Bev Desjarlais

[Supply, March 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat hypocritical to have members of the governing side talk about the accountability of taxpayer dollars after what we have been listening to for the last number of weeks concerning the human resources department.

I do not think there is any question that if taxpayer dollars for health care are not going to health care, the government should be doing something about it. There is no question.

If the government knows that is happening and it is not doing anything about it, then it is at fault because that money should be going to health care. There is absolutely no question.

It is along the same lines as the EI dollars, the EI premiums that come in to give employment insurance benefits to the workers in Canada, for jobs and training throughout Canada, and to assist employers. What did the government do with that money? It used it to create a surplus. It sounds an awful lot like the member's version of Mike Harris.

What does he have to say about that?

[Health Care, March 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the failing health of our aboriginal peoples is a direct result of the life they were forced into by Canadian government policy.

Last night CBC told Canadians from coast to coast about the crisis on Island Lake. Those same conditions exist in numerous first nation communities.

The budget ignored the aboriginal health crisis. There was not one new dollar for first nations' health care. How long do aboriginal people have to wait before the government does something? How many must die?

[Petitions, March 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition on behalf of thousands of people in the province of Manitoba who also call on the House to work at reducing child poverty. They recognize that in 1989 the House unanimously passed a resolution to eliminate child poverty in Canada. They had also hoped that this federal budget would be utilized to alleviate the child poverty problem. I am sure they were quite dissatisfied to see that did not happen.

[Canada Elections Act, February 22nd, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would seek the unanimous consent of the House to change Motions No. 53 and 138 standing in the name of the hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys to that of the hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre.

[Churchill, February 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I pay tribute to individuals and organizations involved in two momentous events that took place in my riding on January 28 of this year.

Sixty-eight men and women became the first graduating class from the University of Victoria child care vision initiative program. The program saw instructors from the University of Victoria take their program to 13 communities in my riding.

If the students would have had to attend classes on campus it would have cost $2 million. Through this innovative approach the cost was $311,000.

Graduates received their diplomas in early childhood education.

Congratulations to the graduates and instructors, the University of Victoria, the Awasis Agency and the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak.

This year also marks the 25th anniversary of the annual Knights of Columbus indoor track meet. This event, sponsored by the Knights of Columbus, with the support of its members, teachers, students and community volunteers, promotes healthy competition between elementary schools in Thompson.

To mark this silver anniversary, for the first time special needs students were able to participate. In a special event, relay spectators were treated to a photo finish.

Congratulations athletes, the Knights of Columbus, teachers and other volunteers. What a great start to the millennium.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, February 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, seeing as that member is from the governing side, I think he should look to his minister to get clarity on the issue. She has spoken in a different tone and has indicated that the bill is about equality and fairness. It is no surprise that on the government side one hand does not know what the other hand is doing.

I agree that the bill does not ensure total equality for everyone. The member is absolutely right. That is at fault in the legislation and we will work hard to ensure that equality.

The issue here is not about marriage. The issue is about benefits for same sex couples to ensure they are treated fairly under the legislation.

There is no question that there needs to be some serious work on that side of the House when members on the backbench come out on one side saying that this is not about equality and fairness and the frontbench ministers saying that it is all about equality and fairness.

As I said, it is no surprise to hear the government speaking one way and then another way. It is whatever fits the mould.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, February 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-23 is an act to modernize the Statues of Canada in relation to benefits and obligations is an act to ensure that common law relationships, both opposite and same sex, are treated equally under the law.

Many Canadians believed that this was already the practice in Canada, just as they believed that pay equity was already established. Canadians have had their eyes opened over the last few years as we New Democrats in the House of Commons have had to constantly, week after week, remind the government of its obligations to follow the law and to treat people equally and fairly.

The changes in Bill C-23 are about fairness. They will ensure that in keeping with the Supreme Court of Canada decision in May 1999 same sex common law couples have the same obligations and benefits as opposite sex common law couples. The act will ensure that same sex couples have the same access as other Canadian couples to social benefits programs to which they have contributed.

This legislation is supported by 70% of Canadians. As Canadians we recognize the diverse makeup of families in Canada. We have come to understand and support same sex partners who are committed to each other and their families. With that commitment comes the right to equal and fair treatment inferred by legislation in this country.

This act is not about special rights, as some in the House would suggest. It is not about special treatment. It is about fairness and equality, responsibility and accountability.

I know the government has a hard time with those words when it comes to taxpayer dollars, but in this act that it what is intended: responsibility and accountability.

The bill is a long overdue response by the government to the supreme court. It is a long overdue recognition of same sex couples. The supreme court case, M v H, which led to this act, was about support payments after the breakdown of a same sex relationship: commitment, responsibility and accountability.

The changes to legislation as a result of the bill are not about money. In fact the finance department estimates that changes to the Income Tax Act to extend conjugal obligations to same sex couples will lead to an additional $10 million in revenues for the federal government. I am surprised this did not come about sooner, as we see the government trying to get as many dollars as it can through EI and CPP surpluses and numerous other reasons.

These changes will save taxpayers and litigants expensive court battles which are the result of out of date and contradictory legislation. Some 68 acts will be amended as a result. I will mention just a few: the Employment Insurance Act, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security Acts.

Several provinces have already begun to amend their legislation. Since 1997 British Columbia has amended numerous statutes, including six core statutes to add same sex couples. In June 1999 Quebec amended 28 statutes and 11 regulations to grant same sex couples the same benefits and obligations that are available to opposite sex common law couples. In October 1999, to comply with the supreme court decision, Ontario passed omnibus legislation to bring 67 statutes into compliance with the ruling.

Parliament passed legislation, Bill C-78, that extended survivor pension benefits to same sex partners of federal public service employees, as have Manitoba, Quebec, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Yukon, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories. As well, the majority of large cities in Canada and more than 200 private sector Canadian companies currently provide benefits to the same sex partner of their employees, as do many municipalities, hospitals, libraries, and social service institutions across Canada.

It is important to note that the Immigration Act will not be amended with this legislation. It is understood that requirements for such recognition are distinct from other benefits. However, the minister of immigration has indicated a willingness to address this issue and New Democrats urge the government to move quickly on this act.

The majority of Canadians support the legislation. It is a step in the right direction. I and my New Democratic Party colleagues will be supporting the bill.

[Human Resources Development, February 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, what Canadians want is honest answers, not creative accounting. Not accounting for over $30 million of public money is a serious breach of trust. The only people who do not think it is serious are the cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister.

I would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. How much money do his cabinet ministers have to mismanage before he thinks it is a problem: $50 million or $100 million? How badly does a Liberal cabinet minister have to mess up before she is asked to resign?

[Criminal Code, February 7th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I want to reiterate the New Democratic Party's support for this bill.

Much has been said today indicating that it is a non-partisan bill. I believe it has the support pretty much of all members of the House which we will see when the vote takes place.

The highlights of the bill indicate that it creates specific offences for anyone who while using a motor vehicle fails to stop for the police. It sets the penalty for committing the offence as imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

There is no question that something had to be done to address the problem, to give police the tools to work with to stop the high speed chases. We also had to put in place laws that will make it a criminal offence so that the police are able to do their job properly. So often, as the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough indicated, this government has failed to do that.

Certainly the laws of Canada are questioned a number of times as to whether or not they are severe. Parliamentarians are often torn as to how to protect civil liberties and the rights of people against the rights of victims. There is no question that there has been agreement on this bill.

In many cases the problem is the government's support of its police forces. We have seen a number of classic examples in the last months of not enough funding for the RCMP to carry through on cases. I am talking about cases dealing not just with petty theft but with million dollar extortions. If we do not give the RCMP enough funds to proceed with those cases, how on earth do we expect it to act on each and every piece of legislation that comes through?

I want to reiterate our support and thank the hon. members who are going to support this bill. As well I want to thank the member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge for putting forth this bill. I also want to thank those backbenchers, one of whom has come up with this bill, and ask them to put pressure on the government. We in the opposition will continue to pressure the government to put enough support into police forces so they can enforce these laws.

[Housing, December 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, a number of homeless Canadians froze last winter. Another winter is here with hundreds of thousands of Canadians without homes or in substandard or inadequate housing. It took a year for the government to announce any funding to try to avoid deaths this winter. I hope it is not too late.

If the government is to avoid yearly quick fixes, we need a national housing strategy which ensures at least a $1 billion investment for the next 10 years to provide enough housing for all Canadians.

The economic spinoffs and social benefits of this housing investment would greatly reduce the overall cost. Will the government commit to this investment?