Stan Keyes

[Hamilton-Shawinigan Sesquicentennial, May 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, 1996 marks the 150th birthday of my hometown, Hamilton, Ontario.

Today in honour of Hamilton's sesquicentennial, His Worship Robert M. Morrow, mayor of the great city of Hamilton, and son honneur Lise Landry, mayor of the right honourable Prime Minister's hometown of Shawinigan, Quebec, announced the official launch of the Hamilton-Shawinigan sesquicentennial weekend initiative.

From June 29 to July 1, 150 families from Shawinigan will be invited to stay and visit with families in Hamilton, to renew and strengthen the cultural and social bonds between my hometown and its first twinned city, Shawinigan. The event will foster understanding, communication and mutual respect on a grassroots personal level between the proud Canadians living in Hamilton and Shawinigan.

It is my hope that this display of good natured Canadian fellowship will inspire similar projects throughout our great country.

It is with great pride and enthusiasm that I say long live Hamilton and vive Shawinigan.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 9th, 1996]

And married says the hon. member, proudly.

My best friend in my riding was married once and divorced. The lady he lives with was married once and divorced. They both had two beautiful children from each of their previous marriages. They came together to live and reared those children from the ages of 10 until today those four children are now gone. They have left the nest, as they say, and have gone on to become productive members of society. They have gone on to do what they have to do to get jobs and get an education. That now leaves my best friend, who is divorced and not married, living with his lady friend. Does that make them any less of a family in the member's eyes? Is this couple, who have brought up their children from previous mar-

riages and have been living under the same roof for over a decade, not a family?

One can imagine if we had to try to define what is a family. Is a single mom living with her daughter not a family? I can understand the complications that would come about as a result of trying to make that kind of a definition.

Again even I find myself straying from the main point which is that the purpose of the bill is strictly an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act. Let us deal with it for what it is and not what hon. members opposite might want it to be.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard the comments of the member opposite and of many of his colleagues. I can only conclude we are witness to the ill intentioned conversing with the ill informed. That is precisely why we are bringing forward this kind of legislation.

The legislation before us has nothing to do with all the peripheral items the members opposite and those who are ill informed in the community are trying to bring forward. They are trying to make something out of this bill, out of the amendment that is just not there.

Why not see the amendment to this bill for what it is? Why not recognize that in today's society we have to deal with communities fairly and forthrightly? The amendment does precisely that, and that is all it does.

Members opposite can try to drag in all types of different arguments, for example arguments on what constitutes the family. Can the member opposite provide for me a definition of family? We heard it from the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam, man, woman, child or children.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this has become an extremely controversial debate. However, my constituents in Hamilton West will know I have never shied away from addressing important issues such as this one.

They will know I have consulted with many of them and I have read their correspondence. My constituents know where their MP stands on the issues.

My constituents are entitled to know my position on Bill C-33. Therefore I consider it a privilege in the House today to clarify my reasons for voting in favour of the proposed amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Amid the current angst over same sex relationships and other related issues, it seems rational considerations have been overshadowed by narrow minded, sometimes self-righteous statements from some members in this place. As opposed to embracing one of the conveniently packaged positions, for example the news headlines that scream out right wing fundamentalist homophobe or gay rights activist, it is worthwhile to examine Bill C-33 for what it is. It is an act to amend the human rights act.

It is truly unfortunate that the central focus of the bill has been distorted by other peripheral issues. In recent days I, like many of the other members in the House, have received phone calls and letters from individuals in my riding who have some very passionate but often ill informed views on this issue.

As a member of Parliament I am concerned about the general welfare of my constituents. Consequently from time to time I, like many of my colleagues on this side of the House, do everything I can to help my constituents address various needs and deficiencies related to the federal government and federally regulated services and operations.

In keeping with this I am primarily concerned with identifying how the proposed legislation, the bill before us today, will help us ensure federally regulated workplaces are tolerant and free from unwarranted discrimination.

I take this opportunity to address some of the specific concerns raised in various letters I have received from my constituents with respect to Bill C-33. For example, in their letter John and Judy wrote: "It is only used to promote tolerance for a particular lifestyle today. What will it protect tomorrow, pedophilia, incest? Also, we feel it will break down the family unit which God has instituted from the very beginning. Why should we pay for benefits for same sex couples when our country is in debt already?"

Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation. It is a crime. It is a crime regardless of whether the offender is heterosexual or homosexual. The suggestion that pedophilia may be read into the phrase sexual orientation has no legal basis.

Seven provinces have had similar wording entrenched in human rights legislation for almost two decades. In that time the term of sexual orientation has never been used as a defence against criminal charges of pedophilia. Clearly pedophilia would not be protected by human rights legislation under any circumstances.

With regard to the definition of the family, no changes are planned or necessary as a result of this amendment.

On the issue of same sex spousal benefits, the amendment will not extend same sex benefits to partners of gays and lesbians. On this point it should be noted that in Egan v. Canada the Supreme Court of Canada held unanimously that sexual orientation is a prohibited ground of discrimination under the equality provision, section 15, of the charter. In that case the court also held that such discrimination did not support the extension of pension benefits to same sex partners.

In another letter, Ruth wrote: "I do not desire the bill to be made law that gives homosexuals equal rights to be married and adopt children".

First of all, marriage and adoption fall under provincial jurisdiction. This amendment deals with discrimination in employment, accommodation and provision of services, and nothing else. It does not condone or condemn homosexuality or heterosexuality.

In his letter, Norman wrote: "This addition removes the right of upright individuals to teach and practise moral convictions based on the truth of the Holy Bible simply to accommodate individuals practising the most loathsome, unnatural and filthy lifestyle".

On the same point, Paul wrote: "In all probability it will be illegal to teach, even in places of worship, that homosexuality is immoral, even though this is clearly the doctrine of many faiths, including Christianity".

It should be noted, however, that churches, religious organizations and schools are not under the federal jurisdiction. The amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act will not affect the way they teach or the way they operate.

Throughout this debate there has been confusion with the provision of special privileges or immunities and prohibiting discrimination. The bill represents the latter and not the former. The Canadian Human Rights Act and the amendment we are speaking of today are intended to prohibit acts of discrimination based on, among other things, age, race, religion, colour and sexual orientation.

As evidenced by the recent racist and homophobic remarks uttered by several members in the Reform Party, it appears we need legislation just like this in order to illustrate in very clear terms our distaste for discrimination and the rejection of racist and homophobic attitudes in society.

Once again to be clear, the purpose of this legislation is to make certain that workplaces in federally regulated industries are tolerant and free of unwarranted discrimination. The clear majority of Canadians support this amendment and have for many years according to various opinion polls. Most people do not even consider the issue to be extremely controversial.

I am proud my colleagues on this side of the House and some of the more progressive members opposite have shown such overwhelming support for the government's attempts to protect the basic human rights of our fellow citizens.

In the first session of the 35th Parliament the government passed legislation to toughen sentences for hate crimes and moved to address the needs of vulnerable communities in society. Not only does the government realize that discrimination exists in society, but we are ready, willing and able to deal with it head on through the legislative process.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1996, April 25th, 1996]

You see, Mr. Speaker, I guess good news hurts. I continue with more good news on the budget. Our balanced and fair approach has to be recognized, a far cry from what we have been hearing over there of let us get that budget down to zero, and the sooner the better.

I have asked the member for Wild Rose what he would cut. What social programs would have to suffer as a result of their mad desire to reduce deficit and thereby the national debt to zero? Canadians from coast to coast would endure pain never felt before if those

kind of programs were implemented to reduce the deficit in an unfair and callous way. There is no question about that.

What else does the budget do? What did the member for Hamilton West and the majority of members on this side of the House vote for in the budget? How about no tax increases of any kind? What about a secure, stable, growing system of federal support for medicare? Medicare, I say to the hon. member opposite.

The provinces will receive post-secondary education and social assistance through the Canada health and social transfers. There will be no further cuts in transfers to the provinces. We have announced a firm funding commitment for a five-year period beginning 1998-99.

Do colleagues on this side remember when we were in opposition how the Tory government would make its promises and then make adjustments in the following budget and in the budget after that? There could be no opportunity for future planning for any of these organizations because they did not know what the federal budget would look like from year to year.

We will change that. That is a promise we made. They will have the opportunity to see a commitment for stable and firm funding for a five-year period, which will enable them to make their plans. For the first two years of the CHST it will remain constant at $25.1 billion. For the next three years it will increase.

What about restoring confidence in the old age security system by creating a seniors benefit designed to help those most in need? That was a government promise. That is another reason the member for Hamilton West voted for the budget. As promised, seniors will continue to receive the benefits they now receive, despite the crude and scaremongering remarks made by members of the third party during question period on this day.

I voted for jobs and growth. We have allocated money for new investment in three priority areas, one of which is youth, I remind the hon. member for Wild Rose. He was up on his feet saying: "We are not doing anything for youth. I am not sure what we are not doing, but we are not doing anything". We are doing things for youth.

Areas critical to future jobs and growth are technology and trade. The hon. member for Wild Rose was complaining about that, but it is there in the budget.

What about the provision of an additional $165 million over three years to help students and families with increased costs of education?

It is unfortunate the hon. member opposite says government members are doing this in a pompous fashion. Maybe our chests are sticking out a bit because we are proud of what we are doing on this side. We are actually accomplishing things and meeting goals we promised we would meet when we ran in the 1993 election. With a book in hand we said this is what we promise to do. The majority of those promises will be met. We will be able to go door to door in an election campaign and say this is what we promised to do.

I know the media will be out there. It will not outline our accomplishments, maybe comparing the accomplishments of this government with the last. It will not say this is how much the government has done. The media will see the glass not as half full but as half empty. It will recognize the 10 per cent or less the government did not do. That is a crying shame.

Canadians are winning. It is a Team Canada approach. It will happen. It will happen now. We are proud of that and we are proud of the budget.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1996, April 25th, 1996]

Blah, blah, blah-exactly the kind of comment I would expect from Wild Rose. I would appreciate it if he stuck around to hear this because it is important.

My constituents have been calling me as of late. They are talking about how the member for Hamilton West voted for the budget. There was a guy from this party who stood up and did not vote for the budget, no sir. We all know what happened to him.

Here is why the member for Hamilton West, yours truly, voted for the budget. I voted for the budget because of its deficit reduction plan. For example, the budget delivers on the red book commitment to reduce the deficit to 3 per cent of GDP, down from 6 per cent when we took office, something we promised to do, something that has been accomplished.

By 1998-99 program spending will be reduced to 12 per cent of GDP, its lowest level in 50 years. Canada's financial requirements will be the lowest of the G-7 nations.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1996, April 25th, 1996]

There we go. There is the decorum again. The hon. member for Wild Rose says "shut up". That is the kind of thing that should not go on in this place. We have a history to respect here. We have to stand in our places and appreciate that for decades before us men and women were elected to the House, thankfully more women today than there were in the past because of the contribution they make to the House. This kind of attitude cannot go on in the House.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1996, April 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I always consider it a privilege to rise in this place on behalf of the constituents of Hamilton West. We are supposed to be dealing in this debate with Bill C-31, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament March 6, 1996.

My constituents elected me back in 1988. My colleague from Winnipeg St. James and I were colleagues back in 1988 and we sat on that side of the House in opposition. Whenever an opportunity came along we were not shy on words or prepared to take off on the government on the plan it had.

In those days we had pretty good evidence in our hands; precise statistics, precise numbers, precise policies that the Liberal Party, in opposition from 1988 to 1993, could attack the Tories on. We sat over there, we made our arguments and they were solid.

I will drift away from Bill C-31 only because I cannot let the comments of the hon. member for Wild Rose get by. First he says "pompous attitudes". I do not see any pompous attitudes coming from this side of the House. I see red books being thrown across the floor. I see members over there getting up and calling other members liars, getting kicked out of the House and that kind of thing, which is outrageous.

I remember an election promise from the Reform Party that it would do things differently in the House of Commons, that there would be a certain attitude, a new way of doing politics in the House. There would be a new decorum in the House of Commons.

I did not understand that it meant the decorum would get worse. I assumed it meant the decorum would get a little better in the House of Commons.

Then the hon. member for Wild Rose says: "I am not sure, but blah, blah, blah. I do not know much about that, but blah, blah, blah. That is all fuzzy and feel good to me, blah, blah, blah". You cannot talk in generalities.

[Pearson Airport, April 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in a few minutes it is the intention of the federal government to reintroduce on behalf of the Minister of Transport the so-called Pearson bill in its original form and at the stage it was at prior to prorogation. It then will move on immediately to the Senate for first reading.

It was a bad deal then and it is still a bad deal. Maybe it is more in the interest of the member to support what is important to the Canadian taxpayer than to support the interests of his friends the lobbyists.

[Quebec Bridge, April 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. He has shown great interest in the pont de Québec. We have to realize this is a magnificent structure. I have seen it from a boat underneath, et cetera.

However, CN is the owner of the pont de Québec and CN is responsible for it and charged with paying for the renovations to the bridge. It fully intends to, with $1.5 million to $2 million in bridge repairs this summer. More could be had if the hon. member can impress upon the minister of transport in the province of Quebec to talk to CN to get more funding to maintain that wonderful, beautiful structure, the pont de Québec.