House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 57% of the vote.
Lobbyists April 10th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, there is a pattern developing here with regard to friends of the Prime Minister. René Fugère acts as a lobbyist and does not register himself. Mr. Riopelle acts as a lobbyist and does not register his clients. Ordinary Canadians who are not friends of the Prime Minister are compelled to register under the Lobbyists Registration Act or face fines or possibly jail.
Why the double standard? Why are friends of the Prime Minister somehow considered to be above the law?
Lobbyists April 10th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, Hugh Riopelle, a lobbyist and golfing pal of the Prime Minister, has admitted publicly that he lobbied various cabinet ministers on behalf of Pierre Bourque, Sr., a man who owes him money, to help broker a deal for the Louis St. Laurent building in Hull. As of today, Mr. Riopelle has still not registered Bourque as a client under the Lobbyists Registration Act as required by law.
Will the ethics counsellor or the minister call in the RCMP to investigate this cosy deal, or should Canadians accept the fact that friends of the Prime Minister continue to receive special treatment?
Division No. 1265 April 10th, 2000
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to take part in this debate, which has been at times a very heated and often divisive subject before the House. The legislation is the modernization of benefits and obligations act denoted in Hansard as Bill C-23. It was tabled in the House on February 11 this year.
It is focused on the human dynamics that exist in the country with respect to the rights and obligations that flow from human relationships and the recognition thereof in law. The bill has raised the ire on certain occasions and certainly caused a lot of members of parliament and a lot of Canadians to be inward looking. This is omnibus legislation which means it touches a great number of statutes, 68 in total, and extends benefits and obligations to same sex couples on the same basis as opposite sex common law couples.
The subject as I refer to it is sometimes outside the comfort level of many in this place and many around the country. Yet for most of us it becomes a question of fairness and equitable treatment with respect to benefits that accrue and benefits that would flow as a result of human relationships.
A distinction remains with respect to same sex couples. Many would view the differences as alive and well irrespective of the legislation passing through the House. In the eyes of many there is a clear distinction between same sex couples and opposite sex couples.
This legislation levels the playing field with respect to fiscal rights and obligations. As has been referred to by many other members in this place and many who have given commentary on the bill, it is a bill that respects the Supreme Court of Canada and which is consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Of course with our charter obligations comes the responsibility to respect the law. To do otherwise, to deny equal treatment under the law and before the law to same sex couples or partners would be contrary to Canadian law as it exists and certainly contrary to our charter. The ruling made in May 1999 in the M and H case that was handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada made it clear that governments and agencies cannot limit benefits or obligations by discriminating against same sex common law relationships. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Human Rights Act speak of equal treatment and fiscal fairness under our law.
The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada approaches this bill as we approach many bills that have a moral underpinning, or legislation that forces members and rightly so to reflect upon their own conscience and the consultation that takes place within their constituencies and their ability to be objective and far sighted with respect to the position that is taken. For those reasons the right hon. Joe Clark, as it is incumbent upon him as leader to make decisions from time to time on such bills, has released members of this caucus to follow their conscience and the wishes of their constituents and to have a free vote. I would suggest that we are the only party in the House which is following that particular tact on this bill.
This legislation is about fairness and financial equity, not about infringing upon an individual's moral or personal beliefs. The legislation maintains a clear distinction between married and unmarried relationships as viewed through the eyes of Canadians.
The term spouse, which refers to married couples only, and the term common law partner are found in the bill and encompass people in common law relationships, both same sex and opposite sex. The definition of marriage, although it was intended not to be changed, is now included by virtue of amendments that were put forward at the committee stage and further amendments that will take place here in the Chamber today with respect to votes.
Although the Minister of Justice stated clearly throughout the weeks and months leading up to the tabling of the bill that the definition of marriage was not going to be included, at the last minute, at the eleventh hour, the parliamentary secretary tabled what was deemed to be a definition of what marriage is.
That definition is one that has been consistently accepted throughout the country for many years. It is one the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada fully embraces and supports.
This is not to say that the inclusion of this definition is wrong; it is the manner in which it was presented by the government. It was held back until consistent and persistent pressure from within the government caucus and around the country cried out for a further definition. Rather than omit it from the bill, the government decided to include it. We accept and support that move.
The legislation speaks to benefits and obligations. Same sex couples will have the same access as other Canadian couples to social benefits and programs to which they have contributed. Criteria still have to be met and there are obligations attached.
The hon. member opposite spoke of the financial implications. The Minister of Finance, who I understand supports the bill, has indicated there will be offsetting savings by the implementation of the bill and that the actual cost will be virtually nil at the end of the day when one calculates those who will now be entitled versus those who may be disqualified from benefits by virtue of the acceptance and passage of this legislation.
Some bills that are currently before the country and which will be touched and changed include the GST and the HST tax credit legislation. It was very unpopular throughout the country and was rejected by Liberals in opposition but as members of the government, they have quickly embraced it and expanded it. The child tax benefit legislation will also be touched as will old age security, the Canada pension plan and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.
Those types of bills demonstrate quite clearly that this is about economic and fiscal fairness as opposed to any moral judgment or any attempt to tread on what I think most Canadians feel is very sacred ground, which is the spiritual and religious definition of couples in marriage and how people interact. This legislation is not meant to be judgmental in that way. Sadly much of the debate embarked on in this place has at times digressed into this type of moral judgment.
The legislation is consistent with the decision of the supreme court. Bill C-23 will correct certain discriminations and will help achieve equal treatment under the law as it pertains to fiscal obligations and benefits. To do otherwise would offend the principles of equity that are enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and our Canadian Human Rights Act.
On a strict legal principle with the emotion removed it is difficult if not impossible to justify not supporting this type of legislation. Many have expressed reservations and many continue to struggle with the issue of homosexuality. This bill is more about keeping all Canadians on an equal footing with respect to entitlement of benefits and obligations as they pertain to fiscal matters.
Several provinces have already moved in this direction. Many corporations and corporate entities have embraced this same approach. British Columbia, Quebec and Ontario have enacted very similar legislation to that which we see encompassed in Bill C-23. Many private sector businesses are taking the lead in correcting inequalities in the workplace through offering benefits to both spouses of same sex and opposite sex relationships.
Parliament has already passed Bill C-78 which extended survivor pension benefits to same sex partners of federal public service employees, as have Manitoba, Quebec, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Yukon, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories. The direction has clearly been blazed.
It is fair to mention that Conservatives certainly can be compassionate, tolerant and open to modern thinking in this regard. Canadians should not be fooled into thinking that this is an abandonment of the family or principles of the traditional view. This is about fiscal and equitable treatment under the law with respect to how Canadians interact and what obligations and benefits would flow to them after having established a criteria and a relationship.
In my final submission, the term conjugal does not denote only sexual relations. Supreme court justices have made several commentaries and there are certainly instances of opposite sex couples who have remained together for many years and no longer embark on sexual relations. This is not the only criteria.
With that said, I look forward to further debate on this subject matter and the passage of this legislation through the House.
Public Works And Government Services April 7th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, obviously this government is not against breaking contracts signed by Conservative governments. It turfed the helicopter contract then bought the same helicopters. We know that the cheques may not have been written as yet, but it was the clear stated intention of the government to go against the wishes of the treasury board and pay off Mr. Bourque. It is obvious that when you get in the way of the Prime Minister's slush fund efforts, you will pay the price.
Treasury board civil servant, Peter Harder, who resisted the sale of the building at such an inflated price, has been transferred out of the department. Now that the Prime Minister transferred him out, does he feel that this is the best way for the government to function—
Public Works And Government Services April 7th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, another day, another story about the Prime Minister wasting taxpayers' money to bail out campaign donors.
Like a scene from The Godfather , Liberal donator Pierre Bourque, senior, needed a financial favour. Reports have said that the Prime Minister's cronies tried to force cabinet to accept the purchase of a Hull office building for almost $30 million more than the appraised value.
The estimates show that as of March 31, 2000, $70 million had been pegged for the purchase of Place Louis St. Laurent. How can the government justify such a dubious and blatant waste of taxpayers' money?
Health April 6th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, let us set the record straight. It was this government that cut $35 billion out of health transfers. As a member of this government said herself, “You get the type of health care system you pay for”.
Of every dollar that is spent in health care, the federal government puts one dime toward the provincial costs of health care.
Will the Prime Minister listen to his former Minister of Health and meet with the premiers and fix this crisis? Maybe the finance minister should bring his cheque book with him.
Health April 6th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, no one in the history of this country has done more to destroy Canadians' access to health care than this Prime Minister. Just ask the member for Sudbury.
Will the Prime Minister move immediately to restore the cuts that his government has made to provincial transfers and commit to long term federal funding for health care?
Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) Act April 6th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with the hon. member. He has made a very useful and very straightforward commentary on the task before our law enforcement agents, not only police and RCMP but very much with respect to our ports and our border police.
This country, if I can make the analogy, is like a big, beautiful racehorse and these criminals are like horseflies buzzing around it. We are very much in danger of the parasites taking over the host if we do not allow our police agents the ability and give them the necessary resources to do something about it.
We must be prepared to take the necessary steps, put the money into resources, and when we are made aware of situations like the Sidewinder file outside the country we better be ready to lay the money down and give police the backup they need.
Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) Act April 6th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member opposite for his question and his intervention. I certainly acknowledge his similar interest in matters of justice and policing around the country. As a former police officer I am sure he appreciates the incredible pressures that frontline police officers and those who specialize in areas such as organized crime are faced with on a daily basis.
I also want to acknowledge his commentary with respect to the usefulness of the bill. We in the Progressive Conservative Party applaud this government initiative. In fact, it is a continuation of a bill that we put in place when we were in government in 1991. I do not want to get into a partisan rant, but we have seen similar instances where the current government was not so complimentary of the Progressive Conservative government of the day and absolutely castigated the government for things such as free trade and the GST, but then, similarly, when in office, enhanced, expanded, embraced and took credit for bills and legislation put in place by the Progressive Conservative government. We will not follow that path. We will acknowledge that the Liberal government has done the right thing by continuing to move in the right direction, which was started by a Progressive Conservative government.
To address his specific question, this legislation and the setting up of this centre will very much put in place a process that will allow us to embark on the further information sharing that the hon. member referred to, the ability to see what other countries are doing, in particular the United States, and to draw on the best minds, the best personnel and the best intelligence that is available to see that we address this very serious global problem to which he referred quite correctly.
That and recruiting individuals from the country, keeping our very best and brightest here, and offering them opportunities in this area is another suggestion that I have as to how we can continue to fight this problem and enhance our ability to guard against this type of criminal activity that is becoming very much a global problem.
I would suggest, and he alluded to it in his question, that it has a great deal to do with the personnel and the intellectual property that we have to preserve and enhance in the country in our attempt to address what is a wonderful opportunity when it comes to technology and the Internet and the use of global communication, but it is also something that can leave us very vulnerable if we are not prepared to put in place the safeguards.
The centre can be a centre of excellence. It can be a great opportunity for those trained in this capacity, and hopefully we will, and I have every confidence that we will, continue to produce very bright, intelligent people who will be able to help us in this task.
Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) Act April 6th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Kings—Hants. I know he is greatly concerned with this issue. Coming from Nova Scotia, which is bounded by a large body of water, we often face a great deal of importation, not only of money, obviously, but potentially drugs and other contraband material.
The question was very probing. The legislation itself is not crafted in such a way to address the specific question with respect to e-commerce.
The hon. member quite rightly points out that this is very much the wave of the future with respect to financial transactions and potential criminal activity on the Internet.
The new centre which is being set up, because it will be in its infancy, will be very early on faced with the task of trying to craft a response, a way to police the Internet in an attempt to prevent this.
I would suggest that establishing the centre is a step in the right direction. Having personnel will be the crucial response to the hon. member's question, ensuring that we have individuals who are trained, intelligent and up to speed on the latest technological advances. Hopefully the centre, with shared resources and with the ability to hear from agencies such as those in the United States, will be able to address this serious problem in the future.