Lost his last election, in 2019, with 32% of the vote.
Apec Summit October 7th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, it is fascinating to see the reliance on the member for Palliser. The solicitor general has now admitted that the hon. member for Palliser had it right about Airbus, right about the sweat lodge, right about the Yankees and right about his great future as an ambassador.
The solicitor general cannot have it both ways. Will he now admit the member also got it right about APEC? Will he fess up? Will he tell the truth? Will he resign?
Marriage Act, 1997 October 6th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve for his hard work on the recognition of the rights of same sex partners.
We in Canada live in a country in which the highest court of the land, the constitution of our country and the charter of rights have affirmed that gay and lesbian people are to be treated with equality, with equal respect and dignity.
That court has gone on to state that an essential element of that equality is recognition of the relationships of gay and lesbian people, that those relationships too are relationships and should not be treated with any kind of special rights or preference but with equality.
It is for that reason I rise in my place today to oppose the bill which has been put forward by the member for Scarborough Southwest. He set out accurately the legal realities, the fact that there is no federal statute that governs the issue of capacity for marriage. Yes, it is the courts that have ruled to date that two men or two women may not legally marry.
The member made reference to the eloquent dissent of the divisional court in Layland and Beaulne, but that remains a dissenting judgment. He suggested that perhaps people were afraid of the debate. Certainly I welcome the debate. I do not think anyone is shirking this debate. It is long overdue that we look at the nature of our relationships and how as a society we can sustain and affirm those relationships.
Frankly I had not intended to propose a bill on this subject. The member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve is quite right. There is considerable debate even within the gay and lesbian community about the priority which should be attached to the work toward recognition of gay and lesbian marriages. The fundamental issue is recognition of our right to equality across the board.
It seems to me that in acknowledging the importance of this as a choice, which is what it should be recognized as, for those gay and lesbian couples who wish to enter into it I do not believe federal law should deny that option. For that reason I have tabled a bill which would also amend the federal legislation and which would state that a marriage between two persons is not invalid by reason only that they are of the same sex.
In introducing that bill on March 25 of this year I stated that I believed our relationships should be celebrated and affirmed as just as loving, just as committed, just as strong as heterosexual relationships, and that federal statutes should reflect that equality.
The member for Scarborough Southwest suggested that the concept of marriage was under attack. I would question whether the institution of marriage is so fragile and so threatened that allowing gay and lesbian people who seek access to this institution would somehow cause it to come crumbling down. I do not believe that. I do not believe it would destroy it.
We have heard from the Reform member for Calgary Centre that one of the essential elements of marriage is procreation. How does he respond to an article in yesterday's Toronto Sun ? It is a story about Karl Thompson, age 92, who slipped a gold band on the finger of Yvon Geoffrey, 84 years old, and said “We never thought it would develop into this”. Loving companionship is what it is. They met during a bingo game six years previously. His granddaughter Michelle said “They are so much in love it is unbelievable. It makes you feel all warm and fuzzy”.
God forbid, a 92 year old him and a 84 year old her and no children, no procreation, is not a real marriage. Damn it, that is wrong. What defines a marriage and what should define a marriage is love, caring, compassion and a commitment for better or for worse, for richer or poorer, to one's partner. That is what should define it and that is what federal legislation should allow.
There have been changes in the law. In Holland the new government announced that it intends to move forward. It said that in the interest of strengthening the equal treatment of homosexual and lesbian couples the cabinet would this year introduce a bill to open civil marriage to persons of the same sex.
The Government of South Africa has announced that it intends to take the same step. We heard from this podium President Nelson Mandela speaking of the importance of equality. I am very proud of the fact that Canada is one of the only countries in the world, along with South Africa, that in its constitution recognizes and celebrates the equality of all citizens including those of us who are gay or lesbian.
Sometimes people do not understand the human dimension of our relationships. My colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve spoke about Jim Egan and Jack Nesbit who this year are celebrating 50 years together in a committed and loving relationship. Why on earth should they, or others in their situation who are embarking on that lifelong journey together, be denied the affirmation of marriage if they seek that affirmation?
I could talk at some length about my own relationship. I spoke earlier this year about the extent to which my relationship with my partner, Max, was for me truly life sustaining at a very difficult and painful time after a life threatening accident. I spoke as well about the fact that he sustained me as a caregiver during some very tough and difficult times.
If that relationship is not recognized as just as loving, just as compassionate and for me and my partner just as meaningful and strong, why not? Why should we not be allowed to celebrate that relationship before our families, our friends, our loved ones, in a marriage if we choose to do so? The member for Scarborough Southwest would say no, that option is not one that should be open to us. It threatens the concept of marriage. I do not believe it does any such thing.
Tragically that too many Canadians have only come to fully understand the relationships of gay people during the epidemic of AIDS. Time and time again I have personally witnessed the tremendous love, compassion and caregiving those who are living with a person with HIV or AIDS have experienced. I know members will be able to share these stories. Those are traditional family values that we should celebrate and affirm.
There has been significant progress in the recognition of our relationships. In a number of jurisdictions there has been movement on pensions, on recognition of rights and responsibilities when a relationship breaks down, and on adoption. However much work remains to be done in the areas of immigration and pensions. There is still a lot of work in a number of other areas of federal jurisdiction before there is full equality and justice.
It is important that parliament send a signal to all Canadian citizens that we are not threatened by diversity but that we celebrate diversity and that part of that magnificent diversity in our Canadian society is a recognition of the families and the partnerships of gay and lesbian people. I believe those partnerships should be recognized in marriage if that is the choice of the people involved. I believe federal law should allow that. For that reason I rise in opposition to the bill before the House today.
Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Implementation Act October 6th, 1998
Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief in saying that, on behalf of my colleagues from the New Democratic Party, I support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.
I listened carefully to the minister's reply but, frankly, I think this amendment would give a little more power to members of Parliament from all parties. Should the amendment be rejected, I hope the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs will take an in-depth look at the issue raised by the hon. member.
I hope the House will adopt the motion. I realize this is a situation where we do not have the numbers required. But if the amendment is rejected here, I hope the committee can conduct a thorough review of this issue. This is an important proposal and we support it.
Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Implementation Act October 6th, 1998
Mr. Chairman, I have a brief supplementary to the minister on the same issue.
The minister has referred to the environmental consequences of the Nanoose testing range. I want to ask the minister whether he is prepared to table with the foreign affairs committee any environmental assessments that have been done on the impact of this testing.
I know one of the concerns that the Nanoose conversion campaign has and many British Columbians who have looked at this range have is precisely that it seems difficult to get at any comprehensive environmental assessment of the impact of the range.
Will the minister undertake to make available to the foreign affairs committee and through that committee to British Columbians the results of any environmental assessments that have been done of the range?
Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Implementation Act October 6th, 1998
Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the minister. This article refers to the Minister of Health. My question is about an issue that has a profound impact on the environment and the health of Canadians, particularly those of us in British Columbia. It concerns the continued testing of nuclear arms and nuclear powered submarines at the Nanoose testing range in British Columbia.
Does the minister not recognize the very serious concerns of British Columbians about the continued use of the testing base at Nanoose Bay? Will he not give serious consideration to giving notice, as permitted under the provisions of the agreement between Canada and the United States, to terminate that agreement as a concrete manifestation of this government's concern about the potential impact of nuclear powered submarines and potentially nuclear armed submarines in Canadian waters?
Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Implementation Act October 6th, 1998
Mr. Chairman, the minister spoke eloquently earlier today about the importance of Canada's leadership in this area, particularly about accelerating the movement of nuclear weapons states to make a commitment to get rid of nuclear weapons.
What action is the minister prepared to undertake to the House to encourage NATO as part of its strategic concept review, which I believe is due in April 1999, to show more leadership and more vision in this area and particularly to encourage NATO to revisit the issue of the first use policy of nuclear weapons?
Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Implementation Act October 6th, 1998
Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the minister. This clause includes a reference to the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty signed in New York in September 1996.
The minister will know that one of the provisions of that treaty is a commitment in article 6 by nuclear weapons states to move toward complete prohibition of nuclear weapons.
The minister will also know that later this fall a resolution is coming before the United Nations General Assembly from the new agenda coalition including South Africa, Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Slovenia and Sweden. That resolution will be urging the nuclear weapons states to proceed to an early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention.
Last year Canada chose not to support this resolution. Will Canada show leadership this year and respond to the appeal by South African President Nelson Mandela to Canada and other countries, and will indeed support this very important resolution?
Apec Summit October 6th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the solicitor general to test his deep commitment to the RCMP Public Complaints Commission.
Yesterday the commission agreed to once again strongly urge the federal government to provide legal funds for the student complainants at the APEC hearings. At the same time the federal government has hired yet another high-priced lawyer, David Scott, to its team.
In view of the minister's constant urging to let the commission do its work, will he now listen to the commissioners, to the federal court, to his own Liberal colleague from the UBC area and extend full legal funding to the student complainants at the APEC hearing?
Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Implementation Act October 6th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his speech and for his longstanding personal commitment in this area.
I would like to ask the member a specific question with respect to the upcoming vote before the United Nations General Assembly on a resolution which will be proposing multilateral negotiations leading to an early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention.
The member will recall that South African President Nelson Mandela in his very eloquent speech before the general assembly last month urged that all nations, including Canada, join with the new agenda coalition in supporting this resolution. Last year Canada voted against this resolution.
I want to ask the member whether he does not agree that it is important that Canada send out a strong signal of its support for the new agenda coalition by voting for and indeed by co-sponsoring this important resolution at this session of the United Nations General Assembly.
Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Implementation Act October 6th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief question. Perhaps the member for Compton—Stanstead did not hear my initial question. I want to repeat it and ask for an answer.
Does the Progressive Conservative Party support the suggestion that Canada should be taking a lead in urging the immediate de-alerting of the nuclear arsenals of all nuclear states?