Statement for Presentation to the

 

House of Commons

 

 

By

 

Paul Steckle, M.P.

Huron-Bruce

 

 

 

 

February 21st, 2000

 

Mr. Speaker:

 

Last October 25th I was on my feet in this place to question the Government House Leader on the joint UN/Elections Canada “vote” that was to be held in schools across Canada.  The initiative, which was held November 19th, required all school-aged students to select a “right,” as defined in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which they feel is most important.

 

My question to the Government House Leader and eventually to the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada was why, given the controversial nature of the UN Convention, were Canadians being kept in the dark with respect to this undertaking?  More importantly, why were school administrators, trustees, teachers and parents being kept in the dark?

 

In a subsequent letter to the editor that I forwarded to my riding media, I explained that the “rights,” as listed on the proposed in-school ballot, were taken directly from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.  I feel that it is important to mention that this convention was passed in 1989 by Cabinet only.  Indeed Mr. Speaker, the document that has inspired this “exercise in democracy” as Mr. Kingsley called it, has never been subjected to the scrutiny of the Canadian adult democracy.

 

Opponents of the convention have long claimed that the wording of the document is anti-family.  I have also come to believe that this is one of the reasons that the Canadian Parliament has yet to debate the matter and why the United States has failed to ratify the Convention to this day.

 

Before I continue, I want to be perfectly clear that.  I am neither supporting nor condemning the Convention however, I have very grave concerns with some of the potential problems that have been brought forward by the many people who have signed petitions opposing this document.  I understand that over 13,000 Canadians have signed petitions since, 1997, opposing this Convention.  I also feel that, given the fact that the said petitioners claim that the Convention has implications with respect to family life and parental rights and responsibilities, Parliamentarians should have the opportunity to debate the issue more fully. 

 

Mr. Speaker, each and every day we pass laws and regulations that are supposed to improve the quality of life for all Canadians.  In fact, earlier today, we gave Bill C-23 its second reading.  Its no secret that this bill, which amends over sixty pieces of legislation to extend spousal benefits to same sex couples, is highly controversial.  It is also no secret that I am not supportive of this legislation.  I would like to take this opportunity to again reiterate that I am not supporting this legislation due to the fact that it recognizes financial dependency only in cases where there is conjugality.  Yes Mr. Speaker, as silly as it seems apparently Mr. Trudeau was wrong and the state does indeed belong in the bedrooms of the nation!           

 

As you know Mr. Speaker, I represent the best riding in all of Canada.  Moreover, Huron-Bruce is primarily rural in nature.  This fact often creates a situation where extended families are financially required to band together so as to maintain functionality.  I can name numerous dependency relationships such as those involving two siblings or even a child and an elderly parent.  I would ask you Mr. Speaker, why are these relationships less deserving of benefits, or less financially or emotionally dependent on one another, than a same-sex couple engaged in a relationship based upon conjugality?  The short answer is that they are not less deserving. 

 

As we all know, the Supreme Court of Canada has determined, in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that society can not discriminate.  With this in mind, I would respectfully suggest that if we fail to recognize all dependency relationships, we are simply exchanging one form of discrimination for another.

 

In conclusion, I do not want to be seen as someone who is simply opposing this legislation because it would extend benefits to same-sex couples.  While it is true that I am a staunch supporter of traditional family values, I am also not a person who is prepared to promote hate or prejudice.  Mr. Speaker, I am promoting an inclusionist policy.  Let’s heed Mr. Trudeau’s famous words and draw the shades.  If we are going to extend benefits then let us extend benefits to all of those engaged in a verifiable relationship based upon dependency.

 

Thank you.