Lost her last election, in 2006, with 23% of the vote.
Industrial Cooperation Program February 24th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, my question is again for the Minister for International Cooperation.
In the name of transparency and openness, will the minister also provide us with a full list of businesses and projects for which funding was approved between 1997 and 1999?
Industrial Cooperation Program February 24th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Cooperation joined Cabinet on August 3. On what date was she informed of the audit by her staff?
Industrial Cooperation Program February 23rd, 2000
Mr. Speaker, this sounds familiar It is not the first time we have heard this story.
When the audit report was made public, her department decided not to release the names of the businesses and projects reviewed. The president of CIDA said that it was a question of determining what information they wanted to make public.
In the interests of transparency and openness, will the minister give us today a complete list of the businesses and projects for which funding was approved between 1997 and 1999?
Industrial Cooperation Program February 23rd, 2000
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Cooperation.
An audit of the industrial cooperation program shows that 37% of cases reviewed were funded despite the absence of progress reports and that there was no final report at all for 10% of projects.
Will the minister make public today the list of businesses that received payments despite incomplete files?
Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act February 21st, 2000
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the debate on Bill C-23.
The purpose of this bill is to make adjustments to reflect our changing society, and to acknowledge advantages and obligations for same sex couples on the same basis as those conferred upon common law couples of the opposite sex.
Before going any further in this debate, I must make it clear that I am speaking for myself, since the Progressive Conservative Party has chosen to allow its members to vote freely on this matter.
It is a sign of the times that this is at least the second occasion in two years on which the members of this House have had the opportunity to debate this matter. We can therefore say that this is definitely the reflection of a new reality.
In my opinion, this demonstrates how the thinking of Canadians has evolved, as they are now prepared to accept a certain degree of recognition of same sex partners. That is what the government's bill proposes, nothing more.
In fact, Bill C-23 proposes an updating of some 68 federal statutes in order to reflect numerous decisions by the courts of this country, the most recent of these being the May 1999 Supreme Court of Canada decision in M. v H., to which several of my colleagues have already referred. At the very most, this is a technical bill aimed at correcting a discriminatory definition of the expression common-law spouses, which has until now been limited to heterosexual couples.
Must this bill be considered a threat to the institution of marriage? Or are we to consider it legitimate recognition of a social situation in Canada and the simple adjustment of federal laws in effect? Members will have understood that I am in the latter camp, since marriage is a whole other matter for debate.
I beg the House's indulgence to make an aside in order to add my voice to the arguments by my colleagues who are criticizing the limited time afforded this House to study the scope of this bill. Clearly, as we have realized with the bill on clarity, the government is pushing us for time. The government's propensity to push things lends credence to the disillusionment of a number of our fellow citizens at the role elected representatives play in the legislative process.
Furthermore, the courts in this country have reached many decisions that would indicate the legislator is being dragged along by the judges' decisions. It is the job of elected officials and not of the judges to consider and vote on the laws in this country.
In the matter before us, there are innumerable decisions decrying in one way or another discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The polls indicate clearly that most Canadians consider it appropriate to give some sort of legal recognition to same sex partnerships. Even if parliament were to reject the present bill, it would face this issue once again in a relatively short time. I would be surprised if the courts were to change their minds and public opinion were to change completely.
Elected officials will therefore be, as we are today, pressed to change the laws to put an end to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. By rejecting the bill, we could send Canadians the message that we are not in tune with their concerns. Rather, we must show Canadians that the government is aware that things change and it is keeping an open mind. A number of provinces have passed or are about to pass legislation to correct the situation.
The federal government too must adjust its legislation before it becomes totally obsolete. We, as elected representatives, must not merely react to social pressure, but anticipate it and act accordingly. The public expects the government to be proactive, because that is its role. If passed, Bill C-23 will put Canada alongside the most progressive countries regarding this issue.
I agree with my colleagues and fellow citizens who feel that the bill before us today relates closely to fairness and human rights. Canada is constantly cited as an example of a tolerant country that respects human rights.
Not so long ago, the Right Honourable Antonio Lamer, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, said that several countries were constantly calling on his expertise in interpreting the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to develop their own laws. I personally care a great deal about the principles of fairness and tolerance, which are the foundations of Canadian society. However, I wonder why discriminatory provisions can still be found in our legislation.
Why is the Canadian parliament hesitating to take a step that many companies in the private sector have already taken? The private sector is hardly known for its social convictions. I am concerned that the prejudices associated with sexual orientation are winning out over respect for human rights as understood in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, if not in the letter, then at least in the spirit.
If there had not been legislation to abolish discrimination based on sex, race, language or religion, Canada would not be the model of tolerance it is today.
Bill C-23 has the advantage of clarifying various pieces of legislation in a manner consistent with the spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and without prejudice to the institution of marriage, which a majority of us, myself included, wish to protect.
The government has deliberately chosen to maintain a clear distinction between partner or spouse, which refers to legally married couples, and common law partner, which refers to couples living in a common law relationship, a conjugal relationship different from marriage. The spirit of this important distinction is the same as that in similar legislation passed in Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia. It is only logical that the definition of common law partners include same sex partners.
We would be sticking our heads in the sand to think that there are no moral implications to this bill. However, I think that this kind of definition corresponds to the evolution in what is acceptable to Canadians. That is what our society is prepared to accept. I do not believe that the majority of the population wants a debate on the definition of marriage. The government has the right angle on this matter and I congratulate it on that.
Some of my colleagues would like to see a debate on marriage or on the institution of the family as it has been understood for generations. I am not rejecting such a debate, but I do feel it is inopportune within the context of the bill being debated today.
As I did in the debate on Bill C-309, introduced by the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve in 1998, I support Bill C-23, and for the same reasons.
This parliament must recognize, once and for all, that the definition of common law spouse contained in federal legislation is discriminatory. This flaw must be corrected promptly, in a country claiming tolerance and fairness.
Like the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, I would call upon the members of this House to set aside personal or partisan considerations in order to reach a neutral and rational judgment on this matter.
Canada has always played a lead role in issues relating to the recognition of human rights, and must continue to do so.
Bill C-20 February 10th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, after a quick look at Bill C-20, you will agree with me that it smacks of improvization and shows a lack of respect for Canadian federalism, the Parliament of Canada, the national assembly and provincial jurisdictions.
Furthermore, the bill is poorly drafted, and looks more like an election platform than a serious piece of legislation. The Liberal cabinet is ignoring major issues in its desire to achieve its political ends at all costs.
Is Quebec's desire to separate a priority for Quebecers and Canadians? No. According to the results of an Angus Reid poll released Monday, only 11% of people gave national unity as their priority, putting it in eighth place. The number one priority for 55% of Canadians is and remains health.
The present government is obviously not listening to Canadians. It should withdraw its bill and redo its homework so that it responds to the real needs of Canadians.
Divorce Act December 10th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party to take part in this debate.
The member for Mississauga South raises an issue which deserves our consideration. Bill C-235 proposes to amend the Divorce Act to provide counselling to spouses before a divorce is granted. The marriage counsellor would act as a mediator between the spouses. Fortunately, a few exceptions worth mentioning were included in the bill.
Counselling would not be provided in cases where the grounds for divorce are physical or mental cruelty, in cases where the court is satisfied that counselling would be inappropriate or serve no purpose and in cases where one party refuses to take part in such counselling.
The summary of Bill C-235 says that this amendment would require spouses to attend marriage counselling before a divorce is granted. However, this requirement is not stated in the bill itself. I hope the sponsor of the bill will be able to clarify this point in his reply at the end of the debate.
Divorce is a real problem in Canada and the main victims are not the adults, but the children. I sat on the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access, which did a comprehensive study of the issue of divorce.
Starting in December 1997, this committee, made up of parliamentarians from both Houses, set out to meet a formidable challenge, namely to consider issues relating to child custody and access arrangements after a separation or divorce, focusing mainly on the needs and the best interests of the children.
Bill C-235, however, proposes that action be taken before a divorce is granted. The members of the special joint committee hoped that their report's recommendations would promote the emergence of a sensitive culture in order to avoid conflicts instead of worsening them.
Our colleague from Mississauga South also wants to avoid this kind of conflict. He wants a mediation system to be put in place before a divorce is granted, and not after.
Therefore, the intent of the member for Mississauga South is very praiseworthy. If we can reduce the number of family breakdowns in Canada, we will have accomplished much good, particularly for the vulnerable ones, our children.
On the subject of children, the Special Joint Committee on Child Care discovered that, according Statistics Canada, because of a high divorce rate, more than 47,000 children were covered by custody orders pursuant to the Divorce Act, in 1994 and 1995. Consequently, many children saw their home life changed. When parents get remarried or find new partners after a divorce, things get even more complicated for children. Close to 75% of divorced men and women get remarried, and the children from their first marriage have to develop new relations with their stepparents.
Here is another statistic worth mentioning: 13% of divorces in 1992 marked the failure of a second marriage. Incredibly, some people think that such instability will not affect children.
The mental health literature, and testimony by young people especially, convinced the joint committee that divorce has a deep, and at times disastrous, impact on children.
I believe that most members in this House are aware of the harmful effects of separation and divorce on the younger members of our society. Although the solution does not entirely rest with governments, they can make a difference.
In Quebec, since September 1, 1997, we have had an act similar to Bill C-235. It makes it compulsory for divorcing couples who have children to attend at least one information session on the benefits of mediation. It should be noted that this is an information session, not a mediation session. If the parents agree to mediation, the Quebec government pays for up to six sessions.
In certain cases, for example when there is a history or a risk of family violence, the Quebec act allows the parties to forgo both the information sessions on mediation and the mediation itself. The individual who declines to attend such sessions only has to sign a consent form that will be forwarded to the court.
Although the Quebec act is specifically geared to future divorcees, it shows how useful mediation can be as a dispute resolution mechanism for couples. In Quebec, the results of mediation are impressive. Between September 1, 1997, when the act came into force, and September 30, 1999, close to 20,000 couples with children took part in mediation sessions. According to the available data, in at least 73 % of the cases, mediation was successful in resolving disputes between divorcing or separating spouses.
We are of course dealing here with spouses who cannot agree on the terms of the separation or the divorce agreements and on the future of their children. However, the mediation process could without any doubt help the spouses who are involved in the disputes to stay together for the benefit of all the family members.
One of the major advantages of the mediation system is that it helps both parties to avoid the more adversarial court proceedings where both parents, accompanied by their lawyers, are more likely to start making accusations. Accordingly, chances of reconciliation are much lower there than with a mediator.
Bill C-235 proposes a mechanism to help families to stay united. As long as the legislation does not force a man and a woman to undergo mediation against their will, the Progressive Conservative Party would be in favour of Bill C-235.
An in-depth study will have to be made on that subject some day. It would be interesting to hear what the experts in the field of mediation and even professional mediators have to say on that.
The Quebec experience in this field is worth looking at. Some people also believe that divorce legislation should come under provincial jurisdiction. Unfortunately, we will not be able to look into that for now, because the bill proposed by the member for Mississauga South will not be considered by a parliamentary committee.
National Unity December 10th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, does the President of the Treasury Board intend to leave the government after what the Prime Minister has done to Quebec?
Victims Of Violence December 6th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago, a woman-hating killer took the lives of 13 students and one secretary at the École Polytechnique. Since then, the 13 have become the symbols of violence against women.
The President of the December 6 Victims Foundation Against Violence, Claire Roberge, described the deaths of these women as occurring on a battlefield they did not know existed, the battlefield of equal opportunity. At that time, we thought that battle had long been won, but it appears that nothing has been gained.
It is a mistake to believe that the battle to combat violence against women is over. Across this country, women and children are still being killed by men.
In memory of these young victims, including Annie Turcotte, who was from my riding, and of all women victims of violence, we must not forget this tragedy. It must make us think about the ways we can improve male-female relations.
Rcmp December 2nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I have consulted an official RCMP report entitled “Proposed reorganization of operating structure—C Division”.
This report, which was submitted to the solicitor general, recommends the closing of seven RCMP detachments in Quebec: Granby, Saint-Hyacinthe, Valleyfield, Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Roberval, Baie-Comeau and Joliette.
Will the solicitor general be following up on this report and, if so, is closing RCMP detachments the government's new strategy for combating organized crime?