Madam Speaker, the previous speaker was clearly making reference to a community. In responding-
Lost his last election, in 2019, with 32% of the vote.
Criminal Code June 13th, 1995
Madam Speaker, the previous speaker was clearly making reference to a community. In responding-
Criminal Code June 13th, 1995
Madam Speaker, it is difficult to know where to begin in response to the comments of the last speaker. As one who is among those she has accused of seeking to undermine and destroy the Canadian society, as one she has described as immoral and unnatural, and as a member of a community of gay men and lesbians whom she has similarly slandered with her hatred-
Criminal Code June 13th, 1995
Madam Speaker, I would like to raise a point of order pursuant to Standing Order 18, which reads in part as follows:
No Member shall speak disrespectfully of the Sovereign, nor of any of the Royal Family, nor of the Governor General or the person administering the Government of Canada; nor use offensive words against either House, or against any member thereof.
As a gay man, the words spoken by the hon. member for Central Nova are deeply offensive, not just to me as an individual but to all gay men and lesbians in this country. To be accused of immorality-
Criminal Code June 13th, 1995
moved:
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-41, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing line 31, on page 8, with the following:
"the actual or perceived race, national or ethnic origin, lan-".
Criminal Code June 13th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but I would like some clarification from the Chair. It is my understanding that at this stage we are debating report stage Motions Nos. 3 and 4. I have been listening with care to the remarks of the member for Wild Rose and have yet to understand what relationship they bear to Motions Nos. 3 and 4. It may be that there is some confusion as to the stage of the debate. I wonder if the Speaker might provide some guidance.
Firearms Act June 12th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as voting yea on Motion No. 230.
Firearms Act June 12th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I vote nay.
(The House divided on Motion No. 184, which was negatived on the following division;)
Firearms Act June 12th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I vote nay.
(The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was negatived on the following division:)
Grand Parents' Day Act May 31st, 1995
Mr. Speaker, in the middle of March I asked a question of the Minister of Health concerning the betrayal of budgetary promises for federal funding for the community action program for children, or CAPC, a program for vulnerable and at risk children. At the time I urged the minister to reconsider the drastic cuts in funding for the program and pointed out to her that in effect she and her government were cutting the deficit on the backs of the poorest and most vulnerable children.
In response the Minister of Health stated that the budget did not dramatically cut CAPC. She said that it reduced the actual growth of the program.
I have a memo written by the regional director for health promotion and social development in the British Columbia region who confirmed that in fiscal year 1996-97 there will be an approximate 30 per cent reduction to the original allocation and the following fiscal year, 1997-98, will see an approximate 50 per cent reduction to the original allocation. If that is not a dramatic cut in funding for programs for poor, at risk, and vulnerable children, I do not know what is. It is a shameful betrayal of the promises that were made. Certainly groups such as the B.C. coalition for children and individuals who are working with poor children share that sense of concern. Minister Joy MacPhail with the B.C. government has spoken out strongly against these cuts.
It is very clear that these cuts are part of a broader agenda of the government. We see it in Bill C-76, enormously destructive legislation, which this government is now ramming through the House without even allowing the public to have hearings across
the country, without even allowing the possibility of a committee of eminent persons to review the destructive impact of this bill.
We know that the bill will gut the Canada assistance plan of its national standards. This will open the door to workfare and cheap labour standards. We know as well that it will dramatically cut funding for post-secondary education.
It is in the area of health care and medicare that I want to raise a couple of very grave concerns as well. The implications of this government's policies in the area of health care are very serious, the implications of Bill C-76. There is no doubt that we are going to see the possibility of a massive erosion in the quality of health care. We will see two tier health care. It is a direct consequence of the North American free trade agreement. We know that once the provincial governments move to de-insure any medical services it is open season for private insurance companies. Under NAFTA this is considered to be a market commodity. That is why the private insurance companies are just waiting to get in and make money.
This legislation is enormously destructive for the social fabric of the country. It was the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce who said that these cuts will cause considerable harm and pain to a segment of the population that has already been hit very hard. He said: "The cuts are not only wrong in principle, but contrary to what we said in the red book, contrary to what we did during nine years in opposition, and completely junking all of the principles we stood for".
I call on the government to reinstate the funding for the community action program for children. I call on the government to reverse Bill C-76, to recognize that the United Nations committee on economic, social and cultural Rights has been very critical of this legislation and recognized that we are in breach of our international obligations under the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights.
There are alternatives. The Prime Minister has suggested that medicare was only intended to be temporary in terms of federal involvement. He said it was only intended for catastrophic illness. Well it is time for this government to look at alternatives. It is time they rescind Bill C-91, which was a gift to multinational drug companies. It is time they implement the 1995 alternative federal budget, which was a very different approach. It is time in the area of health care that we place far more resources into preventative health care, as was recommended by the Canada health coalition, the Hospital Employees Union in British Columbia, the National Federation of Nurses Unions, the Council of Canadians, the Canadian Labour Congress, and many others.
It is time that this government came to its senses and recognized that the impact of Bill C-76 and of its budget and budgetary policies is to shred the social safety net, is to mean that poor kids are going to get even poorer, that the gap between rich and poor will be greater, and that our health care system, the Canada assistance plan, and post-secondary education will all come under attack.
Petitions May 31st, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition which is signed by hundreds of residents from throughout British Columbia and particularly from Vancouver Island.
The petition draws to the attention of the House the fact that the current Criminal Code denies people who are suffering from terminal or irreversible and debilitating illness the right to choose freely and voluntarily to end their lives with the assistance of a physician.
The petitioners call on Parliament to amend the code to ensure the right of all Canadians to die with dignity by allowing people with terminal or irreversible and debilitating illness the right to the assistance of a physician in ending their lives at a time of their choice, subject to strict safeguards to prevent abuse and to ensure that the decision is free, informed, competent and voluntary.