Mike Scott

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 8th, 1996]

It is unbelievable and it is unacceptable. This is not democracy. This is a minister who has a very narrow agenda. He is imposing his will not only on the Canadian people, but on his colleagues as well. I am sure most of them did not want to see the legislation come before the House and certainly do not want to support it. However, this is the way democracy works in Canada today.

It calls into question the parliamentary process and underlines the need for the changes that the Reform Party of Canada has proposed. But I will not get into that right now. I will stay on the subject.

The justice minister has admitted in his public statements that Bill C-33 will lead to special status. I do not have his quote in front of be, so I will paraphrase: "Obviously, when you recognize the sexual orientation aspect of this bill it must lead to same sex benefits and the recognition of marital status". It cannot help but do that.

The justice minister knows it full well because he said it. He is the representative of the Canadian public on justice matters. He cannot stand now and tell the Canadian people that that is not what the bill is all about. I know we are not allowed to use certain words in the House, and it is unfortunate because sometimes those words are needed to describe the actions of some members.

I have received in my office about 180 calls and faxes from constituents. They have said very clearly and overwhelmingly: "Do not support this legislation. Vote against it". On the other side I got one phone call in the last two weeks saying: "I want you to support this legislation". All the rest have said no. We are receiving petitions daily.

The government is trying to ram and stuff this legislation through the House so quickly that members cannot get petitions through the clerk of petitions fast enough to get them into the House before the legislation becomes law. How can this be called a

democracy when people do not even get a chance to express their opinions by petitioning the government and have the petitions duly noted and recorded before the legislation becomes reality?

What is going on with this legislation? It does not stand the light of day. It is what gives Parliament a bad name. It is what the Liberals ranted and railed about when they were in opposition and the Conservatives invoked closure and time allocation time after time. Now, when they are the government they are doing exactly the same thing. Obviously, they were crying crocodile tears back then. They have no real commitment to democracy. They have no real commitment to opening up the House and allowing proper debate to take place. They have no real inclination to move with the Canadian people on these issues. They want to impose their vision on the Canadian people.

There is a gulf between the vision of this government and its cabinet and the vision of the Canadian people. A gulf is widening in many ways. This is another example. It is undermining the faith of ordinary Canadians in their government and in the system.

I submit that as long as we continue down this road that gulf will widen even more and the Canadian people will become more disillusioned. I also submit, as I have said many times in the House, this government by these actions, by this arrogant, top down social engineering attitude is going to destroy itself. It has to face the voters in the next election. It will have to explain to ordinary Canadians why it invoked time allocation and closure and why it rammed this legislation through the House of Commons, why it ignored the wishes of ordinary Canadians right across Canada. It will pay the price.

In the meantime, it is certainly a sad day for our nation that the government is moving with as much speed as I have ever seen on any piece of legislation to ram this through and make it a done deal before Canadians even realize what is going on.

I conclude by saying what I said to the reporter. Politics in Canada in 1996 is a dirty, rotten, slimy business.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 8th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, recently I was interviewed by a reporter from a major newspaper in western Canada. It was an extended interview and she asked me about my experience as a politician and a parliamentarian.

I explained to her that I had never been a politician before 1993, that it was the first time I had been elected to anything. When she asked me how I found politics I frankly told her that I certainly had had my eyes opened in the last two and one-half years. She kept at me asking me what I meant and what kind of experience it had been for me. I told her that to be bluntly honest, politics is a dirty, rotten, slimy business in Canada. When she asked me to explain, I said I could not think of a better way to illustrate and underline that than what was going on with Bill C-33.

Hundreds and hundreds of letters and phone calls and faxes are coming from people from all over Canada to my office and to all the members' offices in Ottawa, to my constituency office and even to my home. The only other piece of legislation that has caused as much of an uproar in my constituency as this legislation has is Bill C-68 which as my colleague pointed out also came from this same minister.

At least on Bill C-68, we had the opportunity for a full and open debate. Yes, the government adopted legislation that flew in the face of what a majority of Canadians wanted. Yes, the government forced its will on the people, but at least there was the opportunity for the bill to be debated in public for an extended period time. The justice committee had an opportunity to examine the legislation and propose amendments to it and to call witnesses. It was a protracted debate. At least there was an opportunity for Canadians to express their widespread opposition to it. Unfortunately in the end, it went through but at least the process was adhered to.

In this instance, a piece of legislation is being rammed through this House of Commons without debate. The government is trying to get this legislation passed before Canadians wake up and realize what is going on.

The government would like to have it a done deal before it has to face the music. Those who write editorials have not even had a chance to pick at this and highlight some of the discrepancies in the minister's statements and some of the discrepancies in what the legislation purports to do and actually will do. The government wants to have this all a done deal, put away in the closet before Canadians wake up.

This bill is not about discrimination. As my colleague who also asked, show us where there is a problem with discrimination against homosexuals in Canada. Show us where this kind of legislation is required. It does not exist.

This legislation is not about equality. It is about inequality. It is about special status. In the minister's own words, he says one thing to one group of people, one special interest group and then he stands up in front of all Canadians and says something completely different. He tells the gay community: "This is a major win for you guys". Then he tells Canadians: "Do not worry, this is basically window dressing. It is an amendment to the human rights code so that there is no discrimination against gay and lesbian people".

Clearly, there is a real hypocrisy going on behind the scenes that will not stand the light of day. I spoke with people outside on the steps of this House who are protesting what is going on in here. They know full well the hypocritical remarks the minister has made, the duplicity of the government's bill and its attempt to ram it through without debate, invoking closure time and again.

[Fisheries, May 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the minister that on March 29 he said: "A reduction of 50 per cent of the commercial fleet in British Columbia is necessary to promote conservation of the resource. Conservation is our top priority".

Two days ago in the House he said: "The plan may not result in fewer fish caught". He admitted the plan is a complete failure even before it starts, yet his government is recklessly going ahead with it anyway.

Why is the government pursuing a plan that will destroy the livelihoods of thousands of fishermen and B.C. coastal communities when the minister has admitted in the House that the plan will not work?

[Fisheries, May 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

On March 29 in a press release the minister said conservation was the purpose of the B.C. fisheries buy back. As recently as two days ago the minister did a flip-flop and admitted his plan has no teeth and will not do anything to conserve salmon.

We would think that with that admission he would reconsider the plan before turning the lives of fishermen in British Columbia upside down. Will the minister admit conservation was just a cynical excuse to sell his plan?

[Salmon Stocks, May 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the delegation to which the minister's representative refers has told the committee and the members of Parliament that the measures in the Mifflin plan will not conserve salmon in British Columbia. The minister admitted as much in the House yesterday in response to a question from this party.

His admission flies in the face of what the minister said when he announced the plan in March. He emphatically told British Columbians that conservation was the overall objective, and now he admits it is not.

Why is the government spending all its bloated bureaucratic energy on a plan that does not stop the pie from shrinking, but just gives bigger pieces to fewer people?

[Salmon Stocks, May 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

B.C. salmon stocks are rapidly shrinking. Fraser River stocks are almost gone and this year's Alaskan catch will severely hurt our northern runs. One would think the government's plan would include a strategy to save the salmon but it does not. The minister of fisheries is fiddling with licences while the B.C. fishery burns.

My question for the minister is very simple. Will his plan preserve salmon stocks in British Columbia or not?

[Fisheries, April 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the minister talks about cuts. The government has cut the salmon hatcheries in British Columbia in the face of a crisis.

The minister's new licensing policy has nothing whatsoever to do with conservation. It does not put the fish first and it certainly does not put B.C.'s coastal communities first. Over all, fish harvesting capacity will remain the same, just concentrated in fewer hands.

Will the minister guarantee when his new licensing policy fails to reduce the total fish harvest in B.C. and after he has sacrificed the futures of fishermen in B.C. coastal communities, that he and his government will accept responsibility for that?

[Fisheries, April 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of fisheries.

The government cost of fisheries management in Iceland is $24 per tonne of fish landed. In Norway it is $85 per tonne of fish landed. In Canada it is $455 per tonne of fish landed. In spite of this massive expenditure, DFO has been unable either to predict or prevent the fisheries crises on both coasts.

As the fisheries minister is demanding a 50 per cent reduction in the B.C. salmon fleet, is he going to cut his bureaucracy by 50 per cent as well?

[Fisheries, April 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister is not aware that there was a delegation of people here from British Columbia yesterday representing half a million commercial fishermen, people in small communities who do not agree with his plan.

When I asked him the other day if he would set quotas before implementing the buy back he said "regrettably not." What is regrettable is the total disregard the government and the minister continually show for the fishermen on the west coast.

The minister has the power to delay the buy back until the quotas are set. Why he is refusing to do so I do not know. Why is he refusing to ensure the stability of the industry and the stable income of families that depend on the fishery?

[Fisheries, April 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

The west coast fishery is being assaulted by the minister. Fishermen are being told to sell their licences back before the government discloses what the fish harvest quota will be.

Fishermen cannot possibly make a rational decision about whether to get out of business when they are not being told how many fish they will be able to catch. This is more than absurd, it is an insult.

On behalf of fishermen whose livelihoods are at stake, will the minister delay the buy back until the fishermen know the future of fish quotas in British Columbia?