Mac Harb

[Petitions, May 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by constituents who are calling upon parliament to enact legislation to establish an independent governing body to develop, implement and enforce uniform and mandatory mammography quality assurance and quality control standards in Canada.

[Canadian Ethnocultural Council, May 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Ethnocultural Council represents a cross-section of the country and unites people under a common set of values and objectives to eliminate racism, to enhance Canada's cultural heritage and to remove barriers that prevent full and equal participation in society.

I therefore welcome the federal government's recent announcement supporting a multicultural information network. The project will improve communication between Canada's diverse ethnocultural communities and provide information on a variety of services, including specialized health care providers, religious organizations, ethnic media and publishers.

I am confident this project will go a long way toward enhancing multiculturalism in Canada and creating a better life for all.

[Housing, April 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

Would she mind informing the House what has the government done to help the Canadian housing industry participate on the international scene?

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that what we as a society have to do is move to the next step and really start looking at the issue, as one of my colleague always says, with a holistic approach, which is to look at every element of the law, whether provincial, federal or municipal, and always ask how this legislation or law will help the children and how this law is going to serve the interests of the child.

Unfortunately, at other levels of government, that is what is lacking. At this level of government in the House, what the government has been doing every single time legislation has come before parliament, whether very recently in the Department of Industry or the Department of Justice right now or the Department of Transport before that or the treasury board, every one of these ministries has introduced legislation in the House and we always find something in their bills dealing with children.

To that extent I would tell my colleague that he is quite right. Everything we do must first have the interests of the child at heart.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, let me just go back to what this bill is all about. This bill is about implementing a decision that was rendered by a court. Plain and simple, the court over and over again looked at this issue and has sent over and over again the same signal to the government that what we have to do is ensure that there is no discrimination.

To a large extent the institution of marriage is not affected at all. In fact, my colleague the minister has taken the extra step in order to make an unequivocal statement in the bill to say that for greater clarity, a marriage is between a male and a female.

I would say for any of my colleagues to try to take the debate from what it is into a new territory is not doing justice any good. Simply put, the bottom line is that the court is telling us, “You have been discriminating against people who are living in a conjugal relationship who are of the same sex”. We have a charter that clearly states unequivocally that we cannot discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation.

To that extent, as a parliamentarian I have to respect the law of the land. We have to implement what the law is telling us to implement.

I want to say to some of my colleagues that we have to get out of our shelters, go out in society and speak to our friends, speak to our families, speak to people we know in our constituencies and smell the roses. Societies have changed. I have no business trying to impose my beliefs on someone else. With regard to a person's a sexual orientation, it is not my business to tell them how to live. It is not my business at all. The law tells me that it is discrimination for me as a parliamentarian to impose my personal beliefs on others.

To that extent I think shifting the debate from where it belongs to something else is not right, it is not fair and it is not appropriate. We need to get the facts straight. It is no longer acceptable in our society to discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation, their beliefs, their lifestyle, or on their background. We have to treat everyone fairly without any exception.

I do not understand why every few seconds my colleagues stand up on the other side of the House to try to lecture us on what is moral, rather than telling us really and truly what is their problem. Why can they not just realize that society nowadays is different than society was 500 years ago? Why do we have to continue to live in the dark ages of the 1200s? Why do we not move into the new century and do what is right?

In some cases I understand that it may not be popular for some of my colleagues to stand up and support what is right, but do you know what, Mr. Speaker? If I were in the shoes of any one of my colleagues, I would stand up and I would vote for this bill because that is the right thing to do.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Minister of Justice for taking a bold approach, for her leadership and for finally putting into law what has been a long awaited response to an injustice.

I want to speak about one aspect of the bill, which is the element that deals with children. This is an omnibus bill which will amend a number of acts. As part of the bill there is an element which is dear to the hearts of many of my colleagues on both sides of the issue, that is, children. Whether people are in married relationships, common law relationships, whether they are single mothers or fathers, children are very important to all of us.

To that extent I would say that I am exceptionally happy that the minister is implementing an initiative which I introduced in parliament quite a few months ago, which deals with the removal of any reference to illegitimacy in Canadian law. When I approached the minister and her officials on the issue the answer was yes, without any debate whatsoever. It was only that it would be a matter of time to implement it. I was given the assurance that at the most opportune time it would be done.

I cannot say how happy I was when this bill was first introduced and the minister and her officials indicated to me that the amendment to the bill was in place and that from here on we would treat all children across Canada on an equal basis, without reference to whether a child was born within a marriage, a common law relationship or out of wedlock. We will look at children as children and treat them as such, and in whatever we do we will always look to the best interests of the child in every decision we make as a society.

With that element alone we have moved another step toward ensuring that justice will be done for all.

The bill is another step toward ensuring that we respect the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and that we are in compliance with that convention, which clearly states that governments at all levels have to review their laws to ensure that they are in compliance with the UN convention and that they respect the best interests of the child and ensure that the child's interests are always paramount in everything we do.

The bill has taken another step toward ensuring that we respect the charter of rights and freedoms that treats all Canadians equally regardless of age, sex, place of origin, religion or their abilities or disabilities.

This is a flowery day, as it is for my colleague from Alberta whose parents are celebrating their 65th anniversary. It is also a rosy day for a lot of children across the country, in excess of two million children, some of whom are sitting on both sides of the House of Commons. They came up to me after I introduced a bill last year to thank me for doing something about it because they did not know that under Canadian laws they were considered to be illegitimate.

As hon. members know, everyone here in the House is a legitimate individual who has the right and has earned the right to be here and to speak out. I would say it is a happy day for all of them.

At the same time, it is a happy day for all of those moms and dads who will be able to look back and say that they corrected an injustice that existed in our laws. It took this minister and this government to show leadership and take the bold approach to do something about it.

Everyone will now be equal under the law and our children will be equal under the law. Whether a child is born to a married couple or an unmarried couple will not longer matter. When some of my colleagues stand up in the House of Commons and give lectures about the importance of family, what about the importance of the child? Why would we not stand up in the House and make that priority number one? Notwithstanding the background or the economic condition of the family, why would we not stand up and ask what is in the best interests of the child?

What the government has done is in the best interests of the child. It is not right for us to turn around and say that only in a family situation where the mother and the father are married will we have a happy situation. That is not always the case. Many children do live in families where there is abuse or they are not receiving the proper attention and care that they deserve. If it was up to me, I would rather see a child without a family than living in a situation where the family is abusive to the child.

To that extent, it is hunky-dory for some of my colleagues to stand up and give us lectures about the fact that it is important to ensure the family unit without taking into consideration the importance of ensuring the best interests of the child in that family unit. Never mind whether it is same sex, opposite sex, single sex, double sex, quadruple sex, the bottom line here is that we have to do what is right.

With this legislation, the government has done what is right. We had a decision by a court. I am embarrassed that we had to wait until a decision was made by the court for us to do what we should have done a long time ago, which is to bring justice to the floor of the House and to society.

Mr. Speaker, there is a gentleman, we both know very well, who said something exceptionally good and respectful. It was Pierre Elliot Trudeau, my idol. What he said continues to ring in my ears every time this debate surfaces inside or outside the House of Commons. He said that the government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.

For my colleagues over there to stand up with their homophobic attitude and lecture us about what is and is not civil and what is or is not morale constitutes an immoral intrusion into the bedrooms of the nation. They have no business trying to tell people how to live their lives.

We were elected to enact legislation and laws that provide equality for all citizens regardless of their relations, backgrounds, religions and physical or colour differences. It is our responsibility to ensure that we have laws that treat everybody equally. The legislation that was introduced by the minister does just that.

My colleagues should not concern themselves about the possibility of two people of the same sex, whether they be two males or two females, lying about about having conjugal relationships because the law is quite clear on that. It constitutes a fraud under Canadian law and they could be prosecuted.

We already have legislation in place that governs people in common law relationships. To turn around and start twisting the whole issue from what it is, an issue of fairness, into a question of an offence on the institution of marriage, is total rubbish. Frankly, that is skirting the debate in the wrong direction. It takes it from one end of the spectrum and puts it in the bush where it does not belong.

We must continue to focus on what is before us. The institution of marriage is not affected. If members opposite want to define a marriage between a single man and a single woman, great, but our society today is different from our society of 100 or 200 years ago. Our society is a modern society that tolerates differences and takes into consideration the needs of the people. Our government has to reflect the needs of society.

If we move ahead with some of the suggestions by my colleagues we will be a troubled society. We must move forward and in order to do that we must be the mirror of society and respond to the needs of the people.

This bill is great news for two million children across the land who will be waking up tomorrow with a smile on their faces knowing that justice has finally been done.

I am honoured to have been given the opportunity to speak in support of this legislation. It is my hope that when it goes to the Senate it will pass quickly.

I have received a number of letters from across the country referring to this whole notion of differentiating between children, those born out of wedlock and those born of a single man and a single woman. Some of them felt terrible. Some are national journalists, politicians and prominent business people. Some of are members of the House in very prominent positions. These are good people and we have to treat them with dignity and respect. We have to do what is right for them.

I am quite honoured to be the member of parliament who introduced the bill, but I am more honoured to be associated with a minister who finally had the guts to stand up and correct the injustices that existed for such a very long time.

[Environment, April 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we all take a moment to share responsibility for the environment.

Yesterday members of parliament from all sides of the House gathered to recognize 313 plants and animals that are endangered in Canada. We all took a pledge to become foster parents to one of the species at risk. I promised to take responsibility for the small flowered lipocarpha which is extremely sensitive to changes in the environment and can only be found in certain parts of the country.

All of us must make a small piece of the environment a large part of our lives.

To my dear lipocarpha, I will do all I can to support you in providing education, nutritional information, respect and above all, protection.

[Youth, April 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, there has been a number of requests from youth organizations across Canada asking the government to proclaim the first week of May as National Youth Week. I want to ask the minister responsible for youth if she would respond to this request.

[Petitions, March 31st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by many Canadian constituents who would like to see an amendment to the Divorce Act so that the grandparents of children will be able to have custody of and/or access to their grandchildren.

[The Budget, March 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, in light of the bill which was introduced by Mr. Klein in Alberta, a bill which will open ways for a second tier of health care, I want to ask my colleague from the Reform Party a pointed question. Does she support the bill introduced by Mr. Klein in its present form? Does she support the five principles of the health care system?

While she is on her feet I want her to tell me which part of the budget she does not like. Does she not like the fact that we have eliminated bracket creep? Does she not like the part of the budget that reduces taxes for middle and low income Canadians? Does she not like the part of the budget that puts more money into the pockets of families with children?