Bev Desjarlais

[Airline Industry, October 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the transport minister is trying to decide the future of Canada's airline industry all by himself.

In August he suspended the Competition Act. In September he blocked Liberal MPs from attending a transport meeting. In October he stacked the House of Commons transport committee. Now his November plan is to get the cabinet to give him the sole power to decide the future of the airline industry.

Why does the minister think that only he knows what is best? What about involving Canadians? What about involving this parliament?

[Corporate Manslaughter, October 21st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today the leader of the New Democratic Party tabled a private member's bill to make corporate manslaughter a crime. I am proud to be a seconder of this bill.

Each year hundreds of Canadians are killed on the job and over one million are injured. On average, two Canadians are killed on the job every day. That is two families every day where a mother, father, spouse or a child does not come home.

Many of these deaths and injuries could and should be prevented but are not because of negligence by company managers who care more about profits than lives. Company managers who knowingly or negligently allow workers into unsafe conditions are criminals and should go to jail. The New Democratic Party bill will make sure that they can be charged.

The Liberal government still has not learned from the Westray disaster. Negligence by company managers caused the deaths of 26 miners in Westray but no charges were laid.

Safety, not profit, must come first in the workplace. The real possibility of criminal charges will finally force company officials to make safety the top priority.

I urge the Liberal government and all its members of the House to make the safety of Canadian workers their top priority.

[Airline Industry, October 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport has admitted that he is letting corporate shareholders decide the future of the Canadian airline industry. Instead of showing leadership, he is sitting in his office waiting for Gerry Schwartz to give him a call to tell him what to do. This is a shameful abdication of his duty in a vital part of Canada's infrastructure.

Will the minister do his duty and table specific conditions for an airline merger before the Air Canada shareholders' meeting, or is he going to wait until after the meeting when Gerry gives him a call and tells him what to do?

[Airline Industry, October 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's market driven solution and his five principles just will not cut it.

Canadians were promised a healthy competition within the airline industry when it was deregulated. Instead we have seen fewer flights, wages driven down, jobs threatened, reduced service, more American influence and less Canadian influence, and now a weakened major airline.

Will the government now admit that its policy on deregulation has been an utter failure?

[Airline Industry, October 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that the Onex takeover of Air Canada is strictly a private sector issue. The Minister of Transport has said that there might be some public interest at stake.

Has the Liberal government made up its mind? Will it listen to Canadians or let only shareholders decide the fate of our Canadian airline industry?

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I also want to acknowledge that I support the term of marriage as a union of a single man and a single woman. However, I do think other issues have been brought into this as well.

Can the hon. member tell me what he would perceive as the relationship of same sex couples and whether or not they should receive the same benefits that married couples receive? Should that be the case, or is the issue that we want to affirm marriage and make sure that same sex couples never have the same benefits that married people have? Does he have another term that may be used for the commitment that same sex couples show to each other?

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have to comment on the lowest common denominator. I am sad to say the member for Mississauga South sort of reached the lowest common denominator by suggesting that the only recognition of family in Canada is of a biological father, a biological mother and a child. That certainly might be his narrow minded vision of a family, but I would suggest a great many families out there are not biological children or biological parents.

Canadians have recognized over the years that the definition of family needs to go beyond biological mother and father. Part of the reason for that is that families of biological mothers, fathers and children have not always been perfect. The relationships among those families have not been perfect. Because of the imperfections, families do not stay together as biological mothers, fathers and children. Changes have to be made. The numbers were great enough that there was an understanding among Canadians that family could not just be considered in that way.

I take this opportunity to say once again that the term marriage should be all that it is, but it is quite clear to me that the Reform Party and the member for Mississauga South have an underlying agenda. It is not just the term marriage. They are talking about Canadians rehashing the whole issue of whether or not same sex relationships should have any benefits and any recognition. That should not be the case.

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough on his very cohesive and reasonable remarks regarding the issue at hand.

I happen to agree with him. I believe the motion has been brought forth to be divisive, to create friction and to create a feeling that anyone who opposes the motion is opposed to heterosexual relationships, is un-Christian and all other things that will stir up the feelings of Canadians.

I have my own personal feelings about the terms of marriage. Just as my colleague from Sydney—Victoria stated, it is a spiritual relationship as well. It does not tie into having children or ensuring a sexual relationship. There is more to marriage than that, but I believe very strongly that the issue is before the House just to create friction which does not necessarily have to be there at a time when there are many things of great importance to Canadians.

It is not that the issue is not important, not that marriage is not important and not that recognizing the institution of marriage is not important. It is. To suggest that anybody who would oppose the motion is anti-marriage, anti-heterosexual and pro-gay lesbian as compared to being in favour of heterosexuals is just crazy.

It is despicable that we have a party sitting in the Parliament of Canada which pushes that kind of let us get on gays and lesbians attitude. Quite frankly that is what the Reform Party does when it brings forward these types of issues ahead of very important issues that should be before the House.

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it may come out as a question but I certainly have a comment.

The hon. member indicated that he is a fairly recent immigrant to Canada. He said that people come to Canada because of the definition of marriage and that this is of great value to him. I recognize that it is a value.

Another reason a good many people come to Canada is because of the persecution they face in their own countries. They may be in a same sex relationship and may not be given the same opportunities to be treated fairly as is what happens in Canada under our charter of rights.

To bring the marriage issue and the term marriage up as being the most important thing and then to slam same sex relationships is not the way to go about doing this. A number of Canadians believe strongly that those in same sex relationships should have all the benefits of other Canadians but they feel a great affinity to the term marriage because of how they have perceived marriage through Christian beliefs and through the unity of their partnerships.

I would suggest rather than be divisive that Reform take a serious look at its approach to things. The member should consider seriously the real reasons people come to Canada. It is not just for the term marriage.

[Petitions, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise to present a petition to add hundreds of signatures to those already presented from urban aboriginals in Ontario who are concerned about the federal government's downloading of housing to the provinces. They are concerned that the federal government is shirking its fiduciary obligation to aboriginal peoples.