Bill C-43 (Historical)

An Act to amend certain Acts and instruments and to repeal the Fisheries Prices Support Act

Pest Control Products Act

[The Speaker]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber, the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill C-43, an act to amend certain acts and instruments and to repeal the Fisheries Prices Support Act—Chapter 17.

Bill C-10, an act respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada—Chapter 18.

Bill C-50, an act to amend certain acts as a result of the accession of the People's Republic of China to the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization—Chapter 19.

Bill S-41, an act to re-enact legislative instruments enacted in only one official language—Chapter 20.

Bill C-27, an act respecting the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste—Chapter 22.

Bill C-47, an act respecting the taxation of spirits, wine and tobacco and the treatment of ships' stores—Chapter 22.

Bill C-59, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 2003—Chapter 21.

Protection of the Unborn Child

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it should be pretty obvious by the debate that has taken place and the 300 to 400 letters per day that I have received in support of my motion that the debate is not over. It should be obvious that the government's contention that the debate is over is absolutely not true. Before today's one hour debate is over we need to review a bit of the history on this life and death issue before we let it drop.

Prior to 1969 all abortions were illegal. From 1969 to 1988 Canada had a law in our criminal code providing for an abortion only when a therapeutic abortion committee of three doctors agreed that the continuation of the pregnancy would cause harm to the life or health of the mother and the word “health” was not defined or limited. In 1988 the supreme court struck down the abortion law as unconstitutional.

The supreme court ruling commonly referred to as the Morgentaler decision provided constitutional parameters for a new abortion law. Based on the instructions from the supreme court justices in 1990 the government of the day introduced, debated and passed Bill C-43 in the House of Commons but the bill was defeated by one vote in the Senate.

Since that time the government has not restricted abortions in any way and all unborn children have been without any rights. Since then more than one million babies have been aborted.

Most politicians were hoping the issue would just go away. I sensed that from the government again today. In 1988 the supreme court said that this was an issue best left to parliament. I say it is time for parliament to assume its responsibility.

Many key moral and legal issues such as reproductive technologies, rights of the unborn and a mother's duty of care for her unborn hinge on when the law says a child becomes a human being.

In May 1991 Bill C-43, an act respecting abortions, was debated in parliament. That was the last time there was any serious debate about the rights of the unborn in the House. That is a disgrace and it should change.

The unwillingness of the government to even debate or study the issue or to ask Canadians what they think about the issue is negligence on a grand scale. If the United Nations contends that babies need the government's protection before as well as after birth, then this 14 years of government neglect amounts to a clear case of criminal negligence.

Every time I raise this life and death issue in the House I am always asked what about a woman's right to her own body? It happened again today. People ask if approval of my motion results in a change in the definition of a human being in Canadian law, whose rights come first, the baby's or the woman's? I agree that everyone has a right to their own body until it interferes with someone else's right to their own body.

The problem is that under Canadian law the human being growing inside the woman has no rights until he or she has fully emerged from the birth canal. I maintain that at some point during the pregnancy the unborn baby's rights are equal to the woman's rights. Even the United Nations agrees that every unborn child has rights and that these rights need the protection of the Government of Canada.

Passing my motion would start a debate in parliament and in public to determine at what point during the pregnancy the helpless unborn child deserves some protection, any protection under law. Perhaps those who are heckling me right now would like to support my motion and start that debate rather than just heckle.

I respectfully request that the House give consent to refer this motion to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights so that parliament can hear what Canadians really think. I would like that to be done at this time. If consent is given I would be pleased to do that.

There are questions that face us right now. What is the unborn? Does the size of the human being matter? Does its level of development define its essence? Does its environment affect its humanity? Does its degree of dependency determine its value? Those are all questions that we should be talking about and it all hinges on this. That is why I am asking for consent to refer this motion to the standing committee.

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion brought forward by the hon. member for Yorkton--Melville.

The motion calls for the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to review the current definition of a human being in subsection 223(1) of the criminal code. The motion raises the issue of the point at which a fetus becomes a human being and whether the current definition of human being complies with the United Nations convention on the rights of the child.

I cannot support the motion. The views of Canadians diverge significantly on the rights of the fetus. The very question raises a whole host of issues with moral, social, economic, health and legal implications. Achieving consensus on an issue that touches on so many fundamental values in Canadian society is an extremely difficult task.

The hon. member for Yorkton--Melville raises the issue of whether the current definition of a human being is consistent with the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. The United Nations convention on the rights of the child, which Canada ratified, does not address the issue of when a child's life begins. It was not an oversight but rather recognition of the fact that each country must determine the issue for itself based on a balancing of a number of fundamental values.

The Supreme Court of Canada commented on the rights of the fetus in two key decisions: the Dobson decision and the Winnipeg Child and Family Services decision.

In the latter decision, the supreme court questioned whether a pregnant woman could be confined and treated against her will in order to protect the fetus. The court held that child protection was an area of provincial responsibility, particularly if the decision affected provincial child welfare laws. The court also held that any attempt to address the rights of the fetus must be balanced with the rights of the pregnant woman.

We have reached a delicate balance in Canada. The definition of a human being in the criminal code states that:

A child becomes a human being with the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother...”

The criminal code provides a certain degree of protection to the fetus by stating that a person commits homicide by killing an unborn child in the act of birth, under certain conditions. For example, section 238 creates the offence of killing an unborn child in the act of birth. This offence applies even though the child has not yet technically met the definition of a human being.

These provisions properly balance the need to protect the fetus and the circumstances of the pregnant woman, her rights, interests, and claim to protection in Canadian society. Any change to the definition of human being in the criminal code could have the effect of criminalizing abortion.

When the provision of the criminal code dealing with abortion was struck down by the supreme court in January 1988, parliamentarians endeavoured to find a basis of agreement that respected differing opinions and constitutional guarantees. Members will recall that Bill C-43, an act respecting abortion, was defeated in the Senate on January 31, 1991, on the basis of a 43:43 vote.

The absence of a criminal law on abortion does not mean that a legislative or legal vacuum exists. The delivery of abortion services is currently regulated by provincial governments who are responsible for the delivery of health care services, and by the standards set by the medical profession itself.

The majority of Canadians are satisfied with this division of regulatory responsibilities and that abortion is regulated as a health and medical matter, and not a criminal matter.

Motion No. 392 clearly touches upon some of the most fundamental moral, social, economic, health and legal questions. These questions often come down to our own fundamental and personal values. It is the responsibility of the government to examine these fundamental questions and strive to achieve some balance between the competing views.

This is what parliament and the provincial legislatures have done since 1991 on the issue of abortion. This is precisely the same approach of the government on the issue of when a child becomes a human being. We believe that a majority of Canadians are comfortable with this approach. We have balanced the rights of the fetus with the rights of the pregnant woman. We have done so in a way that is consistent with our international obligations. We have also committed not to criminalize a woman's right to make choices regarding her physical and mental health.

Given the delicate balancing that was required to get to where we are today, I cannot support opening up the definition of a human being in the criminal code. For these reasons I am unable to support the motion.

An Act to Amend Certain Acts and Instruments and to Repeal the Fisheries Prices Support Act

[Carol Skelton, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-43 is to make minor technical amendments and corrections to various statutes and to repeal the Fisheries Prices Support Act.

The enactment would make technical corrections to the Access to Information Act, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Act, the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, the Public Service Staff Relations Act, the Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act, and a number of acts that come under the jurisdiction of the Departments of Canadian Heritage and Finance.

The government announced in December 1994 that it would streamline government agencies, boards and advisory bodies. Much of the so-called streamlining simply removed appointments from parliamentary scrutiny by what had been order-in-council appointments. Following the December 1994 announcement the board ceased operations on March 31, 1995.

This is the third time the repeal of the Fisheries Prices Support Act has been before parliament. It was first introduced in June 1996 as Bill C-49 but did not get beyond second reading prior to the call of the election. The repeal was reintroduced as part of Bill C-44 in June 1998. Once again Bill C-44 did not get beyond second reading and was not reintroduced prior to the last election. The repeal of the act has had a low priority for the government as have all matters relating to the fishery.

The Fisheries Prices Support Act was passed in 1994 establishing the Fisheries Prices Support Board which was responsible for investigating sharp declines in fish prices and, where appropriate, recommending price support. The board was empowered to purchase fish products, to sell or otherwise dispose of these products, and to make deficiency payments to producers. The intent of the act was to protect fishermen against sharp declines in prices and consequent loss of income due to causes beyond the control of fishermen or the fishing industry.

The board has not undertaken any significant price support activities since 1982 except for the purchase of fish as food aid for distribution by CIDA.

Bill C-43 can be considered a hybrid of the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act. Bill C-43 contains a number of provisions omitted from the draft of the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, MSLA, Bill C-40. The miscellaneous statute law amendment program was initiated in 1975 to allow for minor, non-controversial amendments to federal statutes in an omnibus bill. A draft version of Bill C-40 was submitted to the standing committees on justice of the House and the Senate.

The MSLA process requires any item objected to by a Senate or House committee to be withdrawn from the bill. To be included, the proposed amendments must meet certain criteria. They must not be controversial, not involve the spending of public funds, not unfairly affect the rights of persons, not create a new offence, and not subject a new class of persons to any existing offence.

The procedure is designed to eliminate any potential controversial items ensuring quick passage of the bill. Bill C-43 contains items objected to in Bill C-40 and also contains new items regarding the repeal of the Fisheries Prices Support Act as well as items that did not make it into Bill C-40 on time.

While Bill C-43 contains minor technical changes similar to an MSLA bill it cannot be treated as an MSLA bill since a few of the amendments did not meet the criteria for an MSLA bill. Quick passage could not be granted and a committee hearing was deemed necessary.

Both the House and Senate committees objected to clauses in Bill C-40 that appear in Bill C-43 as clauses 2, 3 and 4 because they allowed the minister to enter into agreements with the government of any province or provinces in Atlantic Canada respecting the carrying out of any program or project of the agency. This is a change from cabinet authority to ministerial authority.

The Senate and House committees objected to a clause in Bill C-40 that appears as clause 21 in Bill C-43 because it would require royal recommendation. Clause 21 would repeal a section of the National Film Act that limits the National Film Board's ability to appoint staff with salaries of over $99,000 without seeking the approval of cabinet. The clause is viewed by the film board as an unnecessary administrative requirement. The original intent of the provision dates back to 1939. The change would not increase the film board's budget that is approved by parliament.

We in the official opposition support Bill C-43. However it is the first fisheries legislation the government has enacted since coming to office in 1993. It would repeal the defunct Fisheries Prices Support Act that has been little used since 1982 and whose board was shut down in 1995.

The Canadian Alliance would support a fisheries policy that protected the public fishery, fish stocks and fish habitat. We would support a policy that provided for a fishery with equal access for all, healthy sustainable stocks, and a habitat that ensured stocks for the future. The CA supports the strategic purchase of surplus fish products by CIDA for use as part of Canada's food aid programs. The continued existence of the Fisheries Prices Support Act with its defunct board has not contributed to nor has it been a necessary precondition for a healthy fishery.

Bill C-43 is a reminder that fishermen, fisheries legislation and fisheries policy have not been a priority for the government.

Business of the House

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to congratulate the member for Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar, a fellow Saskatchewanian, upon her appointment as deputy House leader for the official opposition.

This afternoon we will be continuing with the debate on Bill C-15B, the legislation relating to cruelty to animals. When that is completed, I expect to move on to Bill C-15A, the legislation relating to pornography. If there is time after that, we will go on to Bill C-53, the pest control bill, followed by Bill S-40 respecting financial clearinghouses.

Tomorrow the business will be Bill C-43, the miscellaneous technical amendments legislation, followed by the consideration of the Senate amendments to Bill C-33, the Nunavut legislation.

On Monday I would expect to begin the day with Bill C-53 but after 3 p.m. we will turn to Bill C-54 which relates to sports in Canada.

Commencing on Tuesday we will return to the report stage debate of Bill C-5 respecting species at risk.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with the third reading debate on Bill C-27, the nuclear safety bill.

Then we will proceed to the consideration of Bill C-15B, the criminal code amendments, at report stage, followed by the third reading debate on Bill C-43, the technical amendments bill. Consideration of these bills will continue tomorrow.

For next week, which of course commences on January 28, we will resume the budget debate and we will proceed, as quickly as possible after the budget debate concludes, to the legislation emanating from the budget, in other words, the budget implementation bill or bills.

I want to take this opportunity to thank all hon. members and, in particular, the House leaders of various political parties, including those who have gone on to bigger and better things, for their continued co-operation during the entire year 200. They have made this year a productive legislative year. As a matter of fact it has been the most productive year in the five years that I have been House leader. It has been a banner year. I thank all hon. members for making it possible for the House, this parliament and this government to legislate in such an effective way on behalf of Canadians.

Committees of the House

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to rise and get this opportunity to address the motion before the House concerning the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Finance ironically called “Securing Our Future”.

In referring to the report itself, at the start of my remarks I would like to pay a special tribute to my colleague in the coalition from Kings--Hants and all the work he does as our finance critic in trying to hold this government accountable. Trying to do that is a huge job, as I am sure people out in the real world fully understand.

I would like to point out and perhaps read just a couple of excerpts from the report itself into the record. They show a clear difference of opinion between the approach taken by the Liberal government with its free spending ways, which the latest example of which is contained in the budget of this week, and the approach advocated by the PC/DR coalition. One of the recommendations states:

The PC-DRC strongly supports recommendations to significantly increase resources for the Department of National Defence, the RCMP and CSIS.

I want to say that at the outset because the government did move in that area. All of us are aware that it has spent a considerable amount of time over the last few days bragging about what it calls its security budget. In a few moments I will to get why we have concerns about that.

While we support the general approach that we obviously need and have been calling for money to be funnelled to especially our armed forces for a number of years now, we have some concerns about the way in which this government will be held accountable for that spending. Another recommendation states:

The PC-DRC recommends implementation of an annual “Red Tape Budget” in addition to the annual spending budget. This would afford Parliament the opportunity to debate the regulatory burden on both Canadian business and individuals. The regulatory budget would detail the estimated total cost of each individual regulation, including the enforcement costs to the government and the compliance costs to individual citizens and businesses. A regulatory budget would help hold governments accountable for the full costs of their regulations and could prevent the current patchwork of redundant regulation that can stifle Canadian enterprise.

That is in direct response to pleas that we hear constantly from the private sector about the increased costs of regulation, yet we see all too often that the government does not move in that area to eliminate red tape to reduce the costs of doing business in Canada.

We have a number of other recommendations that came forward, as I said, from our finance critic, the hon. member for Kings--Hants. I strongly recommend that people read not just the report of the committee but the supplementary report contained at the back, which puts forward some ideas from our critic.

Specifically on the issue of the budget, as I said in my remarks, we support the specific targeting of some of the hard-earned tax dollars that are sent to Ottawa to areas of law enforcement, border, port and airport security, and increased funding to replace the cuts from CSIS and RCMP, as well as to try to replace at least some of the funding that has been slashed from our armed forces budgets over the years.

I would like to perhaps just remark briefly, again with a touch of irony, that this budget, for which we waited almost two years, follows the latest report from the auditor general by about a week.

Some of the issues the auditor general raised are very interesting. In connection with the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, she said that it needed to improve the way it looked for smuggled or dangerous goods entering the country, obviously highlighting some of the problems that she has identified with that particular agency. It is interesting that contained in this budget is an additional $1.2 billion of new money for that area.

That is a concern because, while I think there is general acceptance across the nation of the need to spend increased dollars in these areas to secure our country and our citizens, there is great concern about the accountability or lack of same from the government.

On the employment insurance surplus, she noted that the surplus grew by about $8 billion last year to roughly $36 billion, even though the government's own actuary said the fund needed no more than a maximum of $15 billion to cover any potential downturn, which we all know we are already into. Obviously the government is using the dramatically inflated employment insurance fund as its slush fund to funnel money into programs that it deems important. I stress it deems important. It is quite likely not shared by a lot of citizens out in the real world.

I also noted one other area, which is the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. The auditor general noted that ACOA failed to inform the public about $400 million in loans. Why that jumped out at me is because another piece of legislation which is currently before the House of Commons is what is referred to as a housekeeping bill, technical amendments to a variety of acts, Bill C-43. One change the bill would make to the act which deals with the governance of ACOA is that the board of directors of ACOA, once Bill C-43 is passed into law, will only meet once a year rather than four times. This will occur despite some obvious concerns being expressed by the auditor general about the accountability of that organization.

What else has the auditor general said? I am sure some of the numerous quotes will be of great interest to the viewing public. On the big issue of the undermanagement of grant and contribution programs, the auditor general said:

A lack of diligence in designing programs, assessing project applications, and monitoring recipients' performance meant that public funds were placed at risk. But the attention paid to grants and contributions has not yet been translated into overall improvement in the way they are managed across the federal government. As this report shows, all programs we audited had one or more significant shortcomings.

The auditor general went on to say:

The government still has a lot to do to fix the chronic problems in the way it manages grants and contributions.

I assume this is despite the so-called human resources development minister's much vaunted six point plan. She went on to say:

Our most recent audits found a government-wide control system for grants and contributions that is not yet rigorous enough to ensure the proper management of public funds. We are concerned that serious and correctable problems remain unexamined and uncorrected.

She went on to say:

Grant and contribution programs tend to be undermanaged—departments pay too little attention to their design, delivery, capacity, and performance and to the training of staff who manage them. Until the Secretariat and departments meet all of their responsibilities and manage grants and contributions rigorously, these programs will have chronic problems and run an ongoing risk of using public funds ineffectively and inefficiently.

I would suggest that this is a pretty damming report by the auditor general about the spending habits of some of the departments of this Liberal government. Yet we see dramatic increases in spending in the budget.

It is interesting to note that one would have to question why the finance minister did not address some of the issues brought forward by the auditor general and try to clean them up. Perhaps part of the reason is the very real worry, which I am sure he has, that with an upcoming leadership race in the Liberal Party of Canada he cannot afford to alienate or anger any of his caucus colleagues, especially his cabinet colleagues who wield certain influence within the Liberal Party of Canada.

I wonder how much of the government's inattention to the auditor general's report and correcting the problems she has identified is attributable to that rather than oversight and sloppy bookkeeping.

During question period this week, the hon. finance minister made some sort of remark about the importance of a budget being how it is received by the public. What is important in a budget is the proper care and maintenance of the sanctity of tax dollars of hard-working Canadians, not what the public might or might not think about how the government puts its budget together.

Points of Order

[The Speaker]

Before we begin today's sitting I wish to rule on a point of order raised by the hon. member for Elk Island in the House on Friday, December 7 when the question was put on the motion for concurrence at report stage of Bill C-43, an act to amend certain acts and instruments and to repeal the Fisheries Prices Support Act.

A number of other members also intervened and the Chair is grateful to them for putting forward their arguments.

The Chair has reviewed very carefully the broadcast tape of the House's proceedings for that day as well as the Hansard record. The Assistant Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole, who was in the Chair at the time, having called for the yeas and nays stated:

In my opinion the yeas have it.

However, in pronouncing those words, she motioned to the side of the House from which it appeared the nays had issued, in this case the opposition side of the House. When members from that side sought clarification the Chair then stated:

In my opinion the nays have it.

Although a viewing of the tape only reveals what the camera captures, it seems that considerable confusion ensued. At this point five government members stood to demand a recorded division. However, to address this confusion, the Chair then sought clarification from the House by calling again for the yeas and nays.

Here again, unfortunately, the confusion continued with both yeas and nays essentially being called at the same time. In the event, the Chair declared this time that the yeas had it and fewer than five members having stood to request a recorded division the Chair declared the motion carried on division.

When the hon. member for Elk Island rose to question the result of the vote, the Chair acknowledged that, and I quote:

--it was not clear who was standing and who was not standing in the House.

She invited the member to take it up with the Speaker.

Business of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we will continue this afternoon with Bill C-24, the organized crime legislation, which is currently before the House, and at least consider the Senate's amendments to Bill C-24.

This will be followed by Bill C-15B, the criminal code amendments, as I announced yesterday to the House leaders of the other parties.

Then, if there is any time remaining today, we will continue with Bill C-27, the nuclear safety bill.

Tomorrow, we hope to pass Bill C-46, the ignition interlock device bill sponsored by the Minister of Justice, at all stages. I thank the leaders of all parties for having consented to move this through all stages before the holidays.

We will then call report stage and second reading of Bill C-23, the competition legislation. If there is any time left tomorrow, we will turn to report stage and third reading of Bill C-43, the technical amendments bill.

On Monday, we will return to the bills I have listed, and those that have not been completed, that is unfinished business from today and tomorrow.

I would remind hon. members that the budget will be presented at 4 p.m. on Monday, of course, and the budget debate, that is the debate on the amendment to the amendment—in the improbable event of some hon. members wishing to propose an amendment to the amendment—would take place on Tuesday and Wednesday, with division at the end of the day, on Wednesday.

The business scheduled for Thursday and Friday of next week, if the House is sitting, would be Bill C-42.

Committees of the House

[Ovid Jackson, Liberal, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as chair of the Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the eighth report of the committee.

Pursuant to its order of reference of Friday, November 20, the committee has considered Bill C-44, an act to amend the Aeronautics Act and reports the bill with amendment.

As well, pursuant to its order of reference of Friday, November 20, the committee has considered Bill C-43, an act to amend certain acts and instruments and to repeal the Fisheries Prices Support Act and reports the bill, in both official languages, with amendment.

An act to amend certain acts and instruments and to repeal the Fisheries Prices Support Act

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The question is on Bill C-43 at second reading. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

The junior minister of finance says it does not bother him a bit, but I am sure he does not speak for all of his colleagues. It does bother some of them. The way this government is continuing to govern with its dictatorial and arrogant manner I think it is of great concern to a great many Canadians. That is the simple reality of the situation.

When the government perceives the least bit of opposition from Canadians and from the opposition parties to try to improve a piece of legislation, instead of trying to work with those groups and those political parties, it just brings down the heavy hammer and after there has been a couple of hours of debate it rams it through the House of Commons. It does not matter that certain parties did not even get a chance to speak at third reading. It does not matter that some amendments did not even get a minute of debate on the floor of the Chamber. The reality is the government rams it through using closure or time allocation.

These are the same members in many cases, because of their longevity, who ranted and railed against those uses of power by the preceding government. Yet now that they are in power they have used it far more than the government before them.

Why Bill C-43 is before the Chamber today? In some cases there are legitimate errors, or omissions or adaptations that were necessary to this myriad of statutes and laws. However in some cases, as my colleague from the Canadian Alliance already pointed out, it is sloppy work. One of the trademarks of this government, over the eight years that I have been in this Chamber since the fall of 1993, is sloppy work. We hear this from a great many people. Certainly a great many parliamentarians who have a lot more history either in this Chamber or in the other place than I have are remarking that never before in their political history have they seen such sloppy work from a government. It brings forward legislation, amends it before it almost gets to the House, then it changes it.

Bill C-36 is a prime example. There were 100 amendments, it was still deeply flawed and the government had to rush it through. It will still be a mess and create problems when it gets to the Senate. The senators will probably amend it and send it back.

The government seems intent upon forcing through legislation, whereas if it just took a bit more time, worked in a more co-operative manner with the opposition parties and seriously considered some of the amendments that are brought forward both at committee and at report stage, we would see a lot better legislation passed through this House. We would see a functioning parliament. We would see a legislature working for the people instead of against the people. That is the reality of the government and a sad legacy for it.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

My hon. colleague from Manitoba mentions Bill C-36. Of course the whole country if not the whole world is now aware that the government brought forward the dictatorial power it has to enact closure and time allocation and crush any debate.

I pointed out yesterday that the coalition had amendments that did not get one minute of debate on the floor of the Chamber before those amendments were put to a vote. That was at report stage.

Then at third reading of that legislation, both the New Democratic Party and the coalition did not get the opportunity to put up even one speaker before the government shut down debate. It basically eliminated the opportunity for Canadians to have their elected representatives bring forward concerns about the legislation. That is completely unacceptable.

There is more than a touch of irony that today, a couple of days later, we are debating Bill C-43 which makes, as the hon. House leader quite rightly identified, technical or minor amendments to a myriad of other acts.

I was going to end my comments at this point but one of the government members took it upon himself to say that it was so unacceptable that the coalition, or at least the majority of our members, voted for Bill C-36. That bears a bit of explanation and I thank the hon. member for his heckling from across the way to remind me of that.

On controversial issues like that, clearly there are parts of an omnibus bill that we believe are going in the right direction. This is true for so much of the legislation that comes before the House. Then there are other parts that we are vehemently opposed to and have very serious concerns about. Members, and I would suggest not just opposition members but indeed members of the governing party as well, are constantly caught in a quandary of whether to support the legislation as brought forward by the government or whether to vote against it. Oftentimes there is some good and some bad in the same legislation and we have to weigh the pros and cons.

Unfortunately, what inevitably happens, and the same would be true of a bill like the one we are debating today, Bill C-43, is that there may indeed be some good and some bad in a bill like this. It is an omnibus bill. It is making, as I said, a whole range of amendments, termed as minor amendments by the government, to a whole range of laws and statutes. The reality is that often times we are caught where we have to make a judgment call as to whether there is some good, some bad and which way to go on a particular way of legislation.

The only way to get around that is what the government is at least at this point willing to do with Bill C-42, the next omnibus so-called anti-terrorism bill. The government brought it forward. Then, within a day, it was before the opposition party claiming it needed to draw out one or several clauses and get them through the House, such as the clause dealing with airplane manifests and passenger lists, and then just let the remainder of Bill C-42 sit there for the time being and not debate it in the House. Rather it would have the House rising early, as the House leader for the opposition stated. Nine times so far in this fall session the House has adjourned early for lack of legislation put forward by the government.

This is a growing concern, I believe, not just to the opposition but indeed to a number of government backbenchers as well in the sense that the--

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a distinct pleasure to rise on a Friday afternoon to direct some comments on such an important and momentous bill as Bill C-43. To the hon. NDP member who just spoke, I would like to say at the outset that I do believe there is nobody further to the left of him other than perhaps the heritage minister. I would like to clear that up right at the beginning of my remarks. Although we are physically located to the left of him, we certainly do not believe on the political spectrum that we are.

This is quite an issue that has seized the House this afternoon. As has already been noted, Bill C-43, an act to amend certain acts and instruments and to repeal the Fisheries Prices Support Act, is an omnibus bill, perhaps a bit like so many others in the sense that it addresses many different issues all in one bill. As has been noted by the hon. government House leader and the House leader for the official opposition and other members before me, primarily it brings about technical amendments to a number of acts. The list is quite long.

The bill affects the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Act, the Canadian Film Development Corporation Act, the Energy Monitoring Act, the National Energy Board Act, and on and on it goes. Bill C-43 is quite comprehensive and makes what has been referred to as minor housekeeping amendments.

The issue I want to address in my remarks on Bill C-43 stems from how we got to this point with this piece of legislation being brought forward by the government. It might interest members and the viewing public to know that amendments similar to these were contained in a previous bill, Bill C-40, which passed through the House. However, because quite a number of concerns were raised by opposition members at the justice committee, these particular amendments were dropped out of Bill C-40. That bill then progressed through the House and went on to the Senate. To my knowledge, Bill C-40 is still currently before the other place.

One of the things that is of interest, and I just say one, is that both the House and the Senate committees raised concerns, not specifically to the amendments themselves in some cases, but to the lack of background information being provided for the rationale for the amendments themselves. During his brief remarks the hon. government House leader referred to that. He duly noted that this time around when Bill C-43 was brought forward, additional information and material was provided to parliamentarians to support the necessity for some of these amendments.

The one amendment I wish to pick up on in the bill deals with clauses 17 and 18. Clause 17 is an amendment to the Lieutenant Governors Superannuation Act which is just one of the myriad of acts Bill C-43 addresses. Clause 17 states:

The definition “deferred pension” in section 2 of the Lieutenant Governors Superannuation Act is replaced by the following:

“deferred pension” means a pension that becomes payable to a person at the time he or she reaches sixty years of age.

What is interesting to note in this regard is that the Senate committee on legal and constitutional affairs in its report on Bill C-40, the forerunner to Bill C-43, raised a concern. It asked why in clauses 17 and 18 the government decided to lower the age from 65 to 60 for a deferred pension for lieutenant governors.

It believed it might be a minor change, but it behooves all of us to understand the rationale behind that. Is it to bring it into line with other pensions and if so, did there at least appear to be a reluctance on the part of the government to provide that rationale? Would it not have been appropriate to have that brought forward at that time?

I picked that one example because clearly what the committees in both houses have targeted in this type of legislation is that to do a proper job of overseeing these types of amendments, they clearly want to understand exactly the rationale and perhaps from time to time have an expert witness come before the committee to provide testimony. For example, when a particular clause is being dropped from an act, they want to make sure that is an appropriate thing to do.

In the time I have remaining I want to refer to the whole issue of why we are debating this bill today. Yesterday, as the House leader for the Canadian Alliance noted, the House rose with two hours of time remaining for debate. We could have been debating legislation, Bill C-43 which we are debating today or other bills.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, it should have been part of Bill C-43 but my point was accountability. That is the whole point of this particular bill.

I could not help but notice that the term ACOA is in the bill. We have been asking that ACOA, which is very important in my region of Atlantic Canada, become more transparent and more accountable to the taxpayers of Atlantic Canada to ensure that the funding dollars are definitely meant for job enhancement and infrastructure enhancement.

We also noticed that the National Capital Commission is in the bill. We are asking the government House leader to ensure for example that the cities of Ottawa and Hull will have more consultation and more openness and transparency in what happens at the National Capital Commission. That is all we are asking.

With respect to the National Film Act, the National Film Board is a great institution in Canada. Anything that diminishes this in any way, shape or form would not be a good thing for Canada.

Lastly, regarding nuclear safety and speaking strictly for myself, the greatest way we can protect Canadians from concerns about nuclear power plants is eventually to start dismantling the power plants across the country and start bringing in alternate forms of energy for Canada.

We still have not decided what to do with nuclear waste. When we hear that there could be missiles surrounding Point Lepreau in New Brunswick to protect it, that accelerates the danger and anxiety for all Canadians. What the government should be doing, what we all should be doing, is looking at alternate forms of renewable energy so we can enhance our power capabilities and reduce the risk to all Canadians.

Basically what we are asking for is full, open transparency on all the acts in the bill. If the government does that, we will look forward to supporting the bill as it is. We look forward to the bill going to committee if at all possible for further discussion where my other colleagues in the party will have an opportunity to elaborate on it further.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I know the hon. member is very passionate about his private member's bill but we are not in private members' business. We are on Bill C-43 and I would ask the hon. member to please get on with his speech on Bill C-43.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, I will put on the record that I will limit my time so that my colleagues to the left of me will have more time to speak to the hon. House leader about what their concerns are regarding Bill C-43.

First, I could not help but notice that yesterday we had two hours in the middle of the day with not much to do. In about 20 minutes we are going to be debating a very important bill that would make parliamentarians much more accountable to their constituents. It is called the floor-crossing bill. If a member crossed the floor to another political party, that seat would become vacant. We would then have to go back to the constituents to see if they wish to--

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

The government House leader says “exactly”. Since 1982, this board, the Fisheries Prices Support Board, has not been in existence. Now, in 2001, we are discussing and debating a bill that, essentially, changes certain provisions regarding a board that has not been operational for more than 18 years. I also have to point out that the mandate of the Fisheries Prices Support Board was to stabilize prices by providing financial support to buyers.

And finally, the bill substitutes the corporate designation of the Canadian Film Development Corporation to the name that it has been using since 1994, Telefilm Canada.

This is where it becomes evident that the government has nothing to propose to us in terms of a legislative agenda, so it has come up with a bill, Bill C-43, which basically is making adjustments to an office that has not been operational since 1982, and amends a statute which officializes the use of the name Telefilm Canada, which it has been using since 1994. This government is proposing to us nothing but these bills, which are basically nothing more than making cosmetic changes, when what we expect of it is proactive efforts, acting like, and being, a government of which the people of Quebec and of Canada can be proud.

While there are important issues to be dealt with in Canada, fundamental debates that must be carried out, it has come up with a bill that makes some cosmetic changes.

The changes to the National Capital Act offer the Bloc Quebecois the opportunity to remind hon. members that the national capital is not bilingual. The Bloc Quebecois again draws attention to the failure of the federal language policy.

The failure is all the more flagrant because it is played out in the Canadian capital, which should reflect linguistic duality better than anywhere else in Canada. I believe that—

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to speak today to Bill C-43. As my Canadian Alliance colleague mentioned earlier, this bill amends various acts.

While reading this bill, which is approximately 15 pages long, one realizes that the government is using a parliamentary instrument, which it is entitled to do, to amend a number of acts.

Several amendments are included in this bill which, to a certain extent let us admit, is of minor importance, but at the same time is rather important in view of the number of acts it amends.

The amendments concern a number of acts and instruments. The government House leader is shaking his head. If you will allow me, I will list the acts Bill C-43 seeks to amend. I am thinking of the Access to Information Act, to which I will come back later, but also of other acts parliamentarians, citizens and journalists commonly use.

Amendments could have been made to this act, which were not merely cosmetic but would have made it easier to use by citizens, parliamentarians and journalists. For us parliamentarians, this act is a very useful and necessary tool to help us do our work.

The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Act, with which some of our colleagues in the House are very familiar, is another act amended by the bill. Few from Quebec know this act because, of course, the Bloc Quebecois represents Quebec citizens.

The Canadian Film Development Corporation Act, to which I will get back later on in my speech, is also amended. It is a fairly important act. We need only look at all the events surrounding the CINAR case.

The government had the opportunity not just to change the name of the Canadian Film Development Corporation for the name used since 1994, namely Telefilm Canada, but also to go even further than that and to provide resources.

The Financial Administration Act, the Lieutenant Governors Superannuation Act and the National Capital Act are also amended. What perspective does this debate on Bill C-43 give us today? It is an opportunity to remind everyone that, in reality, the national capital is not bilingual.

The National Film Act and the Nuclear Safety and Control Act are amended as well. This bill amends the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, and it so happens that we had an in-depth debate about nuclear waste yesterday. Today, we have an opportunity to debate this amendment. I recognize, of course, that it is not the same bill. However, we must remember that each debate that we have in the House must be put in perspective, and that perspective does not go back very far since it was just yesterday that we had that other debate on this subject.

This bill also amends the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act, the Privacy Act, which the government House leader should know pretty well, the Public Service Staff Relations Act, the Special Retirement Arrangements Act, the Telecommunications Act and the Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act.

Even though the government says—and it is right to a certain extent—that all this bill does is change a few names, members can see that it does amend several acts.

This is why we are against fast tracking this bill. We want to be able to study it.

I also rise today to speak to the second reading of Bill C-43, introduced by the hon. government House leader.

Needless to say that our statutes must be consistent and updated, if we want their enforcement to also be consistent. In order to meet this obvious need, the Miscellaneous Statute Amendment Program was implemented in 1975. This program allows for minor amendments of a non-controversial nature to a number of federal statutes without having to wait for a more in-depth review.

The main purpose of the bill is to correct discrepancies between the French and English versions of statutes. In addition, it repeals certain provisions, which is an excellent idea. But how do we explain the fact that we are required today to study a bill, Bill C-43, to correct, I repeat, discrepancies between the French and English versions of statutes? Does this not denote, indeed, the lack this government's of commitment, and fundamentally, of Canadian governments past, and an unacceptable lack of insight when it comes to the French reality in Canada?

The first purpose therefore is to correct discrepancies between the French and English versions of statutes. In addition, it repeals the provisions regarding the Fisheries Prices Support Board. I remind the House that this board has not been operational since 1982. This is really quite unbelievable.

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will go back to October 25, 1989, when the present government whip was in opposition. She said she felt the Tory government's use of closure showed it had no respect for the public process, no respect for parliament and no respect for the opinions of the public.

On November 16, 1992, according to Hansard , the present government House leader said in the House that he was shocked by the conservative government's use of closure.

The government he was talking about used closure or time allocation about 23 times. The present government has used them 73 times. Rushing legislation through 73 times is one of the reasons we have a bill like the one before the House today. Mistakes are made and corrections must be made. We should spend the proper time looking at these bills.

The three members I have referred to, the Prime Minister, the government House leader and the chief government whip, are key players in the House of Commons today.

We in my party support Bill C-43 because it would make the necessary changes. However we would like the proper time to be taken in the House and the proper assistance to be given to members to make sure mistakes do not happen.

Parliament does not need to rush 73 bills through on closure. We should let parliament do its job. If it takes a little longer than the government hopes, that is one thing. We would prefer to avoid making mistakes in the first place. This would be achieved by careful drafting.

As I mentioned, when I was on the justice committee a number of opposition amendments to the extradition bill were approved. This proves my point. The member for Red Deer, our environment critic, has had numerous amendments approved in committee. This shows that if we let the opposition and the government work in committee and give them time to do what they must do, we will have better legislation.

Using the heavy hand of government to invoke closure does not bring about good legislation. Bill C-43 is a good example of that. It is a waste of taxpayer dollars. The money should have been spent making sure the legislation was done properly in the first place.

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Madam Speaker, it was interesting to listen to the government House leader today. He said that the acts were precise and as up to date as possible, which was the reason for the bill. I cannot help but wonder, if the bills were done properly in the first place, that we would not have to be doing some of this stuff and taking up the time of the House.

Bill C-43, an act to amend certain acts and instruments and to repeal the Fisheries Prices Support Act, amends the following: Access to Information Act, Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Act, Canadian Film Development Corporation Act, the constitution of Telefilm Canada, Financial Administration Act, Lieutenant Governors Superannuation Act, National Capital Act, Nuclear Safety and Control Act, Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act, Privacy Act, Public Service Staff Relations Act, Special Retirement Arrangements Act which I am sure would excite people watching live this afternoon, and Special Retirement Arrangements Act.

The committee will have to get together to make sure there are no special arrangements for MPs pensions or senior bureaucrats. The bill also amends the Telecommunications Act, Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act and repeals the Fisheries Prices Support Act.

We are told the bill proposes minor technical corrections that do not involve any policy changes. I agree with that. The reason the government's legislation is so riddled with mistakes is that it rushes it through the legislative process claiming lack of time. Yet the House adjourns early every other day.

Here is a question we could ask. How many high priced lawyers do we have in all these government departments drafting legislation? It is rather unfortunate that we still have all these mistakes.

I recall being on the justice committee and we had scads of lawyers, 10, 20 or 30 of them. They were all looking at the Extradition Act. I had to hire two professionals to look at the act. About nine or ten amendments were approved that time because we as the opposition hired some top notch lawyers to look at the bill.

I asked these lawyers why, If we could hire two lawyers to do this work for us and come up with amendments the government lawyers accept, they would not pick up on this. They said that government lawyers tended to like things to go to the supreme court for decisions rather than make laws that would never go there under the charter. I sometimes wonder how legislation is drafted that necessitates what we are doing this afternoon: taking up a couple of hours of parliament's time. It is a disturbing trend and this bill is a by product of that trend.

Yesterday the Liberal government attempted to adjourn government orders early due to the lack of government business. Ironically the day before it limited debate to less than two hours on the most important bill to hit the House in years.

I found this to be so offensive, as did most of my colleagues on this side of the House, that we refused consent to adjourn early, giving the Speaker no choice but to suspend the sitting until 5.30 p.m. when private members' business begins. The House was in a state of limbo with no business before it for a couple of hours.

So far this fall the House adjourned early for the same reason on November 22, November 20, November 2, October 26, October 25, October 24, October 22 and October 19. This is why we have a bill like Bill C-43 before us. It is not necessary because we do not have time to deal with legislation in a thoughtful and thorough manner.

Time allocation is not necessary in most cases. In fact there was a time when the Liberal leadership in the House shared that view. As recently as December 29, 1992, on CBC Prime Time the Prime Minister who was then the member for Saint-Maurice declared:

We have closure in Parliament now every day. I think it's completely wrong...And we will have to restore parliament...the parliamentary democracy that existed before.

On January 19, 1993, the same member made the following comment at a press conference in Ottawa. I see that the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary is wondering if I am in order with some of these comments. There is a reason that we talk about bills which are being updated. It is because of mistakes and that is why we have to press these issues. Before becoming Prime Minister he said on January 19, 1993:

I think we should let members of parliament speak their mind as long as it is possible.

If we had the opportunity to get the proper witnesses before committee and took the proper time on some of these bills, we would not make mistakes. It would mean we would not have to be back here bringing in a bill with all these mistakes and trying to correct them.

On October 25, 1989, the Toronto Star reported that the present government whip who in those days was in opposition said she felt the Tory government's use of closure showed it had no respect for the public process--

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved that Bill C-43, an act to amend certain acts and instruments and to repeal the Fisheries Prices Support Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-43, the technical amendments bill. In the unlikely event that some members are not totally familiar with what the technical amendments bill does, it makes some minor corrections to a number of statutes.

Most of the provisions of the bill before us today were in the draft Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act. During the draft bill's review by the House and Senate committees, requests were made for additional information on a number of provisions. I understand this information was given to the committees but in view of the concerns expressed during the committee meetings, several provisions which were not objected to were nevertheless not incorporated in the Miscellaneous Statue Law Amendment Act which the House passed a few weeks ago.

Additional information also has been provided to parliamentarians and the public in the communications material for the bill. As a result, I believe the House could proceed quickly with these provisions. I initially wanted to do all readings of the bill today but I understand the House is not quite ready to do that. I guess it will have to go to standing committee now but hopefully it can be dealt with quite quickly and then brought back to the House.

In the period since the draft Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment bill was tabled last spring, a few other technical amendments have been brought to the government's attention. The bill proposes to amend the Special Retirement Arrangements Act to address incorrect references and cross-references which were omitted in the 1999 public sector pensions legislation that was passed by parliament. These changes do not affect the policies or substance of existing statute but simply ensure that internal references are corrected.

Business of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, the House will not sit tomorrow as is the usual courtesy to a political party holding a national convention, in this case the New Democratic Party.

Our business for next week is fairly straightforward. First, we will deal with report stage and third reading of Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism legislation. When this is completed we will turn to second reading of the public safety bill that was introduced earlier this day by the Minister of Transport.

On any days next week, particularly in the early part of the week, should the debate on any of these items end earlier in the day, it would be my intention, then, on Monday to call for report stage and third reading of Bill C-27, the nuclear safety bill and, if time permits, second reading of Bill C-43, the technical legislative amendments bill which I introduced earlier this day.

If debate collapses on or after Tuesday, it would also be my intention to add to the list that I have just made Bill C-35, the foreign missions bill, at third reading.

An act to amend certain acts and instruments and to repeal the Fisheries Prices Support Act

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-43, an act to amend certain acts and instruments and to repeal the Fisheries Prices Support Act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Income Tax Amendments Act, 2000

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House at third reading of Bill C-22, the income tax amendments act, 2000.

The bill would implement key elements of the government's five year tax reduction plan, the largest tax relief package in Canada's history, and would legislate the technical amendments in Bill C-43 which died on the order paper last fall. Each measure in the bill is based on the principles of fairness and equity in the federal tax system to which we have been committed since 1993.

The most important component of the bill delivers measures announced in the 2000 budget and last October's economic statement to set out a multiyear plan for further tax reductions.

This plan, which provides $100 billion in tax relief by 2004-05, will reduce by an average of 21% the federal personal income tax paid by Canadians.

Families with children will receive an even larger tax cut of about 27% on average.

As of January 2001, tax rates on all income levels were reduced and the 5% deficit reduction surtax was eliminated. The low and middle income tax rates fell to 16% and 22% respectively. The top 29% rate was reduced to 26% on incomes between $61,000 and $100,000, which means the 29% rate applies only to income over $100,000. As all the economists and analysts have noted, the timing could not have been more perfect to bring in these tax cuts.

Increased support for families with children would be provided through the Canada child tax benefit. The maximum Canada child tax benefit for the first child would rise to $2,372 in July, well on the way to the five year goal of $2,500 by the year 2004.

For the second child the maximum Canada child tax benefit would increase to $2,308 in July 2004.

These amendments must be in effect by July 1, so that families can get this benefit within the set timeframe.

Other amendments to personal income tax are specifically designed to help those who need them most.

The bill would increase the amount on which the disability tax credit is based. It would expand the list of relatives to whom the disability tax credit can be transferred to make it consistent with medical expense tax credit rules and it would allow speech language pathologists to determine eligibility for the disability tax credit with respect to speech impairments.

In addition, the bill would increase the maximum child care expense deduction for children for whom the disability tax credit can be claimed and the amounts on which the caregiver and infirm dependant credits are based.

It would also include certain incremental costs under the medical expenses tax credit when a principal residence is built for people with mobility impairments.

Moreover, an amount of up to $3,000 in scholarships, fellowships and bursaries will be tax exempt, provided the student is eligible for the education tax credit. Self-employed workers can deduct from their income the share of the contributions to the Canada pension plan or to the Quebec pension plan paid by the employer for their own benefit.

Other personal income tax changes clarify the rules under which clergy can claim a deduction for their residence, allow Revenue Canada to release information about former registered charities under certain conditions and exempt municipalities from filing T4s for volunteers to whom they paid not more than $1,000.

Another element of the tax reduction plan would help make Canada's business income tax more internationally competitive. Corporate tax rates would drop to 21% from 28% for businesses in the highest tax sectors to make them more internationally competitive, beginning with a one point tax cut effective January 1, 2001.

By the year 2005 the combined federal-provincial tax rate would drop from the current average of 47% to 35%, five percentage points lower than the U.S. This would put our businesses on a more competitive level with other G-7 countries and serve to attract investment and create jobs.

The plan also provides a tax deferred capital gains rollover for investments in shares of certain small and medium size businesses, and a 50% reduction of the capital gains inclusion rate. Thus, the highest federal-provincial tax rate on capital gains will be lower than the same combined rate in the United States.

Increasing the employee stock option deduction from one-third to one-half means employees in Canada would be taxed more favourably on stock option benefits than employees in the United States. In addition, the bill would allow the deferral of tax on certain stock option benefits and an additional deduction for certain stock option shares donated to charity.

Bill C-22 would ensure a comparable tax system for Canadian banks and foreign bank branches operating here. It would strengthen the thin capitalization rules, phase out the special tax regime for non-resident owned investment corporations and introduce a temporary 15% investment tax credit for grassroots mineral exploration.

Technical amendments include extending the additional capital tax on life insurance corporations until the end of 2000 and clarifying the tax treatment of resource expenditures and the rules governing gifts of ecologically sensitive land.

There are three remaining measures I will touch on briefly before closing.

The first would introduce changes to the taxation of trusts and their beneficiaries, in particular property distributed from a Canadian trust to a non-resident beneficiary, mutual fund trusts, health and welfare trusts and those governed by RRSPs and RRIFs.

New antiavoidance measures will ensure that transfers to trusts cannot be used to unfairly reduce taxes.

The next measure would ensure that Canada retains the right to tax immigrants on gains that accrue during their stay in Canada. It would also clarify the effects of new taxpayer migration rules on rights to future income and allow returning former residents to unwind the tax effects of their departure regardless of how long they were non-resident.

To avoid international double taxation, former residents would be able to reduce Canadian tax payable on their pre-departure gains by certain foreign taxes paid on the same gains.

Another measure would make advertising expenses in periodicals with at least 80% original editorial content fully deductible and those in other periodicals 50% deductible regardless of ownership.

After July 1996 Canadian pension funds and other entities that own Canadian newspapers qualify as Canadian citizens under the ownership requirements of the Income Tax Act.

Before closing, I wish to mention that a number of amendments were made to this bill in committee. On behalf of the government, I wish to thank members of the Standing Committee on Finance for their detailed examination of this bill.

Improvements have been made to several provisions, including those affecting back to back loans, weak currency debts, foreign accrual property income, partnerships, mortgage investment corporations and segregated fund trusts, just to name a few.

Each of these amendments contributes to fairness in the tax system.

I remind the House that fiscal responsibility for government is fundamental and tax cuts are essential. At the same time we are committed to maintaining an effective, fair and technically valid tax system. Without a doubt this is the thrust of Bill C-22.

This bill will implement the key features of the five year tax reduction plan, which will lighten the tax burden on all taxpayers, strengthen support for families with children, and increase the competitiveness of the Canadian corporate tax system internationally.

I urge all my hon. colleagues to keep in mind that Canadian children need the Canada child tax benefit increases on July 1, a fact that makes speedy passage of the bill essential.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to state our case in opposition to Bill C-22, the Liberal government's proposed changes to the Income Tax Act, the income tax application rules, the Canada pension plan, the Customs Act, the Excise Tax Act and many other acts.

Earlier this morning I spoke in opposition to the Liberal's proposed changes to Bill C-9, the Canada Elections Act. That act creates a two tier electoral system. Among other things, it discriminates against smaller political parties. The Liberals are eroding our democracy with that bill and we cannot support it.

Bill C-22 seeks to amend the Income Tax Act and statutes originally included in Bill C-43 and to put into place key aspects of the last two budgets. The bill has 31 amendments touching on a number of tax deductions and their definitions.

There are three main reasons the official opposition and my constituents oppose the bill. First, the bill fails to address the enormous complexity of the tax code. It adds further complexity to an already complex tax code.

Second, it undermines the family, particularly one income families.

Third, the tax cuts provided for in the bill fall far short of what the Canadian Alliance proposed and what the government must do to increase our nation's productivity, competitiveness and standard of living. I would like to elaborate on those three points beginning with the complexity of the bill.

The government should be moving toward simplifying and broadening the base of the tax code. Lowering the taxes of all Canadians would be easier and it would have a far more positive impact for everyone. If the tax code were simplified and if it had less exemptions, further clarification would not be necessary.

The bill adds to the enormous complexity of the Income Tax Act with its numerous amendments. Rather than simplifying the act as the Canadian Alliance would do, the Liberals continue to maintain a costly and complicated tax code.

Another reason for my opposition to the bill deals with measures in the bill that assist the tax position of families with some minimal tax reductions. Nothing is done to address the longstanding inequality between single income and dual income families. The bill increases the inequity by increasing the child care tax deduction which is only available to high income or dual income families.

The bill also erodes the legal position of marriage. By changing references of spouse to common law partner it is including same sex partners.

Even after the changes proposed in the bill, Canadians would continue to pay far too much in taxes. The mini budget claimed to cut taxes by $100.5 billion over five years. However here is the reality. It is a bit technical so I would like to go into a little detail.

From the $100.5 billion claim of gross tax relief we must subtract $3.2 billion over five years for social spending, chiefly the child care tax benefit. The child care tax benefit is a spending program delivered through the tax system. The increase in the tax benefit should not be confused with being a tax decrease as it is a spending increase. The figure above excludes indexation because indexation is accounted for separately.

We then have to subtract $29.5 billion over five years for increased CPP premium hikes. We then have to subtract $20.7 billion over five years for cancelled tax hikes, namely indexation. Indexing the personal income tax system is meant to hold the tax burden constant over time so it should not be counted as a tax reduction.

Therefore when we take into consideration all those deductions, the net tax relief is only $47.5 billion provided over five years, not immediately.

The reality of the Liberal Party's 2000 tax relief package is that it is less than half of what it claims it is and half of what the Canadian Alliance proposed during the election.

These are the realities when we do a little math and we go into detail. This is how the tax relief would work in contrast to the image of tax relief the Liberals are projecting through their propaganda. We are watching a smoke and mirrors show by the government with respect to the bill.

Bill C-22 is a 500 plus page bill. I will read it later on because it will take too long. The Liberals say the bill is concerned with administrative, technical and implementation measures. They say it implements about $100 billion in tax cuts over five years. As I demonstrated it does not. It is less than half of that amount.

The more people study the bill, the more problems they will find. The more people study the bill the more complexities it creates in the minds of Canadians. I will take the time to go over some of the points.

There are 31 amendments in the bill. One amendment is about non-resident film and video actors. It would apply a new 23% withholding tax on payment to non-resident film and video actors and their corporations, with an option to have the actors and corporations pay regular part 1 tax on the net earnings instead. This provision alone hurts my beautiful province of British Columbia where film making has become popular and is contributing to the economic well-being of my province.

Canada Citizenship and Immigration has also imposed restrictions on issuing visas to those who are trying to come to Canada to make films and make the best use of the beautiful British Columbia scenery and its facilities. This hurts B.C. Those people then go to other countries to make films. Why should they come to B.C. to make films? Many people are hoping the film industry will contribute to the prosperity of my province.

The bill deals with limited liability partnerships, replacement property rules, types of property to be considered, stop-loss loans and a capital tax. An additional capital tax would also be imposed on life insurance corporations. Foreign affiliate losses would determine the affiliate or accrual property income for a particular taxation year. It deals with a foreign affiliate held by a partnership with simultaneous control in a chain of corporations and the control of their stake. It deals with advertising expenses concerning periodicals and magazines between Canada and the United States. It also deals with trusts and the tax treatment or property distribution from a Canadian trust to a non-resident beneficiary. Further, it deals with mutual fund trusts, RRSPs and adjusted retirement income funds.

When we go into the detail of the bill, we will notice that there are more complexities, more anti-family type situations and many other things.

There is taxpayer migration which is the ability to tax the gains accrued by immigrants. It will affect the projection of the country's image with respect to future immigrants.

With reference to foreign branch banking, there would be a 15% investment tax credit for certain grassroots mineral exploration. There is the foreign exploration and development expenses and the value of foreign resource property owned. It would impose a 30% restriction for the annual deduction of new foreign exploration and development expense benefits.

There are many other points. Here is another one. There would be a foreign tax credit on oil and gas production sharing agreements. Another one is weak currency debt that limits the deductibility of interest expenses and adjusts foreign exchange gains and losses in respect of weak currency debt and associated hedging transactions.

There are many points in the bill which will further make the tax codes very complicated.

Since capitalization, it reduces the acceptable debt to equity ratio from 3:1 to 2:1 and it repeals the exemption for manufacturers for aircraft and aircraft components.

As far as CPP contributions on self-employed earnings, these amendments introduce a deduction from business income for one-half of CPP contributions on self-employed earnings with the other half of the contributions remaining eligible for the CPP tax credit.

Here is something regarding students and scholarships, fellowships and bursaries. The exemption would be increased by $3,500 for scholarships, fellowships and bursaries received by the taxpayer in connection with the taxpayer's enrolment in a program and in respect of the taxpayer claiming the education tax credit.

Here is another one for the education tax credit. It would double the monthly amounts the tax credit allows to full time and part time students based on $400 and $120 respectively.

It also affects the medical expense tax credit.

There is not one area that does not affect families, caregivers, infirm dependant tax credits, disability tax credits, child care expense deductions and so on. Therefore, I assume this bill will not only be affecting families but also those individuals and low income people.

The Canadian Mining Association supports some aspects of this bill. It supports the definition of mining property, yet it was not aware of the changes until the official opposition contacted it. The association was not consulted. It had to learn from us that the definition of mining property was being tinkered with by the government.

This is a government from behind closed doors. Surely if the government was sincere in its intention, it would have contacted stakeholders and various groups in Canada. It would have listened to Canadians. It should have understood that Canadians want the tax credits to be implemented sooner rather than up to 2005.

The bill guarantees that the basic personal exemptions will hit a minimum of $8,000 by the year 2004. The credits and relief provided in the bill are a step in the right direction, but they are baby steps nonetheless.

Efforts have been made to reduce the capital gains tax, deficit surtax, marginal rates, raise marginal income thresholds and tighten up various other rules surrounding deductions. The bill would increase and clarify the disability tax credit.

There are some good points and some bad points.

In conclusion, Canadian Alliance members would restore public confidence in the fairness of the Canadian tax system by reducing its complexity. We would restore indexation and move toward a simpler tax system built around a single rate of taxation to ensure lower taxes for all Canadians. We believe all Canadians above a minimum income level should share in the cost of the services provided by the government, which benefit all of us irrespective of income.

We hope the government will consider the amendments and what witnesses have said at the committee hearings on this bill. At this point the Canadian Alliance will not be supporting this bill.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to present Bill C-22, the Income Tax Amendments Act, 2000 for second reading today.

While the bill amends several sections of the Income Tax Act, more important, it implements key elements of the government's five year tax reduction plan which was introduced last year.

Briefly, this plan will provide $100 billion in tax relief by 2004-05, thereby reducing the federal personal income tax paid by Canadians by 21% on average.

Families with children will receive an even larger tax cut—about 27% on average.

The bill also includes many additional measures, including technical amendments that were introduced in Bill C-43 last fall but which died on the order paper when the election was called.

Many of these amendments are relieving in nature. Some correct technical deficiencies in the act while others lighten the administration of the tax system. Whatever the changes, one thing is certain, each is based on the principles of fairness and equity in the federal tax system to which our government has been committed since coming to office in 1993.

Once we eliminated the deficit in 1997-98, we began to cut taxes for all Canadians. The bill before us today is the biggest step forward in our tax cutting efforts to date and is based on four key principles.

First, our approach to tax reduction must be fair starting with those who need relief most, middle and low income earners, and especially families with children.

Second, we will focus initially on personal income taxes since that is where we are most out of line.

Third, we will ensure that Canada has an internationally competitive business tax system.

Fourth, we will not finance tax relief with borrowed money because that means an inevitable return to higher taxes in the future.

For the government, fiscal responsibility is fundamental and tax cuts are essential. At the same time, it is essential that an effective, fair and technically valid tax system be maintained, which is the thrust of the legislation before us today.

I will now discuss the main measures in the bill beginning with some of the personal income tax changes.

In 1999 the government promised Canadians that it would set out a multi-year plan for further tax reductions. The 2000 budget delivered on that commitment by making the most important structural changes to the Canadian tax system in more than a decade with a special emphasis on the needs of families with children. The bill provides for tax rate reductions at all income levels as of January 1, 2001.

The low and middle income tax rates fall to 16% and 22% respectively. The top 29% rate is reduced to 26% on incomes between about $61,000 and $100,000, which means that the 29% rate applies only to income over $100,000.

While tax burdens will fall for all Canadians, the decline will be felt substantially by middle income earners. In addition, the bill would eliminate the 5% deficit reduction surtax as of January 1, 2001.

One component of the five year tax reduction plan must be in place by July 1 of this year because it benefits Canadian children. I am referring to the increased support for families with children through the Canada child tax benefit.

As hon. members know, the Canada child tax benefit is a key element of federal assistance to families. It is an income based benefit with two components: the Canada child tax benefit base benefit for low and middle income families and the national child benefit supplement for low income families.

The maximum Canada child tax benefit for the first child will rise to $2,372 in July 2001, well on the way to the five year goal of $2,500 by the year 2004.

For the second child, the maximum Canada child tax benefit will increase to $2,308 in July 2004. Together with increases announced in previous budgets, annual Canada child tax benefits will exceed $9 billion a year in the year 2004, of which low income families will receive about $6 billion and middle income families about $3 billion.

The bill contains other personal income tax changes that are specifically designed to help those who need it most.

For example, the amount on which the disability tax credit, the DTC, is based is increasing from $4,293 to $6,000 effective 2001. This tax relief will increase over time, as the DTC is fully indexed to inflation.

The list of relatives to whom the disability tax credit can be transferred has expanded to make it consistent with the medical expense tax credit rules. In addition, speech language pathologists will now be able to certify eligibility for the disability tax credit with respect to speech impairments.

Another measure increases the maximum annual amount that can be deducted for child care expenses to $10,000 from $7,000 for each eligible child for whom the disability tax credit can be claimed.

The amounts on which the caregiver tax credit and the infirm dependant credit are calculated are both going up to $3,500. With full indexation, this tax relief will continue to increase over time.

At present, individuals with certain mobility impairments may qualify under the medical expense tax credit for renovation costs that enable them to gain access to, or be mobile or functional within, their home. Bill C-22 includes reasonable incremental costs relating to the construction of a principal residence to help these individuals.

To provide additional assistance to students, the annual exemption for scholarships, fellowships and bursaries received in conjunction with programs for which the education tax credit may be claimed increases to $3,000, up from $500.

I also want to mention that self-employed individuals will now be able to deduct one-half of their Canada pension plan or Quebec pension plan contributions on self-employment income. The remaining one-half will continue to be eligible for a personal tax credit at the lowest tax rate. Without the bill they would be entitled only to the credit on both the employer and employee contributions, which would put them at a disadvantage vis-à-vis owner-operators who can deduct the employer share.

The technical amendments in this bill are too numerous to mention in the short time allotted to me in this debate. However, I would like to highlight a few of them before moving on to the business tax changes implemented in this bill.

On the personal tax side, some of the changes ensure that the rules under which clergy can claim a deduction for their residence are clarified. They also ensure that Revenue Canada can release information about a former registered charity as long as it relates to when the organization was a registered charity.

They ensure that municipalities do not have to file T4s for volunteers to whom they paid not more than $1,000. They also ensure that the exemption applicable to reasonable travel allowances to part time teachers be extended to teachers who do not have other jobs.

The five year tax reduction plan also goes a long way toward making Canada's business income tax system more internationally competitive. This is important because business tax rates have a significant impact on the level of business investment, employment, productivity, wages and incomes.

With this in mind, Bill C-22 includes significant corporate tax rate reductions. Corporate tax rates will drop to 21% from 28% for businesses in the highest taxed sectors, such as high technology services, to make them more internationally competitive. These reductions begin with a one-point cut effective January 1, 2001.

By 2005 the combined federal provincial tax rate, including both income and capital taxes, will drop from the current average of 47% to 35%. This would put our businesses on a more competitive level with other G-7 countries.

Two measures in the tax reduction plan involve capital gains. The first provides a tax deferred capital gains rollover for investments in shares of certain small and medium sized active business corporations. It includes increasing the $500,000 investment limit, originally announced in the 2000 budget, to $2 million as announced in the economic statement and increasing the size of small businesses eligible for the rollover from $10 million to include corporations with no more than $50 million in assets immediately after the investment.

The second measure reduces the capital gains inclusion rate to one-half. This would reduce the tough federal provincial tax rate on capital gains in Canada from an average of about 31% to about 23%, lower than the typical U.S. combined federal state top rate of about 25%. Both measures would improve access to capital for small businesses with high growth potential. High technology industries would particularly benefit.

Consistent with this change to the capital gains inclusion rate, the deduction for employee stock options would increase from one-third to one-half. As a result, employees in Canada would be taxed more favourably on their stock option benefits than employees in the U.S. The bill defers the taxation for certain stock option benefits and allows an additional deduction for certain stock option shares donated to charity.

Another measure that I want to discuss relates to branches of foreign banks operating in Canada.

These new rules stem from the 1999 amendments to the Bank Act, which allow foreign banks to establish specialized, commercially focused branches here. Previously, foreign banks could operate in Canada only through Canadian incorporated subsidiaries.

The tax system for the new foreign bank branches would now be comparable to that for Canadian banks. These new rules would give foreign banks a time limit window to move their operations from a Canadian subsidiary into a Canadian branch without undue tax consequences.

As with the personal tax measures, the business tax changes are too numerous to discuss individually during today's debate. I would like to summarize a few of them.

The bill, for example, provides a tax deferred rollover for shares received on certain foreign spinoffs. It strengthens thin capitalization rules. It phases out over a three year period the special income tax regime for non-resident owned investment corporations. It treats provincial deductions for scientific research that exceed the amount of the SR & ED expenditures as government assistance. It ensures appropriate treatment of foreign exploration and development expenses in computing foreign tax credits. It introduces a temporary 15% investment tax credit for grassroots mineral exploration and it amends the corporate divisive reorganization rules.

Other technical amendments ensure that Canadian corporations that hold shares of non-resident corporations through partnerships are not subject to double taxation. The additional capital tax on life insurance corporations is extended until the end of 2000. Shares of one foreign corporation can be exchanged on a tax deferred rollover basis for shares of another foreign corporation. The tax treatment of resource expenditures and the rules governing gifts of ecologically sensitive land are clarified. In a chain of corporations, a corporation is controlled by its immediate parent, even where the parent is itself controlled by a third corporation. Replacement property rules do not apply to shares of the capital stock of corporations, and a member of a limited liability partnership under provincial law is not automatically a limited partner under the Income Tax Act.

Those are some of the more technical changes incorporated into the bill. There are three remaining measures that I wish to discuss briefly before closing. The first involves changes to the rules governing the taxation of trusts and their beneficiaries.

Bill C-22 addresses the tax treatment of property distributed from a Canadian trust to a non-resident beneficiary. It also introduces measures dealing with the tax treatment of bare, protective and similar trusts, as well as mutual fund trusts, health and welfare trusts and trusts governed by RRSPs and RRIFs.

For example, the existing rules whereby an individual can roll over property to a trust for the exclusive benefit of a spouse or common law partner would be extended to alter ego trusts and joint spousal or common law partner trusts.

Several new anti-avoidance measures designed to ensure that transfers to trusts cannot be used to inappropriately reduce tax are also included in the bill. For example, there would be limits on the use of rollovers where trusts were used to avoid tax when a beneficiary emigrates. Also, income allocations to beneficiaries could not be used by trusts to circumvent the rules ensuring that spousal or common law partner trusts, alter ego trusts and joint spousal or common law partner trusts would not allocate income to others before the beneficiary, spouse or common law partner dies.

In addition, rollovers to a trust would be denied if the transfer was part of a series of transactions designed to defer capital gains through the use of a trust as an intermediary between a vendor and purchaser of property.

A final anti-avoidance measure would prevent certain pre-1972 trusts from using graduated income tax rates if they received property from a trust not subject to these rates, and the beneficial ownership of the property had not changed.

The second measure I wish to highlight involves the new taxpayer migration rules, which are also part of the government's ongoing commitment to greater fairness in the tax system.

Since 1972 Canada has had special tax rules that apply when people give up Canadian residence. The basic entitlement of those rules is a deemed disposition that treats the immigrant as having disposed of property immediately before leaving.

For many years, questions have persisted as to the exact scope of this deemed disposition on departure from Canada and its interaction with Canada's international tax treaties. Under Bill C-22, Canada retains the right to tax emigrants on gains that accrue during their stay in Canada.

The bill would also clarify the effect of the new rules on various kinds of rights to future income and would allow returning former residents to reverse the tax effects of their departure, regardless of how long they were a non-resident.

In addition, former residents would be able to reduce the Canadian tax payable on their pre-departure and distribution gains by certain foreign taxes paid on the same gains. This is part of Canada's commitment to avoiding international double taxation, a commitment that is reflected in our network of tax treaties as well.

Since 1999, in anticipation of these rules coming into effect, Canada has been negotiating its tax treaties to reinforce protection against double taxation when immigrants' pre-departure gains are taxed.

A final measure, deals with amendments to the Income Tax Act that relate to the June 3rd, 1999 agreement between Canada and the United States concerning foreign periodicals.

Since the 1960s the Income Tax Act has precluded the deduction of advertising expenses unless a newspaper or a periodical is at least 75% Canadian owned and has at least 60% original Canadian content.

As a result of the Canada-U.S. agreement, this rule no longer applies to advertisements and periodicals. Instead, advertising expenses and periodicals with at least 80% original editorial content would be fully deductible and advertising expenses and other periodicals would be 50% deductible regardless of ownership.

In addition, after July 1996, the meaning of Canadian citizen will include Canadian pension funds and other entities that own Canadian newspapers to ensure that they qualify as citizens under the ownership requirements of the Income Tax Act. For periodicals, this amendment applies from July 1996 to May 2000, after which time nationality of ownership is irrelevant.

In conclusion, while the bill is lengthy, very detailed and technical in nature, its components are all very important and deserve to be passed without delay. Most are relieving or clarifying measures and a few are housekeeping measures.

As I indicated earlier, each measure is designed with the principle of tax fairness in mind and there are many taxpayers out there who will benefit from these changes. The measure with the highest profile of course implements the key components of our government's five year tax reduction plan. In summary, that plan reduces the tax burden at the middle income level, increases support for families with children and makes Canada's business income tax system more internationally competitive. As I stated earlier, the five year tax reduction plan will provide $100 billion in cumulative tax relief by 2004-05.

I urge all hon. members of the House to give the bill quick and speedy passage and, most importantly, to keep in mind all the Canadian children who will benefit from the increases to the Canada Child Tax Benefit on July 1.

Rights Of The Unborn

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should bring in legislation defining a “human being” as a human fetus or embryo from the moment of conception, whether in the womb of the mother or not and whether conceived naturally or otherwise, and making any and all consequential amendments required.

Madam Speaker, this is the most important issue facing Canada today. In fact, this issue is more important than anything that has been debated in the House since May 1991. Let me explain.

May of 1991 was when Bill C-43, an act respecting abortions, was debated in parliament. That was the last time there was any serious debate about the rights of the unborn in the House. That is a disgrace. For 10 years now successive governments have buried their heads in the sand on this life and death issue. I will correct myself. It is not a life and death issue, it is only a death issue.

Between 1988 and 1998, 1,021,965 unborn babies died because the government did not have the courage to deal with the issue. Now is that time. Those one million unborn do not think this is the best country in the world to live. They never had a chance.

Bill C-43 was actually passed by the House of Commons but was defeated in the Senate by a single vote. One vote was a death sentence to how many babies? After one million have died is the senator who defeated the bill proud? After one million babies have been killed is the government proud of how effectively it killed the debate of this issue?

The unwillingness of the government to even debate the issue, to even study the issue, to even ask Canadians what they think about the issue is criminal negligence if, in fact as I contend, these one million unborn were human beings. Does the government really think it can ignore the fact that 100,000 babies are being killed every year? Does it actually think there are no consequences for its actions?

Before I get into my main remarks, I want to tell the House about a response I got to one of my access to information requests. I asked Health Canada for the documents, reports and correspondence in the department that provided evidence that abortions are medically necessary.

On March 8 Health Canada responded by saying:

I regret to inform you that after a thorough search of all likely record holdings, departmental officials have confirmed that they have no records relevant to your request.

That is amazing. More than 100,000 unborn babies lose their right to live every year and the Department of Health does not have one document that says abortions are even medically necessary.

If they are not medically necessary, why are we doing them? Why are taxpayers paying for them? Why is this happening?

The problem is the way we define a human being in Canadian law. Our legal definition of a human being is wrong and needs to be amended. This is the sole purpose of my motion.

Currently a human being is defined in section 223(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada as follows:

A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not

(a) it has breathed,

(b) it has independent circulation, or

(c) the navel string is severed.

Motion No. 228 which I put foward today states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should bring in legislation defining a “human being” as a human fetus or embryo from the moment of conception, whether in the womb of the mother or not and whether conceived naturally or otherwise, and making any and all consequential amendments required.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Canada signed, states:

—the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.

In Canadian law there simply is no protection for a child before birth. The Government of Canada cannot discharge its legal obligations under this international agreement, an agreement the federal government and 10 provinces have ratified, unless and until it changes the definition of a human being.

Prior to 1969, all abortions were illegal. From 1969 to 1988, Canada had a law in our criminal code that provided for an abortion only when a therapeutic abortion committee of three doctors agreed that the continuation of a pregnancy would cause harm to the life or health of the mother. The word health was not defined or limited.

In 1988 the supreme court struck down the 1969 abortion law as unconstitutional. The supreme court ruling, commonly referred to as the Morgentaler decision, provided constitutional parameters for a new abortion law.

Based on the instructions from the supreme court justices, in 1990 the government of the day introduced, debated and passed Bill C-43 in the House of Commons. As I mentioned, Bill C-43 was defeated by one vote in the Senate. Since that time the government has not restricted abortions in any way and the unborn have been without any rights. Since then more than one million babies have been aborted while politicians were hoping the issue would just go away.

In 1988 the supreme court said that this is an issue best left to parliament. I say it is time for parliament to assume its responsibility. Many key moral and legal issues such as reproductive technologies, rights of the unborn and a mother's duty of care for her unborn, all hinge on when the law says a child becomes a human being.

Today's definition is unacceptable in my mind. It is debatable in the minds of most people. It is time the debate began. How we define a human being is the place to begin this entire debate. That is why I have introduced this motion.

Since introducing the motion, I have been asked some important questions like why I am trying to ban abortions. While that would be my personal preference, my motion would only ban abortions if the legislation I am asking the government to draft bans them. The more likely consequence of my motion would be that parliament would determine at what point during a pregnancy an unborn human being has rights.

I have also been asked why I am bringing in this motion. Because the current definition of a human being in the criminal code is scientifically incorrect. A baby has to emerge completely from the birth canal before it becomes a human being.

It is obvious to everyone that a baby is a human being before it is born. It is a proven law of science that like things beget like things. Dogs have dogs, cats have cats and people produce people.

I have also been asked about a woman's right to her own body and if my motion is passed whose rights would come first, the child's or the woman's.

I agree that everyone has a right to their own body, until it interferes with the rights of someone else's own body. The problem is that under the Canadian law, the human being growing inside the woman has no rights until he or she has fully emerged from the birth canal. I maintain that at some point during the pregnancy the unborn baby's rights are equal to the woman's rights. Even the United Nations agrees that every unborn child has rights. These rights need the protection of the Government of Canada.

My motion would start a debate in parliament, and in the public, to determine at what point during the pregnancy does the helpless, unborn child deserve protection under Canadian law.

A month ago I had the pleasure to meet and listen to Scott Klusendorf. Scott is a director of bio-ethics for Stand to Reason from San Pedro, California. I was impressed by the simplicity of his approach and his direct hard hitting message. I appreciated his taking the time to meet with the pro-life caucus and with our staff. I thank him for the printed materials he shared with us, some of which I have used in preparing for this debate.

The question we must answer is “Can we kill the unborn?” The answer is “Yes, we can kill the unborn if it is not a human being”. How many have watched a video of what actually happens to a baby during an abortion? After watching any video that depicts the truth, no one can doubt what is being killed is a human being.

When MPs opposite support abortion, they are going against what Canadians would think Liberals normally stand for. Liberals normally pride themselves as defenders of the weakest members of society. Who could be weaker and more defenceless than an unborn baby?

Liberals normally pride themselves in not discriminating against anyone, and I use small l there, but every year they are discriminating against more than 100,000 unborn babies and defending every adult mother's right to kill the baby in her womb, for any reason or for no reason, up to the very moment the baby fully emerges from the birth canal.

During the election, the Liberals attacked pro-life policies and any politician who holds these views. However, who should really be attacked? The Liberals because they approve of killing more than 100,000 unborn babies or me because I want to save the lives of many of these poor, defenceless, unborn babies as possible.

What is so wrong with trying to save as many little unborn babies as we can? What is so wrong with trying to get a real debate in the House about saving these babies' lives? What are we so afraid of? What is the government afraid of?

We are not the scary ones. We are the ones who think the unborn have some rights. The government thinks the unborn has no rights. We are the ones who want to save these babies.

Why do we have a law that allows the killing of a little unborn baby, even when they are eight or nine weeks old? It is like unborn babies are not people. From conception to birth, the unborn are not technically people so it is okay to murder them. However, the moment they emerge from the birth canal, it is a crime to murder them. Where is the sense in that?

Remember when the law did not consider slaves to be people? They were property. Their cries were heard. Liberals agreed this was wrong and the law was changed.

Remember when the law did not consider women to be persons and denied them the vote? Their cries were heard. Liberals agreed this was wrong and the law was changed.

Remember when aboriginal people and Chinese immigrants were not considered people? Their cries were heard. Liberals agreed this was wrong and the law was changed.

It is time we recognize the fact that the unborn are people. It is time someone heard their cries. Their cry is not a silent cry. It is a silent scream. It is time the law was changed. It will take a lot more than one hour of parliament to provide some small measure of justice in the defence of the rights of the unborn. In a moment I will be asking for consent to go beyond that.

Abortion has been defined as the strong and independent exploiting the weak and defenceless. Here we stand, the strong and the independent. We are the only hope for the weak and the defenceless in Canadian society. There is no one weaker and no one more defenceless than an unborn baby. Anti-life activists challenge us by asking why we are forcing our morality on them. I say to them that their morality is being forced on me. When I cannot stand up for what I believe, is that right?

Anti-life activists approve of killing the most weak and defenceless human beings. I am trying to save them. Who is standing on the high moral ground? Abortion is not a complex issue. It involves the honesty of answering one simple question. What is the unborn? That is what I would like parliament to debate. That is what we are here for today.

Madam Speaker, could I request unanimous consent to make the motion that I have before the House votable?