Mac Harb

[Petitions, March 23rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, this petition asks that parliament take all necessary measures to ensure that the possession of child pornography remains a serious criminal offence.

[Jeux De La Francophonie, March 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that the Ottawa-Hull region will host the Jeux de la Francophonie in July 2001.

Could the minister, who chairs the games' steering committee, tell us what progress has been made regarding the use of both official languages at these games?

[Petitions, March 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition calling on parliament to take the necessary steps not to proceed with any plans to import plutonium into Canada.

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, March 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is sad that we even have to debate this bill. In my view it is quite simple and straightforward. It should have gone through the House without any debate at all.

This is a straightforward bill that acknowledges the right of the people to decide. All this bill does is to say that in this partnership that we are in, if one of the partners wants to leave and go on its own, it is important to at least discuss the partnership. That is what this bill is all about.

There has been more than one occasion of this so far. Two or three times in a row when asked to vote on the whole question of whether or not they want to remain a part of Canada, the people have decided they want to remain as part of Canada. The question is when is this debate going to end?

None of my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois have stood up to tell us when enough is enough. When would the separatists say enough is enough? They lost the first time. They lost the second time. They lost the third time. And they will lose again for as long as we have a country and a nation. We will continue to have a nation for the next 10,000 years, just as we have had for the past 10,000 years.

The bottom line is that the Supreme Court of Canada has rendered a ruling. Even the premier of Quebec, Mr. Bouchard, and others have clearly applauded and clearly stated that they want the federal government to obey the decision of the court. We are responding to what Mr. Bouchard stated in the early days of when the judgment came down. That is that we have to have clear rules and everybody has a right to play as long as we know what the rules of the game are.

We are saying that at the federal level in order for us to decide whether or not we are going to participate in the breakup of this partnership, two things are absolutely unequivocal.

First, there should be a clear question that is straightforward with no monkeying around and no ups and downs. The people have to be asked a very clear question. That is fair and none of my colleagues will dispute that.

Second, there has to be an absolute majority, a clear majority. I do not think any one of my colleagues would object to that. If we were to ask a question of the people and have a clear answer to it, then let us sit down and talk. That is what the government is doing, unlike my colleagues opposite who are trying to break up one of the best countries on earth. It is the best country on earth. It is not just me and my colleagues in the House of Commons who say that. Every single person in the country knows that this is the greatest country on earth.

[Agriculture Museum, March 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, three and a half years ago a terrible fire destroyed one of the barns at the Agriculture Museum. Two great heritage buildings were lost in the fire and 57 animals perished. The only survivor was a Limousin cow named Rosanne. Today Rosanne is well and she is about to get a new home. It is my pleasure to announce that the new horse and cattle barn will open on Friday, March 3.

The Agriculture Museum is one of Ottawa's best kept secrets. It is a fully functional farm, open to the public, where everyone can learn about the importance of agriculture and experience the sights, sounds and smells of the country without leaving the city.

On behalf of Rosanne and her barn mates, I invite everyone to the grand opening of their new home tomorrow.

[Public Transit, February 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, several weeks ago I had the pleasure of meeting with Randy Graham and public transit representatives who reaffirmed the importance of public transit in Canada. It was good to hear in yesterday's budget that this government is renewing one of its most successful initiatives, infrastructure programs.

This is great news for municipal infrastructure. In places like Ottawa, this means that public transit may be able to improve and expand the existing transit system. Better public transit means a reduction in harmful emissions, which is positive news for the environment.

Also good for the environment is the commitment made to green infrastructure. The green municipal enabling fund will help communities assess where their environmental needs are greatest.

This budget is great news for public transit, the environment and all Canadians.

[The Budget, February 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is trying to have it both ways. Let us talk about the economic health of the country. The Conservatives came to power back in 1988 and by 1993 the deficit was about $42 billion. The debt moved from $170 billion in 1988 to over $400 billion in 1993. It is fairly clear as history shows and it is documented everywhere that if this government had followed the Tory traditions of the late eighties and early nineties, by the year 2003-04 there would have been a zero transfer payment in the areas of health care and education.

This government first had to put the nation's fiscal house in order. It would have to eliminate the deficit. It would have to control the economic situation. It would have to reverse the trend of tremendous cuts the previous government had made to social programs and the spending of the previous government.

We have put the nation's fiscal house in order. We have controlled the debt. We have controlled the deficit. Now we are beginning to invest, unlike what those guys have done. Every year from 1988 to 1993 the Conservatives said they would reduce the deficit and they never once met their objectives or targets. Why should Canadians believe them when they say that they are going to do a better job than we are doing?

[Commemorative Stamp, February 24th, 2000]

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

Given the tremendous support shown by Canadians to recognize the Queen Mother's 100th birthday, is the minister willing to issue a stamp in her honour?

[Committees Of The House, February 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think my colleagues have confused the speeches today on first reading with second reading. My understanding is that when introducing private members' bills members have a few seconds to talk about what it is they are putting before the House, rather than giving long-winded speeches.

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, if it is possible for the hon. member to wind up his remarks so we can move on to the other items on the agenda.

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

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand in the House to support the government initiative. It is the right initiative and has been introduced at the right time. We should not have had to wait until the supreme court told us to do what we have done but the mere fact that we have done it is to be commended. This showed leadership on the part of the government and on the part of the minister in moving forward with this issue.

Some of my colleagues wonder about the pros and cons of this bill. The bottom line is that we are not the first ones to come out of the gate. A number of provinces have already introduced legislation to extend benefits to same sex partners or opposite sex partners who live in common law relationships. In excess of 200 private sector companies already have measures, laws or directives on their books that extend benefits to those who live in common law relationships or same sex relationships.

I have received a number of letters from those who are for and those who are opposed. Concerning those who are opposed, there is much misinformation coming out. One of the key concerns those opposed seem to have is that this legislation will destroy the institution of marriage between a man and a woman. In fairness, this bill does not do that at all. The institution remains as it stands now, which is a relationship or a contract between a man and a woman.

This legislation merely moves forward what has been a fact for a long time in our society. It also sets the beginning of a long process for the government and for society to address many of the issues that have been on people's minds for a very long time.

I like the commitment the government has shown in addressing the whole notion of what a dependant is. This is to be commended because the issue deserves further study. For example, should a woman or a man identify his or her mother or father as a dependant if the two live in the same environment? For a father and a son, or a father and a daughter who live under the same roof, should the law recognize and provide benefits the same as this legislation does? On the surface, I would say of course. A single person who supports a family member whether it is a brother, sister, mother or child, should be allowed to designate that person as a dependant and therefore benefits should be given to that person.

When we talk about extending benefits, extending rights, we also have to talk about extending obligations. In legislation every time we extend or advance one issue, there are all of the good things that go with it in terms of benefits, but other things go along with it as well which are the obligations. That is exactly what this bill does. It provides people who live in common law relationships or in same sex relationships similar benefits and obligations as those provided to others who live in the same sort of circumstances.

It is unequivocally clear that Canadians wanted the government to act on this issue. A 1998 poll by Angus Reid showed that the majority of Canadians, more than two to one, in every region of Canada favoured legislation that introduced benefits to those who live in common law or same sex relationships.

The court itself has told us as a society and as a government that it is time to put in law what has been a fact of life for many years. It already has been implemented by many people in the private sector, as well as some provincial governments.

Quebec, British Columbia and Ontario have changed their legislation or they are in the process of reviewing their laws to extend those benefits. We are not alone. We are moving collectively with other governments to ensure that we put into law what should have been put in place quite some time ago.

There are those who are concerned about adoption by people in same sex relationships and also the whole issue of immigration and so on. The legislation does not change anything. Canadian law will remain the same on those issues.

Government must take a leadership role. Sometimes it has to take leadership on tough issues. In this situation not only is the government doing what is right, but it is doing what the people want it to do and what the courts have told the government to do.

This should be a non-partisan issue. Members on both sides of the House should be applauding. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides every citizen with equal rights and a chance to access justice.

We recommend that our colleagues on the other side of the House applaud the government and move on with the legislation. At the same time our government has already made a commitment to study further the issue of extending benefits to people who have dependants who rely on them, whether it is a mother, a brother, a sister, a father and so on.

I have a personal interest in the bill and I would like to see it pass quickly. I have a daughter and I am not married. My daughter is dependent on me. I am very interested in the Government of Canada studying this situation further. Possibly it will be feasible and acceptable at some point in time to address the whole notion of allowing an individual to declare another individual as a dependant should that be the case. To say that I have to block any movement by the government until such a time as this whole issue is addressed would be foolish and not responsible.

We have to take what we already have as a consensus in society, implement it and entrench it in law. The next phase would be to study the other issues of dependency. People like myself, many of my colleagues and others in society would have a chance to make their case before the government, a committee of the House of Commons or their members of parliament. Surely if the economic situation in Canada continues to improve further, we would come to a point where we would not even need to discuss those issues. It would be irrelevant because we would be able to afford to do what everyone wanted us to do.

To that extent, I support the bill. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the House will support it.