a majority judgment on behalf of the judges that spoke in that case which said that the opposite-sex definition of spouse is reasonable.

I'm just suggesting to the committee that, here again, extending the full spousal benefits under the Old Age Security Act to same-sex couples is certainly not something that was required of us by the Supreme Court. Particularly in this case, the majority decision was that it was reasonable for the opposite-sex definition of spouse and the extension of benefits based on that to be limited to the opposite-sex definition.

Yet with this bill, we are, I would suggest, going far beyond what this particular case ruled, and we are extending the full suite of old age security benefits to homosexual couples. I would suggest that, based on court rulings, we're not obligated to do this. In light of that, I'm just wondering why the department is encouraging the House of Commons to override Supreme Court rulings with this particular bill.

• 1715

I guess it's the minister I should be asking. I wonder why we selectively adhere to Supreme Court rulings. This one was pretty clear. Now we have other ones that we say we're adhering to, but this one doesn't instruct us to do it and yet we've opened up the full suite of spousal benefits under the Old Age Security Act to same-sex couples. I don't see any mandate from the courts to do that, so I would be opposed to this clause and would appreciate an answer from the departmental officials on that issue.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney: Maybe I could just respond very briefly, Mr. Chair, that the decision, with respect to that of the government, like courts...we certainly don't want to overrule Egan and Nesbit, and it's not the court's function to tell us what to do. We've made the decision.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Mr. Maloney.

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, I want to comment on Mr. Lowther's point and then I have a question myself with respect to clause 192.

I'm sure that Mr. Lowther has read Egan and Nesbit carefully—all of the judgments—and if he has done so, he would know that in fact the court was divided, four, four, and one, in a sense, with the swing vote being the late Justice Sopinka, who in fact stated that discrimination against gay and lesbian couples was in fact covered by the charter, but he stated that because this was the first time a claim of this nature had gone before the court, he was prepared to give the government some leeway in terms of time.

I don't think I'm misreading that, but in fairness that's my understanding: that Sopinka said yes, we want to deal with these claims, but because this is novel we have to give some time to the government to respond to these new, emerging claims.

Egan and Nesbit was heard by the Supreme Court in 1995. Since then, there have been a number of other decisions, the decision in Vriend, the decision in M. v. H., and five years have passed, a significant amount of time. So, Mr. Chairman, far from overruling any decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, even though this committee is perfectly free to do so, as Mr. Maloney has indicated, I would argue that this amendment respects and reflects the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.

I'd like to ask for clarification from either Mr. Maloney or the witness, but I don't think I'm misstating the law with respect to that case.

Mr. John Maloney: I'm not sure I should be second-guessing or commenting on a specific case. I think your comments are interesting and perhaps well taken. As well, I don't think our officials are in a position to comment on it.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, I won't pursue it, but quite clearly, in my view, this is not in any way overruling Egan and Nesbit.

Mr. Chairman, I would note as well that Egan and Nesbit was permissive. All it said.... In that case, Jim Egan and his partner, Jack, who had been together for 40 years and were applying for a spouse's allowance, said they'd been paying into this through their taxes for a lot of years and they felt they were entitled to it as well. The court didn't say that the government can't extend these benefits. The court simply said that the charter, at that point, did not require or order the government to extend those benefits. So it's not overruling—

Mr. Eric Lowther: Mr. Chairman—

Mr. Svend Robinson: If I may finish, Mr. Chairman...?

We're not overruling the court at all, and it is inaccurate and misleading to suggest that we are.

My question, Mr. Chairman, is with respect to the coming into force of these provisions. I'd like clarification as to when these these provisions will in fact take effect, and I have the same question I asked earlier with respect to those who had claims in the hopper, and clearly in this case because of the implications of Egan and Nesbit post-1995, as to whether those claims will be given generous and compassionate consideration.

Mr. John Maloney: I think I've already indicated that they'd be well looked at, Mr. Robinson, but I can't give you a commitment. You'd like a commitment, but—

Mr. Svend Robinson: I understand. That's what I asked for. I appreciate that undertaking.

What is the date that these provisions actually do come into force?

Ms. Lisa Hitch: The provisions are structured in the same manner as the Canada Pension Plan provisions.

Mr. Svend Robinson: So it would be as of January 1, 1998—a death that occurred after.

Ms. Lisa Hitch: A death that occurred after January 1, 1998.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Right. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Lowther.

• 1720

Mr. Eric Lowther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It's interesting that I had asked the officials for a comment and I get all the answers from Mr. Robinson. He and I are having a sort of debate at this table, but that's really not what I'm—

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): I'll allow that as long as it doesn't get out of control.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Well, that's great, but it would be great to get some answers from the people I'm actually asking.

In fact, Justice Sopinka found that the opposite-sex definition of spouse violated section 15.(1) of the charter but that it was saved by section 1 as a reasonable limit in a demonstrably justified free and democratic society. He was fairly clear that it was a reasonable limit to have an opposite-sex definition of spouse, as were the other four judges on that particular ruling.

I'm still curious to know, in light of the minister's comments.... The courts made it clear that we must move in this direction of Bill C-23 and yet Mr. Maloney is telling us that the courts don't tell us what to do. There are contradictions there. I don't see the courts telling us that we must extend an opposite-sex definition of spouse, albeit we're calling it “conjugal” partner or “common-law partner” now. I don't see that there's any mandate from the court for us to extend this.

If I'm wrong, correct me, but so far all I'm hearing—and if that is the final word on it—is that we're doing this regardless of the court, that we're doing this because we want to do it. I think that's what I heard Mr. Maloney say—that this is in fact the position of the government.

The court didn't make you do it. You just want to do it.

Mr. John Maloney: It's certainly about fairness and equity, Mr. Lowther, and certainly the courts are telling us the direction that Parliament should be doing, but ultimately it's Parliament's decision: fair and equitable treatment to our citizens.

Mr. Eric Lowther: So there's no legal precedent that's requiring you to do this.

Mr. John Maloney: Well certainly M. and H. is telling us we must move on this, and certainly in the other jurisdictions.... Certainly Ontario did the same thing.

Mr. Eric Lowther: M. and H. was provincial, and again, this is pension benefits and federal. I'm wondering what indication there is to you federally on pension benefits that you need to do this in federal rulings.

Ms. Lisa Hitch: The legal answer to the question is that case law must be read in the context in which it is given down by the court.

It is true that Mr. Justice Sopinka's decision did make reference to the fact that although in his view it was discriminatory, it was upheld under section 1. The judgment did go on, though, to say that this was temporary and that the temporary reason for upholding what he viewed as a discriminatory provision under section 1 was to give the government some additional time to address the newer issues of same-sex relationships in law.

Since that date, there has been subsequent case law, and all of those cases have examined the section 1 decision of the Egan and Nesbit case. Some of those have been from the Courts of Appeal level, and of course there is the recent M. and H. decision from the Supreme Court of Canada, giving the Supreme Court actually two instances where they restated what the law was on section 1 after the 1995 decision in Egan and Nesbit. In both of those instances, they have clearly indicated that the time seems to have run. I believe the court, in the M. and H. case, actually went as far as to say that it is no longer adequate to ask gay and lesbian Canadians to continue to wait for their fundamental rights.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Thank you for that answer.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Saada...?

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): That's fine, thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Ms. Bennett.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Again, there are claims that are already existing in the system on this. Isn't that right? I guess I just want to reiterate that we hope those will be dealt with generously. Is this the same audit you're doing in terms of how many exist? Do you have any idea of how many would exist in this provision?

• 1725

Ms. Lisa Hitch: We have no specific numbers as of yet on the old age security outstanding claims. I would just clarify that the old age security is a slightly different circumstance, in that every individual Canadian qualifies in their own right for old age security and that what we're talking about are what they call the two “side programs”, which are the widowed spouse's allowance and the spouse's allowance—being currently slightly altered in their name, of course—and those are given to spouses and widows of old age security pensioners who are themselves over 65. It's only given to the spouses and widows between the ages of 60 and 64 because they qualify in their own right after turning 65.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Ms. Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I would like to make a very brief comment. I appreciate Mr. Lowther's point of view, and I also know, even within our own party, that it's often convenient to hide behind the Supreme Court and say that we're doing this because they forced us to do it.

I personally am doing it because it's the right thing to do. I often hear people say that we shouldn't be allowing the Supreme Court to make decisions and set policy for this country. The Supreme Court is not making me do this, and I don't think it's making the government do this. I think the government is doing what's right and what's acceptable to a majority of the Canadian population.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Ms. Parrish.

Shall clause 192 carry?

Mr. Eric Lowther: A recorded vote, please, Mr. Chair.

(Clause 192 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 1)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Shall clauses 193 to 253 carry?

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman—and this is for Mr. Lowther's benefit—when we're saying that a clause carries, if Mr. Lowther doesn't say “on division”, does that mean he's recorded as voting for it in a group motion? If, when we say “carried”, Mr. Lowther doesn't specifically say “on division”, is he recorded as voting for all those clauses that are going through in clusters?

This is for your benefit, Mr. Lowther, because I have a feeling that's what's happening.

The Clerk: If it's not specified “on division”, it's not reflected in the minutes as being on division.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: So Mr. Lowther, on each of these groupings, should be saying “on division” if he wants to be recorded as voting against it.

The Clerk: That's correct.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I wish someone had told him that.

An hon. member: He knew that.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I don't think he did.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Shall clause—

Mr. Eric Lowther: Mr. Chair—

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): I'm sorry, Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Eric Lowther: —maybe I should make a point of order to correct this so that I am recorded as being against each of these clauses where I didn't specifically say “on division”. I appreciate Ms. Parrish bringing that to my attention.

Mr. Peter MacKay: By unanimous consent—

Mr. Eric Lowther: Yes, if the committee would consent to that, I would appreciate it.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Do I have unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: It is now 5:30PM and we have only a few clauses to cover. May I suggest that we stay tonight until we have finished the remaining clauses? It won't take very long and I think that we are all on the right track. We could finish our clause-by- clause tonight and...

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): The answer, Mr. Saada, is no, we cannot. It's beyond my control.

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, on the same point, it's not clear to me why, if there are just a few minutes left to deal with amendments and clauses, we couldn't, by agreement of the committee, agree to sit.

Mr. John Maloney: Is there anybody objecting to not proceeding?

Mr. Eric Lowther: Yes.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Do I have unanimous consent of the committee that we continue?

Mr. Eric Lowther: No.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order—

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): It requires a majority vote, apparently.

Mr. Svend Robinson: That's right.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): I've been trying to get this tantalizing one here for so long.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I believe it requires a majority of the committee to continue sitting. Is that not correct?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Yes.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Right. So Mr. Saada—

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): I took a voice vote and—

Mr. Svend Robinson: —moved that we continue sitting.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I moved that we finish the voting since we are on the verge of finishing it now. Otherwise we're going to have to reconvene for another five or ten minutes, which doesn't make much sense.

• 1730

Mr. Svend Robinson: So let's vote.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Do we still have a quorum, Mr. Chair?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Yes, we do.

Mr. Eric Lowther: A recorded vote, please, Mr. Chair.

(Clauses 193 to 253 inclusive agreed to on division: yeas 7; nays 1)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Someone wanted to address clause 254.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, in the interests of time, I will not address clause 254.

Mr. Eric Lowther: I was going to address clause 254, I believe. Since we've agreed to extend time, I think I will also withdraw my comments on clause 254, but I would like it on division.

(Clause 254 agreed to on division)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Incidentally, from the start it was my wish to continue, but I received varying advice on whether I should or not.

(Clauses 255 to 340 inclusive 1 agreed to on division)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Shall Schedule 1 carry?

(Schedule 1 agreed to on division)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Shall Schedule 2 as amended carry?

(Schedule 2 as amended agreed to on division)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Shall clause 1 carry?

(Clause 1 agreed to on division)

Mr. John Maloney: On a point of clarification, I thought we were at clause 254 and I don't know how we got to.... Did you call for a...?

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): We've done that, John.

Mr. John Maloney: We've blocked to clause 340...?

Some hon. members: Yes.

Mr. John Maloney: Okay. You guys are so fast. I'm going to follow you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): I'm getting used to this—too late, mind you.

Shall the title pass?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Shall I report the bill, with amendments, to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Eric Lowther: What is quorum, Mr. Chair, for this committee?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Nine.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): I know I don't count for much usually, but in this case I do.

Shall the committee order a reprint for use at report stage?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): I wish you had all been this agreeable to start with.

Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney: I have comments on Mr. Robinson's initial questions from when we started. He inquired as to the status of the Criminal Code amendments on hate literature. That's at the federal-provincial-territorial stage, so I can't give you a timeline, similarly with the review of the Evidence Act. For compellability, again, it's an FPT situation, and I can't give you a timeline. For the Immigration Act, we would expect that those will be tabled very soon.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Meeting adjourned.