1996-05-08

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): As is our practice on Wednesdays, we will now sing O Canada, which will be led by the hon. member for for Victoria-Haliburton.
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I recently had the pleasure of participating in the ceremony held to announce the British Columbia winners of the Canada Day poster challenge.
In British Columbia, the winner is 9 year old Eric Stockand, a young man who loves to draw, play the piano, swim and go camping.
This is the second time I have had the pleasure of presenting the first prize for B.C. to one of my young constituents. Kevin Su won in 1994. Both Eric and Kevin had the same teacher, Mr. Kenson Seto. Mr. Seto is an art teacher who believes in Canada's multicultural nature and its unity.
Eric Stockand was also one of the Honda poster finalists for the Future of Transportation competition and has won several colouring contests. His drawing, representing a dove in a Canadian context, has been described by Eric as reflecting Canada as a land of joy, a land where all people can live together in peace and harmony.
Canada is lucky to have young people like Eric Stockand and Kevin Su and teachers like Kenson Seto. Congratulations to all of them.
Coast GuardMrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, another voice has been added to the general vehement objections to the Coast Guard fees the government is preparing to ram through.
The Quebec urban community, which is directly affected, on April 23 unanimously adopted a resolution demanding that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans reverse its decision and carry out an in depth assessment of the economic impact of the various options.
I am asking the government to halt this direct assault against the Quebec economy. I am asking the government to listen to the taxpayers, the municipal authorities and the economic stakeholders. Perhaps an equitable solution can then be found.
TaxationMr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, imagine for a moment that you have been working abroad for a number of years. You spent long periods of time away from your family and have endured many hardships. The only benefit to you was the overseas tax exemption.
Suddenly you find out there has been a big mistake. Even though Revenue Canada accepted your tax returns for all those years, it now turns out that your company and all of its employees did not qualify for the tax exemption. You owe back taxes all the way back to 1991, big time.
In my riding and all through Alberta's oil patch, there are people who now find themselves in this situation. These people should have been advised much sooner.
Revenue Canada was lax in its enforcement and lax in checking the credentials of the companies involved. Therefore, the minister must take another look at such circumstances which allowed this to happen. The minister must do something to offer relief to people who now owe thousands of dollars which they cannot repay.
Canada-United States Tax ConventionMr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, since the Canada-United States tax convention was modified, thousands of people living in Beauce, Quebec and Canada who are drawing American pensions are losing a sizeable chunk of those pensions. Their cheques have been cut 25 per cent, an extremely harsh penalty.
The new convention hits those receiving U.S. disability pensions even harder, since most of them have dependants and the pension is often their main source of income. Some have experienced cuts of several hundred dollars a month.
I am therefore asking the Minister of Finance to look at appropriate measures to lighten the financial burden we have recently imposed on these people, most of whom already had barely enough to live on.
FirefightersMr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to bring to the attention of all members and all Canadians the hard work and commitment shown by our professional firefighters.
Firefighting is an honourable profession in which men and women place themselves at risk in order to serve their fellow citizens. It is important for all of us to realize the contributions our firefighters make to society.
This week members of the International Association of Fire Fighters are in Ottawa to discuss issues within their profession. I welcome them and I thank them. On behalf of all Canadians I say thanks for the services of our firefighters, their dedication and professionalism.
Canadian Fraternal AssociationMr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to welcome members of the Canadian Fraternal Association to the nation's capital. It is a pleasure to have members of the association in Ottawa this week for their annual meeting.
The Canadian Fraternal Association represents some 400,000 Canadians and their families from across Canada. There are 22 fraternal organizations which belong to the CFA, including several organizations from the United States.
Members of the Canadian Fraternal Association provide a range of services in their respective communities. They contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants, scholarships and educational programs. Communities and individual Canadians from across the country benefit from this work. Members also provide financial products and services such as insurance, savings and investment vehicles as well as educational programs, volunteer services and social activities.
I am pleased to join with other members in this House to welcome the Canadian Fraternal Association to Ottawa.
Sir Wilfrid LaurierMr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are in May 1896, and in approximately five weeks from now Wilfrid Laurier will be the first Quebecer to become Prime Minister.
He said, at the time: "I look forward to the day when Canada will have a population of 30 million people and when its word will shape the destinies of the world".
This and Canada's future were the subject of discussions by the people of Brome-Missisquoi last weekend at a forum bringing together the members for Burlington, Ontario, and Fredericton-York-Sunbury, whom I wish to thank.
Vigour, conviction and sincerity are what Laurier has to offer to those who would hear him. The same message may be heard today in Hamilton East.
Antipersonnel MinesMr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the agreement reached at the international congress on antipersonnel mines in Geneva last week.
Rather than completely prohibit the use of antipersonnel mines, the new protocol proposes that the 57 signatory governments make future mines detectible or self-destructible. These governments will even have nine years to implement it, and no verification process was established.
This absurd agreement completely sidesteps the present situation caused by existing mines.
The Bloc Quebecois would like to express its profound disappointment at this agreement, because, between now and the next review of the agreement, five years from now, 50,000 more people will be killed and another 80,000 will be wounded or mutilated. It is just shameful.
EnvironmentMr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in the words of the auditor general in his May report with regard to environmental stewardship: "Somebody needs to accept full responsibility for the overall implementation of the greening process. There is no one in charge who is reporting objectively on the status of the greening process across government and as a result there is no way to know if the government is meeting its objectives".
This is not the first time the auditor general has reported on Environment Canada's ineffectiveness. Like the past, probably nothing will change in the future.
Reform has repeatedly asked for the Minister of the Environment to show objectiveness and reason. Sheila Copps would scoff at our suggestions and say: "Look what we have done". Well Sheila, look where you are now.
The current minister is showing signs of moving in the same direction as Sheila Copps. If he continues to ignore the suggestions of the auditor general and of Reform, he may soon find himself in poor Sheila's shoes.
Bicycle Safety WeekMr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on May 26, the bike path in Verdun linking Nuns Island to the mainland will be officially opened as part of Bicycle Safety Week.
The family biking activity to be held on that day in my riding of Verdun-Saint-Paul will be organized jointly by the City of Verdun, the Government of Canada, and the Optimist Clubs of Verdun and Nuns Island.
I therefore invite all members of this House and their families to take part in a bicycle safety day that will be filled with fun and surprises with good weather thrown in.
Order Of CanadaMr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of my colleagues in the House the outstanding contributions of two residents of Saskatoon who are being awarded the Order of Canada today.
The Hon. Sidney Buckwold is no stranger to Ottawa having served honourably in the other place representing Saskatchewan for many years. Today he is invested as an Officer of the Order. Mr. Buckwold also served as mayor of Saskatoon, having a record as one of the most progressive and forward looking mayors in the city's history. As well, Mr. Buckwold has served our community through work as a volunteer with many charitable organizations. He is one of the most prominent businessmen in Saskatoon.
Walter Podiluk is best known for his work at St. Paul's Hospital in Saskatoon but his contributions go well beyond to include service as superintendent of the Saskatoon Catholic Board of Education and as deputy minister of health in Saskatchewan.
I ask my colleagues to recognize the contribution of these two outstanding individuals.
Global VisionMr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce that the 1996 Global Vision cross-Canada regional seminars will commence this week in Vancouver.
These seminars, which will also occur in Calgary, Winnipeg, Thunder Bay, North Bay, Toronto, Montreal and Halifax give Canada's senior high school students the opportunity to interact with business, government and trade officials to prepare them to participate in the new global economy.
As the parliamentary chair of this non-profit organization, I would like to thank the many sponsors of Global Vision which include: the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Canadian Airlines, ACOA, Multiculturalism Canada, Corel Corporation, FITT, Laidlaw Waste Systems, Microtronix, Mitel, Nova, Western Star Trucks, A-Wear and in my riding, Boart-Longyear Limited and the Redpath Group.
I would also like to thank the universities that host the seminars and the members of this House who continue to support Global Vision.
Human RightsMr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we now know the Reform Party's position regarding discrimination based on sexual orientation. The hon. member for Macleod, with a lack of consideration unworthy of a member of Parliament, has associated the word "sexuality" with disease and physical degeneration. Moreover, sounding quite sure of himself, he stated, and I quote:

The specific problems promoting this lifestyle relate to HIV, gay bowel syndrome, increasing parasitic infections, lowered life expectancy and finally, the one I have chosen to highlight today, an increase in hepatitis in Canada.

Not to be outdone, his colleague, the hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette, said that if Canada went ahead and banned discrimination based on sexual orientation, it could well become the Liberia of North America.
These analogies are unacceptable. The Reform leader has more cleaning-up to do within his party.
Canadian Forces Base Goose BayMrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, at the same time the people of Goose Bay, Labrador are being told the Liberal government has to cut back the local military base, they learn that a military general has thrown himself a $250,000 cocktail party.
The government is thumbing its nose at the taxpayers of Goose Bay. It downsizes at the base but has no problem funding free spending party animals in the military. The government cannot afford updated equipment and new military hardware but still has money for fancy office furniture for the top brass.
The people of Goose Bay, Labrador and all Canadian taxpayers have once again been let down by this government which refuses to crack down on outrageous and flagrant abuse of taxpayer's dollars. There is no defence for this careless and indiscriminate waste.
If the defence department can afford to do things like host a $250,000 party for an egotistical general, why can it not help save a first class military installation and keep the base at Goose Bay fully operational?
Human RightsMr. Jag Bhaduria (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville, Ind. Lib.): Mr. Speaker, discrimination in any way, shape or form should never be tolerated anywhere in our country. While I strongly believe that all members in this House agree on this important issue, they will also agree that the sanctity of marriage is paramount in our society.
The government's proposed amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act has caused a fury within our ridings. The overwhelming majority of Canadians believes that this legislation will ultimately change the definition of the traditional Canadian family in the courts.
There is a very simple solution to this dilemma. Today, all members in this House can support a number of motions at report stage of Bill C-33. These motions will protect the definition of family status or marriage. This gesture would show all Canadians that our federal government is committed to the sanctity of the traditional Canadian family.
What It Means To Be CanadianMrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a statement today of what it means to be Canadian to 12, 13 and 14-year old visitors from the Froebel School in my riding.

We want to continue to live in a united Canada. Being Canadian to us means safety and peace. We are protected from fear and war, we feel secure. We have splendid cities. Canada is a great and beautiful country. We are working on pollution. We are all treated equally and respected regardless of race. We have freedom of thought. I am free to be me and able to make my own choices. We enjoy our freedom of speech and the right to believe in our own religion. We have a government that listens to Canadians and is fair. We help other countries in need. We can enjoy all the opportunities Canada has to offer.
We are proud to be Canadian.

Raising The Irving WhaleMr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a number of socio-economic and environmental groups, as well as professional fishermen, have formed a major coalition to condemn the alarmist and inappropriate comments of the Quebec environment and wildlife minister.
Last week, at a press conference on the raising of the Irving Whale , the minister mentioned various alarmist scenarios, including the possible contamination of snow crab stocks, to justify his opposition to the project.
The minister should remember that a security perimeter has been in place around the wreck for over ten years to prevent any contamination risk.
At a time when the fishing and tourism season is getting into full swing in the Magdalen islands, the PQ minister would be well advised to avoid fearmongering, for such comments can only hurt economic activity in the region.

Oral Question Period
Family TrustsMr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at a time when governments table their budget, and at a time when taxpayers are convinced that the fiscal burden could be better shared, we learned from the auditor general that some family trusts are believed to have transferred assets of $2 billion to the United States, free of tax, with the government's approval. In fact,
senior officials from the Department of Finance made Revenue Canada reconsider its position and grant these exemptions.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. How can the minister justify the fact that two family trusts were allowed to transfer over $2 billion worth of assets to the United States, without paying any tax on capital gains, this with the government's approval?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Minister of National Revenue answered this question quite satisfactorily yesterday. This was something that happened under the previous government, in 1990-1991. Since taking power, we have put into place many measures to rectify this sort of situation.
That being said, as the minister announced yesterday, we, too, are concerned about statements such as this one, and she therefore thought it best, and I agree with her, that the matter be referred to the finance committee for thorough examination.
Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly not wish to play cat and mouse with the finance minister on a question such as this. He knows full well that the very minimal measures he has put in place do absolutely nothing at all toward resolving the case we have mentioned here. His measures will not resolve this case. It could happen again, it could have happened again yesterday. We need some clear answers, some real answers.
We will simply ask him how he can explain that senior officials of the finance department, his department, who are still there, according to our information, applied very strong pressure on Revenue Canada to allow this tax free transfer of $2 billion in assets to the United States. How does he explain that these officials still have their jobs and that they work in his department?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, we obviously have here a situation calling for very serious consideration. Indeed, I would say that the questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition in a very serious and responsible tone are to the point.
That said, the auditor general did not mention any pressure from finance officials. He said discussions took place, but there were no transcripts.
Let us be quite clear. Since coming to office, we have put in place many measures dealing specifically with family trusts. In fact, not only were measures dealing with family trusts introduced by our government in our February 1995 budget, but they went much further than recommended by the finance committee.
Michel Gauthier: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Finance will not dispute the fact that, ever since the Bloc Quebecois was elected to the House of Commons, as everyone will recall, we have always condemned the unfair advantages attached to family trusts. The minister will also recall repeatedly turning the official opposition's claims to ridicule, saying that family trusts are no big deal.
But the auditor general cited examples. After reviewing two cases, just two, he found that $2 billion in assets had been transferred. That does not seem insignificant to me.
Will the Minister of Finance acknowledge today that the carelessness he has displayed over the past two and a half years, while we were demanding aggressive action on his part, is costing a small fortune to ordinary Canadians, who do pay their taxes and do not benefit from family trusts? If only two cases led to the discovery of $2 billion in capital being tax-sheltered abroad, you can imagine what the overall amount could represent for Canadian taxpayers.
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the minister said yesterday that she would refer the matter to the finance committee. The auditor general himself has admitted that this is a grey area, and one that is highly complex. Because we feel transparency is of the utmost importance, I believe an open discussion in the finance committee is the best way to discuss the matter and find a solution. I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition will accept this as a responsible reply.
Having said this, yes, the Leader of the Opposition is right in saying that the Bloc Quebecois were the ones to raise the matter of family trusts. That is, moreover, the reason we referred the matter of family trusts to the finance committee right at the start of our mandate. The Bloc Quebecois has continued to talk, while we have acted, doing away in our latest budget with any possibility of using family trusts as a means of evading taxes owed to the people of Canada.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there must be no more attempts to pull the wool over people's eyes. The February 1995 budget contains no measure for avoiding such cases, for stopping Canadian capital from being siphoned off to the U.S., nothing. As for referring the matter to the finance committee, that would require the committee to meet. We have been calling for that for two months now, and there have been no serious meetings yet to review the taxation system.
Since it is obvious that senior finance officials have intervened, and in highly dubious circumstances, does the minister acknowledge that it is his duty to cast light on the circumstances surrounding a decision which will mean the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue to the federal government and to Canadians?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that, in a debate as important as this one, the opposition finance critic is unable to assume the same responsible tone as his leader.
Let me just repeat that, in our 1995 budget, we eliminated any possibility to use family trusts for tax purposes.
I would like the hon. member, who advocates transparency, to tell me this: Is he afraid to see the finance committee review this matter? I think the important thing is transparency in showing the responsibility borne by the department of revenue, the department of finance and the Government of Canada.
Yvan Loubier: Let me put the question to the Minister of Finance again, Mr. Speaker.
If the minister is not afraid of reforming the tax system, why is he having the work done behind closed doors by the very experts who advise their clients to transfer $2 billion to the U.S.? That is what is happening.
My question to the Minister of Finance is quite simple. Will he call for an independent review to be conducted immediately to shed light on both cases identified by the auditor general and any other case that may have surfaced since, particularly since he became the Minister of Finance, because he certainly did nothing to eliminate these scandalous family trusts?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, the House should be aware of what the opposition is asking.
A situation had arisen under the previous government and in 1991 the auditor general reported on it. As in other instances, this government takes very seriously the reports of the auditor general. We have said we believe that the Canadian people are entitled to have all of the facts. We think this should be looked at openly in the finance committee.
What is the finance critic for the Bloc Quebecois saying? He is saying: Do it behind closed doors. Do not do it in front of us. Do not let the Canadian people have the facts. Do not sit there in open, public debate to take a look at it. What is the matter? Are you afraid of the truth?
TaxationMr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Prime Minister whether he was willing to enter into a federal-provincial tax relief agreement to ensure that tax cuts given by provincial governments like Ontario remained in the pockets of taxpayers.
The finance minister responded by saying that the issue had been discussed extensively at federal-provincial meetings and that a general agreement existed that one level of government would not tax away tax reductions made by another.
Does such a general agreement in fact exist, and if it does, will the finance minister table it in the House?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked this question yesterday and I answered it.
I said that there was a general understanding among all of the finance ministers that it would be counterproductive for one level of government to fill in tax room given by another. What we really wanted to do was to get the economy going.
He knows there is not a written agreement. I said that yesterday. I made it very clear the previous six times he asked the question. The matter was discussed among all of the finance ministers and that agreement exists. I repeat it here again in the House.
If the hon. member would like to ask me the question another 16 times I will give him the same answer.
Preston Manning: Mr. Speaker, the federal government, through its GST harmonization program, temporarily left $170 million in the pockets of New Brunswick taxpayers, a tax reduction.
Two weeks later the Liberal premier of New Brunswick announced that he was working on a new business tax to get that $170 million into provincial coffers, a case of one level of government taking away a tax reduction granted by another, precisely the thing that the finance minister had said the federal and provincial governments agreed not to do.
Given the fact that his verbal agreement with the provinces is obviously being disregarded, will he commit to reaching a written federal-provincial tax relief agreement with the provinces?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, because the leader of the opposition party cannot find anything real to talk about, he continues to set up straw men. Let me take the hon. member's situation.
In order for the governments of Atlantic Canada, the Government of New Brunswick in this instance, to go through a period of profound structural change leading to very deep tax reform, the federal government embarked on a cost sharing proposal with Atlantic Canada.
Effectively that cost sharing proposal said that the provincial governments involved would pick up the first 5 per cent loss on their revenues and then there would be a sharing after that.
It was very clear that the provincial governments were going to have to make up their losses in two ways: through increased economic activity and the possibility of tax increases elsewhere. The hon. member has talked about the shift from consumers to business. What may well happen in some of the provinces is that they may well go back and take some of that tax savings from business in order to keep the consumer cost down.
The hon. member really ought to understand, first, what was done and, second, he ought to try not to contradict himself consistently every-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The leader of the Reform Party.
Preston Manning: In other words, Mr. Speaker, a tax reduction granted by one level of government has been sopped up by another level of government, which is precisely my point.
Yesterday Ontario cut its payroll taxes, something that the finance minister and everybody else has said creates jobs. However, the federal government is killing jobs by holding its payroll taxes high to support an inordinate level of UI contributions and proposing further increases to try to stabilize financing of the CPP.
If there really is a federal-provincial understanding of harmonization for tax relief, why is the federal government creating upward pressure on payroll taxes while the Ontario government is trying to cut payroll taxes at the same time?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, let me point out to the leader of the third party minus three that in the last budget, payroll taxes were cut by $1.2 billion.
Second, as a result of the deficit actions taken by this government and by the provincial governments, interest rates in this country are close to 4 percentage points lower than they were over a year ago. That is a substantial tax decrease for Canadians.
The question I would put to the leader of the Reform Party is this. If today he recommends that there be further decreases in unemployment insurance premiums, why did he not recommend that in his budget of a year ago but recommended instead that unemployment insurance premiums be kept at a very high level.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): As we go into the second round of questions, I hope, and I will be looking for your co-operation, for shorter questions and shorter answers.
Manpower TrainingMrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Last Friday, the minister's remarks on the federal government's withdrawal from the area of manpower were distressing to say the least. So with no follow-up to the proposed agreement tabled by Quebec on January 18 and negotiations with Quebec at a standstill, the minister acknowledged that the time had come to sit down at the table, but with representatives of all the provinces.
Are we to understand from the minister's response that Quebec should wait until all the representatives of all the provinces reach an agreement, when, in Quebec, a consensus was reached years ago on the patriation of manpower policies and programs?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker, because the hon. member is right. The consensus in Quebec is well known. However, I think everyone would agree that, before the federal government puts its position forward, we should all be sure what we are prepared to propose.
Quebec's proposal contains some very interesting points. Our commitment is simply that, when we have a proposal ready, and we should have one soon, we would like to put the federal proposal to the representatives of all the provinces. However, Quebec is obviously much further ahead in its approach, and the consensus there, which the member referred to, is well known.
I hope that once we have clearly defined Canada's position on all the issues, not just on manpower training but also on active measures, we will be able to move rapidly by sitting down at the table with Quebec's representatives and reach an agreement.
Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the minister has reassured me by saying that the mother of all negotiations is not dead.
Can the minister confirm he is ready to negotiate with Quebec not only on manpower training but on all active measures, as requested by Quebec?
Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, of course, there will be rather significant differences among the 10 provinces and the territories with respect to the resources and networks needed to deliver programs. But, to get back to the situation with Quebec, there is no doubt that, even in Part II of the Employment Insurance Act, which is now before Parliament, all active measures are on the table.
As I was saying to the hon. member, the first thing we want to do is look at the commitment made by the Prime Minister and by others to withdraw from manpower training, but we are also
prepared to look at all the elements, including active measures, being discussed with Quebec and the other provinces.
Goods And Services TaxMr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the holy harmonization hymn book, chapter 7, verse 5, states on the harmonized GST: "We think that Albertans will applaud this move to an improved tax system".
I invite the Prime Minister to come to Alberta and say that. I hope when he comes he brings a very large Inuit carving with him because he will need it, I guarantee that.
Can the Prime Minister explain how his taking a billion dollars out of the pockets of Canadians to finance a tax break in Atlantic Canada demonstrates the Prime Minister's commitment to equality and why will Albertans really applaud the picking of their pockets?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member requires is a bit of a lesson in understanding the nature of the Canadian economy.
The Canadian economy is very different in Alberta than it is in Nova Scotia. It is very different in Ontario than it is in British Columbia. For instance, would the hon. member suggest that the oil and gas taxation policy be the same in Alberta as applies to the manufacturing industry in Ontario? Clearly not, because they are different circumstances.
We are dealing with deep structural change. It is the kind of structural change that let the Canadian government help the western grain farmers. At this time Atlantic Canada is going through a very positive set of changes and it is the responsibility of the Canadian government to enable and facilitate that change.
Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, what Canadians want from coast to coast is equal treatment.
Ralph Klein, the premier of Alberta, has called for equal tax treatment. Even the Prime Minister's little buddy in Alberta, Grant Mitchell, has called for equal treatment. He says: "Albertans expect to have the federal portion of the harmonized tax collected in Alberta reduced to equal the level collected in those provinces".
When will the Prime Minister demonstrate his true commitment to fiscal equality by either lowering the GST for the rest of Canada or trashing this obvious payoff to Atlantic Canadian premiers?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, by equal treatment, is the member saying that the same taxation regime should be applied to the oil and gas industry in Alberta as is applied to the manufacturing industry in Ontario? Is the hon. member saying that Ontario should not have been given a billion dollars in stabilization payments in the 1990s? Is he saying the federal government should not have helped out with tax reform in 1972 to compensate for the revenues lost by provinces?
If that is what the hon. member is saying, then it is very clear that he does not understand the Canadian economy, what holds it together and what is going to make it grow.
ImmigrationMr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
In 1982, the Liberal minister of immigration decided that Victor Régalado, a Salvadorian national, was a refugee within the meaning of the Geneva Convention. In the past 14 years, Victor Régalado married a Canadian, had two children born in Quebec, and has shown that he was not a threat to national security. Yet, we learned this morning that departmental officials have decided to deport Mr. Régalado for reasons of national security.
Since these officials could not justify Mr. Régalado's deportation order, could the minister tell us in what way Mr. Régalado is a threat to national security?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and acting Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, you will understand that, under the Privacy Act, it is very difficult to publicly discuss the case of a person currently in Canada.
I also want to say that, as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, I have a duty to ensure the integrity of the system. I do not see why we would not, in this particular case, clearly follow the acts and regulations relating to immigration.
Osvaldo Nunez: Mr. Speaker, the minister has the discretionary power required to resolve this situation. The minister, her predecessors and her officials have demonstrated negligence and a lack of compassion in this case.
How can the minister explain that a foreign national having no status can live, work and study here for 14 years without immigration authorities making a decision in his case?
Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Speaker, it is not a lack of compassion to apply the law and thus act fairly toward those waiting to emigrate to Canada.
It has taken a long time, yes, but I must point out that people have the right of appeal to all levels in Canada. Right now, this case is being handled according to the provisions of the Immigration Act and Regulations. I can assure members of this House that we are acting in all fairness in this case.
BenefitsMr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have received a long term policy initiative document marked "protected", dated March 8, 1996, from the justice department listing the following initiatives related to personal relationships: marital and family status, same sex couples and family and dependant benefits.
Canadians have the right to know the minister's agenda. Is it his intention as a next step in his agenda to pursue family and dependant benefits for same sex couples?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is obvious the hon. member thinks he is on to something here, which might be his first argument against Bill C-33. We would think for a party that speaks so much about firearms it would know the difference between finding a smoking gun and shooting blanks.
The hon. member should know the protected document that was taken from my files refers to a discussion paper enabling the government to participate in tribunals and before courts in which there are claims for same sex benefits under federal programs.
As Minister of Justice I am obligated to defend those claims on behalf of the government and I would expect to find in my office a paper that discusses just how I will defend them. That is what the document is about.
Art Hanger: Mr. Speaker, it is the discussion paper that should be introduced into the House for public debate.
My question to the minister is very specific. I want to know what Canadians have the right to know, whether the government intends now or in the future to legislate or regulate what is listed in this secret initiative document, family and dependant benefits for same sex couples and changes to marital and family status. Yes or no?
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, I can understand from recent events why the hon. member would be afraid of public discussion of ideas. There seems to be a price to be paid for it in his party.
I do not have to claim same sex benefits. There are parties before the courts all the time doing that. As Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada I am obligated to respond on behalf of the government. In the discharge of my responsibilities I am preparing discussion papers which will frame a discussion of the policies and approaches to deal with those claims.
If the hon. member's reference is to Bill C-33, the bill speaks for itself. It does not deal with benefits; it deals with discrimination.
Somalia InquiryMr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
A few short days after the famous top to bottom search of the defence department, military police detained Corporal Purnelle, at the Quebec City airport, in order to prevent him from meeting with commissioners and lawyers of the Somalia inquiry in order to hand over information. Worse yet, the chairman of the inquiry had to intercede personally before the army would release Corporal Purnelle. I think that operation camouflage is still going strong.
How can the minister justify the army's decision to place Corporal Purnelle under surveillance for six months, thus preventing him from speaking with the Commission?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has not addressed all the facts correctly.
Any member of the armed forces has the right, the duty and the obligation to make evidence available to the commission. I have stated that in the House previously and I state it again today. The obligation to make evidence available does not obviate their responsibility under the National Defence Act to abide by Canadian forces discipline.
If someone wants to give evidence to the commission or if they want to travel to Ottawa to see the commissioners, obviously they have to seek permission of commanding officers so their posts are not abandoned in a wanton way.
This individual had every right to come here. All he had to do was ask before he arrived. That is the reason there may be a disciplinary matter involved.
Jean-Marc Jacob: Mr. Speaker, I am disgusted by the minister's answer. I think he was arrested simply for his own safety, probably.
The minister has no understanding of what goes on in his department. Does he plan a quick response to the demands of counsel for an end to the blackmail and intimidation of Corporal Purnelle, no doubt for his own protection?
David Collenette: Mr. Speaker, to turn the hon. member's comment on him, sometimes I wonder what is going on in his head because he obviously does not pay attention to the facts.
The Minister of National Defence does not get involved in disciplinary matters with the Canadian forces. That is a matter for the forces to deal with. However, I can assure the hon. member and all members that no member of the armed forces will be prevented from giving information to the Somalia commission.
FisheriesMr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Vancouver South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans travelled to Vancouver to meet with fishing industry representatives. While in Vancouver the minister announced the reinstatement of salmonoid enhancement programs in British Columbia. I congratulate him for that decision.
Over the past two weeks the minister has met with a number of stakeholders both here and in Vancouver. I thank him for taking the time to meet with many of these groups.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question please.
Herb Dhaliwal: Could the minister inform the House of the results of these meetings?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in addition to announcing the return of salmonoid enhancement programs, I did have the opportunity when in British Columbia to meet with eight different groups representing many sectors within the commercial fishery, union groups, aboriginal groups, packers and coastal communities.
We all agreed on the objective, sustainability, viability of the industry and conservation, although there was not a 100 per cent consensus on the way it should be achieved.
In every group discussion was positive and many suggestions were offered which, I am pleased to announce to the House, I will be able to take into consideration and in the next few days announce some adjustments and fine tuning to the main plan that will remain as is but will be adjusted to soften the blow.
BenefitsMr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on the last question put by the member for Calgary Northeast to the Minister of Justice.
The Minister of Justice has indicated in introducing legislation in the House that Parliament and not the courts should settle certain important issues. Why then is he content on the issue of same sex benefits to allow the courts and tribunals to settle those questions? Why will he not table legislation that respects the vote of Parliament that same sex benefits not be provided?
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what vote my hon. friend is referring to.
What the government has acted on is discrimination. That is what Bill C-33 is about, and any effort to divert the discussion from discrimination to collateral matters such as benefits or provincial matters such as marriage or adoption is simply an effort to avoid the true issue of Bill C-33.
Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, you will check the record that Parliament voted on this in the fall.
It was the minister who made this connection when he said in XTRA West on March 12, 1994: ``If the government takes the position that you cannot discriminate, it follows as a matter of logic that you have spousal entitlement to benefits''.
Is that his position? If it is not his position, will he clarify any legislation before the House to ensure there is not mandatory provision of same sex entitlements?
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, there is no need to clarify Bill C-33; it speaks for itself. It deals not with benefits, it deals not with marriage, it deals not with adoption. It deals with discrimination, which we are against.
In terms of benefits and logic, I point out to the hon. member that in the years since March, 1994, when that quote was recorded, the Supreme Court of Canada decided the case of Egan and Nesbit. It decided that notwithstanding that sexual orientation is a ground within section 15 of the charter on which discrimination is prohibited, the benefits do not automatically follow; so much for logic, and that is the law.
Canada Labour CodeRéal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour.
The Sims report on part I of the Canada Labour Code was divided in its opinion on the use of replacement workers.
Could the Minister of Labour tell us his position on the use of replacement workers, commonly known as scabs. I would like a clear answer.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the member said, the Sims report was divided on the matter.
In April, I consulted within the department. That is now concluded. Here again, unfortunately, there was no consensus. I am currently giving the matter consideration and will soon submit my position to cabinet and to caucus. When the amendments to the Canada Labour Code are tabled in the House, the hon. member will have the opportunity to learn the government's position, which he will no doubt comment on.
Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, is the minister prepared to say that the use of strike breakers aggravates labour disputes and that anti-scab legislation would contribute to establishing and maintaining civilized negotiations?
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the hon. member that I could propose the best labour legislation in the House. If the parties do not bargain in good faith, there will always be disputes. So I hope I will be able to propose amendments that will bring some balance to collective bargaining so we may have industrial peace.
Department Of National DefenceMr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of National Defence tried to blame a $250,000 retirement party paid for with taxpayer money on his previous chief of defence staff.
"We have a new chief of defence staff who has laid down the rules to senior military officers that they have to behave in a way with the public's money as the public would have them behave".
Will the minister today tell the House and Canadians specifically the new rule on spending limits on retirement parties?
David Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I answered this question fully yesterday.
Members of the armed forces must be very cognizant of the fiscal realities facing the country. They have to be very careful how they administer their budgets.
The example given yesterday was obviously extravagant and unacceptable. I appreciate that in military tradition ceremony is very important, but this must be balanced with the need to be prudent with taxpayer money.
Jim Hart: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the auditor general reported serious problems with the Department of National Defence's ability to deal with the government's increased demands on our troops.
How can the minister allow expenditure of taxpayer funds on retirement parties when the auditor general reports that equipment deficiencies do not allow our troops to perform their assigned tasks within acceptable risk levels?
David Collenette: Mr. Speaker, much of what the auditor general said yesterday in his report has been debated in the House. It has been the subject of questions and answers in question period.
Since this government has come to power we have addressed those concerns. We have re-equipped by announcing the armoured personnel carrier purchase. We have provided new bullet proof vests, new guns, new night time vision goggles. We have given a lot of new equipment to the army so it can do its job in peacekeeping missions.
Land MinesMs. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Today is International Red Cross Day.
On Parliament Hill and across Canada young Canadians are embarking on a worldwide campaign to ban the use of anti-personnel land mines. What will the government do to support this initiative by the Red Cross and young Canadians to ban land mines?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, three weeks ago when I visited Bosnia perhaps the most disturbing sight was a number of young people who had lost limbs due to the vicious weapons of anti-personnel land mines.
That is why it was so encouraging today to go on the front lawn of Parliament Hill where young Canadians were out showing their
faith and solidarity with other young people around the world to share some of the responsibility for bringing to an end the use of these awful weapons.
Canada is one of the few countries that have banned outright the use of anti-personnel land mines. Furthermore, we are leading the fight in the United Nations and the OAS to have an outright ban. It was very encouraging this morning when the Prime Minister met with the German foreign minister who indicated they will work with us in a culmination of partnership to bring an end to the use of these weapons.
That is the way we keep faith with the victims of land mines I saw three weeks ago.
[Translation]
Foreign AffairsMr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
A Canadian citizen, Stéphane Sbikowski, has been a prisoner in a Venezuelan penitentiary for 17 months now, without his case having even been heard.
Three weeks ago, we asked the Secretary of State for Africa and Latin America if she intended to use political pressure to speed up the hearing of Mr. Sbikowski's case. Her reply at that time was that her department would contact us-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Would the hon. member please put his question?
Stéphane Bergeron: -to inform us of developments. The response left something to be desired. Given the danger Mr. Sbikowski is faced with each and every day-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I am sorry, but the hon. member for Delta has the floor.
FisheriesMr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the stated objective of the minister of fisheries is to downsize the B.C. fishing fleet by 50 per cent.
The minister knows full well the practical effect of treaty negotiations is to reallocate half the fisheries resource. How can the minister justify asking the B.C. industry to finance its own downsizing when he is prepared to give away half its catch?
Fred Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. member would make up his mind. Two days ago it was 25 per cent; now it is 50 per cent. The truth of the matter is that this has been taken into consideration. Whether or not the hon. member can add, subtract or divide I have to say that the allocations will be put in place as part of the fine tuning. Those people who have to make the decisions will make the decisions on all the information that it is possible to provide them with at the time.
JusticeMr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. It concerns his handling of Patrick Kelly's section 690 application.
In this House on February 4, 1994 the minister promised that an investigative brief would be prepared. He assured the House that standard procedures would be followed. Neither has happened.
Did the Minister of Justice ever intend to keep his promises? Why did he break them? Why did he change his mind and why should we believe him in the future?
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, I will overlook the provocative nature of the question in order to first acknowledge that the hon. member had the courtesy of giving me notice before he asked it, although he did not tell me how he was going to ask it.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I wonder if we could have the short version of the answer.
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, the answer is that an investigative brief is a collection of a summary of the evidence. I have done better than that in this case. I have given Mr. Kelly's lawyer all the evidence. He has had it in his office and Mr. Kelly has had it in British Columbia. They have got the evidence. They have got full disclosure. I am going to be fully briefed before I make the decision. We are going to do it in accordance with the rules.
Points Of OrderMr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to raise with the Chair the fact that there appears to have been distributed on members' desks at least two pieces of literature, at least they have been distributed in this corner. If I read it correctly, one appears to be a piece of literature in favour of Bill C-33 and the other, if I read it correctly, appears to be a piece of literature against Bill C-33. I would like to know who authorized the distribution of these.
As a rule, parties distribute things on the desks of their members and sometimes the House leaves things on the desks for members. However, I have been here a while and I do not remember my desk
ever being turned into a post office or a propaganda platform for whatever position other members may wish to advocate.
I would like the Chair to review this matter and at some point to make it very clear that people should not be doing this sort of thing. We have the right to come to an empty desk. If there are messages there from the House or from our respective whips, fine, but let us not get into this business of having junk mail on our desks when we come into the Chamber.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I fully concur with the sentiments of the hon. member that the kind of activity that was tantamount to lobbying on the floor of the House via pamphlets is unacceptable.
Earlier today I discovered a document which was unsigned and was in only one language. I removed it from the desks of Liberal MPs, as it is my job as the government whip to do so. I had no such authority to remove it from the desks of other members. As to the second document, I did not authorize it in any way and only saw it after question period started.
The two documents were not authorized by me. In the case of the first one, I personally removed it from the desks of hon. members because no such authority had been sought from nor given by me.
Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, on a second point of order, I would like to register my objection to the fact that a New Democratic member was not recognized for statements today despite the fact that I was rising from one minute after until-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I will take the issues in reverse order.
As to the second point of order, it is possibly a matter of debate and not a point of order. The chair occupants are conscious of members rising and to the best of our ability we see that members are recognized accordingly.
On the first point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona who is a long time serving member of this House, he raises a very important issue. I am pleased to hear the participation and the contribution of the chief government whip.
I want to assure the House upon verification with the Clerk and his staff that no member of the House staff distributed those materials, so that in fact it would appear they were circulated and deposited by a member or members of this House.
As your Speaker I would discourage that practice and join the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona and the hon. chief government whip in their position on this matter.
Board Of Internal EconomyThe Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I have the honour to inform the House that Mr. Jim Silye, member for the electoral district of Calgary Centre, has been appointed as member of the Board of Internal Economy in place of Mr. Bob Ringma, member for the electoral district of Nanaimo-Cowichan, for the purposes and under the provisions of chapter 42, first supplement of the revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response To PetitionsMr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table in both official languages the government's response to eight petitions.
Committees Of The HouseMr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the first report of the Standing Committee on Transport with respect to Bill C-20, an act respecting the commercialization of civil air navigation services.
Paul Zed: Mr. Speaker, I understand there have been consultations among the parties and that there is unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That the subcommittee on HIV/AIDS be authorized to send one member and a researcher to the conference on AIDS to be held in Vancouver, British Columbia, July 6 to 12, 1996.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
PetitionsAnna Terrana: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table two petitions, the first one with over 200
signatures of people from Vancouver Island who request Parliament not to increase the federal excise tax on gasoline.
The second petition is from 75 people living in the greater Vancouver area who request Parliament not to increase the federal excise tax on gasoline, and to strongly consider reallocating its current revenues to rehabilitate Canada's national highways.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a petition from 732 of my constituents. They ask Parliament not to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms by adding the undefined phrase of sexual orientation.
These petitioners state that society does not want privileges of married couples given to same sex couples. They believe this will certainly follow if Bill C-33 is passed.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition from the people in my riding.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase of sexual orientation.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present petitions today on behalf of my constituents in Mission-Coquitlam asking the government to not amend the human rights act to include the undefined phrase of sexual orientation.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have another five petitions totalling another 1,400 names on this very same topic that has already been discussed here today.
The petitioners ask the House of Commons and Parliament not to add the undefined phrase of sexual orientation to the Canadian Human Rights Act.
This is part of the ongoing list of petitions deluging my office.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by 11,250 people in my riding, demanding the total withdrawal of the unemployment insurance reform bill and the repatriation to Quebec of all powers relating to manpower and employment, along with the budgets that go with them.
Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present about 60 petitions with about 600 names on them from people all across Saskatoon and my riding.
The petitioners are protesting the price of gas in Saskatoon and across the country. They focus on the fact that Canadians have little control over this resource and that the federal government seems not to be particularly concerned about that.
They call upon this House to establish an energy price review commission to keep gasoline pricing and other energy products in check.
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I too am pleased to present a petition with 50 signatures to the House of Commons. These people are saying that Canadians are paying approximately 52 per cent of the cost per litre of gasoline at the pumps in the form of government taxes and that over the past 10 years the excise tax on gasoline has risen by 566 per cent. They ask that Parliament not increase the federal excise tax on gasoline in the next federal budget.
Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, this petition contains 175 signatures.
The petitioners say that there are profound inadequacies in the sentencing practices concerning individuals convicted of impaired driving charges. They state that Canada must embrace a philosophy of zero tolerance for individuals who drive while impaired by alcohol or drugs. They state that as promised the government must proceed immediately with amendments to the Criminal Code which will ensure that the severity of the sentence given to anyone convicted of driving while impaired and causing death or injury will be based on zero tolerance.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I present a petition signed by 53 residents of Simcoe North. They request that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way that would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or homosexuality, including amending the human rights code or the Canadian Human Rights Act to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase of sexual orientation.
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have two petitions to table with this honourable House.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase of sexual orientation.
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions.
The first petition requests Parliament not to amend the human rights code, the human rights act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relations or of homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase of sexual orientation.
Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, the second petition requests that Parliament recognize our Judaeo-Christian heritage and calls for the return to the holy Bible as our nation's moral standard.
The petitioners call for a return to Bible reading and prayer in our schools and to reinstate the name Jesus Christ in the Lord's prayer in the parliamentary daily opening prayer, and in recognition of the spiritual need of this nation to declare a national day of prayer and repentance.
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 43 Canadians, mostly from the city of Burlington, but also from Hamilton and Dorval, Quebec with regard to the Canadian Human Rights Act and their desire that it not be changed.
Mr. Speaker, in keeping with your ruling, I will not make any further comment.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. The first petition is from Edmonton, Alberta.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value to our society.
They also state that the Income Tax Act discriminates against traditional families who make the choice to provide care in the home for preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families who decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill and the aged.
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, the second petition comes from Vancouver, B.C.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that the consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health problems or impair one's ability and, specifically, that fetal alcohol syndrome and other alcohol related defects are 100 per cent preventable by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to enact legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the containers of all alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers and others of the risks associated with alcohol consumption.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions to the House today from people in my riding of London-Middlesex, every part of London and the surrounding area.
The petitioners express serious concerns about changes to federal legislation which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships.
They call on Parliament not to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms to include the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
I am very pleased to support the petitioners in their concerns.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by people from Lindsay, Bobcaygeon, Coboconk, Haliburton, Cameron, Little Britain, Bethany, Janetville, Buckhorn and area.
The petitioners call on Parliament to embrace zero tolerance toward individuals who drive a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol or drugs and they ask that sentencing reflect the severity of the crime.
Questions On The Order PaperPaul Zed: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 1 will be answered today.
Question No. 1-
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): 
Since 1934, how many crimes, in total, have been solved using the RCMP's restricted weapon registration system and ( a ), how many of these crimes have been solved by tracing the firearm back to the registered owner, and ( b ) how much money has the government spent since 1934 to implement, maintain and operate the restricted weapon registration system?

Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): In so far as the Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada and its agency is concerned, the answer is as follows.
The statistics requested respecting the number of crimes that have been solved by tracing the firearm back to the registered owner are not kept at this time and are therefore not available. The National Tracing Centre of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Firearms Registration and Administration Sections (FRAS) which was implemented in January 1995 received 131 trace requests from Canadian police agencies up to December 1995. Of these traces, 64 firearms were traceable to either a dealer or an owner. However, these traces involved unregistered firearms.
The funds expended by the government to operate the restricted weapon registration system and FRAS are as follows:
95/96 904,528.72 94/95 1,488,376.96 93/94 1,442,963.32 92/93 1,379,251.41 91/92 1,244,858.45 90/91 1,237,759.89 89/90 1,021,127.62 88/89 916,559.88 87/88 947,322.38 86/87 923,422.24 85/86 726,194.71 84/85 614,634.51 83/84 585,661.15 82/83 546,206.50 81/82 528,265.50 80/81 531,091.39 89/80 415,654.21 78/79 1,108,151.33 Total: $16,562,030.17
The source of these figures is the RCMP's finance and supply branch. Since 1978 the reports available do not have unit names or collator numbers identifying them. They are identified by unit financial code (UFC) and these may have changed over time. The only way to ensure that we are using the correct UFC is to factor in program activity structure (PAS) for that period. Unfortunately, we do not have a PAS before 1978.
Paul Zed: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Motions For PapersPaul Zed: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.

Government Orders
Canadian Human Rights ActAlfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I move:

That in relation to Bill C-33, an act to amend the Human Rights Act, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage of the bill, and one sitting day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill and, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the day allotted to the consideration of the report stage and on the allotted day to the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion carried.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-33, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, as reported (without amendment) from the committee; and of motions in Group No. 1.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-33. This legislation will amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation.
Currently the act forbids discrimination against Canadians because of their race, national or ethnic origins, colour, religion, age, marital status, family status or disabilities.
The purpose of this legislation is to insert into the act that which the courts have already declared into law in Canada. We know there is much emotion surrounding this bill. We also know this has been a policy of the federal Liberals since 1978, affirmed again at our last policy convention in 1994.
We know also that this has been included in the acts of eight provinces and territories in Canada. My province of Ontario introduced sexual orientation into its human rights act in 1986, some ten years ago. We also know the human rights commissions of all remaining Canadian jurisdictions have recommended that sexual orientation be added to human rights legislation.
There seems to be a lot of confusion and misinterpretation regarding this legislation. Much of it centres around its possible effects on the family. I remind the House the family is important to me, as it is to the people of Guelph- Wellington. Family must be the centre of our lives. I would not hesitate to speak out against any legislation which would end the importance of our families. That is why I am pleased to note in the bill's preamble these important words: "And whereas the government recognizes and affirms the importance of family as the foundation of Canadian society and that nothing in this act alters its fundamental role in society".
Those are comforting words. The family is the foundation of society and must continue to be respected and promoted as such. The preamble's purpose is to remind Canadians and parliamentarians that the act deals with discrimination in employment and the provision of goods and services. The fundamental role of family will not be altered by this amendment.
Canada is the best country in the world. We do not need the United Nations to remind us of that, although it continues to do so in poll after poll. It is the best country because of our cherished tradition of caring for one another. Health care, social services, education and public pensions are examples of why the world looks to us as a nation to copy.
Canadians enjoy the unique privilege of being the world's best. Our federal government must lead by defending the principle of equality for all Canadians, everyone. Our social programs and our health care are not the only reason we are the best. We are the best because we have shown tolerance and understanding to each other. We care for our aged. We look out for one another in need and we do not accept bigotry, intolerance or discrimination.
There seems to be a lot of discussion about the legislation which would in effect cover about 10 per cent of the workforce. The act specifies that a person cannot be fired, denied a promotion or refused access to goods and services because of who they are. However, sometimes it is important to remind Canadians of what legislation does not say.
In this case the act does not apply to religious, cultural or educational institutions. It does not apply to residential accommodation. It does not apply to retail and manufacturing businesses and it does not apply to provincial jurisdictions. It does not tell us what to do in our homes.
Canadians cannot accept intolerance. Certainly no one, particularly those in positions of power or leadership, would accept that people should be fired or placed at the back of a room or a bus because someone else finds their colour, their religion, their age, their sexual orientation offensive. Or would they?
It is possible there are still some Canadians who would rather fire an employee, no matter how good that person is, because a client or a customer is somehow offended by their colour or who they are.
Those ideas proved the worth of this legislation. Those ideas proved Canadians still need protection, not special rights, because they happen to be black, Jewish, Chinese or over 50 years old.
Reformers argue they want to see the list of prohibited grounds repealed altogether, ensuring equal treatment for all Canadians. Obviously they do not all agree.
However, let me challenge them to visit a seniors group and remind them they want to end protection based on age. Let them visit a synagogue, mosque or Christian church and tell the congregation they want to end protection based on religion. Let them visit women who have been fired or who lacked promotion because of the simple fact they are women.
We need no lesson on equality from Reformers. The sad reason we need to protect people is that there are those in this great country who believe the back of the bus is the place for some of us. There are those who believe the back of the room is the place to hide while bigotry, racism and intolerance are accepted.
We as a government, as elected officials, must take a stand and say we do not tolerate bigotry. We cannot accept that some Canadians, our sons, daughters, mothers, daughters, co-workers, employees and friends, are denied goods and services, are overlooked for promotion, are ignored or, worse, beaten because of who they are. The only thing we must be intolerant of is intolerance against others.
This amendment has the support of such national organizations as the Canadian Jewish Congress, the YWCA, the Canadian Bankers Association, the Canadian Bar Association and the Anglican Church of Canada.
I know there is concern about this legislation. Much of this concern has resulted from the importance of marriage and family. I know there are individuals who enjoy stretching the facts. These same people said that gun control would lead to confiscation and that Bill C-41 would lead to the legalization of pedophilia.
However, what we are doing here is recognizing that certain Canadians require our protection in certain parts of their lives. This does not condone what they do elsewhere.
Allow me to quote Sean Durkan from the May 5, 1996 edition of the Ottawa Sun :

Telling someone they must sit at the back of the bus until such a time as a way can be worked out to place everyone at the back of that bus does not cut it.

It is time to get off that bus and back on the road to tolerance and understanding.
Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am informed the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth would like to have Motion No. 8 withdrawn because it is substantially the same as Motion No. 7. I have consulted with the whips of the two other parties and they have no objection to this proposition.
There is a consequential amendment, I have been told. Perhaps I could indicate to other members to examine Motion No. 1 because I think it is consequential to Motion No. 8; it has a direct relationship.
In any case, I would like to now ask if the House would consent to have Motion No. 8 withdrawn.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Do we have the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw Motion No. 8 in Group No. 3?
[Intervention]
An hon. member: Agreed.
Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I have another point of order. There is also Motion No. 1 which I would like to ask colleagues to examine. I believe it is purely consequential by the information given to me. Perhaps after the next debate we could have it removed because it is consequential. Now that No. 8 does not exist that amendment does not do anything. If the House is satisfied with that I will come back to the House in a few minutes, perhaps after the next speaker.
Darrel Stinson: Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member speaking about society.
I stand in a House that was built on the principle of democracy and today I watched the government vote against democracy. By moving closure on this debate it is stopping the people from having their say. If members want to talk about hypocrisy they had better start doing what they are supposed to be doing in a supposedly democratic House.
I wish to express the strong opposition of my constituents to the government's legislation for adding the undefined phrase sexual orientation to the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Since I became a member of Parliament in 1993 no issue, no government action or inaction, has provoked such an outpouring of letters, faxes and petitions to my office. No issue has had a greater impact, yet closure has been moved in the House on it.
People are concerned for many reasons. First is the needless haste, the almost diehard rush of the government, to ram this very important legislation through Parliament without giving the people of Canada adequate opportunity to study its possible impacts and to reach public agreement on whether it is advisable.
The government is pretending, because the bill is so short, that there is virtually nothing in it. People give more apparent thought to getting the oil changed in their cars than the government has given to adding the undefined phrase sexual orientation to a list in the human rights act of forbidden grounds of discrimination.
One other action of this government provoked a similar degree of public protest and that was Bill C-68, which will take police officers off our streets in order to process gun registrations for law-abiding Canadians while doing virtually nothing to end the criminal misuse of firearms. For that legislation the same justice minister made a point of bragging how he had consulted with the public.
Day after day he read to hon. members a list of the groups which he visited, a list of the groups which supported that very controversial legislation. He apparently made a point of at least notifying such groups and now we hear from the groups that this was not true in all cases. But he did express this. He seriously considered amendments, if not outright in their opposition to his legislation, to at least seek consensus and to answer their concerns by modifying his original proposal.
I believe his legislation was bad because there is no proof that it will ever reduce criminal misuse of firearms. At least the justice minister gave an appearance of listening to the people. However, not in this case.
Currently the Canadian pension plan secretariat has been helping with hearings across Canada so that all Canadians can have the opportunity to speak about changes to their pension.
When the subject of doctor assisted suicide came before Parliament during the first session, the other place held extensive hearings and produced a significant report. The government ap-
peared to listen because it did not proceed with legislation. Even now the government is listening to different groups.
Let us look at the Devco development, the Cape Breton Development Corporation, which will seriously affect the future of the Atlantic region, especially the Cape Breton coal mining industry. It is prompting serious Senate hearings to examine the plans put forward. Community members and labour leaders as well as local legislatures have had opportunity to come to Ottawa and lobby members, including officials of Natural Resource Canada, to try to ensure that the best possible decision is made.
We are all aware that sometimes such hearings are more for public relations than for the real purpose of listening to Canadians. However, the people of Canada can at least hope that the government will listen to them. The people can at least get the impression that Parliament, including the Prime Minister and his cabinet, is acting as responsibly as possible about issues which Canadians perceive to be important. Not in this case.
Past governments have viewed it as being so important that people must have hope they will be listened to that they even added a special section to the Criminal Code so that some of the worst criminals in our history would be guaranteed the opportunity of getting a hearing for early parole, even if they have been a serial murderer who has been tried and found guilty. Sometimes they have even confessed their guilt for the killing of many people and for the terrible pain and suffering they have inflicted on the surviving family and friends. Supposedly even those murderers must be assured that there is some hope they will be listened to by the government.
Surely the fact that every member of Parliament has received hundreds if not thousands of faxes, letters and petitions about the government's plan to add the undefined phrase sexual orientation to the human rights act ought to have convinced even this government that the people of Canada view this legislation as very serious business indeed.
What do we get? We get closure. A gag order. That is the government's response to the people of Canada.
Is the government listening? No. Is it showing respect for the fact that very often the people of Canada have a collective wisdom which is far greater than anything displayed by a government? No. Is the government holding cross country hearings? No. Will there be a Senate committee appointed to look into the issue? No.
The Minister of Justice is turning his back on the Canadian people. He is listening instead to a very small special interest group. He has not made any significant effort to seek a consensus from Canadians on how he should proceed.
The government has brought forward Bill C-33 with the kind of extreme haste that reasonable people could only expect when dealing with a major national emergency. By contrast, the west coast grain handlers went on strike during the first session of the 35th Parliament, putting thousands of people out of work and threatening Canada's international reputation as a reliable supplier of grain. Even then the government did not act with such haste.
What effort has the justice minister made on Bill C-33 to contact groups which could reasonably be expected to have concerns or perhaps to oppose the legislation outright? What effort has the government made to seek the consensus of Canadians before proceeding with legislation to add the undefined phrase sexual orientation to the human rights act?
The laws that are made and passed in the House will affect the people of Canada forever, yet the government refuses to consult the people. It is shameful.
Unlike serial killers, which the government thinks must have the hope of special hearings, it gives people opposed to including the undefined phrase sexual orientation in the human rights act no hope at all that their concerns will be examined. Instead it substitutes name calling, like bigot, racist and homophobic to anybody who stands up to question the legislation. That is how much respect the government has for democracy.
The second reason I oppose the legislation is that members of Parliament have not been given any proof that homosexuals and lesbians are not being paid fairly, are not being promoted or are not being admitted as students in our colleges and universities. On the contrary, we have proof. The member for Port Moody-Coquitlam pointed out to the government that the gay population in North America appears to have full access to a standard of living which is considerably above average.
The government usually presents hon. members with pages and pages of statistics regarding, for example, the recognizably lower household incomes of aboriginal peoples compared with non-aboriginal peoples, or the much smaller percentage of women compared with men in management positions. We gets reams of statistics on these issues from the government.
Where are the pages, where are the statistics on this issue? Nowhere. The answer is clear. The government has no statistics to support this legislation. It has never had any statistics supporting this legislation.
I would like to remind my hon. colleagues that the government also assured Canadians that passing the Young Offenders Act would not result in an increase of any youth crime. on the contrary, from 1986 to 1994, violent youth crime-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The hon. member's time has expired.
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on Bill C-33, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act which will prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.
The proposals have generated deep, passionate and powerful discussion on both sides of the issue, and a maelstrom of notions of family, religion and entitlement to benefits. There are strongly held views among my colleagues in the House, among my constituents of Erie, among the citizens of this country.
I respect and have considered the views of all who have written letters, placed phone calls to my office and made personal presentations. I am most appreciative of their time, their concerns and their prayers. I listened intently to the differing opinions and approaches of each individual and organization that made presentations to the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons. I have thought long and hard on this issue, at times with confusion, at times with anxiety, at times with anguish and finally with resolve.
Now the time has come to take a stand, to cast a vote. In full knowledge of the free vote status of this decision, I have concluded that I will support Bill C-33 for a very good reason: It is simply the right thing to do. Let me explain.
This issue is one of human rights, of dignity, of equality, of the universal principle that no individual should be discriminated against because of who or what they are.
The federal government as well as every province and territory in Canada has human rights legislation. The current Canadian Human Rights Act contains a list of prohibited grounds of discrimination which includes race, colour, religion, age, sex, marital or family status and disability. Canadians are protected whether they are of Italian, Sri Lankan or English stock, black, yellow, brown or white, Jewish, Christian or Muslim, young or old, man or woman, married or single, parent or childless. The act does not create any special group or any special rights. This bill would add the term sexual orientation to that list, no special group, no special rights.
The application of the Canadian Human Rights Act is restricted to employment in and the provision of goods and services by the federal government and federally regulated businesses such as banks, airlines and telecommunications companies. These organizations employ about 10 per cent of the workforce which makes for a very limited application. Most employers such as schools, small businesses and religious and cultural organizations are regulated provincially and would not be affected by the proposed legislation.
There are four basic reasons why sexual orientation should be included in the Canadian Human Rights Act. First, as a matter of fundamental fairness, the amendment will ensure that Canadians cannot be discriminated against in the areas of federal employment, accommodation and access to goods and services solely because of their sexual orientation. This means, for example, Canadians cannot be fired for being homosexual or indeed heterosexual.
Some may say it is not necessary in this day and age. Let me remind the House of the recent intemperate, base and discriminating remarks made against blacks and homosexuals by two Reform members of the House, the highest court in the land. These inexcusable comments sickened me and Canadians everywhere. Some may say it is necessary, very much so.
Second, it is necessary to bring the text of the Canadian Human Rights Act into conformity with the charter. The Ontario Court of Appeal in Haig v. Canada held that the Canadian Human Rights Act would in future be read as though sexual orientation were already a prohibited ground of discrimination. It is already with us. The courts are already setting policy which should be a prerogative of Parliament. It is our responsibility, indeed our obligation, to codify this fundamental right and principle of equality. The courts are telling parliamentarians to do our jobs or they will do it for us.
Third, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously held in Egan and Nesbitt v. Canada that sexual orientation is a prohibited ground of discrimination under the equality provisions of section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The problem is the charter does not apply to private companies and federally regulated industries. The Canadian Human Rights Act does. Accordingly the Canadian Human Rights Act is being amended to give protection on the basis of sexual orientation to gays and lesbians in the private sector workplace.
Fourth, the proposed amendment will bring the federal act into conformity with eight provinces and territories which have already amended their human rights legislation to include sexual orientation: Quebec in 1977, Ontario in 1986, Yukon in 1987, Nova Scotia in 1991, New Brunswick in 1992, British Columbia in 1992, and Saskatchewan in 1993. The nature of this legislation is not new or revolutionary. We are simply catching up to the provinces.
My constituents are surprised on being reminded that in 1986 the province of Ontario added sexual orientation as a prohibited ground in its human rights legislation. Did this open the floodgates? Not as a matter of course, not automatically. Indeed eight long years later the Ontario government introduced specific legislation, Bill 167, directed at enlarging the definition of spousal
relationships in Ontario, that same sex couples were entitled to the same rights as applied to common law heterosexual couples.
It is interesting to note that the bill was defeated. Let us not lose the logic of this event. Issues such as adoption by homosexuals were separate and distinct and did not automatically follow the adding of sexual orientation to the Ontario human rights legislation. No, we were not consumed by the flood waters.
Let me continue with a brief but most important consideration of what the Canadian Human Rights Act does not do. It does not negatively impact on the traditional family nor change the definition of marriage, family or spouse. This is explicitly reinforced in the preamble where it is stated "-the government recognizes and affirms the importance of family as the foundation of Canadian society and that nothing in this act alters its fundamental role in society".
In fact the Supreme Court of Canada in the Mossop case rejected claims that the term "family status" in the Canadian Human Rights Act includes couples of the same sex. This was the decision of the court then and remains the law now. It is good law that I agree with.
It does not condone nor condemn sexual orientation, neither homosexuality nor heterosexuality. It does not extend same sex benefits to partners of gays and lesbians. Again the Supreme Court of Canada in the Egan case refused to support the extension of pension benefits to same sex partners in its decision that the Old Age Security Act does not violate the charter by defining spouse to apply only to couples of the opposite sex.
It does not legitimize nor legalize pedophilia, which is a crime under the Criminal Code of Canada, whether the perpetrator is heterosexual or homosexual and is not a matter of sexual orientation.
As mentioned, I also took note of submissions by the witnesses before the human rights committee which coloured an overriding element of this debate, the human element. I listened to the opinions of psychiatrists who confirmed that a homosexual orientation was not learned or influenced behaviour but set in the womb by the mysteries of conception and fetal development. I listened to a young female who stood in the top five percentile of the officer rank only to be honourably discharged from the Canadian Armed Forces solely because she was a lesbian.
There was the love of mothers of gay and lesbian children all of whom struggled with their child's sexual orientation, fear, societal rejection and persecution and ultimately acceptance and peace, as well as the wasteful suicides of the many who did not. There were comments and support by the Ottawa-Carleton regional police chief and two officers from the bias crime units who denounced discrimination, intolerance and hate. There were the representations of various religious groups who came down forcefully and convincingly on both sides of the argument.
It is interesting that those who opposed the legislation for religious reasons adamantly affirmed their abhorrence for discrimination but feared the slippery slope which they felt the legislation could lead to. Am I to vote against the basic fundamental human right on fears that it may lead to something else? Is this correct, is this right, especially when one notes the familial interpretation of our courts to date?
I also wish to send a message to members of the homosexual community cautioning them not to chortle with glee on the passage of this legislation. I strongly support the traditional family and heterosexual spouses. I strongly oppose same sex marriages, adoption or measures that advocate a homosexual lifestyle and would vote against legislative initiatives in this regard. Bill C-33 does not fall in this category.
Bill C-33 is not a gay rights bill as its opponents and the media delight in its reference. It is a human rights bill, pure and simple.
Bill C-33 is not about special rights for anyone. It is about equal rights for everyone. All Canadians have a fundamental right to be free from discrimination. It is not enough to be against discrimination. We must act to prevent discrimination.
Let me bring this discussion to a personal level. What parent could argue that a son or daughter who is gay or lesbian should have less protection from workplace discrimination or less access to services than anyone else? Not this parent of five children.
It is often said that a society is judged by how the majority treats its minorities. Canada's world renowned and admirable human rights record speaks volumes of who we are as a people. Bigotry cannot be changed overnight. We must educate, we must learn. The objective of this legislation is to end discrimination, nothing more and nothing less. In all good conscience, who could not support this objective?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon.. member for Huron-Bruce-taxation; the hon. member for Mackenzie-fisheries.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Madam Speaker, recently I was interviewed by a reporter from a major newspaper in western Canada. It was an extended interview and she asked me about my experience as a politician and a parliamentarian.
I explained to her that I had never been a politician before 1993, that it was the first time I had been elected to anything. When she asked me how I found politics I frankly told her that I certainly had had my eyes opened in the last two and one-half years. She kept at me asking me what I meant and what kind of experience it had been for me. I told her that to be bluntly honest, politics is a dirty, rotten, slimy business in Canada. When she asked me to explain, I said I could not think of a better way to illustrate and underline that than what was going on with Bill C-33.
Hundreds and hundreds of letters and phone calls and faxes are coming from people from all over Canada to my office and to all the members' offices in Ottawa, to my constituency office and even to my home. The only other piece of legislation that has caused as much of an uproar in my constituency as this legislation has is Bill C-68 which as my colleague pointed out also came from this same minister.
At least on Bill C-68, we had the opportunity for a full and open debate. Yes, the government adopted legislation that flew in the face of what a majority of Canadians wanted. Yes, the government forced its will on the people, but at least there was the opportunity for the bill to be debated in public for an extended period time. The justice committee had an opportunity to examine the legislation and propose amendments to it and to call witnesses. It was a protracted debate. At least there was an opportunity for Canadians to express their widespread opposition to it. Unfortunately in the end, it went through but at least the process was adhered to.
In this instance, a piece of legislation is being rammed through this House of Commons without debate. The government is trying to get this legislation passed before Canadians wake up and realize what is going on.
The government would like to have it a done deal before it has to face the music. Those who write editorials have not even had a chance to pick at this and highlight some of the discrepancies in the minister's statements and some of the discrepancies in what the legislation purports to do and actually will do. The government wants to have this all a done deal, put away in the closet before Canadians wake up.
This bill is not about discrimination. As my colleague who also asked, show us where there is a problem with discrimination against homosexuals in Canada. Show us where this kind of legislation is required. It does not exist.
This legislation is not about equality. It is about inequality. It is about special status. In the minister's own words, he says one thing to one group of people, one special interest group and then he stands up in front of all Canadians and says something completely different. He tells the gay community: "This is a major win for you guys". Then he tells Canadians: "Do not worry, this is basically window dressing. It is an amendment to the human rights code so that there is no discrimination against gay and lesbian people".
Clearly, there is a real hypocrisy going on behind the scenes that will not stand the light of day. I spoke with people outside on the steps of this House who are protesting what is going on in here. They know full well the hypocritical remarks the minister has made, the duplicity of the government's bill and its attempt to ram it through without debate, invoking closure time and again.
Darrel Stinson: Unbelievable.
Mike Scott: It is unbelievable and it is unacceptable. This is not democracy. This is a minister who has a very narrow agenda. He is imposing his will not only on the Canadian people, but on his colleagues as well. I am sure most of them did not want to see the legislation come before the House and certainly do not want to support it. However, this is the way democracy works in Canada today.
It calls into question the parliamentary process and underlines the need for the changes that the Reform Party of Canada has proposed. But I will not get into that right now. I will stay on the subject.
The justice minister has admitted in his public statements that Bill C-33 will lead to special status. I do not have his quote in front of be, so I will paraphrase: "Obviously, when you recognize the sexual orientation aspect of this bill it must lead to same sex benefits and the recognition of marital status". It cannot help but do that.
The justice minister knows it full well because he said it. He is the representative of the Canadian public on justice matters. He cannot stand now and tell the Canadian people that that is not what the bill is all about. I know we are not allowed to use certain words in the House, and it is unfortunate because sometimes those words are needed to describe the actions of some members.
I have received in my office about 180 calls and faxes from constituents. They have said very clearly and overwhelmingly: "Do not support this legislation. Vote against it". On the other side I got one phone call in the last two weeks saying: "I want you to support this legislation". All the rest have said no. We are receiving petitions daily.
The government is trying to ram and stuff this legislation through the House so quickly that members cannot get petitions through the clerk of petitions fast enough to get them into the House before the legislation becomes law. How can this be called a
democracy when people do not even get a chance to express their opinions by petitioning the government and have the petitions duly noted and recorded before the legislation becomes reality?
What is going on with this legislation? It does not stand the light of day. It is what gives Parliament a bad name. It is what the Liberals ranted and railed about when they were in opposition and the Conservatives invoked closure and time allocation time after time. Now, when they are the government they are doing exactly the same thing. Obviously, they were crying crocodile tears back then. They have no real commitment to democracy. They have no real commitment to opening up the House and allowing proper debate to take place. They have no real inclination to move with the Canadian people on these issues. They want to impose their vision on the Canadian people.
There is a gulf between the vision of this government and its cabinet and the vision of the Canadian people. A gulf is widening in many ways. This is another example. It is undermining the faith of ordinary Canadians in their government and in the system.
I submit that as long as we continue down this road that gulf will widen even more and the Canadian people will become more disillusioned. I also submit, as I have said many times in the House, this government by these actions, by this arrogant, top down social engineering attitude is going to destroy itself. It has to face the voters in the next election. It will have to explain to ordinary Canadians why it invoked time allocation and closure and why it rammed this legislation through the House of Commons, why it ignored the wishes of ordinary Canadians right across Canada. It will pay the price.
In the meantime, it is certainly a sad day for our nation that the government is moving with as much speed as I have ever seen on any piece of legislation to ram this through and make it a done deal before Canadians even realize what is going on.
I conclude by saying what I said to the reporter. Politics in Canada in 1996 is a dirty, rotten, slimy business.
Ms. Maria Minna (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am very proud to rise today to support Bill C-33.
I have listened for some time now to both sides of the argument. I have listened to some exaggerations sometimes on both sides. However, when we get right down to the essential facts of the issue we have to accept that it is clearly a human rights issue. There is no other way of looking at it.
We can look at every aspect of it. If we look at the provinces we see that most have already adopted this measure in their human rights acts. It has existed for 20 years in Quebec and for 10 years in Ontario. It has not changed the interpretation of adoption in those provinces. In the Ontario legislature it had to be introduced as a separate bill which was defeated at that time. Therefore the courts have not used this section as a way of interpreting spousal benefit, adoption, marital status or whatever. It has nothing whatever to do with that. It strictly deals with discrimination, plain and simple.
Many of us have in our lifetimes experienced discrimination. Those people who have never had to deal with it have no idea what it does to a person's sense of self-respect, self-being and the ability to continue on with their lives. I have experienced some of that in my lifetime. I come from a community where at the time that kind of discrimination was meted out. There are many other groups that still deal with that daily.
As a country, we are proud to deal with minorities. We have always said we must protect minorities, otherwise we have no democracy. If it is strictly a rule of the majority then there is no democracy.
This issue does not deal with pedophilia, as some people are suggesting. Pedophilia is a crime. To suggest this bill does anything but give people basic human rights is distorting the facts. We can distort and misrepresent people's statements all we want but the facts will not change no matter which way we look at it. We can read people's statements and misinterpret and misrepresent them but that does not change the fact that this is a basic issue of human rights and nothing else.
We talk about families. All the amendments refer in one way or another to the traditional family and how this is to affect family structure. I defy anyone to tell me exactly what the perfect family is. Some of my colleagues will say it is husband, wife, children, perhaps adopted, and maybe pets. However, we have single mothers, single fathers, older siblings raising younger siblings, aunts, uncles and grandparents raising children. We have all kinds of family structures.
We also have children who go from one divorce to another where the parent may have divorced two or three times. We have families from which someone has been abandoned. We have families in which there is abuse and the children must be taken away. We have a majority of good families, but family is a term that basically means a place where children are nurtured, looked after and raised with love, attention and stimulation.
I have risen in the House many times to talk about issues like child poverty, child care and assisting parents with their children so that we do not have situations such as the one mentioned recently in the Toronto Star in which a mother left her five-year-old to look after a two-year-old in the library. Or another in which an eleven-year old was at home looking after two younger siblings because the mother was working. They are locked in the home after school hours. There are many cases of latch key kids in society.
That to me is a moral issue. A society that does not make children its priority, does not ensure the development of the children both emotionally and nutritionally is protected, is hindering the future of those children. That is a moral issue.
We do not have enough discussions about that. I do not hear a great deal of uproar and indignation about those issues in the House. I would like to hear members opposite talk about how we might eradicate child poverty in Canada, how we might address the fact that children are living on the streets and that education is being cut back in Ontario and in Alberta. These are moral issues. I do not hear any member opposite standing up and fighting for those issues. Instead I hear fearmongering on the issue of rights.
I learned the other day that South Africa has a new constitution and a new bill of rights. Guess what? South Africa has written into its bill of rights sexual orientation without any qualifiers. South Africa not too long ago practised apartheid, which we fought by boycott. South Africa has acknowledged before we have basic human rights in its society, a very interesting twist.
With respect to these changes we have heard talk about crime, pedophilia and all kinds of horrible things, and spousal benefits and whatever else. If anyone looked at the history of Canada, what has happened in the provinces, what has happened in Supreme Court decisions before this, that has not been the case. We cannot make legislation on the basis of prejudice. We have to make legislation to protect minorities. As a society that is the only way we can move ahead and ensure we have a society which reflects in its every day actions tolerance and respect for one another and which protects its minorities.
I have no problem whatsoever supporting this legislation. To me it is a basic issue of human rights. It has nothing whatever to do with moral issues. There are many other moral issues on which I wish to spend my time and for which I wish to fight so we can enter the 21st century having eradicated child poverty. We must deal with the very issues on which members opposite are talking. We must strengthen individuals within society.
When we talk about family we keep forgetting that gay and lesbians come from families. They are people's children. They have not just appeared out of thin air. They are children of heterosexual couples. I am sure they are loved and supported by their parents. We are not inventing these people. This is not a choice.
I dare anyone in the House to tell me that being lesbian or gay is a matter of choice. If it were a choice, why would anyone choose to be discriminated against, to be abused, to be attacked physically and to commit suicide because life is so difficult? Why would they choose such a tortuous way to live when they could easily choose another, much easier way to live? It is not a choice.
The legislation must address that issue. We have to deal with basic human rights in Canada. I am very proud to stand here to say I support the legislation. I hope other members of the House will find it within themselves to deal with the realities and be generous enough to acknowledge the realities and to support the bill as well.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I rise today to address at report stage Bill C-33 and to discuss the issue itself.
There has been much debate about issues concerning the rights and status of gays and lesbians in society. It is an issue of vital importance. It involves many aspects of social policy.
This is a divisive issue. Whether members argue in favour of this bill or against it, it should not be construed, as some in the House have done, that they are bigots, racists or prejudiced. There are solid arguments on both sides of this issue. There are many Canadians who feel both ways on this issue, as witnessed by many of the polls. Therefore it is our obligation to listen to what everyone has to say and not start branding and labelling each other as bigots and racists, as has been happening this past week.
This issue involves two things, and the legal rights of the individual should not be construed as legal rights of groups. The first is the matter of discrimination and the legal rights of the individual. The equality rights provision in section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not specifically prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, although several court decisions and a number of analyses have concluded that section 15 is open and does cover sexual orientation. In other words, many argue and judges have ordered that it be read into court decisions, that it is there. Therefore many believe it should be specifically written in the charter along with race and the rest on the list.
One of the amendments the Reform Party will be putting forward is not to have a list. We believe in the equality of all citizens and all peoples, and no one, no matter who they are or what they are, should be discriminated against, period. It is the list that causes confusion. It is the list that causes hatred. It is the list that needs to be removed.
On the legal rights of the group, there is the slippery slope argument that if we add the words sexual orientation it will lead to same sex benefits and same sex marriage, which at the present time in Canada are not permitted. Spouse is defined in heterosexual terms, not homosexual terms. These are the fears many in Canada have, that this bill will lead to something else. They are against
discrimination, as I am, but they are also against same sex benefits, same sex marriage, same sex adoption and erosion of the family.
Why not define sexual orientation? Why not look at the list and not have a list? Those are some questions this party has asked. On that basis many on the other side are saying we are for discrimination.
I stand before the House and I say I am against discrimination but I am also against same sex marriages, same sex adoption and same sex benefits because those are rights and benefits society gives, and they are privileges. It is not against the law for an employer not to grant same sex benefits. If they want to do it, they can. It should not be the law that they must. There is a fear that this will lead to that. I do not have that problem but some do. I am trying to point out there are arguments on both sides.
If this bill passes, as it will because the Liberals have enough members to vote for it, if the homosexual communities then use the Canadian Human Rights Act to say in a legal argument, in a court case, that because company X has denied same sex benefits it is discriminating against them, that will be wrong. That will be totally wrong and it will prove that those people who voted against this bill on that slippery slope argument are correct.
That is why both sides of this argument should have respect. That is why both sides of this argument should restore some sanity to this issue and look at it on a more rational and reasonable basis rather than getting carried away with the emotional element.
I have done something in my riding which is very important to the Reform Party. It represents how we are doing politics differently. We have our policies and our principles on which we were elected and which we are here to represent. We have policies and principles in our blue book which I will defend at all times.
We also have a way to represent people between election years. If I get a sense that people in my riding do not wish me to vote with my caucus, or if they wish me to vote in support of the government on a certain bill, if my ears perks up-on this issue they have because it is a divisive issue-I will do what I did earlier. Two years ago in my first householder I talked about this issue and indicated what the Minister of Justice was planning. We had town hall meetings. I sent a survey to all households to which I received 1,470 responses. In Calgary Centre the response was very strong that I should vote yes to support such an amendment.
Since that time the issue has been percolating. I feel confident that people in Calgary Centre, that little cosmos, that little part of the world, deserve and should have the benefit of a member of Parliament who will take the time to find out what they think.
Subsequently I conducted a scientific random sampling poll. I hired a professional firm. I have just finished the poll with the results. I have the report in my hands. There were three questions this time around. I asked the very same question as the Angus Reid poll which was held at the end of April, a poll that said 59 per cent of Canadians were in favour of amending the Canadian Human Rights Act.
However, if the results were broken down by province, 57 per cent of Albertans were against adding sexual orientation to the Canadian Human Rights Act. Manitoba and Saskatchewan were lumped together to produce a figure of 49 per cent against, even though they have provincial legislation that includes sexual orientation.
There is proof that a lot of Canadians are against this. To call those people who are against this bill prejudiced and bigoted is not right. I wish the people on the other side would stop doing that. Everybody has a right to their opinions and everybody has the right to vote according to either their conscience or the wishes of their constituents.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: No one has the right to discriminate.
Jim Silye: I agree, nobody has the right to discriminate, which is what this bill is about, and I agree with that. However, there is that slippery slope.
For the member who has pointed that out to me, if groups like EGALE use this in a legal argument, that member might have some red in her face. She will realize our job is to look ahead to see if there are negative impacts of any bill. That is what some of these members are doing. They have the right to do it. Let us stop calling them prejudiced if they vote against this bill.
Getting back to my survey, currently in Calgary Centre 60 per cent are in favour of amending the human rights act by adding these two words.
I will be voting according to the sampling in the two polls I have conducted. I have a clear consensus in my constituency that this is what the people wish me to do. They also know my personal point of view. This is that extra step. To me this is how we can do politics differently and still be true to our policies.
Not everybody in the country agrees with every Liberal policy. Not everybody in the country agrees with every Reform policy although they are card carrying members of each party. It is about time we recognized that and it is about time we tried to work on a participatory democracy. It is harder to do this, but in the long run it is worthwhile.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am delighted to speak in support of Bill C-33. Members of Parliament have an obligation to state the facts and clarify and dispel the myths that have existed in society. Only then can we ensure we are really giving valid information to our citizenry and thereby proper support to this bill.
The bill will prohibit discrimination, the essence and soul of this piece of legislation.
Let me start with the preamble of the bill. Let me restate:

Whereas the Government of Canada affirms the dignity and worth of all individuals and recognizes that they have the right to be free from discrimination in employment and the provision of goods and services, and that that right is based on respect for the rule of law and lawful conduct by all;

Who would disagree with the preamble? Show me a citizen.

The purpose of this act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an equal opportunity to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted.

The purpose is very clear. Let us convey that message to all citizens and we will have a fuller understanding of the bill and its importance.
It is important to underscore that the purpose of human rights legislation, as this amendment is to this piece of law, is to protect vulnerable groups, not to prey on them.
Recently there was an advertisement in the Globe and Mail which raised a couple of concerns, that Bill C-33 will give special status to homosexuals, that the bill could have a profound effect on Canadian society and would threaten the institution of marriage and family.
I respect their concerns, but they have been based on a misunderstanding of the bill itself and our laws and of the separation of the church and the state.
Bill C-33 will not give special status to anyone. No one could credibly argue federal and provincial human rights legislations now confers special status on Catholics or Protestants, on husbands or wives, or on those with disabilities. Although each of these is expressly covered by the existing statutes, it is obvious no such special status is conferred.
On the matter of the consequences of Bill C-33, we have to restate some of the fundamental principles. The Canadian Human Rights Act applies only to employment and the provision of goods and services coming under federal legislation. The Canadian Human Rights Act does not and cannot affect law on marriage. Ask any constitutional expert or any lawyer.
Even the Supreme Court of Canada has already decided in a recent case that family status does not include same sex relationships. Therefore we should not worry about that. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court came to the same conclusion that family status does not include same sex relationships.
With respect to the possible effects on benefits, Bill C-33 does not change law on benefits. Again, the Supreme Court of Canada has said unanimously that sexual orientation is a prohibited ground of discrimination under the equality provision, section 15 of the charter. However, the same court also held that such discrimination did not support the extension to same sex partners of the pension benefits which were the issue in that case.
The Canadian Human Rights Act and consequently the amendment now before the House have absolutely no application to marriage. The common law has always provided that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. The common law has equal force with any statute law.
With respect to a need for definition, over the years there has been considerable understanding by which tribunals and courts have looked at discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. They have developed an understanding of this term. They have interpreted it to mean homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality.
The Canadian Human Rights Act and therefore Bill C-33 do not apply to churches and religious organizations. The latter comes under provincial jurisdiction. Even if for the sake of argument the Canadian Human Rights Act were to apply, the Supreme Court of Canada has already held that it is reasonable and justifiable for a given religious school to require that the religious views of its instructors conform with the view of the church.
Moreover, we have to remember the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It overrides all other laws, whether federal or provincial. It has supremacy over the Canadian Human Rights Act. Nothing that could be done in the Canadian Human Rights Act could take primacy over the charter of rights and freedoms or affect the freedom of religion, expression or association guaranteed by the charter.
I state my full support for the bill. I hope that we all together clearly state to our Canadian citizenry the facts of the case, the governing Canadian constitution and its primacy over any piece of legislation things that are feared could happen will not happen. I suggest we all gather together and support the bill unanimously.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-33, an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act.
The legislation will add sexual orientation to the list of categories offered special protection under the Canadian Human Rights Act.
I speak to this for two reasons, to be a voice for my constituents and to make the point as clearly as I can in such little time that Reformers are strong defenders of equality in this country.
I begin by reading a quote from a clergyman, Martin Niemöller, in March 1984, on his experience during the second world war and on the lack of resistance to the Nazis. The quote was put on my desk earlier today by the member for Don Valley North. I have heard the quote before, but each time I read it I find it so powerful I think it is worth presenting again. It certainly gives me a message:
"First they came for the Jews. I was silent. I was not a Jew. Then they came for the communists. I was silent. I was not a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists. I was silent. I was not a trade unionist. They came for me. There was no one left to speak for me".
Clearly we must stop this categorization of people in the country. That message was given very clearly in the quote. I will explain very directly and as succinctly as possible why Reform opposes Bill C-33.
All Canadians are already equal before the law. This is a fundamental principle of Canadian law. Section 15(1) of the charter applies to all Canadians.
It states: "Every individual is equal before the law and has the right to the equal protection and the equal benefit of the law without discrimination". The protection is in our law.
This also incidentally and perhaps importantly is the first principle in the Reform blue book, our book of policy and principles. The very first principle says this same thing. That is why Reformers believe passionately in the equality of all Canadians. There is not nor should there be any Canadian more equal than others.
I would like to end with one very short quote. I have to ask why this legislation is before the House. Does it mean that Liberals are all bad people or evil people? I say no. This quote explains why this legislation is before the House-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In accordance with the order adopted earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put fortwith all questions necessary to dispose of report stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yes.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.
Accordingly, Motion No. 1 is negatived.
(Motion No. 1 negatived.)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The next question is on Motion No. 9. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yes.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): A recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Jim Silye: Would the Chair please explain why we are going through all the motions when the bell has not rung to give notice of the votes?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): We are going to put all the motions and once we know which motions the House wishes to have a recorded vote on, then we will ring the bells for a recorded vote on those motions.
Mr. Thompson: A point of order, Madam Speaker. With all respect, I would like to mention that before we even knew what was happening-the translation was very slow-we were into the second motion. We were trying to catch up with the translation when we were already into the second motion. With all due respect, it was a little bit behind.
I would have personally liked to have had a chance to stand against Motion No. 1.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The next question is on Motion No. 10. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yes.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): A recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Mr. Assadourian: Madam Speaker, Motion No. 10 is in the name of the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest and he is not here. Can we accept his motion?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The motion has already been moved and seconded.
The next question is on Motion No. 11. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): A recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The question is now on Motion No. 12. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): A recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 14. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): A recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe that you would find unanimous consent that all motions on today's Order Paper on Bill C-33 be deemed to have been read and that a recorded division be deemed to have been asked on the following: report stage Motions Nos. 18, 2, 3, 17, 19, 21, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8A, because Motion No. 8 has been revoked, Motions Nos. 16 and 16A.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is there unanimous consent for the hon. whip's motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): moved:

Motion No. 18
That Bill C-33, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 8, on page 2, the following:
"3.(2) For greater certainty, nothing in Sections 2 or 3 of this Act shall be construed by any court or tribunal in such a way as to add, read in, or include the words sexual orientation in Section 16 of this Act."

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Tom Wappel: moved:

Motion No. 2
That Bill C-33, in the Preamble, be amended by replacing lines 8 to 12, on page 1, with the following:
"And whereas the Government recognizes and affirms the importance of the traditional, heterosexual institution of marriage and family as the foundation of Canadian society and that nothing in this Act alters its fundamental role in society."

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Tom Wappel: moved:

Motion No. 3
That Bill C-33, in the Preamble, be amended by adding after line 12, on page 1, the following:
"And whereas the Government acknowledges that the term "family", for the purpose of this legislation, means heterosexual couples and their natural or adopted issue;
And whereas the Government acknowledges that "family", as the term is so limited herein, occupies an irreplaceable role in the procreation and nurturing of children, upon which the future of our society depends;".

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East, Lib.): moved:

Motion No. 17
That Bill C-33, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 8, on page 2, the following:
"(1.1) In subsection (1), "marital status" means the status of being married, single, separated, divorced, widowed or cohabiting with an individual of the opposite sex in a conjugal relationship for at least one year.
(1.2) In subsection (1.1), "being married" means being married to a person of the opposite sex."

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): moved:

Motion No. 19
That Bill C-33, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 8, on page 2, the following:
"(1.1) For the purpose of section 2 and this section, "family status" means the status of heterosexual couples and their natural or adopted issue."

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): moved:

Motion No. 21
That Bill C-33, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 8, on page 2, the following:
"(1.1) In this section and section 2, "family" means individuals connected by blood relationship, marriage or adoption.
(1.2) In subsection (1.1) "marriage" means the legal union between a man and a woman as recognized by the state."

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Sharon Hayes: moved:

Motion No. 4
That Bill C-33, in Clause 1, be amended by deleting lines 17 to 33, on page 1.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Tom Wappel: moved:

Motion No. 5
That Bill C-33, in Clause 1, be amended a ) by replacing line 19, on page 1, the following:
"2.(1) The purpose of this Act is to extend the"; b ) by adding, after line 33, on page 1, the following:
"2.(2) For all purposes of this Act, sexual orientation means, only, heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality and refers only to consenting adults acting within the law."

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Tom Wappel: moved:

Motion No. 6
That Bill C-33, in Clause 1, be amended a ) by replacing line 19, on page 1, the following:
"2.(1) The purpose of this Act is to extend the"; b ) by adding, after line 33, on page 1, the following:
"2.(2) For all purposes of this Act, marital status and family status shall not be construed or interpreted by any court or tribunal so as to mean or include two or more unrelated persons of the same sex."

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Tom Wappel: moved:

Motion No. 7
That Bill C-33, in Clause 1,be amended a ) by replacing line 19, on page 1, the following:
"2.(1) The purpose of this Act is to extend the"; b ) by adding, after line 33, on page 1, the following:
"2.(2) For greater certainty, nothing in Sections 2 or 3 of this Act shall be construed or interpreted by any court or tribunal in such a way as to grant or extend benefits available to persons of the opposite sex and related by marriage or at common law, to unrelated persons of the same sex living together, or to recognize as a family or as married, unrelated persons of the same sex."

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Roseanne Skoke: moved:

Motion No. 8A
That Bill C-33, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 30 and 31, on page 1, with the following:
"origin, colour, religion, age, sex, marital status, family status, dis-".

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Sharon Hayes: moved:

Motion No. 16
That Bill C-33, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 8, on page 2.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Roseanne Skoke: moved:

Motion No. 16A
That Bill C-33, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 6, on page 2, with the following:
"sex, marital status, family".

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at report stage of Bill C-33.
Call in the members.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 9. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 9 obviates the necessity for the question being put on Motion No. 13. However, if Motion No. 9 is defeated, the division will also apply to Motion No. 13.
(The House divided on Motion No. 9, which was negatived on the following division:)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 9 defeated. Therefore Motion No. 13 is defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 10.
(The House divided on Motion No. 10, which was negatived on the following division):
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 10 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 11. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 11 obviates the necessity for the question being put on Motion No. 15. However, if Motion No. 11 is defeated, the division will also apply to Motion No. 15.
(The House divided on Motion No. 11, which was negatived on the following division:)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 11 lost. Consequently, Motion No. 15 is lost as well.
The next question is on Motion No. 12.
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, in view of the fact that Motions Nos. 12 and 14 are under the same name, the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam, I wonder if the House would be willing to give its consent to apply the same result for those two motions only.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 12.
(The House divided on Motion No. 12, which was negatived on the following division:)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 12 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 14.
(The House divided on Motion No. 14, which was negatived on the following division:)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 14 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 18.
(The House divided on Motion No. 18, which was negatived on the following division:)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 18 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 2 in Group 2.
(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on the following division:)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 2 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 3.
(The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was negatived on the following division:)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 3 lost. The next question is on Motion No. 17. If Motion No. 17 is agreed to, it will not be necessary to proceed to the division no Motion No. 20. If Motion No. 17 is negatived, the division will also apply to Motion No. 20.
(The House divided on Motion No. 17, which was negatived on the following division:)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 17 lost. Consequently, Motion No. 20 is also lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 19.
(The House divided on Motion No. 19, which was negatived on the following division:)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 19 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 21.
(The House divided on Motion No. 21, which was negatived on the following division:)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 21 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 4 in Group No. 3.
(The House divided on Motion No. 4, which was negatived on the following division:)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 4 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 5.
(The House divided on Motion No. 5, which was megatived on the following division:)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No.5 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 6.
Sharon Hayes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have a clarification. It has been indicated to me that I was not counted on the last vote.
The Deputy Speaker: I gather the member was not seen. If there is unanimous consent she can be counted. Agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
(The House divided on Motion No. 6, which was negatived on the following division:)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 6 negatived.
The next question is on Motion No. 7.
(The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was negatived on the following division:)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 7 lost.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. My apologies but we could not hear the vote. The microphone system was not working.
The Deputy Speaker: The vote was 80 to 54.
The next question is on Motion No. 8A.
(The House divided on Motion No. 8A, which was negatived on the following division:)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion 8A is lost.
I wonder if members would be kind enough not to leave during the vote. It is making it very difficult for the people who have to keep track.
The next question is on Motion No. 16.
(The House divided on Motion No. 16, which was negatived on the following division:)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 16 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 16A.
(The House divided on Motion No. 16A which was negatived on the following division:)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 16A lost.
Allan Rock: 
moved that the bill be concurred in.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to.)
When shall the bill be read the third time? At the next sitting of the House?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all members of the House, I would like to thank the officers at the table and the Chair for a very professional and well done job.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Deputy Speaker: There is no Private Members' Business today because of the delay. The motion will be postponed until a future sitting.
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Adjournment Proceedings
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on May 1, I rose in the House to pose a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, asking him to extend the May 24 deadline and to commit to begin serious discussions with representatives of the affected communities who had already chosen the people to negotiate on their behalf and had sent a group to Ottawa.
This group had some difficulty in having complete meetings with the minister. He responded in a manner that left the May 24 deadline still in place. He did say, however, that he would be going to the west coast the next day to meet with groups there.
I was concerned, as were others, that the minister would avoid meeting the group that had been sent here by the communities at great expense. Instead of meeting with them, he opted to go to the west coast while they were still here in Ottawa seeking meetings with him.
The next day the minister did met with a few groups that told him he was doing a good job. At the strong insistence of the fishermen's union, which still had representatives on the west coast, he did meet with some of them. A day later he spent 45 minutes with the Pacific Salmon Alliance, which is the group that was in Ottawa and had gone back in an attempt to have a meeting with him. The community representatives that had been in Ottawa did get to meet with him for a mere 45 minutes.
I find it amazing that among Liberal ministers they can spend half a day flying halfway across the country to get away from a group of legitimate representatives, in this case representing fishing communities, commercial, aboriginal and sports fisher people, environmentalists like the Suzuki group, the Georgia Strait group, and the Save Our Wild Salmon group. Instead of having serious meetings with them here in Ottawa to negotiate a workable plan, the minister chose to go off to the west coast and grandstand there rather than actually getting down to business.
Since that time as well we know some licences have changed hands. The last report I have is that there are about 400 which have changed hands under the aegis of the new program. I am told that some owners have purchased up to 11 different licences. The cost of these would amount to many hundreds of thousands of dollars.
This means we are leaning toward a new high investment type of fishery, probably an urban based and not a community based fishery. We have not really addressed with this policy the questions of commitment to the resource. An urban based fishery which has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in licences alone is to care more about recovering its hundreds of thousands of dollars for an annual licence than it is to looking after future stocks.
A community based fishery based on families doing the fishing from communities will make certain the fishery has a much longer life.
If the minister is truly honest in his promise he made in the House when he responded to my first question to bridge some of the gaps, address uncertainties and fine tune the program, he would suspend the May 24 deadline, which I asked him to do, so true and meaningful discussions can take place with no guns held to the heads of the communities involved in the form of this deadline.
Tomorrow Peter Pearse and Don Cruikshank will be in Ottawa in front of the committee, experts the minister could well afford to heed. I hope he will would drop the deadline and work out a policy that will leave the west coast with communities as well as with salmon enhancement capabilities. People, after all, are a necessary and important part of the west coast environment as well.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I should add in preface that the minister went to the west coast and had met with numbers of representatives of all segments of the fisheries industry before his departure and has been meeting since. He had several meetings today.
The parliamentary secretary for the past month has met with all three fisher groups, seiners, gill netters, trollers in Vancouver, members of the processing plant, the coastal communities and the union. The parliamentary secretary addressed the union at large
meeting and met with the executive and addressed the coastal communities. There has been an extensive contact with what are called the stakeholders in this very important national asset.
The government recognizes, and this is part of this extensive dialogue occurring and the reason for it, the Pacific salmon revitalization strategy is all about conserving the precious salmon resources and ensuring the sustainability and viability of the commercial salmon fishery in British Columbia.
The fishing capacity of the commercial fleet far exceeds what is required to harvest the available resource and this situation is putting the conservation of the stocks at risk. No one, including critics of the strategy, disputes the fleet is too large and needs to be reduced.
The revitalization plan is based on recommendations from a Pacific policy round table of some 70 salmon stakeholder representatives as well as the recommendations of the Fraser River Sockeye Public Review Board which identified various problems undermining salmon conservation efforts.
Overcapitalization of the commercial harvesting sector was one of the key problems identified by the review board. The round table strongly recommended the fleet be reduced and the action be taken before the 1996 fishing season.
The revitalization plan includes a federal government funded $80 million licence retirement program and licensing policy changes that are expected to contribute toward a 50 per cent reduction in the fleet over time.
The licence retirement program will expire at the end of June. It is a short term initiative to kick start the fleet reduction, but it is only a start. It is expected to remove no more than 20 per cent of the existing 4,400 licences. Other licensing measures are expected to remove a further 20 per cent to 25 per cent of the fleet over time.
Concerns have been expressed about the impact of the fleet reduction on coastal communities. It must be said that the future of those coastal communities that are highly dependent on the salmon fishery is not secure unless the salmon stocks are robust and the harvesting industry is viable, which has clearly not been the case in recent years. The revitalization strategy is necessary to give those communities a solid basis for future viability and prosperity.
In meetings last week in Vancouver and again this week in Ottawa with representatives of various stakeholder groups, the minister indicated that he was prepared to consider what he has phrased as fine tuning adjustments to the strategy, although the core elements of the strategy plan will remain intact. An announcement by the minister is expected shortly.
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron-Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this evening I rise to expand upon a question I put to the Minister of National Revenue on April 25. At that time I raised the question of a ways and means bill which pertained to the issue of notional taxes, the GST on used cars.
The previous day the minister had presented a ways and means bill including 100 proposals for the improvement of our GST. The GST has been a tax which has caused so much difficulty for business.
For the most part Canadians never new that what is called a notional tax was even in existence. It was not in the vocabulary of most people. The fundamental change of the notional input tax credit was one of the major changes. I felt it was important for Canadians to realize that this important change was made in the bill.
The way the GST was collected on used goods was certainly one which was of great concern to many, many people. It was an instrument of the tax system that was clearly not understood by the majority of Canadians. When the issue was raised Canadians simply did not understand it.
In the case of the auto industry, prior to the change, a person buying a new vehicle paid GST on the full retail price. With the changes announced by the minister, the GST now only applies to the trade-in difference. This is a substantial saving of tax for those who apply the trade-in value to the purchase of their new vehicle.
One element that remains unaddressed is the issue of curbside trade which continues to flourish in this country. Many curbside shops are still operating. They buy used products from private individuals and resell them. Of course, these people are not subject to the GST. We must address this. The point of my concern is that these people do not collect GST on their business transactions. In so doing, they directly compete against many storefront operations. This is an unfair advantage.
As I conclude my remarks, I would like to say that the unfair practice will only end when the province of Ontario joins with all provinces in the harmonization of our provincial and federal taxes.
I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance if he would deal with this issue. What efforts are being made through the business community to ensure early harmonization by the province of this aforementioned tax?
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Huron-Bruce raises an important question.
On April 23 the Minister of Finance introduced over 100 measures to streamline the operation of the GST. One important simplification was the elimination of the notional input tax credits and the introduction of a change in approach for used goods.
The credit allowed dealers to claim 7/107ths of the price they paid for used goods. It was assumed that the full credit was passed on to consumers. However many consumers felt that this was not always the case.
The notional input tax credit system was criticized for being overly complex and susceptible to abuse. The tax will now be applied on the net difference in price when a consumer trades in a used good as partial payment for another good.
The new system for trade-ins is easier to understand and limits tax compounding. The new rules came into effect immediately so that consumers would not delay making decisions on the trade in and purchase of automobiles. Such a delay may have led to revenue losses during any transition period for businesses in this sector. Delaying implementation may have also led to further fraudulent activity.
In further response to the member's comments with respect to harmonization, he is absolutely right. A move toward harmonization in all provinces in this country will help to alleviate and eliminate the sort of problems he outlined.
The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. Again, thank you to the pages and everyone who stayed so late tonight.
(The House adjourned at 8.32 p.m.)