Betty Hinton

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, June 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have a question, but I do have a comment.

As I was listening to the opposite member speaking, most of what he was saying was complete and total nonsense, but some of it he may actually believe. However, the one thing he said that spelled it out extremely clearly and put it in a nutshell in terms of how the former Liberal government treated taxpayers' money was the phrase he used, “Liberal government money”.

The Liberal government, or any other government for that matter, has no money. The money belongs to the taxpayers of Canada, and perhaps the biggest difference between the Conservative government and the Liberal government is that the Conservative government recognizes that fact. We know where the funding comes from. We also realize that we are supposed to, as a government, use that money wisely and judiciously to help as many Canadians as possible, and that is what we have done.

The arrogance in the comment, “Liberal government money”, sticks in my craw, as I am sure it sticks in the craw of many people in this country. All Canadians contribute.

The other comment I would like to make is that, in case the member opposite is unaware of it, no government generates income. The only income we have is the taxation that we take from everyday Canadians who work very hard for that money and expect us to do the right thing with it.

We are doing the right thing with it, and if that bothers the member opposite, he has my sympathy; but that is it, just my sympathy.

[Olympic and Paralympic Marks Act, May 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure my hon. colleague from the NDP that Vancouver is a world-class city. If he has not had the opportunity to visit, I would invite him to do so. As a very proud third generation British Columbian, Vancouver can hold its head high internationally. It is a beautiful city. I am certain that the games will be absolutely wonderful.

I share one of the concerns expressed by the hon. member and I would like to give him the assurance that I have had from the organizers of the Olympics. They will not go after small companies that have the name “Olympic” or something that relates to the Olympics in their name. They will be grandfathered. The organizers' concern is to maintain and hold onto the rings, which are symbolic internationally for the Olympics. They want to make certain that the symbol is used in the proper way.

Although many of the concerns I have heard him express today have been expressed to me earlier, I want to reassure him that the government took all those things into consideration. We will be supportive of small business but we must also protect the logo rights of the Olympics.

I again would invite the member to come to Vancouver. It is a fabulous city. It is known internationally as a hospitality centre and a wonderful place to visit. He should come to B.C. because we would love to have him there.

[Olympic and Paralympic Marks Act, May 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, although I am very interested in the subject matter the member opposite is discussing, and although I share his concern about childhood obesity, his discussion and his questions have absolutely no relevance to what we are discussing at this time. I would ask that the Speaker rule on whether or not he can continue down this road.

[May 9th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in raising this issue, the hon. member is trying to find controversy where none exists. As my hon. colleague knows, as soon as the Minister of Veterans Affairs was aware he took immediate action. In reference to defence, we are taking immediate action there as well.

The minister called the situation totally unacceptable and he had the panels removed from the interpretative centre.

I would remind all members that Canada's official languages must be properly displayed at all Government of Canada sites. Veterans Affairs Canada is committed to this basic right, just as we are committed to honouring the achievements and sacrifices of our veterans. We do both by ensuring the linguistic duality of our country is maintained in our tribute to our veterans.

We are very proud of our veterans and they have asked us to keep faith with their fallen comrades, to keep alive the memory of those who made the ultimate sacrifice.

As members of Parliament we can do our part to commemorate the service and sacrifice of those who defended our freedoms and who made it possible for us to stand in this chamber and represent our fellow citizens.

[May 9th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague, the member for Gatineau, raised this issue in the House of Commons on April 16. At that time, the Minister of Veterans Affairs was very clear in his reply. He indicated that the government took immediate action and that the panels with the erroneous French translations were removed from Canada's Vimy Interpretive Centre in France.

Now the member has brought the issue forward again. It gives me an opportunity to explain what happened and why we acted so quickly.

The foam core panels were installed on the evening of June 30, 2006, in celebration of Canada Day last summer. Unfortunately, the timing of the installation coincided with a number of other events that contributed to the error-riddled panels falling through the cracks.

Among other things, Veterans Affairs Canada was in the middle of planning and hosting a number of major events in France to commemorate the 90th anniversary of the Battle of the Somme. At the same time, staffing for senior overseas posts at Veterans Affairs was in a state of transition. The result was a lack of proper oversight during the erection of these panels.

I want to stress that I offer these details only to explain what went wrong and not to justify how the inexcusable translations could have been allowed to go on public display.

Canada's new government is committed to providing services in both our official languages, and our commitment is unwavering. The quick action taken by the Minister of Veterans Affairs clearly demonstrates our determination to honour and to enforce that commitment.

On April 5, as soon as he was made aware of the errors in the French text, errors which he called “totally unacceptable”, the Minister of Veterans Affairs took action immediately. He ordered that the panels in question be removed.

I know that members will want to know exactly what the minister said when he took his decisive action. Let me quote directly from his statement dated April 5: “I immediately instructed my officials to correct this situation and to ensure this will never happen again”.

As the minister also reminded the hon. member opposite on April 16, we removed the signs immediately. He said:

We did that immediately, long before it was brought to the attention of the hon. member. We did the right thing.

I want to reassure all members as well as all Canadians that we embrace our responsibility to reflect the linguistic duality of our country and we do so proudly. Canada's official languages must be properly displayed at all Government of Canada sites, especially at one as historically significant as the Canada National Vimy Memorial.

This is a clear commitment on behalf of the Government of Canada. We have taken the necessary steps to ensure that such unfortunate mistakes never happen again.

Veterans Affairs Canada has a special mandate of commemorating the service and sacrifice of the brave men and women who have worn our uniform in times of both war and peace.

Over the first few weeks of April, Canadians gathered across the country from Yellowknife to Toronto, from St. John's to Kamloops, to pay their respects to those who had fought and died in taking Vimy Ridge. Also, of course, Canadians gathered in France. It was especially gratifying and heartwarming to see the thousands of Canadian students who travelled to Vimy to take part in the dedication of the newly restored Canadian National Vimy Memorial.

Many of my colleagues from the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs were among those to attend. I am sure they have all returned home with their own special memories. The sight of those young Canadians marching in as a group was simply remarkable. To realize that we now have thousands of new ambassadors of remembrance is extremely gratifying.

Veterans Affairs Canada is committed to honouring all of our veterans through such acts of remembrance. We must not forget those who came before us and those who continue to serve our country. I know that we are all very proud--

[Dwight Wilson, May 9th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, today we mourn the loss of the remarkable veteran, Dwight Wilson.

Mr. Wilson was one of more than 600,000 brave Canadians who volunteered to serve our country during the first world war. At 106 years of age, he was also one of the only two known surviving Canadian veterans from World War I.

Dwight Wilson was only 15 years old when, like many of his peers, he doctored his age in an overwhelming desire to serve his country. This determination to defend the values we all cherish, to protect freedom, democracy and the rule of law, illustrates why his generation has been called Canada's greatest generation.

We must never forget such courage or the great sacrifices and achievements of all the brave men and women in uniform.

Today we extend our deepest sympathies to the family and friends of Dwight Wilson. We will always remember and honour a man who throughout his life remained as dedicated to Canada as when he wore his uniform.

[Jack Lapin, April 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, today Barriere, B.C. bids a fond farewell to Regional District Director, Jack Lapin.

“Poppa Jack” and I first met in 1986 when we served together on the Thompson-Nicola Regional District board.

Jack was NDP to the core. I am Conservative. In the minds of many that would mean there could be no common ground. Two decades of friendship between us serve as an example of how politics can work when elected representatives hold office to serve their constituents and not themselves.

Whether he was gardening, plumbing or standing up for constituents, he always gave 100 per cent of himself. My thoughts and prayers are with his wife Yvonne and his daughters Marlene, Theresa, Corinne and Cathy today as we remember this wonderful man and the many wonderful contributions he made to his community.

[The Budget, March 21st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what the member opposite was saying and I would like to make a suggestion. Perhaps she would be able to support the budget if she actually read it.

A number of the comments she made regarding what is not in the budget are simply factually incorrect. A number of the things she has mentioned, such as the child care issue, homelessness, education, all of those things that she mentioned, are actually in the budget.

This is a budget that will have a positive impact on 90% of Canadians. It is very bothersome to listen to someone talk about something that actually is not in the budget. We have all of these things covered beautifully and the problems she is raising simply are not in the budget.

I would be very interested to hear how the member opposite, who has just finished speaking, would like to answer the fact that there is money in there for homelessness. There is money in there for child care. There is money in there for all of the things for which she stated there is no money in there.

Again, I go back to what I said originally. Perhaps she should take the time to read the budget and then she would recognize that those things are covered.

[Divorce Act, March 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak in support of Bill C-252. However, before discussing the bill, let me express by deepest sympathy for the children and the family of the constituent whose unfortunate experience motivated the hon. member for Lethbridge to introduce the bill.

Bill C-252 is all about compassion. It aims to give closure to children of divorce before their parents' impending passing.

The dissolution of a marriage is not a happy event. It can be highly emotional and stressful for all family members. Divorce can also take a serious toll on any children involved. Children often experience their parents' separation as a loss, the loss of their former family unit. Some children feel that they have little or no say in the events that shape their lives during their parents' divorce.

I would imagine that finding out one has a terminal illness could instill a similar sense of grief and loss of control. For a child who is already struggling with his or her parents' separation, the pending loss of the life of a beloved parent could be devastating. For a dying parent, contact with his or her child could help to alleviate some grief at a very critical time. For a child, being able to pay his or her last respects to a parent could provide some closure and peace of mind.

I believe most Canadians would agree that unless it is not in the child's best interests, a parent should be able to die peacefully, with one's children by his or her side.

My hon. colleague introduced this bill to ensure that children can say goodbye to a parent who is terminally ill or in critical condition, where it is in the best interests of the children. It is important to note that the best interests of the child will remain the primary consideration. However, the proposed bill will ensure that proper consideration is given by the courts to the amount of time left for a parent and child to spend their final moments together.

Bill C-252, if passed, will clarify that a terminal illness or critical condition on the part of a parent is a material change in circumstance for the purposes of the variation application and will ensure that decisions with respect to access in these circumstances are made in the best interest of the child.

I must say how touching it has been to see the support that other members of Parliament have shown for the objective of the bill.

The impact of divorce on some children last their entire lives. Often parents can agree on how to continue parenting after divorce. They can deal with the many emotional and financial issues that arise from their breakup with the help of family justice services that are delivered by our provincial and territorial partners. When parents can agree, there is a sense that children are better off.

The focus on the children's best interests may be easier if parents are not fighting over who wins or loses. Compassion in cases of illness may also come more easily. However, some parents cannot agree on how to continue parenting after a divorce and some may even have difficulty putting their children first. They will need the courts to help them find a solution that is in the best interests of their children.

Unfortunately, some of these parents may also find themselves one day in a situation where their days become numbered and where they cherish every last moment they spend with family and friends. We can all appreciate how important it is for people to be in the company of loved ones at such times. Those moments together are important both for the dying parent as well as for those who survive.

In some cases where a parent is dying, however inexplicable as this may be, the other parent may not find it in himself or herself to let the dying parent see the child, or to put it in another way, the other parent may not let the child see the dying parent one last time.

Can we let that happen? We have the opportunity to amend the Divorce Act to make it easier for dying parents and their children to spend time together and support each other in difficult situations.

I will speak for a few minutes about the scope of the federal Divorce Act with regard to the custody and access.

Section 16 of the Divorce Act sets out the criteria for granting custody and access for original or interim orders. Such orders are to be granted solely on the basis of the best interests of the child. Section 16 of the Divorce Act also requires the court to give effect to the principle that a child of the marriage should have as much contact with each spouse as is consistent with the child's best interests.

Section 17 of the act allows a parent to apply for a variation of the original or interim custody and access order when there has been a material change in circumstances. As in Section 16, the best interests of the child should prevail in varying an order, and the court is to make an order that provides that a child of the marriage has as much contact with each spouse as is consistent with his or her best interests.

Section 16 of the Divorce Act as currently worded already responds, to a large degree, to the issue raised by Bill C-252. This is because, by requiring that orders be granted based on the child's best interests and that maximum contact between children and parents be ensured, section 16 of the Divorce Act already provides the courts with sufficient discretion to make appropriate orders.

In addition, although courts all maintain that a parent does not have an absolute right to access, most of them accept that it is in a child's best interest to have a meaningful relationship with both parents in the absence of a good reason to the contrary.

The proposed amendment to section 17 of the Divorce Act clarifies that a parent's critical condition or terminal illness is a change of circumstances, giving rise to a possible variation of the custody and access order. The provision further instructs the courts to make an order in respect of access that, in the circumstances, is in the best interests of the child.

I note that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has proposed an amendment to the bill that would make it more consistent with the existing wording of the Divorce Act. Consistency in legislation is important. I believe that this amendment should be accepted and that the House should pass Bill C-252.

This bill will provide greater certainty and will facilitate variation applications for parents who are terminally ill or in critical condition.

Most children want, and indeed need, continuing contact with both of their parents. They often describe lack of contact as one of the most difficult aspects of their parents' separation.

My government believes it is important that when parents divorce, both parents are encouraged to maintain a meaningful relationship with their children, unless it is not in the best interests of the children.

The objective of promoting access between a parent who is terminally ill or in critical condition and their child, when it is in the best interests of the child, is indeed most laudable.

I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Lethbridge, for bringing this important issue to the attention of the House.

[Veterans Affairs, February 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that the statement she has made is very far from the truth. In fact, we have been working diligently during the last year to improve everything that we promised we would improve.

The member, who sits on the committee as well, will know that we are about to get into the health care review which is part and parcel of what we promised we would do for our veterans in this country.