Is this the new Canadian Alliance?
Lost his last election, in 2019, with 32% of the vote.
Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act April 3rd, 2000
Is this the new Canadian Alliance?
Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act April 3rd, 2000
It is a disgrace.
Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act April 3rd, 2000
Madam Speaker, I rise at this time to speak to Motions Nos. 1 and 3 which are in my name on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party and to speak in opposition to the remaining motions in Group No. 1.
When I rose at second reading on Bill C-23, the bill which is now before the House at report stage, it was to congratulate the government on recognition of the committed loving relationships of gay and lesbian people and to congratulate the government on recognizing that instead of fighting statute by statute in the courts it would do the right thing and extend equal benefits and equal obligations to gay and lesbian people involved in relationships.
I noted at the time that while the bill extended significant equality there were still some remaining steps on the road to full equality, that the provisions of the immigration law and regulations must be clarified to recognize gay and lesbian relationships. I pointed out as well at that time that the federal common law which denies the right for gay and lesbian people to marry is still clearly in my view discriminatory.
The minister spoke shortly before me at second reading. She spoke eloquently about the importance of equality and, with equal passion, she made it clear that Bill C-23 had nothing whatsoever to do with marriage or the definition of marriage.
That same minister appeared before the justice committee at the first hearing of the justice committee on February 29 and she was clear and unequivocal. In response to a question from a member suggesting that perhaps there might be a definition of marriage included in the bill, the minister said “There is no need to put it in here because this does not deal with the institution of marriage. There is legislation, the Marriage Act, which deals with the institution of marriage, but this does not and I do not think it would serve society well to confuse the two in this legislation”.
What we have seen is a shameful collapse by the Minister of Justice to the pressure of her own backbenchers, the so-called family caucus in the Liberal Party, which some have called the dinosaur wing of the Liberal caucus, working in coalition, in this unholy alliance, cette coalition incroyable, between the Reform Party on the one hand and the Liberal Party on the other.
It is no surprise that many of the Liberals who have spoken out against the bill are the same Liberals who spoke out against equality in the Canadian Human Rights Act. I see the member for Scarborough Centre here. He has been very clear. He does not believe in equality. He voted against it in the human rights act and he is voting against this bill as well.
What we have seen is a response by the Liberal justice minister, a quite shameful and cowardly response by the justice minister, to a campaign of fear, of distortion, of lies by too many people in the public and those, in some cases, in the House.
I got a press release from the member for Yorkton—Melville. He said that Bill C-23 should be renamed the death of marriage act. This is from a Reform Party member. I am sorry, it is the Canadian Alliance now. They say they have changed, but I ask you, have they really changed when we hear this? Here is what the Canadian Alliance member had to say: “In the 1950s buggery was a criminal offence. Now it is a requirement to receive benefits from the federal government”.
That statement was made by the Canadian Alliance/Reform Party member. I suppose it is no surprise when one of the leading candidates for their leadership, Stockwell Day, talked last week about homosexuality as a choice. I guess that a person would pour milk on their breakfast cereal one morning and decide “Hey, I think I am going to be gay”. Or, “I think I am going to be straight”. That is a brilliant analysis by Stockwell Day, the same person who referred to homosexuality as a mental disorder. I guess we should not be surprised that this kind of amendment would come from the Reform Party.
What is absolutely shameful is that the Liberal members would support it, and not only support it but initiate that particular amendment, and that they would do this without any consultation whatsoever. The national lobby group ÉGALE, Égalité pour les gais et les lesbiennes, Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere, voiced their anger and concern that after they testified in good faith before the justice committee, relying on the representation of the minister that marriage was not an issue addressed by the bill, the repeated statements by the minister that this was not something we had to deal with, ÉGALE did not in any way respond to this campaign of fearmongering and homophobia. ÉGALE felt a sense of betrayal when the minister introduced this bill, as indeed I and other members felt. They said that in fact the proposed amendment before the committee fundamentally altered the tenor, purpose and potentially the constitutionality of the legislation.
What this amendment effectively does is to send a signal to gay and lesbian people that our relationships are inferior, that they are not as committed, not as loving and not as worthy of recognition in the eyes of the law as all other relationships. That, in my view, is a shameful concession to the forces in the Reform Party who have argued that point.
I want to make it very clear that there were some members of the Liberal Party who spoke out against this in committee. The member for St. Paul's spoke eloquently. It will be interesting to see how other Liberal members vote on this amendment, how the member for Toronto Centre—Rosedale, the member for Vancouver Centre and others will vote on this issue of fundamental equality.
I also wish to thank the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve for his support to the amendment. I know that one quarter of the Bloc Quebecois members have even voted against the principle of this bill, which is highly regrettable, but the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve has supported the amendment.
Let us be clear what this is about. This is the first time in a federal statute that we are defining marriage in a way that would exclude gay and lesbian people from access to marriage.
The current definition of marriage is one that dates back to an 1866 decision of the British courts, back to a time when marriage had a very particular meaning. For example, in 1866 men were allowed to beat their wives as long as they used a stick that was no wider than their thumbs. That was the definition of marriage then.
Marriage was for life. We know that many argued that divorce would somehow be the end of marriage. We have heard since then other alleged threats to marriage, such as contraception. Interracial marriage was only struck down in the U.S. in 1967, and 19 states had laws on the books in 1967 barring interracial marriage.
I have to ask, what is the threat? Is marriage such a fragile institution that if we allow the choice, and I emphasize that, the choice of gay and lesbian people to marry, that somehow it will collapse like a house of cards? I do not think so.
I want to be very clear that I speak today on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party in support of access of gay and lesbian people to marriage. I believe that this amendment of the government will be found to be unconstitutional and in violation of the charter of rights and freedoms. Indeed, an eloquent dissenting judgment of Judge Greer in the case of Layland and Beaulne struck down the definition. The government did not make any meaningful attempt to defend it in committee.
The Canadian public in an Angus Reid poll in May of last year showed that a majority of the Canadian public support this recognition. The Netherlands is moving ahead.
I urge all members of the House to rise above intolerance and homophobia, to reject the campaign of fearmongering, to appeal particularly to Liberal members to do the right thing, to recognize the diversity of Canadian families, to recognize that our relationships as gay and lesbian people are just as loving and just as committed, and that we should have that choice. To deny us that choice is not only deeply offensive and demeaning, but I believe is unconstitutional as well.
For that reason I proposed an amendment to delete the definition of the government, or at the very least to delete the words after “marriage”, to ensure that that opportunity would be available for gay and lesbian people to marry.
Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act April 3rd, 2000
Madam Speaker, I rise on this point of order. As the mover of Motion No. 3, I want to make two points.
The first is that it is well within the discretion of the Chair to determine which motions, having been moved and defeated in committee, can subsequently be moved in the House. The standing orders are very clear. The practice in Beauchesne's as well as our other guides are clear. This is a matter within the discretion of the Chair. I would argue that the Chair has exercised its discretion with wisdom in this particular case.
More important, I wonder whether the hon. member has gone on to look at Motion No. 4. Motion No. 4 is submitted in the name of his colleague, the member for Elk Island. That motion would amend certain words in clause 1.1. I will not read the proposed amendment in Motion No. 4, but that motion was put in precisely the same form as it is now being put to the House.
The Chair has ruled in these circumstances that it is in order to submit it to the House. I suggest that there cannot be one standard for the member for Burnaby—Douglas and another standard for the member for Elk Island. Perhaps the member might want to explain why the double standard.
Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act April 3rd, 2000
moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 1.1.
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-23, in Clause 1.1, be amended by replacing lines 8 to 10 on page 1 with the following:
“the word “marriage”.”
Petitions March 30th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present another petition which is signed by residents of my own constituency of Burnaby—Douglas, as well as others in British Columbia, on the issue of religious freedom in China.
The petitioners note that Falun Gong is a traditional Chinese Qi-gong practice for physical and mental health, the practitioners being guided by the principles of truthfulness, compassion and tolerance, striving to become better people and responsible citizens.
They note as well that the Chinese government has conducted a campaign against Falun Gong and its founder. They set out some very serious concerns about abuses taking place with respect to Falun Gong.
Finally, they appeal to parliament to strongly urge the Chinese government to release all arrested Falun Dafa practitioners in China immediately, to lift the ban of Falun Gong practice, to withdraw the international arrest warrant for Mr. Li Hongzhi, and to begin a peaceful resolution through open dialogue.
Petitions March 30th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions this morning. The first is with respect to the issue of economic sanctions on Iraq. It is signed by residents of Nova Scotia.
The petitioners note that the sanctions have resulted in serious shortages of food, clean water and medicine; that water and sanitation systems have collapsed spreading disease; that there have been over one million fatalities according to United Nations estimates, mainly children under the age of five; and that sanctions, even under the oil for food program, continue to cause the deaths of approximately 250 people each and every day according to UNICEF.
Therefore the petitioners call upon parliament to end all Canadian support, including military personnel and equipment now involved in the blockade of Iraq, and to ensure that the Canadian government use effective diplomatic pressure to urge the UN to end the economic sanctions against Iraq.
Elian Gonzalez March 23rd, 2000
Mr. Speaker, since November of last year a six year old Cuban boy, Elian Gonzalez, has been held in the United States in gross violation of humanitarian principles and international law. After witnessing the tragic drowning of his mother, Elian has been denied the right to return to the family he loves in Cuba, forced to stay with a great uncle who has a history of child abuse and drunk driving.
On Tuesday of this week a U.S. district court judge ruled that Elian could no longer be kept in the United States against the will of his father and grandparents. As Judge Moore said, “Each passing day is another day lost between Juan Gonzalez and his son”.
Elian Gonzalez has become the victim of what can only be called appalling abuse at the hands of powerful Miami lobby groups such as the Cuban American National Foundation.
The U.S. immigration authorities and U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno have both called for the return of Elian to his father. My New Democrat colleagues and I urge the foreign affairs minister to end his silence on this outrage and to intervene in the case, calling on the U.S. president to put an end to this tragic and pathetic farce and allow Elian Gonzalez to immediately return home to his family.
Supply March 20th, 2000
Madam Speaker, I have a two part question for the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.
The first part is in respect to his suggestion of two tier health care. He has been up front about this. He says that yes, there should be one tier for those who can afford to buy their way into it, a private health care system for those who can afford to buy their way into that, parallel to the public health care system. Of course we know that this would ultimately destroy the very fundamental principle of medicare, which is that one does not jump to the front of the queue based on the size of one's pocketbook.
The member has been very clear on that. I am not sure that all of his colleagues have agreed with him on that, but certainly he wants to run for leader of whatever the name of the party is, the Reform Party or some other manifestation, the new Canadian alliance, or CCRAP, or whatever it might be. He wants to run for the leadership of the party based on that principle.
As a doctor the member must surely recognize that in a time of shortages and scarcity in health care resources, and the member has talked about a shortage of nurses, a shortage of doctors, shortages of resources in the public health care system, that if we drain that already starved system of resources, if doctors are going into his private clinics, if nurses are going into the private clinics that the good doctor is prescribing, surely that will cause the public health care system to erode. It will weaken that system which is exactly what we saw in the United Kingdom.
Second and very briefly, does the member not recognize and understand that under the provisions of NAFTA, if we open up health care in Alberta under bill 11 to private health care providers as Ralph Klein is suggesting, that this will then mean that private health care providers will have access under NAFTA right across Canada? If we deny them that access they will be able to challenge under the provisions of NAFTA. They will be entitled to massive compensation under the provisions of NAFTA. This too will lead to the destruction of our universal health care system.
How can he stand and say that on the one hand he believes in medicare when on the other hand he is supporting a two tier health care system that will destroy universal health care in this country?
Supply March 20th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, my question for the member for Red Deer arises from comments which he made in closing his speech. He said that maybe Bill 11 in Alberta is not the answer. Perhaps the hon. member could elaborate on that.
Many of us are deeply concerned about Bill 11. We believe that this is a very clear assault on universal health care in Canada, that it is an attempt to introduce a two tier American style health care system and if it is allowed to proceed by the federal Liberal government, it will result in the death of medicare.
The member for Red Deer has said that maybe Bill 11 is not the answer. Does he or does he not support Bill 11?