Debates of May 1st, 1996

Canadian Human Rights Act

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know it has been some time for Canadians who are watching this on television. This debate is on Bill C-33, which is a government order to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act by inserting the two words, sexual orientation.

Since we are in the period for questions and comments, I will ask my honoured and learned colleague from Fraser Valley East if he would tell the television viewers across the country what the implications of the insertion of those two words in the Canadian Human Rights Act might be for them.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have four minutes or maybe less now. Parliamentarians have an hour left to speak on this. Again it is a travesty that the Liberals have brought in closure to restrict open debate.

Last night I asked for unanimous consent to split my time with the member for Ontario who is not being allowed to speak by the Liberal Party. That permission was denied by the members of the Liberal Party, which is a shame. They talk about freedom to speak one's mind and their own members are not allowed. One of their members was not even allowed to split my time with me.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member has made a statement which is not accurate and reflects badly on other members of the House. Anybody who wants to speak is allowed to speak-

[The Deputy Speaker]

That is a matter for debate, not a point of order. The time will not come out of the time of the hon. member for Fraser Valley East.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the person who was just on her feet denied unanimous consent when I tried to obtain it yesterday.

It is a shame-

[The Deputy Speaker]

There is a second point of order which will not come out of any member's time. The hon. parliamentary secretary on a point of order. I hope it is not the same point of order.

[Guy Arseneault, Liberal, Restigouche—Chaleur, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member is making accusations which are not correct. he has also made an accusation which to me has taken the Chair in question. He is attributing that we are deciding who speaks in this House.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. parliamentary secretary will know that his party will have the floor for the next speaker after the present speaker finishes in two minutes. Then the parliamentary secretary will be permitted to get up and explain what he has just said as part of debate.

The hon. member for Fraser Valley East has about three minutes left.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I guess I am down to two minutes now. I am not sure if they are going to jump up again.

If they would care to look in yesterday's Hansard , I stood in this spot and said that I would like unanimous consent to split my time with the member for Ontario. That unanimous consent was denied by members of the Liberal Party.

I want to make it clear that it is disgusting that the Liberals will not allow people in their own party to speak. It is disgusting that they have invoked closure. If I had another 40 minutes, I could get wound up again on the whole issue we are debating here.

However, the issue I am raising now is that I made an offer to the member for Ontario. I had talked it over with him previously and said that I would do that. Consent was denied. He has been denied the privilege to speak by his own party. That is truly disgusting. Now the rest of the members will not be allowed to speak because closure is in place.

I have gone through the issue and my remarks are in Hansard for everyone to see. Closure is being invoked for the umpteenth time, which is far worse than what the Mulroney Tories ever did.

I would just like to point out that the Liberals are denying free speech in their own House of Commons and I think that is truly disgusting.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to say how ashamed and upset I am that people in this House-

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe the next speaker in the normal order is in fact a Liberal member. I believe it is the secretary of state for-

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member was sitting there an instant ago and watched me look at her whole bench and nobody moved a muscle. The only person who was standing was the hon. member for Calgary North. The hon. member for Calgary North has the floor.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is an issue of real concern to Canadians. The phone is ringing off the hook in my office. I have scores of letters from my constituents about this legislation yet debate is being stifled in this House by the government. The most undemocratic thing that has ever happened in this Parliament is to have debate on contentious issues simply cut off at the knees because the Liberals want to ram it through. Shame. I speak with the outrage of many Canadians across the country.

Unfortunately this debate has been surrounded by a high degree of politicization and emotion. I want to touch on the perception that was conveyed by the reported remarks of my colleague from Nanaimo-Cowichan. Those remarks were most unfortunate and were completely inconsistent with Reform policy.

Once again, I want to put on the record that the Reform Party will take a back seat to no one in opposing unfairness and discrimination. We believe strongly in the principle of equality, that all Canadians are equal, entitled to equal protection under the law, equal freedoms, equal protection from discrimination and hate mongering. Even where we may disagree with the lifestyles or viewpoints of others, the innate value, dignity and worth of each individual is to be respected and affirmed.

This legislation must be looked at on the merits of whether it is serving the best interests of Canadians and whether it is in fact furthering the goal of equally protecting Canadians from unfairness and discrimination in our society because that is a goal we all believe in and to which we are all committed. There are four reasons that this legislation should not proceed at this time.

The first point is it negates the key principle of equality in a democracy. This is a very important principle which we need to be looking at and have not looked at properly in my view. We should not be looking at whether we should be adding one group or another to the federal human rights legislation. We should focus instead on the broader principle of equality and individual rights.

The principles of equality and individuals rights apply to individuals and are based on the position of each person as a human being, not on group membership. Recognizing different categories of people for the purpose of defining or augmenting their rights under the Canadian Human Rights Act is negating the principle of equality and polarizing Canadian society.

So far the Canadian Human Rights Act lists 10 categories of Canadians deserving special protections. Special interest groups have used and are using these categorizations to demand preferential treatment, not equal treatment but preferential treatment. Often their claim is based on the rationale that special treatment is required to make up for past injustices or for certain inherent

disadvantages. This has led to a situation where Canadians are no longer equal. Groups not currently included in the list justifiably argue for inclusion.

We see this in the United States where there is a real movement to include prohibitions against discrimination of people based on their height. I personally would applaud that. That is another expansion that logically this kind of approach leads to. There is a movement for the prevention of discrimination based on size or weight. There is a movement for the prevention of discrimination based on looks. If one is not attractive, according to that particular lobby, then one is discriminated against and not given the same opportunities as others. Where does it all end?

We need to look carefully at the kind of approach we are taking to this legislation before we rush it through. We should back up and take a long range look at it.

The Reform Party strongly believes that all Canadians are entitled to the same rights and privileges under the Canadian Human Rights Act. However, the protections awarded by this act do not ensure equality but rather tend to have the opposite result in some cases. It sets Canadians against each other in a quest for economic benefits which benefit one group at the cost of another.

All of us have friends and family members who want to pursue different professions or different opportunities in the federal public service but are told: "No point in applying. You do not have the special group characteristics that are required at the current time". Extending the special protections of the Canadian Human Rights Act to a constantly growing list of groups will lead to increasing infringement of the existing privileges and rights of other Canadians.

Under the current wording of the Canadian Human Rights Act, inequalities clearly do exist. Therefore, the only logically consistent and defensible way to oppose extending these special rights to groups not currently included is by proposing to eliminate those inequalities while strongly affirming a belief in the equality and rights of individuals.

The debate we really ought to be having is to back up, take a clear look at the big picture and the principles we are attempting to protect. Before we go too far down the road of adding more and more specially designated groups, we should first consider replacing all prohibited grounds of discrimination. We should also replace the special categories currently listed in the Canadian Human Rights Act with a clearly worded straight definition of fundamental human rights that applies to each and every Canadian without discrimination and without any inequality at all. We have not looked at this approach. It is one I believe must be considered and properly debated before we move to add more and more groups to the human rights legislation.

The second reason this legislation should not be passed at this time is that Canadians are very unsure, and I believe rightly so, about the effects and the consequences of passing this legislation. The government put out a little book about what would be the effect of passing this legislation. It says that it would not extend economic benefits to different groups and a number of other things which it is alleged this legislation would not do. Unfortunately I do not think it is any surprise to Canadians that once legislation is in place, its interpretation or application very much depends on decisions of the courts.

Canadians are rightly asking: Will this legislation change our application of economic benefits? Will this legislation change our definition of family and the basic building blocks for our society? Will this legislation prohibit people who disagree with certain viewpoints from voicing that disagreement, or if they choose to speak their own opinion, will that be considered discrimination? Will they be muzzled and their freedom of speech abrogated? These are very real logical questions and they should be answered.

What does the Liberal government do when these very serious questions are put forward by the Canadian people? It cuts off debate, in effect saying: "We do not want to talk about this. We are not going to answer your questions. It is going to go through and let the chips fall where they may".

Canadians are increasingly losing confidence in their lawmakers and no wonder. They are often told one thing and the consequences are something quite different. Canadians have a real lack of trust and confidence in their lawmakers.

We have a duty as lawmakers to address that by being open and transparent and taking all the time necessary to answer the very real concerns, fears and objections of the people who are going to have to live with this legislation. We must do that. It is our responsibility. We represent these people. Pushing something through because a few people in their wisdom have decided this is the way the country should be going is not the way a democracy should be working. Shame on us.

Shame on us for not taking the time to respond to the concerns that I am hearing in my constituency office. I am willing to wager that every single member of Parliament is hearing those same concerns. That is not the way to bring in good legislation.

The third reason we should hesitate in pushing ahead with this legislation particularly in such a high-handed manner is that it does not enjoy the support of the majority of Canadians. I have already mentioned that Canadians are concerned about the real effects and

consequences of this kind of bill. In addition to that, simply put, it does not enjoy the support of the broad base of the Canadian public.

Surely if we have to live with laws, they should at least meet with our approval. If we think that people would approve if they knew all the ins and outs, then it is up to us to place that information in front of the public, to inform them to the point where public opinion would broadly support this kind of a measure. If we truly believe this is right for our society, that it is something which is necessary, proper, fair and just, then it would be no trouble at all. There would be no problem in getting Canadians behind it.

But what does this Liberal government do? It introduces the legislation, it introduces closure, it shoves the debate through and just pushes it upon Canadians without any consideration for their hesitation, their concerns and their lack of support. That is wrong. It should not be done that way. I protest in the strongest possible terms on behalf of the people of Canada at the way this legislation that is going to affect us and the way we perceive society is being dealt with and that there are special protections for yet another group.

I did a survey in my riding of Calgary North in anticipation that this issue would come forward. I listed arguments that were most often brought forward in favour of the inclusion of sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act and the arguments that were most often brought forward against it. I received over 1,000 responses. Not one response criticized the objectiveness or completeness of the background information that I provided to my constituents.

As an elected representative I need to give people objective information. They need to know both sides of any question. They need to know the pros and the cons, which there always are in whatever proposal comes forward. They need time to look at the information, to consider it and discuss it in order to make an informed decision.

Of the 1,035 responses I received to the question: Do you think the federal government should amend federal legislation to add sexual orientation as a prohibited grounds of discrimination, 67.9 per cent said no; 26.3 per cent said yes; 4.4 per cent were undecided; and 1.4 per cent had no response.

I then asked a second question: If yes, would you support this amendment if it meant extending economic and family benefits that heterosexual couples currently enjoy such as medical, survivor, income tax benefits, marriage and adoption to homosexual couples? Of the 272 people who answered yes to question number one, that sexual orientation should be included, 64.3 per cent of those 272 people agreed that economic and family benefits should also be extended to same sex couples, 28 per cent disagreed, 7.7 per cent were undecided and no one omitted a response.

That is the result from one poll in one urban riding. It has a very wide and broad range of people and backgrounds. It is incumbent upon us, it seems to me, to take more time to canvass the public when putting into place legislation that is going to affect our society for many years to come. It would have results we cannot clearly foresee pending court interpretation of the legislation.

As this legislation deserves a more sober, broad based and public dimension and consultation, I would move an amendment to the bill before the House at this time. I move that we:

Delete all the words after "That" in the main question and substitute the following:

Bill C-33, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act be not now read a second time, but that it be read a second time six months hence.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The motion is acceptable.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said in her remarks that the Reform Party was all in favour of equal rights for all Canadians. Yet it appears that her intention is to get rid of part of the Canadian Human Rights Act and take away rights that have been granted.

It is my view, and I think the view of most Canadians, that the provisions of the act which prohibit discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted, have been widely accepted as advancing the interests and the opportunities for the persons named on that list, which is, of course. the vast majority of the Canadian population, since sex after all is one of the prohibited grounds.

I understand that most women's groups feel their interests have been advanced by the legislation. I am also of the view that most persons who come from various ethnic backgrounds or persons of colour feel that their interests have been advanced by this legislation and so have persons with disabilities in particular. I mention those groups because they are strongly in support of this legislation.

If the hon. member thinks that there should be equality for all, why does she oppose the inclusion of persons who are being discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation? They have provided ample evidence of this discrimination over the years. They have sought this amendment for many years and now Reform Party members seek to exclude them from this list because in their view they are unworthy of inclusion.

Why does the hon. member not come clean and admit that is the real reason behind her remarks? It is not because she does not think this act has done a good job. She is not advocating repeal of this act and she knows it. I invite her to answer that comment. Is she not trying to simply whitewash the Reform Party position by saying everyone should be equal.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the intervention of the member for Kingston and the Islands because he is on record as supporting the first remarks in my intervention in this debate that the use of closure in this House is morally wicked. I appreciate the fact that he feels so strongly on behalf of the right of members to fully and fairly debate issues. Unfortunately the comments he made in that regard were in the last Parliament. He seems suddenly to have changed his stance in this one.

We need to look at what we are trying to accomplish in this legislation. The member talks about advancing opportunities but is that what we are trying to do in this legislation? I would submit that this legislation is trying to eliminate unfairness and discrimination against Canadian citizens.

If we are doing that, it is is something that each and every Canadian citizen is entitled to. We are all individually and equally entitled to protection against discrimination and unfairness.

What happens? We have a Canadian Human Rights Act. The member is quite correct. I certainly would never support abrogating that act. It enshrines very important principles of fairness, equality and anti-discrimination in our society. Instead of a straightforward definition of fundamental, individual human rights, it puts in categories. It says these people are entitled to special protection against discrimination, not all of us equally, but these groups.

The member even mentioned a category that is not in the legislation: the disabled. The point he is making is quite correct. Many people in our society for many reasons suffer unfairness and discrimination. That should be stamped out. They should be protected against that but on the basis that they have fundamental individual rights and individual liberties and not because they are a member of a group. No one would be excluded at all if there were no categories because we would all be equally entitled to equal protection, equal fairness and equal protection from discrimination. I submit that is exactly what our legislation should be doing.

[Gordon Kirkby, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. Reform member this question. Would the addition of the proposed term to the legislation, namely, the prevention of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, not cover all Canadians, regardless of their sexual orientation?

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would certainly hope so. If it does, why do we need to put it in? If we are all equally covered, then we are all equally covered. We do not need to list some defining characteristic of the people who are covered. If we are all covered, why are we defining who is covered and who is not?

What the hon. member just said is that he agrees with the logic of my argument and I appreciate that very much.

[Gordon Kirkby, Liberal, Prince Albert—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, with respect, I believe the hon. member from the Reform Party has completely missed the point, but that ought not to surprise any of us.

I will make it clear for her. At present an individual who is a heterosexual could be discriminated against and could be fired for that reason. This legislation will prevent that from happening. Is that not a good thing?

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if the member is suggesting that I am mentally challenged, then perhaps he ought not to discriminate against me by asking vague questions and then be unhappy because I do not answer properly or to his satisfaction.

Again, the point that I am making is that any person in our country who is discriminated against, who is treated unfairly for any reason, whose fundamental, individual human rights are being contravened, should be protected. That should not be allowed in our society and that person should have a recourse to have that discrimination reversed and addressed.

For whatever reason the hon. member wishes to raise it, I would agree that if there is discrimination and unfairness taking place, it should not be allowed. There is no need to say that these people are going to be protected and these people are going to be protected and if a person is in this group they will be protected, but then be silent about the rest. That abrogates the fundamental democratic principle of equality and is not the right way to go about protecting human rights.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have a brief comment on what my colleague from Calgary had to say.

Yesterday in the mail I received a little booklet that describes why the government is adding sexual orientation to the Canadian Human Rights Act. I find it very interesting that it has already put this out as a fait accompli. The government has limited debate in the House.

What is being done here today is a sham. It is not going to change the mind of the government. The government has already decided what it is going to do. It has printed the information as if it is an accomplished fact already that the amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act will be passed.

This is a travesty of democracy and debate. There is absolutely no point to what we are doing in the House. It becomes abundantly obvious when the government invokes closure on the motion that it has already set its course. The Liberals will not listen to the Canadian people. They will not listen to the debate in the House. That is unconscionable. It is a travesty of democracy and the way things should work.

If the people of Canada were demanding this we would have a very different view of this entire thing. However, what we have here today is top down, "we are telling you the way it is"; it is being published it in advance, before the bill is even put through the House.

Liberals refer to their speaking notes all the time. Are those speaking notes binding on this legislation? I do not think they are any more binding than the promises they made on NAFTA, the GST and all of these other things. They do not mean a thing and they will not be binding on this bill.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I accept the comments of my hon. colleague and thank him.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The five hours for debate were up one minute ago, so we shall now move on to the period when each member is given 10 minutes on debate.

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake-the goods and services tax.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status of Women)]

Mr. Speaker, I am dividing my time with the member for Ottawa West.

I rise with pleasure and pride to speak to Bill C-33, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to add sexual orientation as a prohibited grounds of discrimination. I congratulate the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister for bringing this amendment forward at this time, because there has never been any doubt about the government's commitment to this principle.

This amendment is about the principles of justice and equality which have always been the bedrock of the Liberal Party's belief. They have always been the bedrock of Canadian values that we hold dear, values of tolerance, respect and social responsibility.

Today more than ever we need to emphasize and set strategies to promote equality. Today more than ever we need to name in legislation what we mean by equality and how we intend to implement that equality.

Today we see attempts by some groups to erode fundamental Canadian values, groups like the Reform Party which speaks of equality and yet its members espouse discrimination. They speak about representing the grassroots of Canadians yet seek to divide Canadians into different classes of citizens, those who would be relegated to the back of the bus or the back of the shop, those who would eat in different establishments eventually or go to different schools. I thought that ended with apartheid.

The third party, which will undoubtedly vote against this bill, as it has been saying, will have proven yet again that apologies or not, its record is clear. It has voted against every equality seeking piece of legislation the government has put forward.

Let me speak about the ugliness of discrimination. I know because I am a member of a visible minority. I was a family physician who listened daily to the pain, the anguish, the shame and the loss of self-esteem that each patient of mine who was a target of discrimination told me about, whether it was because of their religion, colour or sexual orientation. These people lived with that loss of self-esteem, with their mental health, with their ability to walk proudly down the street, damaged and harmed with the pain of discrimination.

Discrimination kills the soul. The idea of optional discrimination is the antithesis to the fundamental values we hold dear. It is the antithesis to the whole idea of equality. In a fantasy world, which one day I hope to live in, where we are all equal under the law, where it has been established that we no longer need to seek equality, then the hon. member across may have something to say.

It is interesting to look at what history has taught us. It is interesting to see how at every point in history and at every stage where the fight for equality and freedom has been fought arguments have always been made by majority groups against the equality and the freedoms of the groups seeking equality.

Arguments have been made giving quasi-logical and legal reasons for denying those freedoms. There were arguments for slavery based on the fact that blacks were mentally inferior. All the excuses were made on the mass genocide of Jews. People were told there were economic arguments for ensuring the Jews were put down.

The equality of women was denied consistently for centuries based on the fact they were merely chattel and lacked the intellectual ability to take an equal place in society.

I would not be standing here today in the House of Commons if these kinds of legislation were not put into place to ensure I had the same fundamental and basic equality as the other people sitting in the House of Commons.

I have listened to the arguments made by the third party to deny this amendment. The arguments go on about groups and that equality means we should all be treated equally. Equality can be achieved only by removing barriers.

I am disabled and I cannot achieve equality if I cannot get into the building to participate without a wheelchair ramp. That is a special measure taken to ensure the equality of disabled people.

Today we know, and it has been well documented, that gays and lesbians in this country are denied the right to employment based on sexual orientation.

As a physician I have seen on a Friday or Saturday night gays and lesbians who were beaten purely because of their sexual orientation, taken bloodied into an emergency room.

The fundamental amendment we are discussing seeks to give equality of access to employment and housing. I know what it is like to be denied housing. When I was a medical student in England I sought an apartment. Because I came from a Commonwealth country I sounded quite British on the telephone. When I went to the door, about one minute later because I telephoned from around the corner, the woman took one look at me and said: "I am sorry, it's gone".

People have to know what it is like to feel that way, to suddenly feel inferior, subhuman, dirty and disgusting. That is what we mean when we talk about the reality of the lives of people who are discriminated against.

I do not hear the third party talking about equality in terms of "then let us not let gays and lesbians pay taxes. Why should they be equal and pay taxes?" We know this group belongs to one of the highest income groups in the country and pays an extraordinary amount of taxes.

We talk about equality and I do not think members of the third party understand the reality of people's lives because they come from a privileged majority. We sit here and listen to them espousing very warm, fuzzy and logical arguments, sot to speak, based on airy-fairy ideas. They do not understand. They seek to represent true Canadians and I do not think they even understand the reality of the lives of ordinary Canadians.

The statements repeatedly made in the House by the members of the third party tell me they represent only a particular group in the country. They do not know what it is like to be a person of colour. If they did they would never talk about some of the things they do. They do not know what it feels like to be disabled. If they did, they would talk about special measures to be taken to ensure that disabled people are able to take their places in the workforce. They would support the kinds of changes which would give people the ability to seek equality opportunity from a level playing field. That is what the amendment is about.

The amendment speaks to the fact that 71 per cent of Canadians have supported the bill in poll after poll and survey after survey. Canadians are fundamentally and basically people who espouse freedom, justice, equality and who talk about respect, not just tolerance. Tolerance means to put up with people. Respect means we know that person belongs and that they have something to share, something which will enrich the lives of Canadians. This country is based on respect. We are the role model to the world.

The third party talks about discrimination. Name any country that within the last part of this century has understood discrimination better than South Africa? Yet as soon as it got rid of apartheid and formed its first democratic government, one of the first things it did was put into its constitution lists of all those people who had been held back and who have a long way to go to achieve equality. In that list the South African Parliament put sexual orientation.

There was not a debate. The reason there was not a debate was that people who have been downtrodden, people who have been seeking equality understand the reality and do not seek to keep anyone from that basic fundamental freedom we talk about when we speak of equality in this country.

Equality and justice are based on the fact that the greatest of us in society will always seek to lend a hand to raise the smallest and the least of us. This is what we are talking about. This is what this party stands for. This is what this government stands for. This is what the third party opposite does not even begin to understand.

I am proud to stand here and I am proud to support this bill. Every Canadian looking on today, the 71 per cent of Canadians who continue to believe in the things that hold us together, the common values that hold us together as Canadians, will be applauding in their homes today when they see us speaking to this bill because they believe in it.

It is no coincidence that we have been seen as a role model to the world. It is no coincidence that when Boutros Boutros-Ghali met the Prime Minister at the 50th anniversary of the United Nations he said: "Your country is the greatest country in the world because you have learned how as a diverse people to live together, respecting differences, sharing equally, seeking constantly to bring equality to the world. It is you who will lead us into the 21st century". This piece of legislation is beginning to do exactly that.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The 20 minutes speeches ended at 45 minutes past the hour. We are now into 10 minute speeches rotation across the floor. The hon. secretary of state spoke for 10 minutes. Now it is the turn of the other side of the floor and then it will come back to the deputy whip for the Liberal Party.