Debates of May 7th, 1996

Canadian Human Rights Act

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter the debate on Bill C-33.

Before getting to the substance of the bill perhaps it would be good to take stock of our great country and to take a look at the evolution of Canada.

There is no question that when the French and the English first came to the country a sizeable native population had its own nation. There is no question that over the years one shortcoming was the way we handled our native people. There is no question when we look at immigration to Canada from other places that we have had painful experiences of racism.

I recall reading some articles on the evolution of the various groupings in Canada. I came across a part of a book with a poster which said: "Help wanted. Irish need not apply". My wife is Irish.

There is not question the Chinese who helped build our railway were discriminated against as a group. Their spouses were not allowed to join them and they were kept in barrack-like conditions.

What happened to Canadians with Japanese ancestry during the second world war is well known. They were uprooted, put in camps, dispersed outside British Columbia, and their properties were confiscated.

In my community of Kitchener-Waterloo there is no question there were problems involving the German population. There was also discrimination against Italians during the second world war.

Jews were discriminated against in this century and previous centuries. The Spirit of St. Louis , a boat carrying hundreds of Jews, was denied access to free ports. The people on it, mostly women and children, ended up being killed.

I came to this country as a refugee in 1957 from Hungary. I am painfully aware of what is happening in Europe, the former Yugoslavia and other countries right now. In those other countries there are problems with minorities dealing with each other.

When I was president of the federation of students at the University of Waterloo in the early seventies I heard of cases where people were denied accommodations because they were Chinese or of other ethnic origin. They were proven.

Previous to that time we saw the great human rights debate in the United States wherein we came to know what we shall overcome means and what was being done to African Americans in the United States. Some of that was happening in Canada as well.

In the late seventies a volunteer working for an organization in which I was executive director committed suicide because she could not bear to live in a world where homophobia was so strong.

In 1990 during Desert Storm people with Arab and Jewish backgrounds in my community got together to try to bridge some of the gulf between their two communities and make sure what was happening in the Middle East would not spill over to our community.

One result was the establishment of the Mayor's Race Relations Commission in the Waterloo region to foster understanding among the various groupings in our community.

It is not difficult to recognize that bigotry is alive and well. It certainly has been expressed in the Chamber. I noticed in today's paper that the Reform Party member for Calgary Southeast questioned her place in a party whose members espouse racist and bigoted views. It comes from the incident last week when the former whip of the Reform Party told Canadians that it was okay to fire somebody on the basis of their sexual orientation, that it was okay to fire somebody or to move someone of a different colour to the back of the shop.

Unfortunately too many people in the third party express those views. It is unfortunate that those views are put forward by members of Parliament. The job of members of Parliament should be to try to bridge various communities, not to drive them further apart by setting community against community. What makes this country so great is we have learned from our past experiences and we have worked on building a tolerant society.

The question as to whether the issue before us should be subject to a free vote or whether it should be subject to party discipline was one that was debated prior to the decision being taken last week. I was of two minds on that issue.

I believe that the bill deals basically with human rights and equality of Canadians. We also say that someone is not going to be fired on the basis of their sexual orientation. Also, a bank for example will not be able to deny service to someone on the basis of their sexual orientation. To me that is a human rights issue. Some of my colleagues in the Liberal Party have said that for them it is a moral issue.

Originally I told our party whip that I considered this to be a party vote and I wanted us to vote along party lines. I listened to the debate. I saw what happened in this House when the former Reform Party whip stood up and made those comments. Not only did he make those comments, many of the members around him supported those comments, including the leadership. When that happened I said to myself, I want this to be a free vote. When this issue comes on the floor of the House of Commons I want the people of this country to know that we are allowed to vote our conscience on it.

I am very proud to be voting in favour of the bill. I am very proud to stand up for this bill which is going to help make Canada the best country in the world. It is going to take us forward to be a more tolerant society.

I do not think that any Canadian would ever believe that someone should be denied a job based on their sexual orientation. I do not believe that any Canadian would want someone rejected for a bank loan on the basis of their sexual orientation.

I am sad that some people would misrepresent the bill and bring forward issues that are totally false, for example, that once we pass the bill we are legalizing pedophilia. That is a red herring which has been thrown out by people who want to keep the status quo. They are sad that we actually have human rights legislation in Canada and would undermine this bill.

This bill does not give anything to people based on sexual orientation that other Canadians do not have. It makes sure that they are not denied what other Canadians can have.

I will be proud to stand in my place to vote for this legislation. The people of Canada will be proud of us as well.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as usual I am pleased to debate the bills before us in this House.

Bill C-33 is another bill that has raised some serious debate across the country and rightly so. I will raise three issues on which I believe hon. members on the other side have not given any real serious consideration.

First, this bill deals with the workplace. It deals with the working environment of government, crown corporations and industries that are federally regulated. We already have a law on the books which deals with sex in the workplace called sexual harassment.

Sexual harassment is completely outlawed in the workplace and rightly so. Anyone who feels they are going to impose some kind of sexual overtones needs to be punished. We will not tolerate that in the workplace. Sexual harassment has been defined to be more than physical assault. It considers such things as discussion of sexual innuendo, sexual prowess, sexual adventure, anything sexual in the workplace that offends someone else. That is the way it should be.

Therefore, to provide sexual orientation in the workplace is in direct contravention to the law that already exists which says that sexual harassment is not allowed. Now we are going to say that sexual orientation is allowed, and sexual harassment is not allowed.

I do not know why the government thinks that sexual orientation in the workplace, however that manifests itself-and I am not sure how-is acceptable. People can walk down any street and I am sure they will pass people of a different sexual orientation and never know what they are. Somehow or other we are going to say it is perfectly acceptable to demonstrate sexual orientation in the workplace, yet sexual harassment is absolutely and totally illegal. This is a total contradiction of the facts which this government has not considered as it pushes the bill through against the wishes of many Canadians.

Second, there are many Canadians who find the term sexual orientation to be code words for homosexuality and lesbianism. Some people find these acts repulsive and repugnant and are opposed to legal sanction being granted to them by this House. The Reform Party has a responsibility to represent that opposing point of view. There are some people who feel these types of issues should not be entrenched in legislation.

It is important to give expression to those who are opposed to the point of view that is being put forth by the government. It is important to recognize that these people hold these views quite legitimately. They are entitled to their opinions. They are entitled to see their opinions expressed. These opinions are being expressed freely by the Reform Party. I hope they are expressed by more than just a few of the people on the other side who have to summon the courage to stand up against their colleagues in the Liberal Party and give free expression to the large number of people in their ridings whom they represent that they do not agree with this bill.

Third, this bill has been in the public domain of debate for the last two or three weeks. Something else has been around for the last two or three thousand years, the moral code we call the Judeo-Christian principles. We could say they have withstood the test of time. These are principles such as thou shalt not kill, thou shalt respect thy father and thy mother, thou shalt not commit adultery, and so on.

When we look at those and what we have done in the last 25 years, we find that this House of Parliament has abandoned the principle of thou shalt not kill. It does not even express an opinion on abortion any more. We do not have a law in this country against abortion. In Canada 100,000 unborn children are being aborted every year. We have turned our backs on an expression which is 3,000 years old: Thou shalt not kill.

The hon. member for Burnaby espouses the principle that we should take away the principle of thou shalt not kill. Now we are focusing on the older generation. Euthanasia is almost upon us. That will be debated in this House at some point in the future. If we measure the old principle and moral code of thou shalt honour thy father and thy mother against the debate on euthanasia which is on the horizon, we have to ask ourselves what is going on.

I ask all members of the House to weigh a code which has been around for 3,000 years against the debate which has been going on for approximately three weeks. I would say to government members and my colleagues in the Bloc that if these principles have withstood the test of time for 3,000 years, and thousands of people have died for them and committed their lives to upholding them, surely there must be something in them that we should not lightly cast aside.

I sincerely hope that government members and Bloc members will give serious thought to that point. While they may think they are in command of all the facts and while they may think it is the right thing to do, let us remember that for 3,000 years we have had a code which says that what we are about to do is wrong, what we have recently done regarding abortion is wrong, and what we may do in the very near future regarding euthanasia is wrong.

We are dropping a moral code which we have had for 3,000 years into the trash can. We are saying that members of the House and the people on the street in Canada today are imbued with a sense of wisdom and knowledge which far exceeds the people who lived on this earth in the last 3,000 years. That is a note of caution.

I urge my colleagues to weigh the issue very carefully. In my humble opinion we will be wrong if we approve this bill.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I usually like to begin my speeches with the salutation that I am happy to engage in the debate. Unfortunately, I find that the debate on Bill C-33 has caused confusion and indeed hostility and division even within my own community.

The general public still questions the integrity of members of this place. I note the recent publication of a survey by Ekos Research which discovered that only 15 per cent of the general public places trust in elected officials. I have often taken the time to consider why this should be so. It seems to me it is because many believe that politicians once elected do not represent their views. This of course occurs to some extent because of the diversity of our nation. How do we get Ontario members to vote for harmonized consumption taxes in the maritimes when financially it does not seem to be in their own best interests?

This problem becomes even more exasperating when it comes to the question of moral issues. The public generally has two views of Bill C-33. One is that it is a matter of human rights. The second is that it is about morality; those who believe we are ensuring all

citizens can live free from discrimination and those who believe this is a stepping stone to the redefinition of family and marriage.

I am very uncomfortable about being placed in a position of prejudging the morality of the people of Durham. It is not that I shirk from my responsibilities but rather realize that one person's definition of morality can be quite different from another.

On this point I congratulate my leader for allowing a free vote. We should take the time to put more faith in our elected officials, but at the same time these officials will have to prove they are individually up to the challenge.

The United Kingdom has experienced many government members who had contrary viewpoints and yet their governments have not fallen. I suspect the views of their electorate are more effectively heard. A tiered disciplinary system would do much to restore the faith of the public in the House.

I note in passing that statements by the homosexual community that the vote should be a free vote are inconsistent with their own desires for freedom from discrimination and the social abuse of power.

This brings me to the bill. I have studied the amendments as well as having read the jurisprudence. The bill is quite clear in that it deals with hiring practices at the federal level, both within and outside government, as well as the provision of goods and services.

Most of us would agree we should not discriminate regardless of our attitude toward lifestyles. "Blacks and gays to the back of the store" tells us that not all the prehistoric creatures from Alberta are in the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology in Drumheller. I am sure many Albertans feel the same way.

I have conventional values. As a family person I respect the historical role of the family. That means marriage between those of the opposite sex. A study of anthropology can hardly lead one to any other conclusion.

The legal interpretation of one act does not necessarily affect the definitions of another. In any case, most of the problems expressed by those who regard this as an issue of morality should be addresses to the charter of rights and freedoms and the interpretation of section 15 of that act. Marriage and adoption are essentially matters of provincial jurisdiction in any case.

Seven provinces now include a provision in their human rights legislation preventing discrimination based on sexual orientation. Furthermore, the courts have interpreted the CHRA as if the terminology sexual orientation were already included as a prohibited grounds of discrimination. In other words, these amendments simply bring the legislation into conformity with what the courts have already interpreted the act to say.

In spite of my understanding of the issues as well as the desire to truly represent the people of my riding, I undertook a professional poll between May 1-3, 1996. Over 400 calls were made to my riding.

The question was very simple: "As you know, the Minister of Justice has introduced legislation in the House of Commons that would include the addition to the human rights act that people cannot be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. This would apply to employment in the federal civil service and employment in federally incorporated companies. This act would also apply to the receiving and selling of goods and services. Are you strongly in favour of the legislation, somewhat in favour, somewhat opposed, strongly opposed, or do you have no opinion?"

My riding is both urban and rural. In spite of the fact that my office has been inundated with calls of non-support, the poll reflects an entirely different position: 56 per cent of the people of Durham support this legislation.

A national poll by Angus Reid between April 18-24 called about 561 people in Ontario. The results were identical to my own poll: 56 per cent of the people are in favour of this legislation.

It is clear the majority of those in Durham want me to support this legislation, which I intend to do. A civil society is not measured on how it treats its majority but on how it treats its minorities.

In order to ensure all the elements of our society are treated fairly, it is reasonable to find ways of preventing discrimination of those who, in shear numbers, find themselves to be a minority. This is both fair and reasonable. Even those who take exception to these changes will accept this corollary.

I believe I have fulfilled the obligations given to me by a free vote on this matter. I am pleased to have represented the views of those in Durham. To those who are opposed, this is a great strength of our democratic institutions. People can openly debate issues such as this and arrive at a conclusion.

While this may still be far distant from the concept of consensus, most people in Durham can appreciate that it is not the member of Parliament prejudging their moral conduct but rather the people of Durham who have come to the conclusion that it is fair and reasonable to ensure specific elements in society are free from discrimination.

I am happy to have been an agent for the people of Durham in this matter. I will be voting as they have directed, to support the legislation.

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this bill today. It is a bill to which I am opposed. I find it

is fundamentally flawed. A measure of that is the co-operation among all parties where there is widespread concern about the bill.

The bill stands for more than the government would have us believe. Chief Justice Lamer, in the Mossop case, said: "Indeed, in this case if Parliament had decided to include sexual orientation on the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act, my interpretation of the phrase family status might have been entirely different. I might then have concluded that Mr. Mossop's situation included both his sexual orientation and his family status". That is the underlying concern that many of us have with the bill.

Max Yalden, chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, similarly stated: "We are strongly in favour of an amendment that would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. That means if benefits are paid to a heterosexual couple living in common law, the same benefits should be paid to a couple living in the same situation except that they are two men or two women. Our position on that matter is very clear. We are waiting for the government's reaction".

That sentiment is fairly well founded when there is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and someone of Mr. Yalden's expertise commenting.

It was reported in a local newspaper that the government's position on this, that these matters were not of concern, was a position that was seriously flawed. If I used the wording in the newspaper article I would be called to account for unparliamentary language.

I will point out the comments of one member opposite who said that some of our members stood up in the House today and said "blank" about this legislation. I will leave the word "blank" to your discretion. However, the legislation is more than it seems.

The previous speaker talked about polling. In my riding we tried to get a feeling about how our constituents felt about this legislation. We asked two questions. The first was: "Do you think the federal government should amend legislation to add sexual orientation as a grounds of discrimination?" A slim majority of people felt this was a reasonable objective.

The second question was: "Would you support this amendment if it means that homosexual couples would receive economic and family benefits which include medical, survivor, income tax benefits and so on?" That was where people drew the line. When we factored that question into it there was opposition to that bill.

Anybody who seriously polls their constituents on this bill must ask those two questions, the first question being simply whether they support the bill and the second and most important one being whether they support it if these are the implications.

Given the implications and that there is a large religious community in the country concerned about these implications, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops proposed some amendments to the member from Edmonton from my party. He checked with the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and asked if it would support the amendments to the bill.

The amendments proposed by the Catholic bishops are simply: one, the definition of marital status and family status under the Canadian Human Rights Act be limited to heterosexual couples, as the Canadian Council of Catholic Bishops says, because of their irreplaceable role in the procreation and nurturing of children, upon which the future of our society depends; two, it should be legislatively permitted that the history and social objectives of this legislation be taken into account in determining whether certain policy distinctions amount to unjust discrimination; three, the teaching and hiring practices of religious institutions are to be protected.

Unfortunately the government, although claiming the bill would not have these effects, is reluctant to support amendments which would support the position of Canadian Catholic bishops and Evangelical Christians in Canada. I believe that really speaks words for the intentions of the government in promoting this bill.

I do not have any difficulty in voting against this. I believe my constituents are solidly opposed to the bill for the reasons I gave. However, the big concern I have in addressing the bill deals with my first priority in life. Believe it or not, as much as I value my position as a member of Parliament, it is not my first priority in life. The first priority in my life is trying to be a reasonable father for my children. As much as I may have failings, I do have good support at home from my wife, for which I am eternally grateful.

When I look at the bill and recognize the implications the government has in proposing it, I ask whether the bill is really stating that thou shalt not discriminate, or is it presenting to the children of this country an alternate lifestyle in stating that this lifestyle is of equal significance, importance or value as another.

I as a parent cannot say I would sit my son or daughters beside me and tell them one of their choices is to marry Jane down the street, have a family and raise children, but another equally legitimate lifestyle is the homosexual lifestyle. I do not believe those two lifestyles are equal. Because an adult makes a personal decision in these matters does not say that I am opposed to him or her, or that I look down on him or her. My role is not to be judgmental to that degree.

My role as a parent is to present reasonable alternatives to my children. By supporting this legislation which will lead, I believe, to family benefits and that sort of thing for homosexual couples, the underlying theme for our children that this is a legitimate alternative. I do not think it can be presented that way. For that

reason I am very concerned and will be voting against it when the time comes.

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin I would like to say a couple of words about what the last speaker said.

Obviously different families have different ways of approaching things, but in my family I believe the most important lesson that I can leave for my children is to respect, value and appreciate the dignity of every individual no matter how he or she lives his or her life. For a party that continues to speak about equality these kinds of statements fly in the face of that.

It is with a great deal of pleasure that I speak in support of Bill C-33. The Canadian Human Rights Act applies to the federal government and federally regulated businesses. All 10 provinces and the two territories have their own human rights laws.

Human rights laws in every jurisdiction have a list of grounds or characteristics of discrimination that are against the law. Most human rights laws in Canada apply to employment, accommodation and the provision of goods and services.

The Canadian Human Rights Act governs principally employment and the provision of goods and services under federal jurisdiction. Currently the grounds for prohibited discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act are based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence which a pardon has been granted.

All that Bill C-33 does is add sexual orientation as a ground for prohibited discrimination. Last year I stood in this House in support of Bill C-41. As I gave my speech I was subjected to loud and rancorous heckling from the members of the Reform Party. They objected to my support of the inclusion of sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination in reference to hate literature. They did not get it then and they are not getting it today.

Last year I stated that many of us assume that Canada is an open, tolerant and inclusive society. However, it cannot always be taken for granted. Members of the Reform Party have publicly stated that they would fire a homosexual employee. In addition, they made very unkind comments about black Canadians. These comments are totally unacceptable and are strong evidence of why human rights legislation is so very necessary.

Imagine for a moment being a gay or lesbian employee working for someone like the Reform members who feel that it is their right to fire employees, not on the basis of merit but on the basis of a personal characteristic. This from the Reform Party that consistently states over and over again that it is the party of equality and that the only hiring criteria is merit.

No one can deny that discrimination in the workplace for gay men and lesbians is very real. Many work in hostile and homophobic work environments where gay jokes are an accepted norm. Lesbians and gay men must often conceal their identity in order to get hired or to keep their jobs. As a result they cannot talk openly about their personal lives or about their partners.

When people are unable to share in simple conversations with colleagues about non-work activities, this can be very isolating. No one would want to be in a position where one has to conceal who one is for fear of verbal or physical abuse or for fear of being fired.

While some members on both sides of the House are not willing to extend protection against discrimination to gay men and lesbians, I am most disappointed with the Reform Party that has taken as a matter of party policy the right of individuals to discriminate against gay men and lesbians. Reform members say they are the party of equality, but is this only for people who look like them, who behave like them? Is there no one in the Reform Party who has the courage and the principles to stand and vote against the Jurassic Reform Party line? Is there no one in the Reform Party to stand in this House and be counted as someone who supports protection for all Canadians regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, age, ableness, religion and sexual orientation?

Some try to confuse the public by suggesting they would support this legislation if only the term sexual orientation was properly defined. This is merely an excuse for their homophobia or adherence to the third party line.

Courts and tribunals have looked at a number of cases pertaining to discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. They have clearly understood sexual orientation to mean heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality. Opponents of this bill mislead Canadians when they say pedophilia will be sanctioned. Pedophilia, whether the perpetrator is homosexual or heterosexual, is an illegal act. As illegal behaviour it remains under the Criminal Code and is not protected by this amendment.

Tom Harpur has said there are many paths to God. For believers I agree with Mr. Harpur, there are many paths to God. The path that I have chosen is Christianity. I have to tell the House how hurt and angered I am that some individuals in this House use religion to further their political agenda. They have threatened and they have manipulated well-meaning individuals and I find this inexcusable.

The basic tenets of the Christian faith include compassion, respect and tolerance. Protection against discrimination is about

compassion, respect and tolerance. Diversity is the hallmark of creation. Diversity is healthy and natural. It must be protected.

Over 70 years ago as a woman I was not considered to be a person. If political leadership to change this gross inequity had not occurred I would not be in the House today arguing for the basic rights of other vulnerable groups in Canadian society. If we are to be civilized and humane we must protect the rights of all Canadians.

In my maiden speech I said that as parliamentarians we merely pass through this place. I feel very fortunate and honoured to be in this House when a federal government has finally made the decision to bring forward legislation that extends protection against discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the House to seize this very important historical moment and support this legislation.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate this afternoon on Bill C-33, to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prevent discrimination against homosexuals and lesbians.

How many people have suffered discrimination because of their homosexuality? There are of course people like the members of the Reform Party who go into trench warfare at the sound of the word "homosexuality". How many people have lost their homes or have been driven out of them because of their homosexuality?

Discrimination occurs even at the workplace. There are firms, companies and associations that used to send for and still do send for Cvs when a job competition is announced. How many people have been discriminated against because of their age and have been penalized in the selection process? How many people have been discriminated against and have even been denied an interview where they could explain their skills and how they would go about doing the job? How many people have been bypassed in promotions at the workplace, again as the result of discrimination?

Discrimination is not limited to homosexuality. It is faced by older people, who are often said to be too old to do the job. People have also been passed over because they are considered too old to be promoted. Older people are often offered a retirement program, because their age threatens company performance. Older people currently face a lot of discrimination in our society.

Members of visible minorities also face discrimination. Let us look at an example. In Montreal, 60 per cent of people represent visible minorities, coming from Vietnam, Japan, Italy, Greece and so on. In short, 60 per cent of the present population of Montreal come from cultural communities.

Naturally these people want to put their experience and their qualifications to use for the benefit of their fellow citizens and of a company. Very often, unfortunately, companies do not want them. With Cvs again, a lot of discrimination occurs when a firm looks at an individual's age and nationality and is afraid of his or her effect on business. It does not hire the individual. It does not even give the person a chance to go through a selection interview.

How many people are punished because of their sex? There are a lot more non traditional jobs in industry these days. I myself am a former employee of Reynolds in Baie-Comeau. I am on leave without pay at the moment. In the aluminum plant in Baie-Comeau today there are women electricians, women solderers and women doing jobs that, in the past, were always done by men. Women are being trained in and are doing these jobs.

In French, job posters often specify that the masculine includes the feminine or that the position is open to women. Whether you are a man or a woman, the job is open. Equal skills, equal pay. I think a woman who works beside a man should not earn less because she is an electrician. She should earn the same as the man.

How many people are discriminated against because of language? They say that nowadays, salaries being equal, employers will go for the person who speaks several languages, English and French for example. There are also companies in the tourism field, airlines, travel agencies, which will give priority to people speaking several languages. This can end up penalizing people who have, unfortunately, not had the chance to learn another language, particularly in Quebec where the first language is French. They are highly qualified, through their experience, to work as travel agents, but would be penalized because they do not speak two languages.

And how many people are discriminated against and penalized in Canada because they are disabled? Because of an accident? The person was highly competent, active and cost-effective to the employer but now is pushed aside, sometimes even let go, because of a handicap resulting from accident or illness.

In the Quebec National Assembly in 1977, then Premier Lévesque introduced a clause in the Quebec charter of rights and freedoms which allowed male homosexuals and lesbians to live free of discrimination. So it is already in the Quebec charter, and here we are getting around to it only 20 years later. Quebec has definitely always been ahead of its time in such things.

This is the reason Quebec has sent 53 or 54 Bloc MPs to Ottawa to show the Canadian government that it is high time in 1996 to include the same clause in the federal charter that is in the Quebec charter. This is not, I feel, any sort of luxury. The federal government must evolve, must keep abreast of the latest developments. The Bloc position is quite simply to see that Ottawa

endorses what the Parti Quebecois put in place back in 1977 under René Lévesque.

Some things that have been said by the Reform Party around this bill I would classify as racist remarks and liable to incite to violence. Let me explain.

The comments made by the former Reform whip recently, about moving someone into the back room in a store if the employer were to discover that person to be homosexual, strike me as both vulgar and racist.

The Reform Party is calling for more and more free votes in this House, yet when members call in caucus for their people to be less far to the right, closer to the centre right-as was the case recently when the hon. members for Calgary Southeast, Simcoe Centre and Calgary Centre called for the party to take less radical positions-the Reform caucus jump on them like a pack of wolves. This makes absolutely no sense.

I feel the Reform Party needs to take the path of reason. We have read in the press that the leader of the Reform Party, the hon. member for Calgary Southwest, approved of violence, approved of the Prime Minister's violence toward a demonstrator, especially if a sovereignist. This is inciting violence, inciting his party to violence, and now we see the consequences. We have just had several byelections in Quebec and the Reform Party got only 0.5 per cent of the popular vote in Quebec.

Might I, in closing, make it clear to both this House and the voters who are viewing us at home that there is a great difference between recognizing same sex couples and preventing discrimination.

[Roseanne Skoke, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I enter this debate with respect to the amendments in Group No. 1, which are concerned with the freedom of religion, expression and association, marriage, family and spouse, the Criminal Code and the preamble. With that in mind I will address the comments made by the Minister of Justice during debate on Bill C-33, which are in Hansard of April 30.

The Minister of Justice indicated on debate, "in my respectful view no participant has the moral high ground, no one is holier than any other". I wish to remind this honourable House that in in the preamble to our Canadian Constitution we recognize the rule of law and the supremacy of God.

By recognizing the supremacy of God we entrench in our laws natural law. Therefore, justice, law and morality are inseparable. Bill C-33 is an issue of morality. When legislating, Parliament must ensure that its laws are just and moral. The issue before the House is one of morality and conscience; therefore it is also an issue of one's religious belief, opinion and freedom of expression.

The justice minister in debate stated unequivocally, "it is an issue of human rights". What is a human right? I remind this House that the first right, the most basic right and the primary fundamental right is the right to life. Until Parliament addresses the right to life, from the moment of conception until natural death, it has no jurisdiction to extend the human rights to include sexual orientation.

To profess and to legislate that sexual orientation is a human right is to find that a human right is determined on the basis of behaviour, which is erroneous. To confer a human right on the basis of sexual orientation is to confer a special right, a specific right to a special interest group on the basis of behaviour identified by lifestyle.

To confer homosexuality as a human right on the basis of sexual orientation will provide homosexuals with a special legal status that will allow them to redefine the family, to redefine spouse, to enter into the realm of the sanctity of marriage, to infiltrate the curriculum of our schools and education and to impose an alternative lifestyle on our youth.

To legislate that sexual orientation is a human right is to elevate the existing legal test in Canada from one of tolerance to a legal test of condonation and acceptance.

All Canadians are equal before and under the law. Canadians are tolerant and compassionate people. However, by conferring a specific right to homosexuals in the Canadian Human Rights Act, Parliament is requiring Canadians not only to be tolerant and compassionate but also to condone and accept homosexuality as natural and moral.

Homosexuality is unnatural and immoral. The words unnatural and immoral are terms used in legal debate. Justice, law and morality are inseparable. As recognized by our justice minister, this is a moral debate.

I also wish to refer to Hansard wherein our justice minister attempts to refute arguments with respect to the rights this amendment in Bill C-33 will confer. He talks about family: ``It is suggested by some that this bill will either directly or indirectly undermine or diminish the importance of family in Canadian life''. I am one of those some.

Families have inherent and inviolable rights in Canada. Families have existed before the church and families have existed before the state. The rights of family must be safeguarded and protected.

The reference to the importance of family in the preamble to Bill C-33, which was included merely to appease those members of Parliament with morality and conscience issues on their minds, was in my opinion a grave error on the part of the Minister of Justice.

Introducing family in an amendment to confer special rights with respect to sexual orientation is a violation of the rights of family. It allows the very redefinition of family that we choose to protect.

In Hansard , the justice minister makes reference to his subjective opinion on how the bill will not affect his own family. Canadians are not interested in the subjective opinion of the Minister of Justice. He has no jurisdiction to impose that opinion on Canadian families.

With respect to the issue of religion, the Minister of Justice stated in Hansard : This bill is fundamentally consistent with the most basic teachings of religion''. He also stated:I developed a deep respect for the tenets of the Catholic faith. I suggest this amendment and the action it constitutes is completely consistent with those tenets''. This is not a matter for debate.

The Minister of Justice has exceeded his jurisdiction by speaking on behalf of the church. I use the word church in an all inclusive sense. The justice minister has made a pronouncement on issues of ecclesiastic law and canon law that is not within his jurisdiction. For the Minister of Justice to state that this bill is fundamentally consistent with the most basic teachings of religion is to interfere with the individual and personal freedom of religion and belief that every individual in Canada has, pursuant to our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

To state that this bill is fundamentally consistent with the most basic teachings of religion also closes the door on any religious defence that may be argued in future with respect to the introduction of Bill C-33.

"This bill is fundamentally consistent with the most basic teachings of religion", as stated by the Minister of Justice, is an interference with the domain and jurisdiction of the church. The principle of separation of church and state is well founded historically, culturally and in our laws. The state has no jurisdiction to interfere in matters of church.

However, the House should be reminded that the church has a right and a responsibility to concern itself with matters of state on issues of morals, values, principles and religion. In this regard I have called on the Minister of Justice by letter, and I do so here again today in the House, to withdraw the statements he made in this House specially with reference to religion, to withdraw the statement: "This bill is fundamentally consistent with the most basic teachings of religion-I suggest this amendment and the action it constitutes is completely consistent with these tenets".

I ask that the Minister of Justice be accountable for exceeding his jurisdiction in the House.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, considering the imposition of time allocation on Bill C-33, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the House on this piece of legislation. However, I must inform the House that it is not a pleasure. I would have far preferred if this legislation were not brought forward by the Liberal government.

I will begin my remarks by indicating my approval for the amendments we are presently discussing. They are put forward in good faith, dramatically improve the intent of the bill and make it much more palatable. It is certainly my wish to see them passed and the bill amended as in the grouping of the first nine amendments.

In particular I should like to indicate my support for the basic thrust of Motion No. 11 put forward by my colleague. It would add a new clause affirming that sexual orientation will not redefine the terms marriage, family and spouse in any act of Parliament.

This is particularly important because this area seems to be causing so much concern among the constituents of Prince George-Peace River, the riding in northeastern British Columbia which I represent. The people of Canada from coast to coast to coast are very concerned about this amendment being put forward and about the term sexual orientation when it has not been defined by the justice minister or by Parliament.

I would like to read into the record "A Statement Regarding Bill C-33" from the Archdiocese of Vancouver:

In order for the federal government's proposed amendment of the Canadian Human Rights Act regarding sexual orientation to be acceptable, three basic safeguards need to be built into the legislation. First, sexual orientation must be defined; second, the amendment must not be used to give homosexual couples marital or marriage-like status; third, the conscience rights of Canadians morally opposed to homosexual behaviour must be protected.

Sexual orientation should be defined to refer to homosexual persons but not homosexual activity. By homosexual persons I mean individuals who experience a predominant, exclusive or very strong attraction to members of their own sex. Such a definition will ensure that the focus of the amendment will be where it should be: on prohibiting unjust discrimination against homosexual persons who have the same inalienable human dignity as other members of society. By specifying homosexual persons, the definition also would prevent the amendment from being used to protect pedophilia or other aberrant sexual behaviour.

It is also necessary for the legislation to explicitly state that the amendments should not be used to redefine the meaning of marriage, family or spouse so as to include homosexual couples or confer marriage-like benefits on such couples. Without such a statement, the amendment's preamble, which refers to preserving the role of "family", is unclear and subject to misinterpretation.

Thirdly, the legislation should make it clear that the amendment is not to be used to restrain Canadians who are opposed to homosexual behaviour from acting in conformity with their conscience, assuming they maintain due respect for homosexual persons. It should not force them to do something which reflects approval for homosexual behaviour, and it should not prevent them from doing

something which reflects disapproval for such behaviour. For example, it should allow employers to make the non-practice of homosexual activity a bona fides occupational qualification. (Manitoba's human rights act explicitly provides for this).

These safeguards are necessary to preserve the common good while at the same time enabling Canadian society to clearly oppose unjust discrimination toward homosexual persons.

This document comes to me from the most Reverend Adam Exner, OMI, with the archbishop's office in Vancouver. I thought it was particularly appropriate to read it into the record because it certainly fits in quite nicely with amendments we are debating at present.

Motion No. 12, also submitted by my colleague, adds a new clause affirming that sexual orientation will not affect freedom of religion, expression and association as guaranteed in the charter of rights and freedoms.

I refer briefly to the Reform blue book. Bill C-33 has certainly caused quite a stir in the Reform Party, the Liberal Party and most if not all political parties over the last week or so since it was introduced in the House.

This is my first opportunity to speak to the bill because over the last couple of weeks I was back in my riding. There are many people at the grassroots level across Canada discussing the legislation. There is open and honest discussion about the possible ramifications of Bill C-33.

The constituents of Prince George-Peace River have made it very clear to me as their elected member where the majority of them stood on the bill. Motion No. 12 dovetails nicely with principle number eight in the Reform blue book:

We believe that every individual, group, province and region in Canada is entitled to fundamental justice. That fundamental justice entitles the people of each region to benefit equally, without discrimination, from participation in Confederation and from the programs and expenditures of the Government of Canada.

Certainly that fits in quite nicely with this amendment. That is why we are supporting this motion.

Motion No. 13 warrants some attention. It adds a new clause that sexual orientation will not affect the enforcement of provisions in the Criminal Code.

Motion No. 14 adds a new clause to affirm that nothing in the bill will result in the extension of same sex benefits. This is consistent with Reform policy and consistent with survey results from my own riding.

I conducted the survey in a householder in the spring of 1994, some two years ago, but it is still appropriate today. Because we were forewarned in the infamous Liberal red book of what they intended to do, I took it upon myself to ask questions of the constituents of Peace George-Peace River. Over 1,200 constituents replied to the questionnaire.

Question No. 3 indicated that the Canadian Human Rights Act should prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It was very succinct and very straightforward. Thirty-four per cent of the respondents agreed, fifty-four per cent disagreed and twelve per cent were undecided. It was not a large majority but a majority nonetheless.

On the accompanying question of same sex couples being eligible for spousal benefits received by traditional couples, men and women, 16 per cent agreed, 75 per cent disagreed and 9 per cent were undecided.

The vast majority of the constituents of Prince George-Peace River feel quite strongly about the issue, certainly those who responded to the questionnaire at any rate.

As early as about an hour ago I was faxed a memo from one of the more prominent radio stations with a very high profile talk show, CJDC out of Dawson Creek in my riding. It is signed by a number of people who work at the station and states:

I oppose the initiative to have sexual orientation added to the Canadian Human Rights Act without definition and proper input from the Canadian people.

A large number of people have advised me as their representative how they feel I should be voting on this piece of legislation. I have received over 100 E-mail letters in the last two days alone, all in opposition to the bill. I have received faxes, phone calls and personal consultation over the last couple of weeks I had the opportunity to travel throughout my riding. Certainly constituents were coming to me and making their views known on this piece of legislation.

In summary, without these amendments being passed I will have to vote against the legislation, not because any individual should suffer from discrimination but having the term undefined could lead to all types of things that I have clearly laid out in speeches in the past. Those are my concerns and therefore I will be voting against Bill C-33.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, there will be a free vote on Bill C-33. It is my understanding that government practice requires members of the government, ministers, secretaries of state and even parliamentary secretaries, to support a government measure. That is almost axiomatic. However I would want members to know that in voting on this measure I am voting on the merits as I see them.

I have had the advantage of consulting with my constituency association over the last 18 months. We knew a bill might be introduced with a social policy forum. Only a week or 10 days ago I spoke with members of my constituency association who were delegates to the annual convention of the party a month ago. My

vote has been influenced very heavily by the opinions which have been expressed to me. However I believe I can contribute to the debate by addressing some unnecessary confusion in the discussion.

First, there is a false dichotomy between constitutional positions and ethical opinions. Every constitution is an expression of an ethical position, a value choice. It is sometimes forgotten that Jefferson and Madison who inspired so much of contemporary constitutionalism had a commitment to what we today call open society values, and that is a value choice. I believe we should have mutual respect for the positions on both sides of this debate so far as they have been articulated to date.

Part of the problem in our Canadian approach to the issue comes from one of the significant choices made in 1980-82 when we were patriating the Constitution. Many of us advised the government of the day and Mr. Trudeau that they should take as a model for a charter of rights either the American bill of rights, which by legend Madison wrote one Sunday morning, or the great French declaration of the rights of man and the citizen of 1789 and 1791, which is still in the constitution of the fifth republic and the most widely copied of all charters of rights throughout the world. The essence of those charters is that they reduce to a single page the basic principles of a free society.

There is a principle of equality, equality before the law, equal protection of the laws, but it is cast in broad terms without limitations. Perhaps it is regrettable that our charter is very long and the equality principle proceeds to list in extenso examples of equality or categories to which it is applied. It has the effect of cutting down the generality, the sweep and the opening to creative innovation. It may be one of the reasons our courts, including the Supreme Court, have been spasmodic and non-sequential in the development of principles under it.

I understand, therefore, the feeling of people not on a list that they are excluded. It is the old Latin maxim: expression unius est exclusio alterius. If a person is expressed they are in; if they are not expressed they are out. In some ways it distorts the dialectical notion of constitutional development that broad principles are capable of changing in their application according to new societal facts.

I have an interesting letter from the president of the bar association, Gordon Proudfoot, which rejects the step by step, pragmatic, problem oriented development which was the key to human rights development in the United States and in many European countries which were subsequently influenced by it, with the Supreme Court playing a creative role in lock-step with the justice ministry that puts up the test cases. What has occurred there is pragmatic incremental change, not wild experiments in judicial legislation as some might have feared. This would have been a better development for us in Canada, but it is water under the bridge.

We have a lengthy charter that is really a lawyer's charter, not a people's charter. It is hard for lay people to understand. The Canadian Human Rights Act replicates the charter of rights in that sense.

I also had a thoughtful letter from Archbishop Exner of Vancouver. It was quoted by the hon. member opposite. It is thoughtful and helpful. One problem here I think relates to the way the amendment to the human rights act was drafted. The human rights has a wide range, covering some agencies which might be considered private for the purpose of the charter of rights. Beyond that it covers bodies subject to federal regulation such as airlines.

Contrary to general impression, the human rights act is not a general code of human conduct. The amendment makes very clear what is inherent in the Canadian Human Rights Act, unlike the charter, is it is really limited to removing discrimination in employment and the provision of goods and services. That is in the act. It may be enough to make that purpose explicit and make it clear as a matter of legal interpretation.

I would have suggested to the Minister of Justice that rather than put it in the preamble it be put in the substantive part of the act, perhaps section 1. It would make clear as a matter of law that the act applies to prevent discrimination in employment and the provision of goods and services. That as its scope would remove a good deal of the unnecessary fears or questions raised by people of integrity and good faith that somehow this is a licence for a fishing expedition into many other areas of social policy.

It may be that the community will decide in its wisdom that it wishes to move into other areas, but if the purpose of the law is as I have said, and I think that is very clear, it would be better in the language and drafting if it said so.

I do not believe the fears that have been expressed that this may be too widely and too loosely interpreted by unelected judges. I do not think they are warranted on the language as it stands. I simply suggest that to make certainty doubly clear, and there is a Latin maxim for that but I will not quote it, the justice minister might consider at the committee stage of the bill making the change I have suggested.

The open society values implicit in the charter of rights are implicit in this measure too that the Canadian people as whole accept the notion that discrimination in employment based on all the factors mentioned in the amended bill is unacceptable in social terms. That is a good and worthy motive. It is on that basis that I have given my support to the bill.

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Lisgar—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I did not really expect to say anything in the debate today. I thought I might at third reading. However, now I have the chance and I will add my comments.

I am a Reform member and I believe in equality for all citizens. That is why I ran for Reform. I have had experiences in another country where it said there was equality but I did not see it. I have said a number of times in my speeches that the visits I made to the Soviet Union it made me realize how important democracy is.

When I see the democracy in the House today it reminds me a lot of the manifesto of 1917 when there was freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to have property. It was freedom only for two or three people at the top. The rest were shut down or exterminated.

It sounded almost biased when I heard the government over the last couple of days making excuses that it could not fulfil its promises because of acts of God.

If we look back to the story of creation, God did create a husband and a wife. What do members think happened? The husband blamed God for his breaking the promise not to eat the fruit of life. He said it would not have happened if God had not given him that woman. That is where discrimination started.

I do not think that is the type of thing we want to reinforce, blaming God for our problems or making us do some things. We want to give him credit to show us and give us the wisdom to make the right kind of legislation.

When I look at this bill, it is a stepping stone to attacking the basic family unit. I cannot see it differently. If it is not, why would the government refuse to endorse the amendments made by my colleagues? They have been made to protect the basic institutions of marriage and family. If that is not acceptable, what is in the bill? Think about it.

The bill is a smoke screen. It is probably a way to get the door opened up a little wider to destroy the basic unit of the family. As we have heard in the House a number of times, when that happens, when the basic family unit becomes disintegrated, when it becomes non-functional, so does the country. That is something we have to look at very seriously in this legislation.

The communists in 1917 said they would be equal, that they would have freedom. They said families did not do a proper job of raising their children and they would take over. They said they do not really need marriage, the basic family unit. It was not many years later that Stalin took over the reigns and had a huge problem. He had so many orphans he did not know what to do with them.

If members want to read about history and some of the tragic stories before he got the system back on track, it is horrendous. In 1935 or 1936 Stalin passed legislation that gave the world the toughest divorce laws ever implemented. He could see the basic family unit was there for a reason. Even if he did not believe in God he could see it would not work otherwise.

I was amazed when yesterday or the day before I was watching "Newsworld". I saw the documentary on the Igor Gouzenko family. I remember when the Gouzenko family defected from the Russian spy system and asked for asylum in this country. Those people are still under protection today because the edict is out to kill them for what they did. They were warned when they discussed whether they would defect. Mr. Gouzenko said it means our family will die in Russia. What do we do? Can we afford to take that risk? They will be executed.

Their family told them if they ever got out of the country they had better not come back no matter what it meant to them. Today they are under strict security. They are hidden in this country. Nobody knows who they are. When they are on television they still must have their faces screened. What a life. What a penalty to pay. What a penalty the Soviet Union put on that family.

It took 50 million people, according to Mr. Gouzenko, to die because of what they believed before that system was overthrown. Solzhenitsyn wrote that 40 million people died. When I was in the Soviet Union in 1991 after the coups and the books were finally opened, the estimation was 60 million.

One old gentleman said "because of our mistakes, because our government tried to stamp out the religion that brought the earth into being, we will pay for it for centuries.

For five years of greatness in the second world war we propagated that and bragged about it for 70 years but never allowed the world to see what was happening our country".

According to that rate, he said it will take 970 years to write the horror stories that happened in that nation because it failed to look at the basic family unit, what it was set up for and what function it had.

Today we are debating this issue. Are we willing to bring that kind of a punishment on this nation? We have heard about the Roman Empire and other empires where the family unit became dysfunctional the nation finally did fall. If that is what we are trying to do we are on the right path.

I will not be part of that. I will vote against this legislation on third reading. I hope the Liberal government sees there can be no value in passing this legislation without ensuring those amendments are passed.

There is not one issue that has been debated in the House on which I have had so many phone calls, letters and petitions as those asking me not to support Bill C-41 and Bill C-33.

When we were voting on Bill C-68 we heard a comment from a senator that this was really not a bill to register guns or put guns under further restrictions. This was a social engineering project. This is exactly what happened in the Soviet Union. It outlawed capital punishment, then it implemented gun registration and implemented gun confiscation. Finally what did it have? It had a revolution. Only the people on the top had the guns. The poor people who did not have them died very violently by them.

If we do not want to believe what we read let us go back and look at history to see what has happened and what the examples are. If we want to look at what homosexuality and permissiveness have done to some countries let us look at Africa and the problems it has run into. There are guidelines laid down in this universe that we have to follow or we will pay the consequences.

What do we want? Do we want more freedom for a few years and then pay the consequences or do we want to follow what has been laid down for us in history, something that has worked for centuries? The family unit has built one country after the other. Once we have a country we have a government. Where are we going to go? Are we to destroy the family and destroy the government? Let us look at Liberia right now. Do we want that type of system? I do not.

It is a privilege and honour to say a few words on this subject. I hope we will take this seriously, look at the amendments and pass them with the bill because we all want equality.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I do not know whether you understood the same thing as I, and perhaps there is a problem with the interpretation, where there is always a little time lag, but I believe that the hon. member is going a bit far in suggesting to us members some connection with societies in open ethnic conflict, certain African countries, and the question-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

With all the respect that I have for all of my colleagues in the House, I must say that this is not a point of order. We are really entering the debate.

The House resumed from May 1, consideration of the motion that Bill C-217, an act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of witnesses), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Criminal Code

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger]

): It being 5.30 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 45, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the second reading of Bill C-217, an act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of witnesses).

Call in the members.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

As is the practice, the division will be taken row by row starting with the mover and proceeding with those in favour of the motion sitting on the same side of the House as the mover.

Next, the votes of those supporting the motion on the opposite side of the House will be recorded. The votes of those opposing the motion will be recorded in the same order.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I declare the motion carried.

Accordingly this bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Before we proceed, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Davenport-the environment.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's Order Paper.

Child Labour

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take measures to prohibit the importing of goods manufactured or containing parts manufactured by child labour as defined under International Labour Organization conventions.

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak to my motion which calls on the Liberal government to take measures to prohibit the importing of goods into Canada made with child labour, one of the great scourges of the contemporary global economy. At the end of my speech I will be seeking unanimous consent for a vote to occur on this motion so that the House might be able to express itself on this very important issue.

This is not the first time the House has had the opportunity to debate this important issue. In November 1994, during the ratification of the World Trade Organization agreement, the House considered a New Democratic Party motion to amend Canada's customs legislation to prohibit the importing of goods made with child labour. We argued at that time that as the international community grappled with the social implications to the globalization of the world economy, there was an obligation to ensure that the emerging new trading rules protected not only the legitimate rights of international investors, but also the legitimate rights of labour, especially the basic human rights of vulnerable groups such as child labourers.

We sought to make a constructive contribution to the trade agenda by joining with a growing international movement seeking to put the social implications of trade front and centre of the project of improving international trading rules. The government, along with the Reform Party, voted against our amendments on child labour and a social clause, signalling that it did not want to be part of the constructive movement to develop an international trading system that pays as much attention to the rights of child labourers as it does to the multinationals.

It echoed this position in the actions it took in international bodies, siding with those who wanted the child labour problem studied rather than acted on in the OECD and the International Labour Organization.

The government's position appeared to change as a result of the determination and hard work of Craig Kielburger, the young activist whom many Canadians have come to know about recently. Craig confronted the Prime Minister publicly in Asia when Team Canada was touring that part of the world. Craig confronted the Prime Minister on the question of what Canada was doing to help in the struggle to end child labour. It was clear that Craig and the other child campaigners in India and elsewhere struck a deep vein of concern with the Canadian public and the international community.

Through his dramatic confrontation with the Prime Minister, he was able to break through the mantras of the advertising industry which attempts to cleanse the image of their products of the taint of the dreadful human context in which they are often made in developing countries. He was able to pressure the Canadian government to say that it would take action on child labour.

Craig appears to have shamed the government about its inaction, but so far he has not been able, nor have I nor anyone else been able, to shame it into action. The government did put a line in the throne speech about working toward an international consensus on the issue of child labour. It also has made a financial contribution to the ILO's program on child labour, something by the way that I had called for in a private member's motion tabled in the last session of Parliament. Anything more decisive or bold than these timid measures seems very far off at this point anyway.

What I hope to accomplish with today's debate is to help sustain or indeed add to the momentum that there may be on this issue by allowing members of the House to join in the growing chorus of those calling for real international and national action on child labour and to ask the government to put its cards on the table about exactly what measures it will be taking.

For despite the pleasant words in the throne speech, the media reported that Canada's position at the recent meeting of G-7 officials on the unemployment crisis remained one of keeping child labour and human rights out of international trade rules. This is not consistent with what the Prime Minister promised to Craig Kielburger.

The numbers of children involved in child labour in developing countries and the conditions they face are staggering. The International Labour Organization estimates that there are some 200 million children working as child labourers around the world with some 55 million in India alone. The conditions these children work under are often inhuman and in many contexts in India and Pakistan are literally conditions akin to slavery.

Accordingly to the International Labour Organization, half the children in Pakistan's carpet industry die of malnutrition and disease before the age of 12. Girls 10 years of age work in China's special export zones in toy factories for $10 a month.

No one pretends that a social catastrophe on this scale can be overcome overnight. It is a very complex problem that is deeply rooted in the social and economic cultures of some developing countries and in the absence of political structures that respect basic human rights. Most importantly, child labour is also rooted in the globalization of world markets. The fact is that child labour has been growing in tandem with the liberalization of world trade, as multinationals seek to find labour markets with ever lower and lower wages and lower standards. They find the cheapest labour with contractors in developing countries who use children to produce rugs, textiles, garments, shoes, toys and other light manufacturing products which the multinationals market in the global economy.

It is because child labour is so deeply intertwined with international trade that the international community has a large obligation to participate in the efforts to respond to the plight of child labourers and begin the process of eliminating child labour.

Canadians I believe are clearly looking for ways to play a leading and constructive role in these international efforts. The question everyone wants to know is what Canadians and their governments can do to make a difference.

On one level Canadians can make a difference as consumers. The bewildering world of international trade rules, the organizations that operate them, and the obscure jargon of international economics must at times seem to most Canadians as having little immediate or direct bearing on their own lives.

As consumers we are all directly connected to the global economy. Every time we purchase a pair of athletic shoes made in Indonesia, a toy made in China or a carpet made in India or Pakistan, we are directly involved in international trade and very likely involved as well in the problem of child labour.

A growing number of people in Canada and around the world are awakening to the fact that as consumers of goods made with child labour, we are implicated in the problem. We are complicit in the problem. It is too rare for any of us to feel anxious when buying clothes or toys for our children because we wonder about the children in Indonesia or China that worked in the sweatshops to make the clothing or the toys.

Yet there is an awakening sense that as consumers of goods we have a moral obligation to ask questions about how these goods that we are consuming are produced. That leads us to have a moral obligation to child labourers.

As consumers, potentially we have a great deal of power to change the situation. If consumers did not purchase goods known to be made with child labour, the multinationals who had them produced and imported would have to adjust their business practices. The challenge is in providing information to consumers about how, where and by whom goods were produced.

Two approaches have emerged out of the insight about the potential power of consumers. The first is a movement to attach effective labels to products attesting to the fact that they were not made with child labour. One such program is the recent innovation of the "Rugmark" label which addresses the problem of child labour in the South Asian carpet industry, one that is particularly notorious in the use of child labour. There are proposals to extend this kind of approach to other products as well.

The other response to the potential use of consumer power as a tool in the struggle to eliminate child labour is the fair trade movement. Organizations such as Oxfam's "Bridgehead" market products from developing countries that are traded on a fair basis, that is with good labour standards and fair prices. Consumers who wish to ensure that they consume goods traded on a fair basis have the opportunity through such organizations to shop in a morally responsible way by shopping through Bridgehead and similar organizations around the world.

The movement for better labelling and the growth of fair trade opportunities for Canadian consumers are developments that I am sure everyone wants to see flourish and expand. Child labour and other problems with international labour standards cannot and should not be solved by conscientious consumers alone.

In the first place, the multinationals have an extremely powerful advertising industry with an awesome grip on our popular culture that they use to hide the social context of how their goods are produced in developing countries.

For every Craig Kielburger who may prod the conscience of Canadians or the Prime Minister by getting a few minutes on The National , there are dozens of sport celebrities with ready-made public reputations who are used by the multinationals to market their goods. It is not really a fair contest and the gap between the millions paid to the sports star to endorse a running shoe in a 30-second ad made in an Asian sweat shop, and the pennies paid to the child labourer to manufacture that shoe in a lifetime of miserable drudgery, has got to be one of the most eloquent condemnations of the new global economy.

The other reason we should not limit ourselves to consumer power is that we are not only consumers making decisions in the marketplace, we are also citizens. We are citizens of a state that is in a position to take action itself, and as a participant in international agencies that are in a position to take effective action toward the elimination of child labour.

Canadians want to know that their government is doing all that it can to play a constructive part in international efforts on child labour. Unfortunately, the Canadian government has not done all that it could do. In spite of being shamed into mouthing some reassuring rhetoric, the policy of the government on child labour has been hands off. It has been content to have the problem studied by the OECD and the ILO. But in its opposition to having the World Trade Organization, the one body that sets trade rules, have anything to do with human rights or labour standards or environmental standards, the government has consistently sided with those who want trade rules to be blind and deaf to child labour and other human rights abuses. Nor has the Canadian government taken any action on its own to restrict the importation of goods made with child labour.

What are we to make of the government's decision to condemn child labour but permit it in trade deals, to study the problem but not to take action? There are, I think, some unstated assumptions behind the government's inaction: that child labour is an inevitable and inescapable part of the development process; that it is necessary for the children of developing countries to suffer under child labour until their societies properly adjust to globalization; and that in the future the practice of child labour will disappear as the developing economies become more prosperous just as child labour disappeared in Europe and North America.

There are two things terribly wrong with this unfounded confidence in the inevitability of economic progress. The first is its blindness to the fact that much child labour in developing societies has been an outgrowth of so-called economic progress. Child labour is not some old uneconomic social custom that liberal economic practices will eventually dissolve. Child labour has grown as a result of trade liberalization. It is how many societies

have responded to trade liberalization. It will continue to grow as long as low labour costs remain the main source of competitive advantage for developing countries with no labour standards.

The second thing wrong with this optimism is its misreading of the history of child labour in western societies. Child labour did not wither away in Canada as a result of economic progress. It was abolished as a result of the outrage of citizens who thought it was immoral to allow businesses to exploit children, an outrage that eventually forced governments to regulate the workplace and set labour standards to protect children.

If we are to make any headway against child labour in the developing world today, there must be a recognition that it will not happen without the setting and enforcement of legal standards to protect the rights of children. In the current context of globalization, the international community will have to play a role in ensuring that those labour standards are in place.

Let us imagine what would happen if we treated the rights of the multinationals with the same lackadaisical inaction that we treated the rights of children. For example, an integral part of the new world trading rules of the World Trade Organization is the protection of the intellectual property of multinationals. Pharmaceutical companies want to have full rights to the value of their drugs and entertainment companies do not want independents bootlegging their CDs or videos.

Imagine a situation where governments said to the multinationals as they are saying to child labourers: "We think your rights should be respected, but to actually make trade rules that enforce your rights would destroy trade. But do not worry. We are studying the problem in the OECD and in any case, as these countries become more prosperous by exploiting your intellectual property they will gradually come to respect your rights. Just be patient, it is just a matter of waiting for the proper adjustments to take place". The multinationals would not tolerate it. They would laugh in the face of any government that offered such an argument.

The trouble is the multinationals have the power to laugh in the faces of governments and child labourers do not. As a result, governments have worked hard to protect the multinationals' interests. China's lack of regulation of black market CDs and videos has kept it out of the WTO. Canadian governments protect multinational drug company interests with drug patent legislation. However, these same governments, the Canadian government among them, have refused to put enforceable clauses on labour rights in international trade agreements. It is the utter powerlessness of children in the face of the very powerful multinational corporations that exploit them that imposes on governments an inescapable moral obligation to defend their rights.

Governments can do two things. They can work together in international organizations to pay as much attention to human rights as economic interests when developing international economic agreement. This could take the form of social clauses in trade agreements. It could take the form of a new mandate for the International Labour Organization to enforce its agreements and conventions. Or it could take the form of a new United Nations body, an economic security council to parallel the existing security council. Whatever the mechanism, it is vital that human rights and labour standards be a central part of the international trade agenda.

Governments can also take independent action. This brings me to the specifics of my motion today. Governments can on their own initiative regulate the trade in goods made by children in contravention of International Labour Organization conventions. My motion today asks the government to take the kind of measure which would compel importers to make a declaration that the goods they are importing were not manufactured by child labour.

It would be important in designing the measures to stipulate that importers would have to attest that their suppliers did not exploit child labour in the manufacture of a product. It is common practice not to hire children themselves but to contract out production to local manufacturers that in turn make use of child labour.

The main advantage of this kind of approach to combating child labour is that it puts the regulatory sophistication of a developed country like Canada at the disposal of a problem of underdevelopment.

Many individual governments of developing countries are making efforts to introduce regulations to protect children. Many such countries do not have the resources to police regulations on child labour however well intended those regulations may be. Developed countries like Canada have an obligation to help the governments of developing countries prevent multinationals from trading in goods made by children.

Measures by the Canadian government to prohibit the importation of goods made with child labour would put the burden of proof on the large importers and retailers to establish that they have not imported goods made with child labour. The costs of regulation would therefore be shouldered by the corporations themselves.

Some will say that we cannot help child labourers by cutting them off from their source of employment which after all would in most cases be a crucial part of their family's subsistence income. In this regard, some observers have noted that the very success of the Rugmark program in raising public awareness of child labour has hurt child labourers in Bangladesh where firms exporting to

western Europe and North America no longer employ children. Child labour may be exploitative, it has been argued, but for the very poor in very poor societies at least it allows for survival and we would be wrong to remove an opportunity for families to support themselves.

The immediate impact of a successful cessation in international trade in goods made with child labour is something the international community must address. It must do so with a commitment to relate with developing countries in more ways than through liberalized markets. To argue that we should not stop the trade in goods made with child labour because it will harm the standard of living of the poor is to be blind to the fact that the international community can do much more for the very poor than purchase products made by their children.

As everyone involved in international development knows, access to primary education is one of the keys to development. International communities should be helping the very poor by building schools for their children, not by buying trinkets made by their children.

At this point, I would seek the unanimous consent of the House that my motion be voted on at the end of the hour.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[An hon. member]

No.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the record to show that pursuant to a letter I received from the deputy government House leader, it was the government that denied unanimous consent to my request.

[Ron MacDonald, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to personally commend the member opposite for continuing to put before the public in this House of Commons the very important issue of the exploitation of child labour. He has spoken very passionately about the issue for a very long time. There are others in the House who share his point of view. I think the House would like to recognize that.

The reason unanimous consent was denied is not that anyone in this House believes that this issue should not be dealt with but perhaps it was the method of dealing with it. The hon. member's motion in and of itself is very commendable and touches part of the problem but many of us believe the problem is much larger. Those of us who have been in this place for a while know that sometimes there is only one kick at the can on these things. If a motion which only addresses a small part of the problem gets on the agenda and is dealt with, it will be a very long time before parliamentarians are asked to deal with the broader issues in a more substantive manner.

The member knows full well that these issues are dealt with by the procedure and House affairs committee. The bills and motions are drawn. Very many worthwhile private members' bills and motions come up and in its wisdom, that operating committee determines which will be votable. That committee has representatives from the Reform Party, the Liberal Party and the Bloc Quebecois. It decides on the votable items. It does not mean that certain issues are not important but that the committee does not believe they are issues which at that point should be dealt with.

Before I start my brief remarks in support of what the member has put forward today, I am in an unusual position. I am representing the government which believes that this motion, although the intent of it is very commendable, does not deal with the issue broadly enough.

To the member opposite, a letter was sent by our acting House leader to Mr. Craig Kielburger. The House leader said: "As deputy leader of the government in the House, I am prepared to discuss with Mr. Blaikie ways and means of asking the House to pronounce itself on this issue in the very near future. This will have to be done in an orderly process in consultation with parliamentary leaders of all parties". Although consent has not been given for this to be a votable motion, the deputy leader of the government in the House of Commons on behalf of the government has indicated support for the initiative that has been put forward and has put an offer to the member to deal with it expeditiously.

Indeed, the people in the House and across the country will recognize that no less than the Prime Minister of Canada has indicated by public statements abroad, by statements outside of this place and also in the speech from the throne that this is an issue the government takes very seriously. It is an issue on which the government wishes to find a forum to deal with it very quickly.

The Government of Canada is fully committed to action to end this abuse and to work co-operatively at all levels to ensure the elimination of conditions which limit the chance for all children to achieve their full potential.

The validity of the goal underlining the motion is not in doubt. In fact, there is a great deal of logic to the idea that by making the products of child labour unprofitable, the practice will stop. Action against imports is an area where the government continues to struggle in considering the most effective way it can act on its throne speech commitments to child rights and protection and its

fundamental conviction that economic activity and human rights must occur in tandem.

The debate is about whether prohibiting the import of goods made by child labour in and of itself will actually achieve the goal sought. A number of criteria have led the government deliberations on this issue.

Is this action likely to be effective? Will it go as far as the government believes it will have to go in ending the practice? Labour practices which exploit and harm children present a dilemma of the worst and defining problems of underdevelopment; poverty, failed government, weak democratic institutions, just to name a few. Child labour is also a matter of culture and traditional social practice and a response to family poverty and a lack of access to education. Simply banning the import of goods that are made by child labour does not really deal with the fundamental underlying issues.

In well over 90 per cent of the cases, children work in domestic rather than export oriented activities. Therefore 90 per cent of the activities would go unchecked. Import restrictions would not touch these millions of children, nor would they affect the conditions of underdevelopment which allow abusive practices to continue. Development is a key to ending such practices.

There is evidence to conclude that import bans do not effectively reduce the problems associated with export products, as hard as they try. Rather they would drive the children who have been thrown out of the factories into potentially even more dangerous situations. Employers ready to use such practices are devious, determined and skilled. Other children will be found and their practices probably better disguised.

Canada has made significant advances internationally toward encouraging and implementing a rules based multilateral and open trading system. It is the view of Canada that only by working multilaterally with other governments through international organizations, trade organizations, banks, et cetera, that we can truly deal in an expeditious fashion with the horrendous practice of exploitation of child labour.

We have to look at the selection of the best alternatives to end child abuse. It is the view of the government that the most effective use of Canadian policy to end child labour would be: one, through long term development of co-operation aimed at meeting basic human needs, reducing poverty and promoting good governance; and two, through multilateral actions reflecting Canada's fundamental commitments to human rights and to just, equitable and a rules based trade and labour standard system.

CIDA currently spends about $1 million per day directly addressing the development and protection of the needs of children. A number of these programs are aimed at expressly eliminating the causes of child labour, alleviating its most harmful effects and rehabilitating its victims. The Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of National Defence and CIDA are also paying attention to the plight of child soldiers and to children in the context of post-conflict reconstruction and transition economies where child employment, often physically very dangerous, is tolerated and encouraged as acceptable features of rebuilding social and economic conditions.

Through CIDA and human resources development and with active policy support from foreign affairs, Canada has provided a grant of $700,000 to the international program for the elimination of child labour, to implement training to that end based on and in conjunction with countries that have committed to end the practice in their own back yards.

The result of this project will feed directly into conferences to be held in Norway and The Netherlands later this year. These conferences will include over 30 developing and developed countries, including Canada, which will seek to produce real action plans to deal with the real problems of child labour.

Canada was active in the decision of the International Labour Organisation to initiate a new convention to eliminate the most harmful forms of child labour. Foreign affairs and human resources development continue to work closely toward the pending June ILO conference which has child labour as its central theme. The government is also exploring means of providing better consumer education and is working with the private sector and community groups to that end.

Building on the determination of Canadians to play an active role through their governments is a very key part of our commitment. Acting on our commitment in the throne speech, foreign affairs and justice have tabled an act to amend Canada's Criminal Code to permit the prosecution of Canadians who engage in child sex tourism, which is the most heinous form of child labour abuse.

Canada is also working to ensure successful adoption of the optional protocol to the rights of the child concerning the sale of children, child pornography and child prostitution, activities which do not take place only in foreign countries. Unfortunately they also take place on the streets of cities and towns across Canada.

We have also participated in the Americas regional consultation and have contributed substantively to the draft declaration of action in preparation for the conference on commercial sexual exploitation of children to be held in Sweden in August, to which we will be an active participant.

We are learning through like minded countries and through our own experience that success is most assured where multiple approaches which stress local participation in poverty reduction, child care, education and broadly based job creation for youth and adults are emphasized, and where efforts are made on the

multilateral level to implement rules based trade and core labour standards.

The government supports the initiative of the hon. member. However, the government has committed itself in the throne speech and in statements made by cabinet members, in particular by the Prime Minister, to taking its limited resources, its goodwill and its international reputation to the international community to deal with this very real problem.

It is my hope that the offer which has been put forward by our deputy House leader to the hon. member will be taken up quickly. Perhaps in a very short period of time we will find the proper forum and the proper opportunity to have all members of this place participate in the debate to deal with the very far reaching problem of abusive child labour.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to tell you that we will be supporting the bill introduced by the hon. member from the NDP, and we hope that this bill will be made votable.

I would like to mention that a few days ago a delegation of Canadian parliamentarians, including myself, went to Geneva to take part in the international conference on human rights. As part of this conference, we visited the International Labour Organisation.

I find it strange, to say the least, that the government is refusing to make this bill votable, because, and I will have an opportunity to explain this in some detail, the point was brought home to us, as Canadian parliamentarians, in figures we were given showing the International Labour Organisation's estimates of the extent of child labour in various countries throughout the world.

I should perhaps read a definition provided by the International Labour Organisation: "We consider child labour to be any economic activity performed by a person under the age of 15, regardless of their professional status". There is a clear definition. It is the economic activity performed by a person under the age of 15-not very old really-regardless of their professional status.

The International Labour Organisation estimated that, worldwide, in 1990, there were 78 million children under the age of 15 engaged in economic activities. And of these 78 million, close to 70 million were between the ages of 10 and 14. I think it is important to keep these figures in mind.

It must be noted that there is, throughout the world and particularly within the large UN agencies, a growing awareness that it is no longer acceptable for 78 million of the world's children to find themselves in the situation of having to choose between education and work.

As the mover of the motion perhaps mentioned in his remarks, Asia now holds the record for the largest number of child labourers. Sometimes, we might think that this is the fate of developing countries, that this is a reality not found in industrialized countries. I myself asked the question when I travelled to Geneva with a number of my colleagues, and I learned that there were companies in Ontario that exploited children, young children that are hired, particularly from immigrant families. I was told that this is also true in the United States, our neighbour to the south.

In the case of Turkey, the International Labour Organisation has more specific estimates showing that in 1994 8.3 per cent of children in that country were economically active. I think that it is important to know, as Canadian parliamentarians, that this is not just a fate that befalls children unfortunate enough to have been born in developing countries.

As a further point of interest, it is also known that children in rural areas are twice as active economically as those in urban areas. Still more interesting, because this gives us some idea of what we will have to do, or what we will have to subscribe to, at the next conference in Norway, to which our colleague has referred. Three-quarters of children involved in economic activity in the various countries around the world, those who make up the 78 million figure I have referred to, are engaged in family businesses.

This adds to the difficulty we will be facing, since there are all sorts of considerations relating to family life, life in cramped conditions, in short to the connections between a child and his immediate family. Three-quarters of children engaged in economic activity are involved in a family business, in very specific sectors such as the textile, garment or rug industries, as the motion's sponsor has mentioned, particularly in Egypt and India. They are also involved in making shoes.

It is important to understand that a connection has to be made in the understanding we members of Parliament must have of this reality between access to education and child labour.

When in Geneva, we came to understand that in the developing countries enrolling a child in primary school can take one-third of a family's cash income. Many of the households in question have a number of school aged children. This is why the International Labour Organization, in parallel with its efforts to help us in the rich countries understand how important it is for us to have solidarity around future child labour legislation in these countries, is making us see how closely related the issue is to education.

We are, I think, capable of understanding this as members of Parliament, particularly those of us who are from Quebec. It is not all that long ago that we too have had to do a lot of catching up as a society in the area of education. It is only when the conditions for

access to primary school are also addressed that it becomes possible to militate against child labour.

Let me remind you that only 68 per cent of children in the world finish primary school, whereas the rate is 95 per cent in industrialized countries. I think these figures remind us of the whole relationship to be made between child labour and education. There is also of course a link, as the mover and the parliamentary secretary have pointed out, between child labour and family poverty. There is also a link between child labour and the overall wealth of a family.

In studies done by the International Labour Organization, especially for countries like Bangladesh and India, child labour is closely linked to family survival.

There is good reason why the International Labour Organization, through its director general in Geneva, has made it clear that, even within the UN, the issue is extremely sensitive. It is one that strongly divides the rich and the poor countries, because the poor countries are not necessarily prepared to pass legislation.

This takes us back to the question of the transfer of wealth. What is the recommendation of the International Labour Organization? It asks us to set up an international organization and to establish a regulatory framework to monitor this issue. It reminds us that concerned governments should take three basic steps.

The first, obviously, is to establish legislation on child labour. The second is to establish a national policy on child labour that would set public priorities and mobilize society as a whole. The ILO also reminds us that funding for a system of primary education guaranteeing access to quality schools for all children is absolutely vital if the battle is to be won.

I thank the NDP member for introducing the motion. I hope it will be made a votable item, and I want to assure my colleague that the Bloc Quebecois is very concerned about this issue.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to this motion which deals with a very serious and important topic, the exploitation of child labour.

We in the House should be doing whatever we can in the best interests of children who are forced into labour throughout the world. The member who put forward this motion genuinely believes, as we all do, that we must address this problem. In the course of my remarks I hope to outline a non-partisan way to find some answers to this problem.

While Motion No. M-189 makes a very strong statement by prohibiting the importation of goods manufactured through child labour, will it really improve the lives of the children we are talking about? I believe there are other solutions. I welcome what we have heard here tonight. It is certainly a start, but I think there is another approach which I will try to explain.

The main problem with implementing Motion No. M-189 is that many of the children who work in the developing world absolutely need the income to survive. If these kids lose their jobs right away without the simultaneous implementation of programs to feed, house and educate them, we would actually be hurting them, not helping them. This is not just my opinion. I have made a real attempt to try to get answers or at least some possible answers.

I thank the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville who has provided me with information from agencies such as UNICEF and some of the other NGOs around the world. These organizations have looked at this problem for a long time. They are there, they deal with it on a day to day basis. They know where it exists, how it exists and they know the abuses that occur and the evils of it.

This afternoon some of us had an opportunity to talk to five members from CCIC. It is an umbrella organization which tries to bring together the NGOs and put forth a common front not only to parliamentarians but to the donors, industry, labour and to all of the other areas.

I did not have a long time with those people but I did get the opportunity to present this motion to them. I said I would be giving a speech in a couple of hours and wanted to know what they thought of the overview of what I had to say. I was pleased that we were all are opposed to child exploitation but that we cannot jump right into it, that we must come up with a program, a complete package to deal with this problem. They tended to reinforce what my other research had demonstrated.

UNICEF officials oppose a ban on child labour because they have learned through experience how devastating the results of that can be. For example, just the threat of such a ban in the U.S. led to mass dismissals of children from garment factories in countries like Bangladesh. That is documented. They showed me the figures. They said this is proof and went on with a lot of other proof.

One official said the schools could not absorb them and every one of them ended up in more exploitive, more dangerous and less remunerative work. Some of these poor children were even forced into the sex trade because of the loss of their garment factory jobs.

This is not what Motion No. 189 seeks to achieve but it could be an unintentional byproduct. As a result I cannot support the motion as it is but I would suggest something further that might come up with a solution. I repeat, we all abhor the exploitation of children but we must have a back-up. We must have something else to offer.

Going back to the UNICEF study on this issue, those people surveyed over 2,000 garment factories that employ around 12,000 children. They found that almost 90 per cent of the children were from single parent households and homes where there had been a death or a disability. More than 50 per cent of the children were the sole supporters for those particular families.

In addition, often the children were girls who accompanied their mothers to the garment factory, and it was found that it was safer for them to be working alongside their mothers than if they were left home alone.

I also draw on some of my personal experience. I think back to a visit to Nepal where I had the opportunity to visit with a number of Tibetan children who were making rugs. I thought I would be there for 10 minutes but I ended up there for a couple of hours. The amazing part was that those kids they knew five languages. These were 12, 13 or 14-year old kids. They had gained that experience from talking to tourists, from selling their rugs. I asked them about what they were doing. The dedication they felt in producing those rugs, in selling those rugs, in raising that money for their families and for the refugees who were coming from Tibet was quite amazing.

I thought they would have been unhappy, angry about the situation, but it was quite different. I have been lucky to talk to kids in factories in Egypt, India and Rwanda, and it is the same sort of thing. I am not saying we should condone that. I am saying that before we put them out of a job, we need an alternative.

What might that be? Clearly the problem of child labour is complex. There is not an easy fix for it. A longer term solution which takes into account the needs of the children and their families is what we really need to do.

If the government would like to pursue such a solution through Canada's development aid program, perhaps to start off we could take a look at it in the foreign affairs committee, of which I am a member.

I do not think there would be anything more rewarding for that committee than to take on a project like this. We would be able to say instead of doing some of the meaningless work we do, let us talk about this child labour situation. Let us examine the facts. Let us come up with a solution. Maybe there is a better way.

Through the co-operation of the NGOs, and I know they would love us to get involved in a project like that, maybe we could collectively come up with an answer where our aid program, instead of going off to a government somewhere, could actually go to change lives.

If nothing else, we would give those kids the money it would take to go school, maybe at night at first. Maybe they would work during the day with their parents and then go to school at night. Maybe that is a possibility. However, we would help to better those kids.

I do not have all the answers. All I know is there is a problem here. We all agree there is a problem. I have heard all the speakers here agree. Maybe this is something that would be really meaningful that we as parliamentarians could put our stamp on and say we collectively, as Canadians, did this for those impoverished kids.

While I support the whole concept, I cannot support this motion. I know the member for Winnipeg Transcona has moved it with the best of intentions. That is why I would like to see the government take a long term, comprehensive approach to the problem of child labour.

I also suggest the foreign affairs committee would be an appropriate forum for holding these meetings on this topic, interview witnesses, make recommendations to government and hopefully come with a solution to this serious problem.