John Harvard

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 10th, 2000]

Is your name Bull Connor? Where are your dogs?

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say clearly and unequivocally at the beginning of my remarks that I fully support Bill C-23. I say that not only as a citizen and as a parliamentarian, but also as a father of five children, a grandfather of four and as a man who has been married a long time. I was first married in 1960. I think I know a bit about marriage and I might even know something about the institution of marriage. I can say unequivocally that I do not feel threatened by Bill C-23. I do not think for a moment that the institution of marriage is threatened by this bill.

When I listened to the anti-diluvium reformers across the way, I find it difficult to understand what I suppose they would construe as their reasoning. Somehow they believe that if we give homosexual couples in a common law relationship the same benefits and the same obligations as society has already given to opposite sex couples in common law relationships, that somehow threatens the institution of marriage. Madam Speaker, if you could square that circle for me, I would appreciate it.

If I enjoy a privilege or a right and if that is extended to someone else living in a committed common law relationship, regardless of whether they are opposite sex or same sex, how that threatens me, my marriage or the institution of marriage is beyond me. I guess it might be called reform party reasoning, flawed as it is.

Let me say one more thing about illiterate reform theology. Homosexuality does not spread like the flu. It is not a communicable disease. It does not spread around like that. The reformers should not worry, if Bill C-23 passes, which it will, that all kinds of red blooded, heterosexual Canadians will be changing their sexual practices tomorrow or dropping their heterosexual orientation. They will continue being heterosexuals as I am sure homosexuals will continue being homosexuals. I want to assure the illiterates across the way that it does not spread like the flu.

I want to mention a few other things because I think they are relevant to the debate. It is very relevant to cite a poll that was conducted by Angus Reid in October 1998 because it provides a very good indication of the thinking of Canadians with regard to some of the issues under discussion.

According to that survey, 84% of Canadians agreed that gay and lesbian individuals should be protected from discrimination. That very same poll showed that 67% agreed that same sex couples should have the same legal rights and obligations—reformers never mention the word obligation—as a man and a woman living together as a common law couple.

I am not at all surprised by these polling results. They are merely further evidence that fairness and equity are strongly held beliefs among Canadians and that these beliefs can exist alongside our deeply rooted respect for the institution of matrimony as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others.

I believe to my core that there is no contradiction at all between wanting to be fair to same sex couples and supporting marriage. Moreover, if we ask ourselves why Canadians exhibit this sense of fairness with respect to equal treatment for same sex couples, the answer is obvious, at least it is to me.

I suspect that most Canadians, indeed most members of the House, know people in unmarried relationships of the opposite sex and of the same sex. They are among our friends and relatives and often the partnerships are long term and committed ones.

On a personal level, in our own lives and experiences, when we think about our friends and family members who are in same sex relationships we want to see that these people are treated with fairness and dignity.

When we can actually put faces on the abstract notion of same sex partners, we can begin to see the daily realities involved and to realize the human side of this issue. This is the reason why the majority of Canadians support equal treatment under the law for same sex couples.

The provinces have announced their intention to review their laws. It is why the federal government and most provinces and territories have now extended benefits to their own employees who are in same sex relationships. Beyond the public service, the three provinces of Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia have taken measures to extend benefits and obligations to same sex couples.

Over 200 private sector employers have already extended work-related benefits, such as dental care and pension rights, to the same sex partners of their employees, as have many municipalities, hospitals and community and social service institutions right across the country.

I am fully aware that some will disagree with the arguments that I have made. They will say that it is the courts who have decided on equality for same sex couples. Let me say that the courts have merely been responding to laws, including the charter of rights and freedoms, that have been written and passed by us, by Canadians' democratically elected representatives.

The bill before us is yet one more of these initiatives by a democratically elected government. It would bring federal legislation into conformity with the charter. Its wording and definitions have have been examined to ensure charter consistency. Bill C-23 will ensure that our laws do not unfairly discriminate between common law opposite sex and same sex relationships.

I do not think I have to remind parliamentarians that there was a time in Canada when women were not considered persons before the law. In fact, there was a time when Canadian women were not allowed to vote and there was a big fight then. The social Conservatives of that period were against extending the franchise to women. I suspect it is the same group of people with the same mentality who are opposed to fairness and equality for gays and lesbians today. There was also a time when aboriginal people could not vote.

One of the positive benefits of the bill before us is that it removes from our federal laws the few remaining distinctions among children based on references to illegitimacy.

We will continue this fight to bring greater equality and fairness to more and more Canadians. This kind of fight has been going on for decades and in fact centuries.

Bill C-23 is about equality in benefits and obligations. First let us examine the benefits provided in the legislation. This aspect has been the focus for some members opposite who have described benefits for same sex couples in hysterical and even vulgar terms.

What benefits are included in the bill? The fact is that most of the statutes in the bill dealing with benefits relate to pensions. We believe that hard working Canadians should be able to provide for and indeed be encouraged to provide for their common law partners, whether opposite sex or same sex.

The bill has been debated for a good long time. Yes, we have had time allocation, but there is a point where we have to bring the debate to an end. It has been debated in other legislatures. It has been debated in homes. I think people have made up their minds. An overwhelming majority of Canadians are in favour of Bill C-23 and I urge its adoption.

[Prime Minister David Oddsson, April 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome Prime Minister David Oddsson of Iceland to our country. Prime Minister Oddsson is the longest serving prime minister among western countries today. He is an accomplished statesman, political leader and author.

Mr. Oddsson's four day visit will commemorate Iceland's unique historical ties to Canada. These ties stretch back l,000 years to the birth of Snorri, the first white child born in North America at L'Anse aux Meadows, Newfoundland, 500 years before Columbus and Cabot.

These ties also include the founding of New Iceland in 1875 on the location of present day Gimli, Manitoba, and other settlements throughout Manitoba's Interlake region.

Today, there are thousands of Canadians of Icelandic descent spread across our country. I am proud to be one of them. My father came from there when he was 13 years of age.

On behalf of all members of this House, I welcome Prime Minister Oddsson to Canada.

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

I am not a member.

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

This is comments and questions. Opposition members have not been interested in the whole exercise that has been going on for more than eight weeks. They talk about wanting to get to the bottom of this issue, as we do. The minister has said on a number of occasions that they have a management problem. She wants to get to the bottom of it but do opposition members, as reflected in the motion today? Does one really think opposition members are interested in getting to the bottom? No. They are interested in hurling mud. The more mud they can throw, the better for them. They really think that Canadian voters will fall for it. They will not fall for it.

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the hon. member across the way I get the feeling that this place is awash in crocodile tears. The hon. member sounds to me a bit frustrated. It is perhaps because of his recent experience a few minutes ago at the committee where Mr. Cappe appeared.

I listened to the hon. member question Mr. Cappe. I can assure the House that he did not lay a glove on Cappe. He did not touch Cappe. Mr. Cappe performed extremely well. Perhaps it was because the hon. member did not know how to ask questions, or perhaps it was because the hon. member really was not interested in extracting information from the deputy minister.

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

Baloney.

[House Of Commons, March 16th, 2000]

I am on questions and comments. Mr. Speaker, I heard the debate and I have come here to make a comment.

First let me say that the House has to know I consider myself to be a good friend of the Speaker. He and I lived together for five years. He and I and others shared a condominium here in Ottawa. I know the gentleman who occupies the chair. I respect him. I consider him a personal friend. When he was first elected as Speaker in 1993 I voted for him. I voted for him again in 1997. I know this man. I know that he is fair. I respect him. I know he does his job as well as anyone.

As a member of the House and as a friend, have I always agreed with every decision that he has made? No. I think that my good friend the Speaker sometimes is too soft on all of us and sometimes I would expect him to be a little tougher.

He is a good referee. He is a good umpire. I find it very strange that in this motion of censure the word “partiality” would be used, that the good Speaker would be accused of partiality. There is not a drop of partiality in his blood.

What I find interesting is that the Speaker allowed 410 motions with respect to the clarity bill. What does that suggest, hon. members? That suggests to me that the Speaker bent over absolutely backward to allow every possible motion, every possible amendment to allow the Bloc in this particular case, the opposition, the mover to—

[House Of Commons, March 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I was not expecting to come to the House this afternoon. I was busy in my office in the Confederation Building, but I had the television on—

[Sandra Schmirler, March 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians across the country are saddened today by news that Sandra Schmirler, Canada's Olympic gold curling champion, died of cancer in hospital earlier this morning at the age of 36. She had been ill since last fall when doctors found a cancerous tumour.

Few Canadians will forget the emotional news conference Ms. Schmirler held in Moncton on February 11 when she bravely said, “It's been a hell of a fight”. Well, it turned out to be a five month fight and she fought valiantly right to the end.

Ms. Schmirler brilliantly skipped her rink to Olympic gold two years ago in Japan. Her team also won three world championships. She was a great sports woman who set an example for athletes across the country. She was loved and admired by all curlers and her many, many curling fans. She will be greatly missed.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in extending my sincerest condolences to her husband Shannon England and their two young daughters.