Debates of May 9th, 1996

Point Of Order

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The member for Saint John raises a question that is of interest to all members of the House. Respectfully, I join each and every member in the House in asking the co-operation of all members, whether asking a question or giving a reply. If we can shorten them up on both sides we will get to more questions and more answers. That is something we endeavour to do each and every day. It is not a point of order but a point of information.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know whether the government whip is calling the vote tonight a free vote, and therefore whether you will be calling for the vote to be taken row by row.

As I understand it, under the standing orders a free vote such as a vote on Private Members' Business is taken row by row, whereas a government order and a non-free vote is taken party by party. That is what we would like clarified. We have received conflicting reports about whether it will be a free vote.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The rules of the House provide only for votes row by row on business originating from private members' motions unless there is unanimous consent. I suppose the House can do most anything through unanimous consent.

In terms of the standing orders, row by row votes are used only on private members' business.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have unanimous consent to table a letter addressed to me from Premier Ralph Klein wherein he confirms that he will be asking the Prime Minister to appoint a senator from Alberta to replace the late Senator Earl Hastings.

Such an appointment is to be given by the successful candidate in a senatorial election in accordance with the Senate Elections Act, 1989.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I believe the hon. member for Kootenay East has made his point. It would not be required to put that to unanimous consent.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I seek permission of the House to table a petition. I recognize this is not the hour for petitions but unfortunately I just received it. It is from a number of my constituents. I just received it from the clerk of petitions. It does deal with the legislation that is before the House.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The member and other members who are in possession of petitions regarding the matter which is before the House today have asked if they could present their petitions. Is there unanimous consent to revert to petitions in order that those petitions could be tabled?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[An hon. member]

It is certified.

[An hon. member]

The government whip said no.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order, please. There seems to be some discussion going on across the floor on the matter of whether a petition or petitions are certified. Let me put the proposition this way to the House. If in fact members have in their possession petitions that are certified, would we revert to presenting petitions? The hon. chief government whip.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish that whips would negotiate these things ahead of time in the usual manner.

If the hon. member has a duly certified petition, for the benefit of his constituents, yes, we will give consent for one petition. I understand there is also another member who has a similar petition which is also certified. We will agree to table those petitions, given the importance of the issue, providing they are certified.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Colleagues, this is a place of honour. I understand that members can also table their petitions by sending them directly to the table. However, in this case a request has been made.

This House is on the honour system. If the petitions are certified, is there unanimous consent that we revert to petitions?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Petitions

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Victoria—Haliburton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions from people in Victoria-Haliburton who are calling on Parliament not to pass into law any changes to the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms that would allow spousal benefits to same sex couples.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition to present from constituents in Erie riding. It reads in part:

Whereas a majority of Canadians believe that the privileges which society accords to heterosexual couples should not be extended to same sex relationships;

And whereas societal approval, including the extension of societal privileges, would be given to same sex relationships if any amendment to the Canadian

Human Rights Act were to include the undefined phrase "sexual orientation" as a grounds of discrimination;

Therefore your petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships-

[Morris Bodnar, Liberal, Saskatoon—Dundurn, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. The first petition has 30 signatures and asks that the human rights act not include sexual orientation.

The second petition has 452 signatures and asks that sexual orientation be included in the human rights legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, petitions are one of the oldest forms for our constituents to tell us about matters which concern them. I am pleased to present this petition on behalf of the people of my riding.

In the petition citizens of Canada draw to the attention of the House the following:

Whereas a majority of Canadians believe that the privileges which society accords to heterosexual couples should not be extended to same sex relationships;

And whereas societal approval, including the extension of societal privileges, would be given-

I would like to table the petition, Mr. Speaker.

[Philippe Paré, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the people of Quebec are appalled by the Canadian government's inaction in the Tran Trieu Quan case. These 5,000 petitioners are outraged by the incarceration of this-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order, please. I simply wanted to make sure hon. members understood we had an agreement to revert to petitions, but only if they related to the subject matter of the bill now before the House. Therefore we will get back to your petition some other day.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of constituents, 40 of whom live in Kitimat in my riding. They have presented the following petition: "We the undersigned citizens of Canada draw the attention of the House to the following: Whereas a majority of Canadians believe that the privileges which society accords to heterosexual couples should not be extended to same sex relationships; and whereas societal approval including the extension of societal privileges would be given to same sex relationships if any amendment to the human rights act were to include the undefined phrase of sexual orientation as a grounds of discrimination; therefore your petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or homosexuality, including amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase of sexual orientation".

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I know there has been an understanding to revert to petitions. I would ask for members' co-operation to get to the substance of the matter.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the House for the opportunity to present this petition. It has 127 names which can be added to over 100,000 names which are already on record with regard to this issue. I will condense the preamble. It states that the Holy Scriptures very clearly state that homosexual and alternative lifestyles are not acceptable and are wholly abhorrent to normal family life and it is clear that homosexual and alternative lifestyles have created a medical scourge in Canada. Therefore the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to totally reject any inclusion of the words "sexual orientation" in any act, code or bill.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-33, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, be read the third time and passed; and of the amendment.