House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 48% of the vote.
Canadian Human Rights Act May 8th, 1996
moved:
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-33, in Clause 1, be amended a ) by replacing line 19, on page 1, the following:
"2.(1) The purpose of this Act is to extend the"; b ) by adding, after line 33, on page 1, the following:
"2.(2) For all purposes of this Act, marital status and family status shall not be construed or interpreted by any court or tribunal so as to mean or include two or more unrelated persons of the same sex."
Canadian Human Rights Act May 8th, 1996
moved:
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-33, in Clause 1, be amended a ) by replacing line 19, on page 1, the following:
"2.(1) The purpose of this Act is to extend the"; b ) by adding, after line 33, on page 1, the following:
"2.(2) For all purposes of this Act, sexual orientation means, only, heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality and refers only to consenting adults acting within the law."
Canadian Human Rights Act May 8th, 1996
moved:
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-33, in the Preamble, be amended by adding after line 12, on page 1, the following:
"And whereas the Government acknowledges that the term "family", for the purpose of this legislation, means heterosexual couples and their natural or adopted issue;
And whereas the Government acknowledges that "family", as the term is so limited herein, occupies an irreplaceable role in the procreation and nurturing of children, upon which the future of our society depends;".
Canadian Human Rights Act May 8th, 1996
moved:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-33, in the Preamble, be amended by replacing lines 8 to 12, on page 1, with the following:
"And whereas the Government recognizes and affirms the importance of the traditional, heterosexual institution of marriage and family as the foundation of Canadian society and that nothing in this Act alters its fundamental role in society."
Canadian Human Rights Act May 8th, 1996
moved:
Motion No. 18
That Bill C-33, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 8, on page 2, the following:
"3.(2) For greater certainty, nothing in Sections 2 or 3 of this Act shall be construed by any court or tribunal in such a way as to add, read in, or include the words sexual orientation in Section 16 of this Act."
Canadian Human Rights Act May 7th, 1996
Madam Speaker, on a point of order. This is not third reading debate, as you are well aware. This is debate on specific amendments contained in Group No. 1 with respect to amendments to Bill C-33. None of them pertains to any sort of history of the crusades or anything like that. I ask that you call the member to order and have her address the motions listed in Group No. 1.
Canadian Human Rights Act May 7th, 1996
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have been here since 10 a.m. and the hon. member for Central Nova has been here since approximately 10.10 a.m. and has attempted to seek the eye of the Chair since that time. She has been in her seat all this time, certainly before the hon. member for Halifax came. I would ask as a matter of courtesy that you recognize her.
Canadian Human Rights Act May 7th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, thank you for the clarification. I was under the impression that one could speak to the motions so I would ask for unanimous consent to address my Motion No. 18.
Canadian Human Rights Act May 7th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I was quite prepared to wait my turn since mine is the last motion in the group and there are four other motions, but I will take the opportunity to stand.
Canadian Human Rights Act May 7th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the mover of the motion. He made some very good points, one of which I believe is absolutely critical. He enunciated the concerns of Canadians, that is, the potential ramifications which are not stated in the bill and for which there are all kinds of assurances outside of the bill.
The hon. member discussed discrimination. Clearly Canadians do not support discrimination. Clearly Canadians want to ensure that no one is discriminated against. The point is the potential ramifications outlined by the hon. member.
What disturbs me follows from the attempts which were made by the hon. member to find out why the words were changed. This statute has been in place for many years. It has been interpreted by the courts, based on the language in the act. All of a sudden, at the same time that those two contentious words are being added, we are being asked to change other wording in section 2.
The hon. member tells us that he attempted to find out the legal rationalization for making those changes. He tells us that the justice department was unable to give him any legal rationalization. Indeed, I would suggest that there is no rationalization for making those changes, unless it is to do precisely what the hon. member suggests, to address groups instead of individuals.
The problem is that we have not yet heard anyone from the justice department express a clear reason why these words are being changed. In the absence of a clear reason to change a statute which is already in place and which has been judicially interpreted, I believe there is no clear reason to change the words. Therefore, I am in complete support of the motion put forward by the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth. I await a justification, from either the parliamentary secretary or the Minister of Justice, for this change in words and a convincing argument why we should accept these words as opposed to leaving section 2 as it now stands, with the exception of the addition of the words sexual orientation.
I repeat, if there is no reason to make the change, there is no reason to vote for the change. I support the amendment of the hon. member.