House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 64% of the vote.
Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act April 11th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to be able to participate in this debate. I am a dad. I am a grandpa. I have four wonderful grandchildren.
Today is a very special day for our family. April 11, 1935, was the date that my parents pledged to each other to live together for as long as they lived. They are today celebrating their 65th wedding anniversary.
Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act April 11th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I rise again on a point of order.
Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act April 11th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Speaker ruled clearly several Mondays ago, and the ruling has been upheld repeatedly by the Speaker, that the name of our party is Canadian Alliance, and we should—
Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act April 11th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I regret interrupting this speech because I enjoy listening to what the member has to say, but the Speaker has ruled, and it has subsequently been upheld about four or five times, that the name of our party is the Canadian Alliance. It has been ruled and I would ask this member simply to adhere to the ruling of the Speaker.
Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act April 11th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Calgary Centre's voice trailed down a bit when he was reading the motion that I seconded. I want to make sure that the official record shows that the words are “be not now read a third time”.
Petitions April 11th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I too have the privilege of standing in the House today to present a petition.
This one is interesting because in this one package we have petitioners from New Brunswick, Quebec, the Ottawa region, Manitoba and Calgary. They are from right across the country.
These petitioners, as some of the others who have already presented petitions, are asking and urging parliament to withdraw Bill C-23. It goes against everything they believe in.
Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act April 10th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I regret that because I think my amendments would have certainly added value to what we are talking about in today's debate.
It is interesting that we have this conflict in the discussion of whether or not the term of marriage is being discussed here. First the Minister of Justice adamantly denied it. She said this bill had nothing to do with marriage, and subsequent to that she put forward an amendment that in fact did talk about marriage. Furthermore almost every one of the changes that is being proposed by Bill C-23 in the 68 different statutes has to do with a marriage relationship, a family.
There is one amendment I really wish could be on the Order Paper to actually have members vote on because I think it would be consistent with previous decisions made in the House. We should not be using the back door with this bill to redefine marriage and family in all of these different statutes. I urge members to think seriously about that.
I do not want to chastise my fellow parliamentarians for denying me consent. I will gladly concede that in a foot race I would lose to almost everyone here. That is part of my excuse for not getting here in 2.8 milliseconds all the way from the Confederation Building when the debate collapsed.
I simply say that we ought not to be doing things that cannot take the heat of debate. We should not be doing things that cannot bear the support of the public.
The member who spoke previously said that in a poll he had conducted the majority of the people were in favour of this bill. Of course we do not have questions and comments at this point but I would like to ask him exactly what question he asked.
Being a mathematician and being involved somewhat in statistical work I know this much about polling, that the way one words the question can almost certainly determine the outcome. If one were to say should we discriminate against people who like each other, probably 99% of Canadians would say no they do not think we should discriminate against people who like each other. But the question should we support and promote a redefinition of marriage and of family, and look at the ramifications of that is not being asked. That is not being done here in terms of the feedback we are getting.
When people stop and actually see what is happening in this bill universally they have serious questions about it and so should we. I urge all members to think very carefully. The words that we keep hearing are, let us not discriminate against anyone, let us treat everyone equally and fairly. One can hardly argue with those concepts. However we should ask the question, if we pass this bill and make all of those changes in the 68 different acts, who then are we discriminating against? It is a very important question. The inclusion of the term “conjugal relationship” throws open huge questions.
I submit that in passing the bill we will actually be broadening the group of people against which we are discriminating. This is a very intolerant bill in the sense that it grants benefits only to those who, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are in a conjugal relationship. That means that everyone who is not in that group is being discriminated against.
How will it be determined? It has already been mentioned several times in the House today by several of my colleagues that two of the ministers on the front bench are in disagreement over this. One of the ministers says “Yes, this involves a sexual relationship”. The other one says “No, it does not”. If it does not, what exactly is the definition of a couple who will qualify for these benefits? How do we determine who will be eligible? The definition simply is not there and there is confusion.
I venture to guess that if we were to ask 300 members of the House, excluding the Speaker, we would probably get, as we would with 300 economists, 300 different answers. Parliament is in error if we pass a law asking future courts and judges to rule without giving them a clear definition of what we are talking about.
One couple may say “Yes, we are in a conjugal relationship. We have sex in one form or another two times a week”. They would qualify. Another couple might say “We never have sex. We do not engage in sexual activity”. Would they qualify if they had lived together for five, eight or twenty years but had never engaged in sexual activity? Does that really, in the dictionary definition, indicate that is a conjugal relationship?
Furthermore, I think we discriminate against those who would be truthful. When it comes to receiving grants, benefits and things, there are invariably some people who are willing to be a little less than honest about it. The purpose of our laws and courts is to make sure that everyone is treated fairly and, in essence, people are forced to be honest. If we have several different couples in different relationships and some of them say “No, we are really not in a conjugal relationship but we could get some benefits if we said we were” and if they do not have a morality that prevents them from being untruthful, they would simply declare “Yes, we are in a conjugal relationship” and they would be eligible.
Parliament has done absolutely no study to my satisfaction that has shown any indication of the cost of this, because it is totally unknown. Starting out with a definition of a conjugal relationship being eligible for benefits where that definition is missing means we might have two people in Canada or we might have two million who will come forward to claim these benefits and rights that they have.
There is another huge conundrum here. We are putting homosexual people into the same classification as heterosexual common law couples. We know there are certain laws that cover common law relationships. If I am not mistaken, if a man and woman have been living together in a common law relationship for three years they are deemed to be basically equivalent to married and if they split up there is a division of assets and things like that.
What happens if we have one of these couples in this so-called conjugal relationship where after three, four or five years they break up and then one of them says “I would like to have half of the assets” and they go to court to try to solve this? The one who has the assets may say “No, we were never in a conjugal relationship”, while the one who wants the assets may say “Yes, we were”. How will the courts ever unravel that one? It is a conundrum. Why we, as parliamentarians, would have such an ill-advised piece of legislation, in which we ask the courts to rule on things that basically have no definition, is a mystery to me?
I urge members to vote in favour of my amendments which are not on the table. Maybe the members have reconsidered and would like to have my amendments at least in the debate. They can vote against them if they wish. I ask for unanimous consent once more.
Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act April 10th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the special indulgence of the House. I was in my office working with the television on the parliamentary channel in the background. When debate on the Group No. 1 motions collapsed, I just did not make it all the way from the Confederation building to here in time.
Since we are talking about tolerating and forgiving each other's little minor foibles today, I wonder whether I could ask for unanimous consent that Motions Nos. 14 and 91 which are on the notice paper in my name also be deemed moved and seconded and thus included in Group No. 2, pursuant to the Speaker's ruling. I ask for unanimous consent for that.
Parliamentary Prayer Breakfast April 6th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, this morning the keynote speaker at the annual parliamentary prayer breakfast gave us a dramatic definition of forgiveness. Pastor Dale Lang and his wife Diane said goodbye to their son Jason a year ago when he was shot in the tragic high school shooting in Taber.
This morning Pastor Lang reminded us that we live in a self-centred, selfish, impatient society. We have denigrated and diminished the value of being a human and the value of human life and have glorified violence.
Thousands carry pain and rejection, loneliness and hurt, but he also told us that we can be healed if we practise forgiveness. He shared his deep gut wrenching pain at the death of his son, but he also shared how God gave them the strength and grace to forgive the troubled young man who caused that death.
God bless Dale and Diane as they bring this powerful gift of forgiveness to our nation's young people and to all of us. Perhaps we should all pray the words of the song “let there be peace on earth, and let it begin with me”.
Supply April 4th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I feel very badly that my colleague's speech was interrupted by question period. He made a very fine presentation and put his finger on the problem when he said that the government feared accountability.
There is a real dilemma. It appears, at least from speakers on the government side so far, that the government will actually vote against the motion. I would like my colleague to comment on that because the motion is pretty well what is in place now by treasury board. If the government votes against it, it will basically say that the treasury board guidelines are not good enough. There is a huge contradiction. I would appreciate my colleague's comments on the Liberal contradictory statements.