Debates of May 7th, 1996

Health

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. gentleman's question is in relation to the disease known as BSE.

The key point which bears repeating is that there is absolutely no evidence that BSE exists in Canada and therefore it cannot enter the food chain.

Recently the World Health Organization has made certain recommendations to countries about what they might do with respect to BSE. I am pleased to note that the vast majority of those recommendations were introduced in Canada a long time ago, well before the fact and not after it.

The WHO's most recent recommendations are under discussion right now between my department and the relevant livestock organizations in this country.

Salmon Fishery

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, given the stated objective of the minister's plan to revitalize the commercial salmon fishery in B.C. is to reduce the size of the fleet by 50 per cent, and with the Nisga'a soon to be guaranteed by treaty about 27 per cent of Nass River production, and with at least two other Nass bands yet to settle, would the minister not agree that his downsizing plan was designed only to allow the reallocation of fish under treaties?

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that the harvesting capacity increased the last 15 years by anywhere from three to eight times. He knows that fishermen are losing money in all sectors. He also

knows the difficulty with the salmon is that the stocks are in a severe and critical situation.

That is not the issue, that is the problem. The issue is to come up with an effective plan to address this problem. This will be done. I can assure the House that we will end up with economic viability and an environmentally sustainable plan that will address this problem.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The time for question period has expired.

Point Of Order

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order arising out of question period.

I want to bring to the attention of the Chair a question asked of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General. I would ask the Chair to review the blues to determine whether the amount of time allotted to the parliamentary secretary was in keeping with our traditions or even with the other questions that were asked today.

I would contend that the question was far longer than the time allotted for the parliamentary secretary to answer. I hope that the Chair would take this under advisement, examine it with a view to ensuring that this is done in the usual fair and equitable way.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. whip to the government. In fact the parliamentary secretary probably was cut off a little quickly.

The Chair was trying to get a lot of members on who did not get on today. If the parliamentary secretary had not said the word three and had just gone into the points, he probably would have got a couple of them out.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-33, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, as reported (without amendment) from the committee and on Motions Nos. 1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18.

Canadian Human Rights Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Kootenay East has three minutes and 50 seconds left in his time.

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

Mr. Speaker, a point of order. just before question period during my intervention on these amendments, I quoted from a document showing that according to the Canadian AIDS Society that anybody who opposes spousal benefits is homophobic.

I was challenged to present that document. I would like to present it to the Speaker at this time. It says:

That we all take part in homophobia when we deny basic rights like spousal benefits to lesbian and gay couples.

I just wanted to bring that to your attention.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There being unanimous consent on the tabling of this document, it is so done.

I was not here, but I am told that unanimous consent was given before. I hear the chief whip for the government agreeing with that.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of my intervention prior to the question period I was trying to make the point that an amendment should be moved that would ensure all Canadians continue to have the most closely held values in our society, namely the freedom of association and freedom of worship. Further, the state should not be intervening in issues that have to do with the church. That has to do with Motion No. 10 by my colleague from Edmonton.

My colleague from Port Moody also added Motions Nos. 13 and 14. Motion No. 13 adds a new clause which states that sexual orientation will not affect the enforcement of provisions of the Criminal Code and Motion No. 14 adds a new clause to affirm that nothing in the bill will result in the extension of same sex benefits.

Members have received rather hollow assurances from the spokespersons for the government that this legislation will do no such thing. I draw to the attention of the government that we have an out of control constitutional industry that is populated by high priced lawyers located primarily here in Ottawa who do nothing but look at the laws that we currently have on the books. What do we find but that we have a constitutional industry or overriding legislation, such as this legislation would be which overrides all sorts of laws and provisions in law.

I suggest there is no way that the government and the justice minister in good conscience can say that this legislation will not form a future challenge to existing legislation.

I wish to quote the member for Mississauga South who today said: "The fundamental point is that all legislation, all policy, is by its very nature discriminatory. Discrimination is not all bad. We all agree that there is unjust discrimination. It is the positive discrimination or, in American terms affirmative action, that allows us to discriminate in favour of the family because of its special status. We discriminate in favour of disabled people, aboriginal people,

seniors, just to name a few. Discrimination is not all unjust. It reflects societal norms and values".

I agree with the member. Perhaps his logical, common sense intervention in this debate is an example of why so many of the members who have been in the House all day long on the Liberal side have been denied the ability to become involved in this debate. They have a point of view that happens to be contrary to all the right thinking Liberals, if you know what I mean, Mr. Speaker, all of those Liberals who know what is right for Canada and will impose it on us whether we like it or not.

What is the scandal of this legislation and the way in which it is being jammed through this House? The scandal is the massive hypocrisy of the Liberal government on this issue. There are people in the Liberal benches who believe the same things that I and my colleagues in the Reform Party believe, indeed the vast majority of Canadians believe, that this is bad, ill-thought out, unnecessary legislation. Yet this government in its hypocrisy is denying them the right to stand up and speak, to which I say to this government, shame on you.

In conclusion, this is a very difficult and very emotional debate for many people in Canada to whom this is a very closely held value. I recognize that.

However, it does not change the fact that denying people the right to express their points of view in the House of Commons is absolute censorship and dictatorship on the part of this government and it should not be countenanced by anyone in the government.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I comment in general on Bill C-33 I will comment on some information that has been conveyed from the other side of the House about censorship and not allowing debate.

If I remember correctly, when second reading of this bill came to a free vote, some government members voted for and some against. The Reform Party voted as a block with no free votes, 29-zip. We will have to see where there is democracy and where there is not.

The issue before us is far too important for that type of suggestion from the member. Let us talk about the substance of this bill which I think is important. I agree with the member when he says that it is controversial.

Some of the words in the legislation worry people, they scare people. Some people feel, I do not think accurately, that their lifestyles and beliefs are threatened. They are not threatened.

This bill is not about special rights for anyone or even about special privileges for individuals. It is about equal rights for all of us. It is about protecting through the law the rights of our fellow humans not to be discriminated against, not to lose their jobs because of their sexual orientation, their race or their religion.

If ever we needed to fight for this legislative protection, we saw that reason very clearly last week when we heard the comments of some of the members who sit opposite. Some of their comments reflect prejudice and intolerance. We heard outrageous comments. Those comments have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that discrimination exists in Canadian society and it is imperative for government to deal with that. That discrimination is shameful.

Discrimination is a total violation of all that we as Canadians hold dear. Firing someone, sending someone to the back of the shop because of who they are or what they are, be it race, gender, sexual orientation or religion is simply wrong.

As a government we need to show leadership on this issue. It is our duty to lead by example and to amend the human rights act to outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation. As I said earlier, the recent press reports of last week make that very very clear.

I am a strong supporter of the family and I wholeheartedly believe that families will continue to act as pillars of strength and unity in our society. I also wholeheartedly believe in human rights for all and that is why I speak in support of these rights for all Canadians.

The Canadian Human Rights Act already contains a list of prohibited grounds of discrimination. Adding sexual orientation to that list would help ensure that Canadians cannot be discriminated against in such areas as employment, accommodation, access to goods and services solely because of their sexual orientation.

This is not about the extension of benefits to same sex couples. It is not about changing the definition of marriage, family or spouse. The bill we are debating today simply guarantees the rights of individuals to live their lives free of discrimination.

We are also affirming the importance of the family as a foundation of Canadian society. I quote from the preamble to the bill:

And whereas the Government recognizes and affirms the importance of family as the foundation of Canadian society and that nothing in this Act alters its fundamental role in society;

I could vote against this amendment to the human rights act. I am sure that voting against it would make some of my constituents happy, just as it would disappoint others.

However, at the end of the day my time as a parliamentarian will come to an end and I will have to answer to myself. Was it right what I did? Did I do what I believed in? Did I do what I believed was right for Canada and for Canadians?

I will be able to answer yes because discrimination is wrong and saying it is wrong is exactly what is right. Someone ought to tell the Reform Party that.

I wish to tell the Reform Party that discrimination is wrong and just saying it is wrong is simply not good enough. It is the actions we take in the House as parliamentarians that people will remember and act on. It is the action that we take in passing the bill that will clearly demonstrate to Canadians that discrimination is wrong and will not be tolerated in Canadian society.

I ask the members of the Reform Party to join with me in voting for this amendment so that their actions state clearly, as their recent words have, that they also believe discrimination is wrong.

There is a pressing need for this legislation. I hope the members opposite will do what is right and support the passage of this amendment.

As parliamentarians we have an obligation to Canadians. We have an obligation to our constituents. We also have an obligation to do what is right for the nation, which is to state clearly and unequivocally that discrimination is not acceptable and will not be tolerated.

If supporting this legislation costs me votes in the next election, so be it. If it costs me friends, I will have to live with that as well because I believe discrimination on any grounds is wrong. I will back that belief with my vote and the vote of my constituents who share this conviction and who want their children to grow up in a world free of hatred and bias. For those reasons I will vote in favour of this at third reading.

Privilege

[The Deputy Speaker]

In a matter that came up this morning, the blues have been made available to the Chair. I have discussed it with the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia. I ask him if he would be kind enough to speak to the House and withdraw the word used this morning.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it was certainly not my intention to cast any aspersions on the good people of Halifax. I believe the hon. member for Halifax knew what I meant, particularly because she does use that word with regularity and great abandon.

However, it is an unparliamentary word and I do withdraw it.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-33, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Canadian Human Rights Act

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I had a lot of appointments made in advance when the bill suddenly came up and so I was not here to vote on first and second reading. I assure the House I am here to stay now until the bill has been completed at both report stage and third reading and that I am clearly voting against the bill. I will be voting in favour of the amendments but I do not expect to get much support for that from the majority of Liberals opposite.

They suggest this is a free vote. I think we should clarify this. I do not think there can be any argument on that side that it is a free vote. Had it not been a free vote they would have had just about the same number of Liberals voting against it in any case, which would have presented tremendous problems for the Prime Minister in light of recent actions on their side, their own peculiar version of Liberal democracy.

It is interesting that despite the fact there is a free vote, there is an extremely restricted right of free speech on the Liberal side. We have witnessed that and I am sure we will continue to witness it as the the debate carries on.

I am opposed to various types of discrimination, much of which has been stated in the bill. The problem with the bill is that it does not deal solely with those areas of discrimination. It opens up broad doors where someone can say that is not what they meant, and someone else could say they think it means this or they think it means that.

We know the kinds of problems that happens to legislation, even good legislation, which I would not categorize this as at all. After continuous lobbying, the Minister of Justice finally agreed to pass legislation banning the drunken defence. What happened? The courts said that is not quite the way they interpret the Constitution in any case. There have been cases where that has been overturned. Despite the fact that the entire House passed legislation, the courts have made their own interpretation. When we put something like this in the open and deal with the courts we open up an incredibly bad can of worms.

Some of the amendments deal with clarifications of various concerns that people think the bill may come to represent, things like alterations to the Criminal Code or ways to circumvent the

Criminal Code, possible situations where there will be special programs because of sexual orientation. These are things people are concerned about, particularly in my riding.

The previous speaker said he has to vote the way he thinks is right. I have to vote the way my constituents think is right. They did not elect me to be their ruler. They elected me to be their representative. Every member of the House as the elected representative of the people of their riding should represent the will of those people.

Some people in my constituency are very concerned about some things that are already happening. I will read from a pamphlet funded in part by the federal government. It found its way into schools and the community college in my riding under the guise of AIDS literature. I assure the House that I will restrict and censor the way I read this, but the House may still find it offensive. It is not my intention to offend anyone. If the Chair sees fit to intervene at any time because it sees this as offensive, I fully understand. Keep in mind this is after censoring has been applied to a government funded document.

This states choices for, in my word, fornication. It mentions things like fisting. Fisting is the insertion of the entire hand inside someone's body: "Fisting can create serious tears in the anus or vagina. In the interest of safe sex the safe choice for fisting is to wear a rubber glove". This is from the Man to Man Society, funded by the government.

It mentions toys. I will not get into what it suggests should be done with these toys. It is suggested how to have safer sex with toys: "Make sure you clean the toys you share".

It also deals with shaving, piercing and branding. It suggests that when branding with a knife, ideally a disposable scalpel be used. It suggests that branding with heat, a branding iron, is much safer because the heat kills the virus. It talks about how to use electric torture. The safer choice for electric torture: "Thoroughly clean anything exposed to body fluids and blood". This is a bad document. I have trouble reading some of the things in here.

I think the point has been made. This is just one of several documents. This is not a document I found somewhere in some obscure specialty bookstore. This is a document in the public school system in my riding. That is why people in my riding are mad, upset and concerned.

I have many constituents, not a huge majority obviously, I want to make that clear, who are part of the homosexual community. These are not rampant people like in Gay Pride and in some of these strange parades promoting the homosexual lifestyle. These are regular citizens who contribute to the economy of our area. They participate in community events. They run businesses. The people in my riding have no problem with people simply because a man happens, through choice or otherwise, to fall in love with another man, or a woman a woman. That is not what is at issue.

What is at issue is the bill is loosely written, so wide open, people are afraid of how it will be interpreted by the courts. I explained what happened with the drunken defence after it left here a good bill. They are concerned about this kind of garbage ending up in our school system, about the promotion of their right to promote an alternate life style openly to things like marriage benefits for same sex couples.

I live in a rural community. I live in a western, outdoors, rural community. It has a beautiful hunting area and everything. I belong to a trap and skeet club. I am active with it. It is a very prominent activity in my riding. When Bill C-68 came out, it got tremendous response opposing it.

Since I became a member of Parliament I received correspondence on all things, with more opposition for the possibility of marriage benefits to same sex couples aspect alone in Bill C-41 than I have for any other things, including Bill C-68.

To date there has been a short amount of time available to people to mobilize, something I really object to. The previous NDP government in Ontario came out with a bill like this. It had free discussions and a free vote. The difference was it did not rush it through committee or debate. Closure was not used.

It gave the citizens in the communities of this province the time to mobilize to let their elected officials know where they stood. It is my opinion the Liberal government is rushing this through in order not to allow people not only in Ontario but in the rest of the country to mobilize. That notwithstanding, they have.

To provide balance, I will read from the file I have from people who are in favour. I want to be balanced. Because I want to be complete, I will read both of them. One suggests they are writing to support quick passage of Bill C-33 because it fulfils a commitment. That is the strongest argument they use in their letter. In the other one they want to make it clear that they view sexual relationships between consulting adults as a personal matter. So do I.

What people do in the privacy of their homes, within reason, is a general concept I have no difficulty with. I can give more from this pamphlet. It suggests we should go into the homes a little.

I do not think we should refuse to hire someone, fire them or refuse to allow them to rent an apartment simply because their orientation is different from ours if we care to define it.

I cannot remember the official name of it, but there is the man-boy love society. Pedophilia is a sexual orientation. That I am

completely and totally against. I hope everybody in the House is. If it is not defined, if one just says sexual orientation, it leaves us open.

Allow me, because I have a lot of opposition to this, to read a couple. One says: "Each Canadian as a person is already protected. Why must what happens in the privacy of one's bedroom need the protection of the law?"

Another says: "This is an immediate and grave threat to the natural family. A homosexual as a person is entitled to respect because of his humanity, not because of his sexual behaviour".

The protections are there. If we need to clarify then it should be clear. This bill is not clear. This bill is incredibly vague. The amendments proposed now at report stage attempt to clarify many aspects of the bill. They were made by people who object to this bill. They are saying that if we must have this bill, let us at least make its intent clear. Let us have what the government says it means but has not said in the bill.

I urge members opposite to seriously consider accepting the amendments that have been put forward. Without these amendments the House can be assured I will vote against Bill C-33.

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this debate for too many years. For those with a deep interest in the issue of human rights in Canada and the introduction of sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination and for those with serious and legitimate concerns about Bill C-33, I would like to recommend the speech given at second reading by my colleague, the Minister of Justice, for their enlightenment.

They will find the answers to many of the questions and to some of the concerns which I legitimately recognize are from the depths of their hearts. I understand that.

We would be foolish if we did not acknowledge that over time there have been misunderstandings, stereotypes, myths, misrepresentations and all the words that one would care to use. However, the bottom line is that there are groups of people in this country who suffer from discrimination. They suffer from prejudice, they suffer from bias. Within that group, which is a major group-we just have to turn on the Internet to see what I am talking about-there are people who have a different orientation with respect to the expression of their sexuality.

In the time I have today I am not able to explain as clearly and in such an enlightened way as the minister did. He has expressed, as we have all expressed in our remarks, why we are not adding a special right and why we are being very defined and confined in our view that there is a segment of our population which is suffering from discrimination. This is not the Canadian way. This is not how we care to address these issues. Adding sexual orientation to section 3 of the human rights act completes the list which was intended with respect to the prohibition of grounds of discrimination.

As the chairman of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of the Disabled, I have found that this bill is in some way a logical progression of the work I have done over many years in this House. I have had a great interest in the field of human rights. When the charter of rights and freedoms was first introduced in 1982 there was a three-year hiatus during which time the question of section 15, the question of the application of non-discrimination and a list of those areas in which people were most vulnerable were included in this charter.

We were asked to look at section 15, study it and see how to bring it into force by the year 1985. Time allocation was an extremely interesting eye opener. We looked at many areas of discrimination, including the elderly, the disabled, women and children. We went through a whole range of acts, including those related to the economy, insurance and all aspects of our daily lives.

I was proud to be a member of that very hard working, all-party committee which examined, inquired into and reported on equal rights. We looked at areas in which federal law had to be changed so the rights of the individual would be respected. The committee was convinced after consulting Canadians across this country that "to leave any one group of citizens beyond the pale is a dangerous precedent. In a democracy it is equally dangerous to leave the decision about inclusion or exclusion of any particular group from human rights safeguards to the will of the public or at any moment in the course of our history".

Many people react to questions involving homosexuality on a visceral level. We have heard that reaction in this House. I think they are expressing some serious concerns which they have been exposed to over a long period of time. This reaction reflects longstanding attitudes and stereotypes in our society. It is time we wiped the cobwebs and put the facts on the table.

We are dealing with a question of public policy that must be reasoned through. We have reasoned this through since 1985. Minorities in our society need protection to put them on an equal footing with all others.

Because the government provides legal protection, does not mean it endorses a particular religion, a particular political belief or a personal trait. It simply means that in a free and democratic society, discrimination under our laws on the basis of those differences will not be tolerated.

We have said many times in the House that racism is not to be tolerated, ageism is not to be tolerated. We have removed the obligation to fire people based on age. We have looked at racism and we have developed a whole series of programs to address the unfounded targeting, particularly of people who are visible minorities.

In 1985, the committee met Canadians of all ages, professions and religions who were gay. For many of us this was our first contact with people who professed this kind of lifestyle. In all honesty and all candour, we were a bit shocked. First we were shocked by the number of people we met. In every city we went to, in all the towns and villages there were people who had chosen a lifestyle that we had not chosen. They live everywhere. They are part of the larger family and I guarantee that if members look at their families, they will find people with homosexual preferences.

Minorities in our society need protection. Provision of legal protection does not mean we endorse their approaches. Discrimination under our laws on the basis of those differences is what we are talking about and will not tolerate.

We met these people. We heard details about physical abuse, and psychological oppression from which they have suffered. We heard about the hate propaganda which had been targeted toward them and that they had been demonized in many ways. We heard about the outright discrimination they faced in employment, in housing and in services.

Some, moreover, were apprehensive about coming before the committee, for fear of losing their jobs or their homes.

That was what the situation in Canada was like just 10 years ago, in a country that boasted of its justice, compassion, tolerance and mutual respect, but did not extend them to people with a different sexual orientation.

My colleagues and I, some of whom had never before been aware of or been very concerned about the discrimination faced by homosexuals and lesbian Canadians, submitted to this House a unanimous report called "Equality for All". In it we recommended that sexual orientation be added to section 15 of the Canadian Human Rights Act as a prohibited ground of discrimination.

If members would care to read the document which contains some of the things we heard, they will see we used the term sexual orientation. It could have been any one of a number of different terms. This term is used and referred to very often worldwide. It is an inclusive ground of exclusion. It covers homosexuals, heterosexuals and transgendered Canadians.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

What about pedophiles?

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Pedophiles have nothing to do with this law. The member's ignorance is absolutely abominable. Go as a parliamentarian and understand pedophiles and the whole question of criminal acts in this society.

That was the least we could do to meet the charter requirements, to ensure that Canadian values had any true meaning, and to maintain our country's reputation for justice.

Last week when the standing committee heard witnesses on this bill I learned that not much had changed. We were told of a lesbian couple on a train that was ordered to stop holding hands or be thrown off. We learned about ongoing dismissal in our forces and of employees here on the Hill, which you might want to look into, Mr. Speaker.

We heard the story of a homosexual building manager who had been in his job for years without a single complaint, and who was let go when the management learned that he was gay.

We have been told by parents of gay and lesbian children that they had to face their own prejudices. They had a lot to learn, as do many members of the House. They were very concerned for their children's well-being, knowing they would have to face ignorance, hatred and discrimination.

No one in the House, and I have been here to witness not less than seven-

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry, the hon. member's time has expired. Is there unanimous consent for her to continue for one minute?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there have been no less than seven justice ministers who I have had to listen to in this House. They all made promises to make sexual orientation a prohibited ground of discrimination. Not one of them did. Gay and lesbian Canadians have paid the price until now.

We are very fortunate to have a minister who is prepared to move ahead to finally give gays and lesbians the same status, the same protection from discrimination as all other Canadians now enjoy: nothing more, nothing less. The bill will not, as many members fear, have anything to do with being protected in three areas. There will be no changes in the definitions of marriage or family. It will not legalize criminal sexual behaviour. It will not confer benefits.

I find it somewhat unfair and irresponsible for hon. members of this House to say that those issues will be covered in the bill. They know perfectly well it is not so. They are using this issue to promote their own ends. The bill does not confer benefits. It does not cover illegal acts or criminal acts. It does not change the definition of family.

If we want to have the discussion at some time about the state of the family, we should put it on the agenda. The state of the family is a reflection of economic, social and political realities in the country at this time. Those factors are causing some of the concerns regarding families.

Lesbians have families. Gays have families. There are reconstituted families. There are common law families. There are all kinds of families. This bill deals with sexual orientation and asks that as a group these people not be discriminated against. It is only fair.

When was the last time that granting equal rights to women diminished the rights of-

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member has certainly had more than a minute to wrap up.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I feel honoured that I was able to make the list to speak on this bill.

We are at a crossroads in our country because of the process on which we have embarked and the results which will undoubtedly follow from this bill.

I am very concerned about the procedure that has been followed. It seems that respect for the law and respect for government are a direct result of members of Parliament representing their constituents, of being careful to listen to what the people of Canada are saying.

There is a growing disrespect for certain governments that, without the consent of the people, have imposed different rules, regulations and laws on Canadian citizens without their consent. The best example of that is the GST which has seized our attention in Parliament and across the country. During the election campaign of 1993 I heard over and over again the complaint that my predecessor did not represent his constituents on that issue.

When we embark upon a change in law, an important bill such as this one, it is important that individual members of Parliament be given time to return to their constituencies to debate the precise wording of the bill and discuss its implications with the people.

That process has been and is being denied to us. It is almost as if we had a question of privilege in terms of how we are hampered in effectiveness in doing our work.

I feel frustrated that the government, through a motivation which I think is straight political expediency, introduced the bill at this time. It was not in the long term plans. It was not mentioned in the throne speech. Suddenly at the end of January it was very important to prorogue Parliament to get a new start. Then there was a new throne speech with a list of all items the government considered to be priorities. The bill was not mentioned in the throne speech. The minister expressed approximately a month ago that it was not his intention or plan to introduce the legislation at this time.

Why was it introduced? I confess to a growing amount of cynicism in the political process. I believe it was introduced as a simple tactic to divert the attention of the press and other media away from the extreme attacks the Liberal government was receiving on accountability, keeping promises made during the election campaign, the GST and other issues. It was brought forward as a strategy to divert criticism.

That is unconscionable. I do not think the lives and well-being of Canadians and their families should somehow be put on the list of items which are disposable for political reasons.

My second complaint is even greater, that is the necessity to invoke closure. It does not make any sense. When we want to rebuild trust in government, in the House of Commons and in Parliament why would we ram through a bill because we suspect if the people ever got to debate it there would be opposition and a great political fallout from it? It is unconscionable.

Closure should be used for matters of dire emergency. It should be used when our country or our security is a stake and we need to bring an item to conclusion because there would be great consequences if it were not done right away.

It is unconscionable of the government to close off debate in the House and in committee. Many Canadians sincerely want to have input. How much time were they given to prepare? I suppose they got a weekend and should not complain. Should they drop everything to make sure they get to Ottawa to appear before the committee to present their briefs? People were asked to respond in a very short period of time.

The vote will be finished before a lot of people even know it is taking place, simply because it takes time to communicate to people. What would be wrong with giving us an opportunity to put the question fairly and squarely to the people we represent?

If the argument in favour of the legislation is strong surely it will have the support of the people. If it does not have the support of the people, let us be honest and admit that we are giving but a token acknowledgement to democracy. We are clearly abandoning the principle that the majority rules in a democracy. We are abandon-

ing the principle that the voters even count. I do not know why we should bother with this process if there is such a limitation.

I should like to make a few comments about the bill. A lot of people who support the legislation have tried over and over again to assure us that this is the end of it and that all we are talking about is discrimination.

I will speak loudly and clearly in favour of principles that do not discriminate against individuals because of personal characteristics. However there are two real flaws in the Canadian Human Rights Act when it starts making lists. One flaw is the difficulty of not including all possible groups and individuals. The second flaw is just as important, that is somehow implying that anyone not on the list is fair game for discrimination.

I reject that hypothesis. One of my main reasons for opposing the bill is that I am not on the list, which means it is correct and acceptable to discriminate against me.

Members must be wondering what I am talking about. I am one of those people who some describe as being robust. Sometimes the word rotund is used and I am discriminated against because of my weight. It goes beyond being squeezed into economy seats in aeroplanes. It goes much beyond that. I was discriminated against in the House because of my weight.

This is what happened. I used to work at the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology. As a staff member I was permitted to participate in its insurance plan. When I came here I thought I could replace it. I was refused participation in the House of Commons life insurance plan because of my weight. They did not take into account the fact that my dad is 85 and just as heavy as I am. They did not take any of these things into account. I am not on the list.

In closing, the list is not complete until every Canadian is on it. That is the situation. Discrimination is not acceptable. All we are doing is adding to the list, which means by implication that everyone who has not yet made the list is fair game. I reject that hypothesis and I urge Liberal members, who have it in their power to do something about it, to vote against the bill because it is so wrong.

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it was not possible to reach an agreement pursuant to Standing Orders 78(1) and 78(2) with respect to the proceedings at report stage and third reading of Bill C-33, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Therefore, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the House, pursuant to Standing Order 78(3), a minister of the crown will be moving a time allocation motion for the purpose of allotting a specified number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at that stage.