Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this report stage debate. I must say that if I were to believe everything that was being said about this bill, I would probably want to vote against it myself.
I heard reports today that it has something to do with adoption. It has nothing to do with adoption. Only the provinces can legislate with respect to adoption. Why would anyone in the House want to suggest to their constituents that it has something to do with adoption?
I have also heard today that this has something to do with the division of assets. Why would the House have anything to do with division of assets? That is clearly a provincial matter under our constitution. We could not legislate with respect to division of assets even if we wanted to. However, members opposite in the House today have spoken about division of assets. What a lot of nonsense.
The rhetorical question has been asked by one of the members opposite: What kind of society will we have? Just having listened to a number of speeches here this afternoon, if we follow the logic opposite, what we would have is the wrath of the majority against the minority. If we follow their line of reasoning, not only would the majority rise up against the minority but the majority could in fact rise up against aboriginal treaties, which are also part of our constitution. However, I dare say I could easily find a majority of Canadians who would prefer to eliminate treaties from being part of our constitution.
Let us look at where this law came from. This law came into effect because of a decision by the supreme court which said that this was the right, fair and equitable thing to do, notwithstanding it deals with a minority and notwithstanding the fact that it will not cost anyone any money for all the studies.
I have some questions for the members opposite who have spoken so vociferously, and might I say also viciously, against the minority covered by this bill. They may want to question their cousin, Mr. Long, one of Premier Harris' two chief advisors, who declared today that he will be running for the leadership of the Canadian Alliance. When he appears at their leadership convention they may want to ask him why somebody who purports to lead the Canadian Alliance would recommend that the Ontario government enact bill 5. Let us look at Bill 5. It amends 67 provincial statutes extending benefits under provincial law. Incidentally, Bill C-23 amends 68 statutes.
Let us also ask why they are suggesting to people that we are sneaking this through parliament, that we are rushing this through parliament. Let us ask Mr. Tom Long at the Canadian Alliance why the Ontario government passed it in three days. Not only did it pass into law in three days, Ontario proclaimed it in three days. Why or how could they purport to ascribe to a party where one of the would-be leaders has been part of this? It took three days in Ontario but five months before parliament and we are accused of sneaking it through. What a lot of nonsense.
Let us look at the whole idea of debate. At Queen's Park there were six speakers over three days. There was no vote. It passed on consent. No one will ever know at Queen's Park where Mr. Long resides, who opposed it or who voted in favour of it because all three, including their philosophical cousin, Mr. Harris of the Progressive Conservative Party in Ontario, put it through. According to the Toronto Star on October 27, 1999, Mr. Harris let it be known that anyone opposed to the bill should be absent from the House when it passed on consent.
What kind of society will we have? Will we have an exclusive or inclusive society. What I am hearing today is that we will exclude certain people who we, the majority, define as being different. We will have a society where the majority rises up and says to the minority “Sorry, we do not like you. You are different. We will not in any way deal with you. We will not recognize you and we will not give you benefits”.
It is about intolerance. We will tell people things that are patently not true. We will tell those people that the government is rushing this through parliament, but the record shows that it has taken five months here and only three days at Queen's Park. We will say that we never know who voted on it. Every vote here is recorded. What did we see at Queen's Park? We do not know who was for bill 5 or who was against it.
I need to ask again what kind of society they want. Do they want a society where the majority will dictate? Will we have polls for everything? Will we have some sort of grassroots—which is their term—discernment of what the majority wants? If they want to go on that basis they could eliminate Indian and aboriginal treaties in this country. They could eliminate all sorts of things in this country because the majority is either being told a pack of nonsense or the majority does not like the minority who appear to be different.
Aboriginal people appear to be different from many of us in this place. They have a different colour. I acknowledge that. However, the reality is that we have entered into constitutional agreements. That is not to say that they have special rights to the exclusion of all others. We have recognized that this is the right thing to do.
Let me go to something even more primitive or more fundamental. Let us look at Prince Edward Island which has four members of parliament. That was a constitutional guarantee. I guarantee I could find a majority in this country who would want to wipe out that constitutional privilege. Are they in some way enjoying more privileges than the rest of us in perhaps Ontario or, dare I say, Alberta? Prince Edward Island has a constitutional guarantee of four senators. There are only six senators for the province of Alberta. Is that to say that it has a privilege that Alberta does not have? That is absolutely correct. Why does the majority not rise up and eliminate that right? This is a situation where it is the right thing to do. Sometimes we have to do the right thing in this place.
This is not about having a society that turns its back on the majority. We would have people telling us that the majority wants to exclude certain people. If we followed the line of logic from the members opposite, what other minority groups in this country do we not like? I could undoubtedly find many other people who have been stereotyped as ones who should not receive benefits.
In the House a while back an amendment was made to the Canadian Human Rights Act, Bill C-33. Members opposite gave the same sort of rhetoric with regard to that bill. They indicated that we were attacking marriage. They said, if I heard them correctly, that this was a slippery slope.
I want the member for Wild Rose to ask one of the would-be leaders of the Canadian Alliance why Queen's Park sneaked bill 5 through in three days. It amended 67 provincial statutes. Members on the other side cannot have it both ways. Why do they not ask the member from Queen's Park, who supported it, the member of their cousin party, the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, who issues licences to ministers to perform marriages? It is not this government. It is the provincial government. If one were to follow their line of logic, who is attacking marriage?
Let me back up and look at the real attack on marriage, which occurred in 1974 and 1986 when laws were passed across Canada which stated that if people lived together it was the same as marriage. That was a provincial law and that, I would suggest to the House, was an attack on marriage. Being fair to people because they happen to live together and file their taxes together does not make them somehow different. If those members opposite ever became a majority, I would live in fear of the majority rising up against people they believe to be different.