Lost his last election, in 2019, with 32% of the vote.
National Defence June 8th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Defence and it concerns the federal expropriation of the Nanoose Bay testing range in British Columbia. On May 5 the federal negotiator agreed that 11 kilometres in the southwest corner of the range were not required and that another 11 kilometres would be dedicated for public use.
Why is the Liberal government now seizing the land which it has admitted it does not need for military purposes?
Supply June 8th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's colleague, the member for Calgary Centre, has referred to gay and lesbian families, the families of two gay men or two lesbian women who are raising children as gender deprived parenting. He said that these families are somehow deficient.
Does the hon. member for Surrey Central agree with this attack and this insult on families in Canada who happen to be made up of two women and their children or two men raising children? Does he agree that this is, to use the words of his colleague, gender deprived parenting? Does he also agree, presumably, that a single parent family in which there is only one woman raising children or one man raising children is a gender deprived family and similarly is a defective or a deficient family?
Will the hon. member for Surrey Central explain why he is apparently agreeing with this appalling attack on families in Canada who happen to be made up of gay and lesbian people raising children?
Supply June 8th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I do not want to unduly prolong the debate, but there is a procedural issue here which is a serious one.
As I understand it, the hon. member during the course of debate had put forward an amendment, had moved and seconded an amendment to the motion which was before the House. He then sat down having concluded his intervention in the debate.
He subsequently rose on a point of order and sought the consent of the House to put forward a different amendment. Perhaps the Chair could assist us but as I understand it, it is not in order to seek to put an amendment before the House when rising on a point of order.
Supply June 8th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
My understanding was that an amendment had been moved and seconded and was before the House and could only be withdrawn by unanimous consent. Is that not correct?
Supply June 8th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, it is important that Canadians witnessing the debate today understand the real agenda here. The real agenda is that the Reform Party not only does not believe in the equality of gay and lesbian relationships but does not believe in equality for gays and lesbians, period.
When that issue came before the House of Commons for a vote, the fundamental question of whether the Canadian Human Rights Act should be amended to include sexual orientation so that gay and lesbian people would not be fired from their jobs or thrown out of their homes or denied access to goods and services, they voted against that basic equality.
When they say today that they want to talk about marriage, let us be very clear what the real agenda is. That party does not believe in the fundamental equality of gay and lesbian people in Canada.
The member for Calgary Centre raised a number of issues. He has made a number of statements to which I would like him to respond in terms of the inaccuracy of those statements. He talked about committed, loving, lifelong relationships. The fact is that gay and lesbian people also enter into committed, loving, lifelong relationships.
I have to ask the hon. member a question. How is it any threat to a heterosexual marriage to recognize and affirm our relationships as well? For gay and lesbian people who seek to marry, why should that right not be extended to them?
The hon. member has said that some day there will be a court challenge. I tell the hon. member that there has already been a court challenge. So much for what he knows. Is the member not aware of the fact that there has already been a constitutional challenge in the Ontario Divisional Court in the case of Layland and Beaulne, in which the court ruled that federal common law restricts marriage to one man and one woman.
Why is he misleading the House on this important issue? Why will he not respect the right of equality for gay and lesbian people?
Petitions June 8th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the second petition notes that the NATO attack on Yugoslavia is illegal under the charters of the United Nations and NATO, and that the best hope for world peace rests on the rule of international law administered by the United Nations. It notes that the present war, intended to reduce the persecution, killing and displacement of Kosovars, has drastically increased all three.
Therefore, the petitioners call on the House of Commons to withdraw immediately all Canadian Armed Forces from the war and use all our influence to convince the United Nations to arrange a ceasefire followed by further negotiations on the future of Kosovo. They petition Milosevic to put an end to the ethnic cleansing that is taking place in Yugoslavia, including in the province of Kosovo.
Petitions June 8th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I am presenting two petitions this morning. The first petition has been signed by residents of my constituency of Burnaby—Douglas as well as communities across Canada.
The petitioners, members of the Humanist Association of Canada and others, seek changes to the preamble to Canada's constitution and to the charter of rights. They wish to remove the reference to the supremacy of God in the preamble and to change the wording of the charter of rights to reflect the fact that Canada is a secular country which respects the deeply held views of people of many different religious faiths as well as those who have no religious beliefs.
Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act May 25th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I want to take the five or six minutes that remain to make a couple of comments with respect to two aspects of this legislation.
First, very briefly I want to associate myself with the comments made by my colleague, the member for Acadie—Bathurst, who spoke very eloquently about why the New Democratic Party is so profoundly opposed to this legislation.
Pensioners are being robbed of a $30 billion surplus. Let us be clear. There will be $15 billion taken from the public service pension plan, $2.4 billion from the RCMP and almost $13 billion from the Canadian forces. I join with my colleagues in saying that the New Democratic Party strongly opposes this provision in the legislation which will affect something like 670,000 public servants, including retirees and current contributors.
I also want to take this opportunity to deal with another issue and that is the issue of same sex benefits. I deeply regret that the government has chosen to include in legislation that deals with the pension surplus the issue of equity and justice for gay and lesbian people who are involved in committed, loving relationships.
I want to make it very clear that I and my colleagues strongly support this long overdue justice and equality for those who are involved in gay and lesbian relationships.
There are some who ask what this conjugal relationship is all about. Is it some new and dangerous provision in the legislation? Indeed, one of the Reform Party members, the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain, said that this bill would destroy the very moral fibre of the country. He said it is a dangerous, destructive bill.
The fact of the matter is that this bill is simply extending not any kind of special rights to gay and lesbian people who are involved in relationships, but equal rights and equal responsibilities. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled just last week in the case of M. v H. that gay and lesbian people are to be treated with equality and that includes those of us who are involved in committed, loving relationships.
For those who say that the notion of a conjugal relationship is something new and undefined, I suggest that they read existing legislation. For example, in the existing Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act there is a provision that on the death of a member or a former member extends a survivor's pension to any person of the opposite sex who establishes that the person was cohabiting in a conjugal relationship with the member or former member for at least one year immediately before the death of the member or former member.
It is in the legislation now. For those who say this is somehow a great attack on the moral fibre of the country and a dangerous and destructive new concept, I say: Where have they been? It is already there and it has not caused any difficulty in interpretation whatsoever.
There are federal public servants who contribute to pension plans, whether they be members of the Canadian armed forces, members of the RCMP or members of the public service, who are involved in gay or lesbian relationships. Why should they not be entitled to draw their pension as any other Canadian is entitled to do?
I received a letter recently from a woman in Vancouver who talked about her relationship with her partner of more than 13 years. She said that her partner had died of cancer. She was diagnosed with ovarian cancer. Before that she was an active, healthy, 48 year old woman. She said:
We shared everything as life partners. We were emotionally and financially interdependent. Every aspect of our lives was connected, inter-related. We celebrated our lives together and were embraced by family, friends, and many diverse communities.
We shared in the parenting of two children. I continue to care for them and support them as a co-parent myself and also on behalf of their mother who has died.
This was a family. This was a family of two lesbians who shared their lives. If they contributed to a pension plan, they should be entitled to that benefit.
Finally, I note that the Supreme Court of Canada in M. v H. has pointed out the characteristics of a conjugal relationship. It stated: “They include shared shelter, sexual and personal behaviour, services, social activities, economic support and children, as well as the societal perception of the couple”.
My relationship with my partner, Max, is an important part of my life, just as the relationships are of other members of the House who are heterosexual with their spouses. All I ask for, and all gay and lesbian people in this country ask for, is equality; nothing more and nothing less. For that reason we support those provisions of the bill, but we must oppose the theft of $30 billion in pension funds.
National Defence May 25th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
The Liberal government is abusing its powers to expropriate B.C. land in Nanoose Bay so that the U.S. navy can bring nuclear warheads into the Strait of Georgia.
Why did the government walk away from the agreement that it signed through its negotiator on May 5 and why is the government taking its orders from the Pentagon instead of the people of British Columbia who voted in 1992 in their legislature, 51 to 1, to declare British Columbia a nuclear weapons free zone? Why will the minister not listen to the people of B.C.?
Kosovo April 28th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday Canadian General Henault said that the 800 Canadian troops in Kosovo will do “whatever NATO supreme command identifies as the mission”.
Will the Prime Minister now tell Canadians why our forces may be sent into combat duty in Kosovo when U.S. General Wesley Clark wants them but why the House will not be allowed to vote on this life and death issue affecting Canadian men and women in the armed forces?