House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 58% of the vote.
Export Development Corporation March 2nd, 2000
Mr. Speaker, it looks like the international trade minister is starting to do the HRD shuffle. He says he is going to look into the file, but his fingerprints are already all over this scandal. He goes to international trade and guess who shows up? René Fugère and Gilles Champagne. His fingerprints are all over this scandal.
Why is it that taxpayer dollars start to flow when these two friends of the Prime Minister show up at his doorstep?
Human Resources Development March 1st, 2000
Mr. Speaker, the list changes on a daily basis and the minister has a different answer from question to question.
Here are some more specifics for her. Reversomatic in South Shore received $360,000. Survival Systems in Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough received $350,000. CDM Laminés in Drummond received $300,000. These companies were left off the list.
How can anybody possibly believe any of the information the minister is giving us when the information changes daily?
Human Resources Development March 1st, 2000
Mr. Speaker, the minister's grant list released last week has major discrepancies from the list that we received under access to information.
The minister asked for some specifics. Here are a few for her. Progress Homes in St. John's got $2 million. Howmet Cercast in Bourassa got $700,000. International Projects in Grand Falls got $570,000. Amazingly all these companies were left off the minister's list. This list is obviously totally flawed. How could anyone believe any of the information that the minister is giving?
Health Care February 24th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, CANDO had to refer the matter to the police because the minister would not do a thing about it.
Even when the minister was alerted that the local HRDC office response was to take the money from one account and put it into another to cover the missing cash, there was absolutely no response from the minister.
Again, why did she promise to protect taxpayers and to look into this matter when she did absolutely nothing when asked?
Health Care February 24th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, the HRD minister gave a Toronto group called CANDO $1.15 million in taxpayer cash, and $100,000 of that cash went directly into the pocket of a CANDO employee.
The president of CANDO says that repeated attempts to get the minister's department involved in recovering the money have been ignored. Why did the minister promise to investigate fraud and recover taxpayer money but did absolutely nothing when asked?
Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act February 21st, 2000
Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on the founding of his family. That is a very exciting point and probably is more exciting than anything else we could talk about here today.
I would say yes, that is a logical outgrowth of what could happen with this legislation. There is similar legislation in British Columbia where individuals who are in a same sex relationship are able by law to adopt children. That is something that could be an outgrowth of this legislation at the federal level.
Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act February 21st, 2000
Madam Speaker, my colleague made an assertion which I do not think we can actually agree on, that we all agree on what marriage is. That in itself is another debatable point that will be coming at the end of this debate, I believe.
This bill will enshrine, as the hon. member said, that common law same sex relationships will be equal in the eyes of the law to common law opposite sex relationships. I would also say that in the eyes of the law in terms of splitting property if such a relationship dissolves in terms of the common law opposite sex relationship, the law sees a common law heterosexual relationship in very much the same way as it sees marriage.
By equating a same sex partnership, as my colleague said, to a common law heterosexual relationship in effect is equating it to marriage in the eyes of the law. That is my assertion. That is my reasoning on that. I appreciate my colleague's further probing on that point.
Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act February 21st, 2000
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Kelowna. I begin my debate on Bill C-23 today by reflecting on the comments and arguments which were made during the first day of debate last week.
I clearly indicate from the outset that I do not support the legislation. The official opposition is the only party opposing this fatally flawed piece of legislation. I will outline the reasons why I cannot support Bill C-23, and I will begin with an examination of some comments made by the Minister of Justice last week.
As my colleague from Kelowna just mentioned, debate on this important issue has a wide range of implications. It is being shut down today through time allocation, a process that has been used over and over again by the Liberal government. I cannot understand why it would do that on such an important piece of legislation.
Last week on February 15 the Minister of Justice stated that the bill ensured respect for the principle of equal treatment before the law of persons living in recognized stable relationships. Let us be very clear that the minister's bill defines a stable relationship as one that is one year in length. She went on to state that fairness, tolerance, respect and equality were touchstones of our national identity. The minister will get no argument on this point. This has been echoed by members on both sides of the House, both those for and those against the bill.
The minister went on to say that they recognize marriage is a fundamental value and important to Canadians, and that the value and importance are in no way undermined by recognizing in law other forms of committed relationships. I categorically say that assertion is false.
Let me outline the strongest argument I think possible for rejecting Bill C-23, one which I believe cannot be refuted by means of recent argument or logical consistency. The bill defines the new term common law partnership as a stable relationship of at least one year between two committed individuals, whether it be a same sex relationship between two men or two women or an opposite sex relationship between a man and a woman. I do not believe anyone would argue that is what Bill C-23 does and that the bill bestows benefits and requires obligations for those who enter into same sex relationships. For purposes of this illustration let us call this arrangement example C.
We know that in the eyes of the common law a union between a man and a woman in a ceremony before witnesses sanctioned by the state is called a marriage. Let us call this arrangement example A.
We also know that in the eyes of the law a man and a woman who choose to live together for at least one year, even though they have not participated in any ceremony before witnesses, are deemed to be in a common law relationship or marriage. The same benefits are accessible and the same obligations are in effect for those who are living in such an arrangement. Let us call this common law opposite sex relationship example B.
Logically if A equals B and B equals C, then A equals C. If the law sees marriage, and it does, as equivalent to a common law opposite sex relationship and sees a common law opposite sex relationship as equivalent to common law same sex relationships, and it does in this proposed piece of legislation, in effect the law if passed, Bill C-23, will see marriage as equivalent to common law same sex relationships or as stated in the bill in terms of a common law partnership.
For the minister to state that the bill does not affect marriage is completely false and illogical in any form of reasoning. The minister may believe this to be true. She may make assertions to the contrary, but by means of logic we have just demonstrated that it is not true.
The end result of the bill is to enshrine in law that two homosexual partners who live together for just one year will be afforded the same benefits and obligations as a married couple, a couple who have commitments to live together and love each other through sickness and health until death do them part, a commitment which is fundamental to the continuation and well-being of any society, the building block of society where children learn about right and wrong, good and bad, how to treat others, and how to be positive functioning members of society. For the minister to claim otherwise is simply false.
Why should Canadians trust the Liberal government to protect marriage? The justice minister is unwilling to enshrine in federal statute the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman as recognized by the state.
A motion was passed in the House in June 1999 that was brought forward by my colleagues in the Reform Party and agreed upon by the majority of members in the House including Liberals. They in no way can take credit for such action. It is because of the Liberal inaction on this question and their unwillingness to define in statute the definition of marriage that we brought the motion forward.
The minister says she values marriage but she is unwilling to speak with her actions instead of her hollow words. This point was made by the Liberal member for Scarborough East, a member of the government and one of only a handful who was willing to stand and say something contrary to the will of the Liberal Party. I will quote from Hansard what that member of the government said in regard to the bill:
The bill is fairly simple. It really could be written in one line: common law heterosexual relationships are the legal equivalent to common law homosexual relationships. Therein lies the entire issue.
I am quoting the member for Scarborough East, a member of the government, who also said:
The bill turns common law homosexual relationships into the legal equivalent of common law heterosexual relationships, which for many purposes is equivalent to marriage.
That was a member of the Liberal Government of Canada who I guess is in direct contradiction to the majority of his group in the governing party.
Let Canadians make no mistake about the net end effect of Bill C-23 and its implications. Anybody with concerns about the issue who is listening today should voice their concerns to their local member of parliament, to the Minister of Justice and to the Prime Minister to tell them what he or she feels is the right way to proceed in this area of public policy.
Basically the Liberal government is signalling that it believes in sexual egalitarianism, the belief that there are no arrangements that are to the benefit of any others in the country in terms of private sexual activity. The government is signalling to Canadians that it no longer values the direction of a social policy which encourages and nurtures family and marriage as the building block of this society.
Let us make no mistake about it. That is what the bill does. It signals to Canadians that the governing group, the Liberal Party of Canada, is setting off in a direction and it has not even consulted Canadians on this very important issue that is the building block of any society. That is patently wrong.
The minister and other colleagues have put forward an argument, which we heard not long ago from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, that the courts made the government do it so it must be right. They say that other jurisdictions are putting this into legislation so we must follow. Again this is a false assertion.
This is the highest court in the land. We as parliamentarians are charged with the responsibility of sending a message to the courts. It is not the other way around. It is here that we must take the stands from our constituents and bring them to this place and argue and debate by logical reasoning which is the best way to go. Here in this place.
Let us clearly point out that the Liberal government is unwilling by its actions to enshrine in law the definition of marriage. It has a perfect opportunity right now with Bill C-23, yet it has not done that. We must take from its actions as it is legislating that this is a path it does not want to pursue. The government does not want to enshrine the definition of marriage in law for whatever reasons it might have. We need to hold and Canadians need to hold this Liberal group accountable for that particular action. The Liberals over and over again have derogated their responsibility to the courts.
I see I am quickly running out of time on this important subject. I will end my speech by encouraging Canadians to look at what this legislation does. The parliamentary secretary, the Minister of Justice and other members of the Liberal Party have stood in this place and said “Don't worry. This bill has no net effect on the definition of marriage”.
As I pointed out earlier in my speech, because they are unwilling to enshrine in law what marriage means, and they are equating marriage to be the same as a common law relationship and now a common law partnership, they are in effect signalling to Canadians that they no longer support the family. They no longer support with their social policy the longstanding tradition of this country and the building block of this society. That is a shame and they need to be held accountable.
Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act February 21st, 2000
Madam Speaker, I have a question for the member concerning a comment made last week by his colleague from Scarborough East about Bill C-23. I quote from page 3560 of Hansard where he said:
The bill is fairly simple. It really could be written in one line: common law heterosexual relationships are the legal equivalent to common law homosexual relationships. Therein lies the entire issue.
He went on to say:
The bill turns common law homosexual relationships in the legal equivalent of common law heterosexual relationships, which for many purposes is equivalent to marriage.
The member's colleague from Scarborough East made that statement. Does he agree with it? Yes or no.
Human Resources Development February 21st, 2000
Mr. Speaker, obviously the Prime Minister is back to the minimize theory, that this is not such a big deal after all.
The Prime Minister compared the loss and mismanagement of a billion dollars to Canadians accidentally going over budget at the end of the month. He said, “I think it happens to you at the end of month to see that you have spent a few dollars more than expected”. That is what he said. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that there are not too many Canadians who accidentally bungle a billion dollars.
Is the Prime Minister suggesting that his government is so mismanaged that a billion dollar bungle is a commonplace occurrence?