Derek Lee

[Questions On The Order Paper, April 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Question No. 79 will be answered today. .[Text]

Question No. 79—

[Committees Of The House, April 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, if the House gives it consent, I move that the 24th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.

[Committees Of The House, April 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 24th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the associate membership on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the 24th report later this day.

[Government Response To Petitions, April 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to five petitions.

[Questions On The Order Paper, April 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[Committees Of The House, April 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move:

That the following member be added to the list of associate members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs: Dave Chatters.

[Committees Of The House, April 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 21st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of the Standing Committee on Industry presented to the House on March 22 be concurred in.

[Government Response To Petitions, April 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to five petitions.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Dewdney—Alouette obviously wants to speak to the bill. I hope the Chair will recognize him in due course. Now he is going to check with his friends.

In any event, the bill purports to be more precise and use more modern language when dealing with the issue of benefits accorded under various pieces of federal legislation. It also deals with the concept of mutual obligation. In reorganizing, rewording and reconfiguring some of these definitions, as much as it deals with benefits the bill also deals with obligations whether they are mutual or whether they are from the citizen and taxpayer to the government. Therefore as long as couples, whether heterosexual or not, fall within the definition of what the statutes hold out as a common law couple, will come forward in dealings with the federal government as couples. That entails obligations as well as benefits.

Someone said that a computer calculated run through of the costs and benefits of the legislation indicated that there was a slight edge in favour of revenues to the government. It surprised me, but if a computer calculates there are slightly more revenues than costs involved, so be it. I am not sure that was the intention but I am sure the finance minister, by the same token, will not be too unhappy about it.

The amendments we are debating in the House are intended to address the last vestiges of the word illegitimate. As my colleagues know, that word has been around in common law for a century, two centuries or more. I have not read every statute referred to in the legislation, but I am advised that this amending bill will remove from federal legislation every reference to the word illegitimate as it pertains to the status of a child.

I am confident that all Canadians will accept that as an appropriate minor technical semantic but an amendment that looks at the status of children. No child ever had any control over where he or she came from. They simply end up in the world as one of us.

There are other elements in the bill which were not ever intended to be a substantial or radical reworking of our federal social safety net but rather an attempt to deal with charter issues that have been raised recently and going back a number of years. These charter issues have to do with how we describe ourselves, what a common law couple will be and what a common law union will be.

The number of relationships falling under that rubric has grown in modern society. It may well continue to grow. This is something over which we in the House do not have much control. People are going to get together as couples and in partnerships domestically and outside formal marriage. That is simply a reality that exists in Canadian society. We have to take account of it. At least it is to the benefit of children who find themselves happily with two good parents. We do not need to be specific about the gender. Two good parents are better than one. Then we will want to do that for children.

I will close by indicating my support for the bill. I have every intention of voting on the report stage amendments as they are put to the House.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the bill at this stage.

In the debate of these amendments we have heard that perhaps the government members and other members in the House who support the bill may be supporting a bill that does not get quite sophisticated enough with the issues that are driving the legislation. We have heard that perhaps the title, modernization of benefits, should drive the entire legislation and should allow us by reason only of the title itself to begin reviewing all elements of the social safety net, the means by which the Government of Canada with the support of taxpayers provides a social safety net infrastructure for all Canadians.

I for one reject that suggestion. I certainly do not blame members in opposition for constructively criticizing the legislation before the House, but the bill was not intended to be a review of a reconfiguration or a reworking of the entire federal social safety net. It was not intended to do that.

The bill was intended to redress a number of items in a lot of government legislation. These areas are certainly referred to in the amendments and in the bill.

I want to confirm for the record and for my constituents, if anyone thought the bill attempted to redefine marriage, that it certainly does not. It was never intended to. In case anybody thought the bill might in some way do something or fail to do something that impacted on the definition of marriage in Canada, an amendment at committee inserted into the preamble of the bill, right up front for everybody to see, an explicit reconfirmation of the definition of marriage in Canada.

I suppose one might have tackled this point another way. One might have reopened every federal statute referred to in this omnibus bill and inserted a definition. In the view of a number of members that was not necessary because the definition of marriage in Canadian law is already very clear.

Originally it was articulated by the courts in Canada some 125 years ago. A definition that has been around and clearly stated for 125 years could not possibly be unclear to anyone. Along with a resolution adopted by the House approximately a year ago, the definition is very clear.