Roseanne Skoke

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

moved:

Motion No. 8A

That Bill C-33, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 30 and 31, on page 1, with the following:

"origin, colour, religion, age, sex, marital status, family status, dis-".

[Petitions, May 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have two petitions to table with this honourable House.

The 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 of homosexuality, including amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase of sexual orientation.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I enter this debate with respect to the amendments in Group No. 1, which are concerned with the freedom of religion, expression and association, marriage, family and spouse, the Criminal Code and the preamble. With that in mind I will address the comments made by the Minister of Justice during debate on Bill C-33, which are in Hansard of April 30.

The Minister of Justice indicated on debate, "in my respectful view no participant has the moral high ground, no one is holier than any other". I wish to remind this honourable House that in in the preamble to our Canadian Constitution we recognize the rule of law and the supremacy of God.

By recognizing the supremacy of God we entrench in our laws natural law. Therefore, justice, law and morality are inseparable. Bill C-33 is an issue of morality. When legislating, Parliament must ensure that its laws are just and moral. The issue before the House is one of morality and conscience; therefore it is also an issue of one's religious belief, opinion and freedom of expression.

The justice minister in debate stated unequivocally, "it is an issue of human rights". What is a human right? I remind this House that the first right, the most basic right and the primary fundamental right is the right to life. Until Parliament addresses the right to life, from the moment of conception until natural death, it has no jurisdiction to extend the human rights to include sexual orientation.

To profess and to legislate that sexual orientation is a human right is to find that a human right is determined on the basis of behaviour, which is erroneous. To confer a human right on the basis of sexual orientation is to confer a special right, a specific right to a special interest group on the basis of behaviour identified by lifestyle.

To confer homosexuality as a human right on the basis of sexual orientation will provide homosexuals with a special legal status that will allow them to redefine the family, to redefine spouse, to enter into the realm of the sanctity of marriage, to infiltrate the curriculum of our schools and education and to impose an alternative lifestyle on our youth.

To legislate that sexual orientation is a human right is to elevate the existing legal test in Canada from one of tolerance to a legal test of condonation and acceptance.

All Canadians are equal before and under the law. Canadians are tolerant and compassionate people. However, by conferring a specific right to homosexuals in the Canadian Human Rights Act, Parliament is requiring Canadians not only to be tolerant and compassionate but also to condone and accept homosexuality as natural and moral.

Homosexuality is unnatural and immoral. The words unnatural and immoral are terms used in legal debate. Justice, law and morality are inseparable. As recognized by our justice minister, this is a moral debate.

I also wish to refer to Hansard wherein our justice minister attempts to refute arguments with respect to the rights this amendment in Bill C-33 will confer. He talks about family: ``It is suggested by some that this bill will either directly or indirectly undermine or diminish the importance of family in Canadian life''. I am one of those some.

Families have inherent and inviolable rights in Canada. Families have existed before the church and families have existed before the state. The rights of family must be safeguarded and protected.

The reference to the importance of family in the preamble to Bill C-33, which was included merely to appease those members of Parliament with morality and conscience issues on their minds, was in my opinion a grave error on the part of the Minister of Justice.

Introducing family in an amendment to confer special rights with respect to sexual orientation is a violation of the rights of family. It allows the very redefinition of family that we choose to protect.

In Hansard , the justice minister makes reference to his subjective opinion on how the bill will not affect his own family. Canadians are not interested in the subjective opinion of the Minister of Justice. He has no jurisdiction to impose that opinion on Canadian families.

With respect to the issue of religion, the Minister of Justice stated in Hansard : This bill is fundamentally consistent with the most basic teachings of religion''. He also stated:I developed a deep respect for the tenets of the Catholic faith. I suggest this amendment and the action it constitutes is completely consistent with those tenets''. This is not a matter for debate.

The Minister of Justice has exceeded his jurisdiction by speaking on behalf of the church. I use the word church in an all inclusive sense. The justice minister has made a pronouncement on issues of ecclesiastic law and canon law that is not within his jurisdiction. For the Minister of Justice to state that this bill is fundamentally consistent with the most basic teachings of religion is to interfere with the individual and personal freedom of religion and belief that every individual in Canada has, pursuant to our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

To state that this bill is fundamentally consistent with the most basic teachings of religion also closes the door on any religious defence that may be argued in future with respect to the introduction of Bill C-33.

"This bill is fundamentally consistent with the most basic teachings of religion", as stated by the Minister of Justice, is an interference with the domain and jurisdiction of the church. The principle of separation of church and state is well founded historically, culturally and in our laws. The state has no jurisdiction to interfere in matters of church.

However, the House should be reminded that the church has a right and a responsibility to concern itself with matters of state on issues of morals, values, principles and religion. In this regard I have called on the Minister of Justice by letter, and I do so here again today in the House, to withdraw the statements he made in this House specially with reference to religion, to withdraw the statement: "This bill is fundamentally consistent with the most basic teachings of religion-I suggest this amendment and the action it constitutes is completely consistent with these tenets".

I ask that the Minister of Justice be accountable for exceeding his jurisdiction in the House.

[Petitions, April 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, the petitioners call on Parliament to refrain from implementing a tax on health and dental benefits and to put on hold any future consideration of such a tax until a

complete review of the tax system and how it impacts on the health of Canadians has been undertaken.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1996-97, March 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support this budget. I maintain my position that it secures the future of all Canadians.

It secures the future of seniors and of youth. With respect to the growing national debt, I am proud to be a part of this government. This is the first government that has addressed the financial and economic issues of the country. It has also preserved the social programs. It has concerned itself with the poor, with the aged, with the needy and with single parents. It has addressed these issues.

The Reform Party is concerned about the rich and about preserving economic issues, not for the economic concerns of the people of Central Nova, the people that need to have these social programs

and need to know that they have a Liberal government that will protect and preserve them.

I am proud of this budget and so are the people in Central Nova.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1996-97, March 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on second reading of Bill C-10, the borrowing authority bill.

The government is asking this honourable House for $18.7 billion of borrowing authority for the 1996-97 fiscal year. This amount is comprised of the financial requirements stated in the budget for 1996-97 of $13.7 billion, exchange fund account earnings of $1 billion and a $4 billion non-lapsing amount.

As in previous years, the amount of borrowing authority requested in the bill is directly connected to the financial requirements set out in the 1996 federal budget. The financial aspect of the

bill is also contained in the budget plan tabled in the House of Commons by the Minister of Finance.

I urge the House to give unanimous approval of this legislation without delay. The Minister of Finance in the budget speech states: "Let us act not as special interests but as stewards of the national interest, knowing that the destiny of our children is in our hands".

I remind the House that the word economics derives from the Greek word meaning household management. The purpose of economic life is not simply to gain material satisfaction but to support families and the social institutions and identities that evolve from families as the fundamental units of human society and human actions.

Having said this, it should be noted that the 1996 budget does just that. It consolidates and extends the actions taken under the comprehensive strategy set out in the 1994-95 budget, together to help Canadians secure their future, to secure their financial future, to secure the future of the social programs, to invest in the future of our people, our families, our communities and our country.

The 1996 budget is the third mile post in the government's journey to securing fiscal stability and a vibrant, dynamic and competitive economy for Canadians who must compete in the tough global arena. Working together with the 1994-95 budget, this budget continues a comprehensive strategy for federal finances that is determined, measured and responsible; determined because we are not letting up. As the Minister of Finance emphasized, the attack on the deficit is irrevocable and irreversible. We will balance the books. Furthermore, we will put the debt to GDP ratio on a constant downward track year after year after year.

It is measured because our fiscal action plan is not indiscriminate and mindless but structured to a pace that is conducive to efficient adaptation. It is designed not as a quick fix but to achieve long term and permanent progress. It is responsible because it is a strategy that involves carefully weighing the needs of the economy and society and equally carefully designing the policy options to meet those needs.

Just as important, we are striking the balance necessary to keep Canadians onside for our deficit reduction efforts. There remains no question about the need for dramatic, disciplined action. High public sector deficits and debt have sapped confidence, soaked up domestic savings and led to a sharp increase in the country's net international indebtedness.

Canadians were paying a painful price through the punishing pressure that high deficits placed on interest rates. This drains consumer and business investment and drives down job creation. The lethal combination of high interest rates and deficit borrowing also meant that a growing share of government resources must go to interest payments on a growing debt.

This year those charges will cost the federal government $47 billion, money that cannot go to lowering taxes, aiding those in need and helping the economy create new jobs.

Tackling Canada's fiscal problem is a fundamental component for national growth, new jobs and economic security. With the first two budgets the government began the process of restoring Canada's finances and restoring credibility to the government's fiscal policy after years of missed deficit targets.

By setting credible two-year rolling deficit targets, by using prudent economic assumptions for fiscal planning purposes and by establishing substantial contingency reserves to handle the impact of unforeseen economic development on the achievement of the deficit target, credibility is being restored to the nation's finances.

The first two budgets implemented unprecedented reductions to program spending that are structural in nature and extend to the medium term planning horizon.

With these measures, the 1995-96 and 1996-97 deficit targets, bringing the deficit down to 3 per cent of GDP, are secure despite lower GDP growth than had been originally assumed. Contributing to this progress is the fact that interest rates are also significantly lower than projected. This has neutralized the adverse affects of lower growth on the deficit.

The measures in the 1996 budget consolidate and extend those in the first two budgets and further contribute to the economic and financial objectives. We have maintained our focus on reducing program spending because the debt is a problem created by government and the solution should focus on cutting in our own backyard.

There are no tax rate increases in the 1996 budget, not personal taxes, not corporate taxes, not excise taxes. Expenditure cuts in the 1996 budget amount to $1.9 billion in 1998-99 and build on the reductions of the two previous budgets to keep program spending on a downward track.

Here is a point that must be emphasized. Of the cumulative fiscal actions we will have taken from 1994-95 to 1998-99, a full 87 per cent have been expenditure savings. Together the three budgets will contribute $26.1 billion in savings for 1997-98.

This action, together with reform of the employment insurance program, will ensure we hit the new deficit target to bring the deficit down to 2 per cent of GDP. Through budget action, we have set a further $28.9 billion in savings for 1998-99. This means that the deficit will continue to fall.

There is no question that historic action has been taken. Program spending, that is everything but interest payments, will have declined six straight years through to 1998-99. Relative to the size of the economy, program spending will fall to its lowest level since 1949-50.

Over the last two and a half years, Canadians have turned to governments not to invent jobs but to provide an economic and social environment that will encourage the economic growth that makes new jobs possible.

We are proud of our record to date. Since taking office in 1993, unemployment has dropped by two full percentage points and about half a million jobs have been created, mostly in the private sector and almost exclusively by small and medium size enterprises.

We realize that there is much work ahead. Unemployment remains far too high and there is widespread national worry about the job future for young Canadians, older displaced workers and for women re-entering the workforce.

The government is intent on taking durable, meaningful steps forward. Rather than relying on short term direct spending programs, this more meaningful approach is being taken. It emphasized collaboration with partners and strategic investments to steer the forces of economic change toward greater employment.

First things first. For the sustained economic growth needed to deliver new jobs, we must start by securing Canada's economic fundamentals. That means getting the deficit down and keeping it down. High persisting deficits go hand in hand with high interest rates. High interest rates discourage investment borrowing and consumer spending and ultimately discourage jobs.

We also need to keep inflation down. Low inflation reduces pressure on interest rates and lowers business overhead. Of course, keeping the cost of doing business to a minimum will encourage investment and make us more competitive abroad.

Beyond providing a sound economic framework, the government has looked seriously at what more it can and should do. Some areas are so important to Canada's future prospects that they warrant significantly increased efforts from the federal government. Therefore the government has concentrated on youth, innovation, technology and trade, which is set out in the budget plan.

It also should be noted that financial institutions have a key role to play in facilitating the growth of Canadian business. Over the past year the banks have made progress in dealing with the concerns of small business. However, more needs to be done to ensure that financial institutions provide the best possible financing for growing export and knowledge based business, and for all small and medium size business.

Therefore the government will work with business and all financial institutions, including the banks and insurance companies, to ensure that this progress continues.

A temporary tax on large deposit taking institutions, including the banks, was introduced in last year's budget and it will be extended for a further year. Currently the legislation governing financial institutions is being reviewed with a view to improving the framework established in 1992. The conclusion is that the financial sector has yet to fully adjust to this framework. Therefore the present restriction on banks selling insurance will be maintained.

The present framework for selling insurance through agents and brokers will be preserved and the white paper covering this and all other aspects regarding financial institutions under review will be released in the coming weeks.

In conclusion, since I am sharing my time with another member, I want to emphasize that this budget is a budget that secures the future of all Canadians. It secures their financial-

[Petitions, March 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, on behalf of petitioners who call on Parliament to oppose any amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which provide for inclusion of the phrase sexual orientation, I present this petition to this honourable House.

[Auditor General For The Family Act, November 8th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today in the House in support of private member's Bill C-322, an act respecting the auditor general for the family.

The bill would establish the position of the auditor general for the family, tasked with identifying and examining federal programs, exposing programs and policies detrimental to the well-being of the nuclear family in Canada, and recommending changes through an annual report to Parliament. The office would be analogous to the auditor general's office, serving the same function on behalf of the nuclear family in Canada. Unfortunately, this bill is non-votable.

I congratulate the hon. member for Fraser Valley East for taking the initiative to advance this private member's bill in defence of the rights of the traditional family.

On many occasions I have spoken both in the House and in public forums across the nation in defence of the rights of the traditional family. Unfortunately, it is not enough to just speak about family, family life, and family values issues. It is time the House gave formal recognition to the rights of the traditional family.

The family unit is the basic institution in life and the solid foundation upon which our forefathers have built this great nation. The protection of families, family life, and family values must be a priority with the government.

The conventional terms of debate in matters of political, social, economic, and legal issues tend to focus on individual rights and the rights of the state and not the rights of the family. This is unfortunate and must change, for the family is the most important reality in our lives.

The rights of the family are being seriously undermined and eroded. Families have inherent rights. Families have inviolable rights. Families existed before the church. Families existed before the state.

Parliament has no jurisdiction to redefine traditional family or to enter into the realm of sanctity of marriage or sanctity of life. It is important to be reminded that family is the basic institution of life. Life begins from the moment of conception and continues until natural death. The inherent and inviolable rights of family must be protected, defended and safeguarded by Parliament.

Bill C-322 is offering the government a mechanism to identify, examine, expose, and amend policies and legislation that encroach on the rights of the traditional family.

Parents are the primary educators of their children and are solely and fundamentally responsible for the emotional, psychological, physical, social, spiritual and moral development of their children. It is time the government funded the family and stopped funding agendas designed to undermine and destroy traditional family values.

For the government to promote and encourage institutionalized child care by providing tax benefits is both inequitable and unjust. It is removing the economic freedom and flexibility of families to make a conscious choice of what is in the best interest of their children and their family by imposing an economic hardship on single income families.

The traditional two-parent family is under relentless attack from special interest groups and others who regard the traditional family as an impediment to their goals. For example, the feminist agenda requires careful scrutiny, as the continuous quest to conquer the alleged male oppression of women has placed pressure on society to move the focus from family rights to individual rights and rights of special interest groups. The advancement of the feminist agenda in government policies has advanced an ideology predicated upon equality of women that is more concerned with achieving formal equity and has forsaken substantive equity. By doing so, the feminist movement has done a great disservice to women, motherhood, to our children, and to the traditional family.

The Canadian position advanced at the Beijing conference appeared to be advancing and protecting the equality of women. However, the Canadian position that was advanced called for gender, not the family, to be the most important criterion for determining government policies.

It is the feminist position that family is the initiator and cause of the inequity between men and women, together with their failure to recognize the importance of the role of women and motherhood within the traditional family unit. It is against this relentless attack upon the traditional family that government must protect and safeguard.

In conclusion, the family is the basic institution of life and the solid foundation upon which our forefathers built this great nation. The protection of family, family life, and family values must be a priority with the government.

[Department Of Health Act, November 7th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of Bill C-95, an act to create the Department of Health, because it is through the Department of Health that Canadians express the values that underlie the Canadian health system. I speak of the values embodied in the Canada Health Act, an act which is the responsibility of the Minister of Health and through her the Department of Health.

The Department of Health is instrumental in protecting and preserving the Canada Health Act and with it the values that underlie Canadian society. The principles of the Canada Health Act, universality, accessibility, comprehensiveness, portability and public administration, are rooted in our common values. These Canadian values are equity, fairness, compassion and respect for the fundamental dignity of all. Canadian society has cherished these values for many years and the concern shown recently by those who feel the health system is threatened clearly indicates those values remain strong.

The Canadian concern for the preservation of our health system is heightened when we hear the Reform Party's position on medicare throughout this debate. The Reform Party's position is simplistic and in reality is an attempt to undermine and destroy the five fundamental principles of the Canada Health Act.

The Reform Party's promotion of user fees will not be tolerated by Canadians. The user fee system advanced by the Reform Party will lead to a United States health care system. This is unacceptable for Canadians. User fees will affect accessibility and universality. Universality is not based on insurability criteria or the number of pre-existing medical conditions that exist in a person. All Canadians are entitled to medically required health services.

The first and fundamental principle in our Canada Health Act is universality. All Canadians should benefit on uniform terms and conditions from medicare. Universality really means that we as Canadians believe we are all the same when it comes to health care needs. It does not matter what our health status is or how big our wallet is or where we happen to live in the country. Everyone who needs health care will be treated the same. This is equity. It recognizes our dignity as human beings and shows we are fair and compassionate people.

Accessibility is the second principle. What does it mean? It means that we should not face any barriers in receiving health care, no point of service charges such as extra billing or user charges. Underneath it means that we practise in Canada what we preach. We say that all Canadians are to be treated equitably and we ensure that they will be. The accessibility principle makes sure that no discriminatory measures can be put in place that would result in Canadians being treated differently. All are to have reasonable access to necessary health care services based solely on need.

I call upon the Minister of Health to enforce vigorously the provisions of the Canada Health Act, to ensure that user fees or service charges are not implemented in any riding in any province in Canada. I wish to go on record today as supporting the Minister of Health in her initiatives to protect and defend the principles set forth in the Canada Health Act.

The principle of comprehensiveness recognizes that Canadians have a range of health care needs and those needs should be met. Delve deeper, however, and we see that comprehensiveness means we practise fairness. It would not be fair to ensure only some medically necessary services and not others. For example, it would not be fair to cover only services that cost catastrophic amounts, while leaving other just as necessary services uninsured. Immunization of a child against measles is just as necessary as a coronary bypass operation. Indeed immunization has society-wide benefits.

Throughout the debate the Bloc Quebecois continuously refers to the intrusiveness of the bill into provincial jurisdiction and reminds us of the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces regarding administration and management of the health care system. The Bloc Quebecois has failed to advise the House of the flexibility that the Canada Health Act provides. Eighty-nine per cent of Canadians

including the Quebecois support the Canada Health Act and the medicare system.

The delivery of health care is a provincial responsibility. Canadians respect this and the diversity that it brings. In the end we will all benefit from diversity because a successful innovation developed in one province can be borrowed and adapted by others. For example, let us look at the CLSCs developed in Quebec, the extra-mural hospital in New Brunswick and the quick response teams in British Columbia.

Innovation has never been as important as it is today. During these difficult fiscal times the health system must adapt and change. It must do this at a faster rate than ever before. Innovation is needed to make sure that the health system continues to adapt to changing circumstances. Pressures on the health system are always changing: changing demographics, changing technologies, changing fiscal situations. The comprehensiveness principle recognizes that health systems must be adaptable and allows for innovation.

The Reformers' approach to medicare simply implies that there is not enough money in the system to afford health care in Canada. They address the issue by compromising fundamental and basic values and principles set forth in the Canada Health Act. This is unacceptable. The user fee approach will lead to a United States health care system that is not to be supported in Canada.

Money cannot be the determining factor of success in a health care system. If money were the major criteria the United States would have the best health care system in the world as it spends 14 per cent of its GDP on health.

Based on OECD statistics United States ranks 14th in the world among developing countries. Japan spends the least amount of money in the world on its health care system and Canada spends 9.4 per cent of its gross domestic product on health care. Managing the system, protecting our values and fundamental principles will allow us to save money and to administer health care more efficiently and effectively.

The fifth and final principle is that of public administration. Our health insurance plans must be operated by provincial governments on a non-profit basis. Public administration is the means by which we ensure all other principles. When health insurance is operated and funded through governments we can easily make sure that health care is universal, accessible, comprehensive and portable because we have direct control over it.

After having heard the debate and comments of the member for Calgary Centre I urge him to read carefully Bill C-95. I draw to the hon. member's attention the words health and welfare. For the information of the House, welfare is now to be correctly directed to the jurisdiction of the Department of Human Resources. Human resources is responsible for employment, training and creating opportunity for unemployed Canadians.

On the other hand, health is to remain within the Department of Health. Through Bill C-95, the creation of the Department of Health, the department responsible for the Canada Health Act, we are affirming the principles and values that we hold dear as Canadians. I urge all members of the House to do the same.

[Cultural Property Export And Import Act, October 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, cultural property valued at approximately $60 million is donated to Canadian institutions each year. In my riding we have the Nova Scotia Museum of Industry which is a very new facility. It is one which is relying on cultural property donations. We look forward to hearing from anyone in Canada who wishes to make a contribution to our industry, science and technology museum.