Garry Breitkreuz

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, at the end of my speech I touched on the fact that Canadian taxpayers do not have a direct say into what is happening in the Senate.

If they were asked whether they want to spend $40.6 million on the Senate, the answer would be very clear. They want to see some bang for their buck. They want to know if these huge increases in security, the huge increases in the spending that have taken place in the Senate over these many years, are actually necessary.

Are there results for the money they are spending? Taxpayers want to know that. They are entitled to have an answer to that. When the Senate refuses to come and give account of how that money is being spent, there is something seriously wrong with our system.

The worst thing in a democracy is an unaccountable system. That is an oxymoron. There cannot be a democracy where there is unaccountability. There needs to be both.

The answer to my colleague's question is that the taxpayers would question the spending that has taken place there. Maybe we should ask them directly in a question what they feel about this whole issue.

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the debate and especially to the introductory speech of the Liberals this morning. They said that we should be talking about more relevant things in this place.

The theme of my speech today is, and I have said a hundred times, that unless the system in this country is changed, nothing much else can be changed. The system needs to be changed to bring in democracy. I am going to say that over and over again.

When I was first elected by the people of Yorkton-Melville, they told me two things. They said: "We want you to speak up on our behalf. Breitkreuz, we want you to go to Ottawa and be our voice in Ottawa". I have tried faithfully to do that on issues like gun control, justice reform, reduction in the size of government, preservation of health care, education, pensions, protection of agricultural issues, more recently on the issue of sexual orientation, and yesterday on the funding of abortions.

They also asked me something else. They wanted me to tell them what is going on in Ottawa. They wanted to know. I want to tell the people of Yorkton-Melville and all Canadians what is going on in the Senate today.

The Senate is not elected. How then do we get our senators? The Prime Minister appoints them. How does he decide who goes into the upper chamber? He chooses the people who have worked the hardest on the Liberal Party campaign, or in the Liberal Party, or in the case of Mr. Mulroney when he was Prime Minister, those who worked hardest for the Conservative Party. The other place is full

of faithful Liberals and Conservatives, those who have helped those respective governments to get elected. Senators are patronage appointments.

Patronage appointments go to the party faithful, the Liberals and Conservatives who have helped get those parties elected. It is their reward. It is an incentive for them to do what they are told in an election campaign. They do not get to the Senate on merit.

Some people may ask: What is wrong with this? It gets people involved in politics for the wrong reason. They do not get involved to serve their country. They do what they are told to do by the Prime Minister. If they do what they are told they get appointed to the Senate.

The whole system stinks. There is no democracy in it. Those senators are there because they were faithful campaign mangers, fundraisers or whatever.

They are still faithful party workers. They are still working for the Liberals and Conservatives raising funds and managing campaigns. Just because they were appointed to the Senate does not mean they begin doing the work of senators, at least not solely. They are still campaign managers, faithful party workers and fundraisers.

Listen to that, Canadians. That is what you are paying for. That is happening right now. That is what is going on here in Ottawa.

I am a watchdog. I was sent here for that reason by my constituents. I am barking loud and long about what is happening here. Taxpayers' funds are being used to pay campaign workers and fundraisers through the Senate of Canada. Public funds go to senators' salaries, expense accounts and travel. Over $100,000 per senator goes for blatant political reasons. That is wrong.

Some of the names which are coming to light are Joyce Fairbairn, Dan Hays, Ron Ghitter. Joyce Fairbairn and Dan Hays are faithful Liberals. Ron Ghitter was appointed by Mulroney. His whole purpose in being in the Senate is to be the western campaign manager for the Conservatives in order to build that party up. That is happening today and it is wrong, plain and simple. The people ought to know that and I am objecting.

When I came here over two and half years ago I actually thought there was some mechanism by which Parliament was accountable to the people between elections. I am sad to report to Canadians that there is no accountability existing in this House or in the Senate. Frankly, I think that the House of Commons is masquerading as a democracy. It is pretending it is a democracy. The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia said it best about this time last year when he said: "Canadians elect 295 members of Parliament to represent them in Ottawa, but with all the decision making power resting with a dozen or so ministers who refuse to be influenced by reasoned argument and persuasion, I have to question the purpose of all the shenanigans that go on in the House in the name of parliamentary debate".

When I was elected I told the voters of Yorkton-Melville that I would be their voice in Ottawa. If all the members in this House had the same attitude the entire process would be opened up so that real democracy could express itself. The Reform Party believes in true democracy, not democracy by cabinet decree as we have it here.

The Liberal government reminds me of a leader of the Soviet Union who once said: "How can you expect me to run a country if no one obeys my decrees?" That was said in the Soviet Union but what is happening here? The Liberal cabinet has nothing to worry about because it has all the power and the full force of government to have all of its decrees implemented.

Under a Reform government all MPs would be able to vote freely on bills such as those concerned with gun control, sexual orientation, immigration, the GST and MP pensions. Another topic I wish I had time to discuss today is the obscene MP pension plan. I hear members opposite mumbling. They do not like some of the comments I am making as they are feeding at the trough of that MP pension plan.

Principle number 16 of the Reform Party constitution states: "We believe in the accountability of elected representatives to the people who elect them, and that the duty of elected members to their constituents should supersede their obligations to their political parties".

A Reform government would not only give MPs the power and responsibility to represent their constituents but would also transfer the power to the people by giving them the right to recall their MPs. There would be MP recall if their member failed to represent them properly in the House, which is a very important democratic measure. Once put in place there would seldom be a need to exercise it.

A Reform government would also give power to the citizens to initiate a referendum by petitioning government to put a question on the ballot at each federal election. That is called citizens' initiative. It would allow people direct input into what is happening in their country. It is very very important to have those kinds of changes made.

I remind everyone that my theme is that unless we change the system we will not change much else in the country. We need to bring democracy back to Canada. Four democratic reforms will guide government between elections when Reform forms the government: free votes, recall, referenda and citizens' initiative.

The next step in making any federation work is an elected, equal for all provinces and effective Senate, commonly known as the triple E Senate. This is not only essential to making Canada operate more democratically and more effectively, but it is also necessary to ensure that the Senate is accountable to the people, not just the Prime Minister who appointed them in this perfect patronage plum I just described.

Why is this called the highest court in the land? Because we should be sitting here debating the laws that are laid before Parliament. We should be discussing the pros and cons. We should be deciding if it is good legislation that is before this House.

Why do we see very few people here? Because it is not a democratic institution. The people opposite are not allowed to vote on the legislation in a free vote to decide whether or not it is good legislation. They are simply told how to vote. Why sit and listen? This is not the highest court in the land. We are not debating these things and deciding whether or not they are good laws.

Similarly, that is what should be happening in the Senate. Elected senators would not be able to thumb their noses at a request from the House of Commons to explain how they will spend $40.7 million a year. They would be accountable. Right now they are not accountable to the taxpayers. If they fly across the country on the Liberal or Tory election campaigns, there is nothing the taxpayers can do even though it is their money. The senators are not accountable to the taxpayers of Canada for the $40 million being spent. "Just give us the money and shut up" is the attitude of the Senate.

The question on whether the Senate is accountable for the money it spends would not even arise if the Senate were doing its job. And if senators were elected, if the Senate was effective and made each province equal in the upper chamber, this question would not even come before this House but that is not the case. They are not doing their job.

For a true federation to work it must have both a lower House and an upper House. The lower House, the House of Commons, gives voters representation by population based on the principle of one person, one vote. The upper House, the Senate, is supposed to represent the regions or the provinces based on the principle of Canada being a federation of 10 equal provinces. Unfortunately Canada's federation of equal provinces was corrupted from the start by giving the Prime Minister the power to appoint senators instead of letting voters in each province elect them.

There have been 16 Senate seats vacated since the election in October 1993. The Prime Minister has appointed a Liberal 16 times. Even Brian Mulroney had a better record than that. The blatant patronage that is going on in this place rewarding party workers by giving them these hundred thousand dollar positions in the Senate is unconscionable.

Another unfortunate development was when the Senate seats were divided among the four regions of the country instead of equally among the provinces. Because Quebec and Ontario are defined as regions, they have 24 senators each while a province like Saskatchewan only has six senators. There are those who are going to complain that Ontario has more people than Saskatchewan and should have more senators, but remember that Ontario already has 99 members of Parliament to represent its large population. Saskatchewan only has 14 members in this House.

The state of California has two senators, as does North Dakota. We do not hear Californians clamouring for more senators because they know that the only way a true federation can work effectively is if each voter is equal and each state or province is equal.

Remember that the purpose of the Senate is to provide equal representation to each province in the federation. Until our Senate is reformed along these lines, our federation will always suffer from the tyranny of the majority in central Canada. That is one of the key objections the people in my province have about what goes on in this place.

The Prime Minister wants puppets in the Senate so he can simply pull their strings and have them do as he wishes. That is why there are no, or very few, Liberals present today to debate this issue. It makes them very uncomfortable. Absence and silence make a huge statement on this issue.

Why do the Liberals and the Conservatives not want to make changes to the Senate? I have already explained that briefly. They would not have a place to put their party faithful. Where would they put there faithful fundraisers and campaign managers? How would they reward those faithful Liberals who tirelessly worked to get the Liberals elected to the House of Commons? Liberals and Conservatives cannot defend an appointed Senate and that is why they are silent on this issue today.

What is the purpose of the Senate? It is to ensure that legislation does not pass and become law without being properly vetted and to make sure that minorities, regions and certain provinces are protected. The province of Quebec has some valid concerns if it is not properly protected in the Senate. It should ensure that minorities are properly protected and that is one of the reasons we have the Senate. It also could be a control on government spending, spending that is often out of control.

One of the Liberals who introduced the topic on that side of the House asked: Are the two Houses not independent of one another? How can they be independent when the Prime Minister appoints those who will faithfully carry out his wishes? That cannot happen.

I heard the member complaining that Reformers tried to get the Senate to overthrow Bill C-68. I would like to remind the House that it was the justice minister who lobbied hardest to get his bill through the Senate. It was the justice minister who lobbied hard and the member talks about the need for them to be independent or that Reformers were concerned. Reformers were responding to what the justice minister did.

Until we change the system we will not change much else in this place. We need democracy, not just one day out of every four or five years.

I should also point out that when Bill C-68 on gun control went to the Senate, the Prime Minister ensured it would get through by appointing more senators. Is that independence between the two Houses? Are they separate? Hardly.

One of the reasons members of the Reform Party received the support of 2.5 million Canadians in the last election is that they objected strongly to the elitist system of government. Traditionally Canadians have trusted their leaders. That trust is seriously eroding as they find out more and more how the system works, or in this case does not work.

The government often engages in an exercise called public consultation. It looks at public input as being nice but it never listens to it. If the government would listen to the public input on the Senate, this motion today would become votable. If a free vote were held and if government members were representing their constituents, things would drastically change in this place.

I was involved in some of the public consultations. I was on the human resources committee in 1994 and we went across the entire country. What happened when we were all done? There was hardly a room big enough to hold all the papers the committee received, but nothing ever happened. The same thing happened on the gun control issue. Now the government is doing it on agriculture. What a joke. These public consultations are not even taken into consideration.

What should the Senate be doing? It should be the chamber of sober second thought. Instead of running across the country campaigning for the Liberals and Conservatives, senators should be consulting Canadians in their home provinces to see if the legislation that is being brought forward and intended to be passed is acceptable to them.

I want to talk about one more issue while I am talking about accountability. This issue has been raised with me by my constituents. It is the huge issue of the Supreme Court of Canada. We cannot just talk about the accountability of the Senate without talking about what is also happening in the Supreme Court of Canada.

Through our charter of rights and freedoms our country's fundamental rights are in the hands of nine judges, judges who are not accountable. They are appointed. They interpret laws and determine the direction of justice taken in this country. The laws and the rights in our country are very general and not well defined. Their ultimate meaning is determined by these nine people who may not represent the same views of most Canadians. They can in fact destroy the very fabric of our country. These judges can actually impose their views on the country with disregard for the intent Parliament may have had when the legislation was put in place. They even provide guidelines for legislation that Parliament should pass.

The fear Canadians have with the recent inclusion of sexual orientation as a category in the Canadian Human Rights Act is an example. How do those judges get where they are? They are appointed by the Prime Minister, just like senators are appointed. Will they redefine marriage, the traditional family? These are all concerns people have.

The topic we are discussing today is whether the Senate should be accountable to the taxpayer for the $40 million it spends. Let us ask the people of Canada. Let us do as I have done. Let us put out an item on a people's tax form-

[Petitions, May 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and privilege for me to rise today to present 45 petitions signed by 1,233 concerned Canadians primarily from the provinces of Saskatchewan and Ontario.

The petitioners draw to the attention of Parliament that over 100,000 therapeutic abortions are performed each year in Canada at a cost of over $50 million per year. Since Canadians deserve a say in how scarce health dollars are spent and which health care procedures they consider essential, these petitioners call on Parliament to support a binding national referendum to be held at the time of the next general election to determine whether or not Canadians are in favour of federal government funding for abortion on demand.

[Referendum On Funding For Abortions, May 27th, 1996]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should enact legislation which would require that a binding, national referendum be held at the time of the next election to ask Canadians whether or not they are in favour of federal government funding for abortions on demand.

Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 91 is not just about abortion. It is about democracy. It is about giving voters a real say in how they want their scarce health care dollars spent. It is about voters deciding which health care procedures they consider essential. It is about voters making these tough decisions for themselves, not having politicians and bureaucrats make these decisions for them.

We are debating whether voters have the right to direct federal government health care funding to medical procedures they think are most essential and of the highest priority. We are debating whether Parliament should decide for the people or whether the people have the right to decide for themselves.

Throughout my speech today I will pose key questions that need to be answered in relation to this debate. Then I will proceed to answer each one.

First, where do the people stand on tax funded abortions? In the 1991 provincial election in Saskatchewan two-thirds of the voters in a plebiscite voted to deinsure funding for abortions. A January 1995 poll conducted in Alberta produced similar results, with 73 per cent of women and 69 per cent of men opting for defunding of abortions. In November 1995 an Environics Focus Ontario survey found that 57 per cent of respondents do not think the Ontario health insurance plan should pay for abortions.

As of this morning in the short time available since my motion was presented to the House, I have received 109 petitions with 2,790 signatures supporting my Motion No. 91. I will start tabling these petitions in the House later today. Many other MPs have also received petitions from people objecting to their money being spent on medically unnecessary abortions.

Next, how much do abortions cost Canadian taxpayers? A 1995 Library of Parliament research paper found that approximately 100,000 therapeutic abortions are performed each year in Canada. About 70,000 abortions are performed in hospitals at a cost of about $500 each, a total cost of $35 million per year. Another 30,000 abortions are performed in free standing clinics at a cost of about $250 each, totalling about $7.5 million a year. Physician fees were calculated in the 1992-93 fiscal year to be $9.1 million. The cost is quite substantial.

Next, is abortion only a provincial issue? I disagree with those who say this is a matter for the provinces to decide. As long as the federal government is paying part of the provinces' medicare bills, federal politicians have a responsibility to ensure that scarce taxpayer dollars are being spent on medical procedures that voters think are the highest priority.

In April 1994 Terese Ferri, barrister and solicitor and a member of the Ontario Bar, wrote a paper titled "Legal Issues Concerning the Public Funding of Abortions in Alberta and Canada". Ms. Ferri wrote:

It is well established that, while the federal government has jurisdiction to make federal funds for health care contingent upon adherence to national standards, legislation on matters concerning the provision of health care is entirely within the domain of the provinces.

From my review of legal briefs on this issue, I conclude that the federal government has the power to set national standards and provide federal funding in accordance with these standards. It is clearly within the power of the federal government to say which medical procedures it will fund and which it will not.

Performing abortions is a provincial jurisdiction. Paying for abortions is a decision for both federal and provincial governments to make independent of one another because they each pay a portion of the costs.

The Reform Party is on record saying we want to define core services which are covered by medicare. Is this a decision best left to politicians and bureaucrats or to the people? I say it is the people who should decide, which is what would happen if Motion No. 91 were passed by Parliament today.

Next, what does the Canada Health Act say? In the legal analysis mentioned previously lawyer Terese Ferri wrote:

Under the Canada Health Act, federal funds are available to provincial health care plans which, among other things, are comprehensive, universally available and accessible. The plan must insure all insured health services provided by hospitals and medical practitioners, section 7. Hospital services are defined as "services preventing disease or diagnosing or treating an injury, illness or disability". Physician services are defined as "medically required services rendered by medical practitioners", section 2.

Section 3 of the Canada Health Act states that the primary objective of a Canadian health care policy is to protect, promote and restore the physical and mental well-being of residents of Canada.

Unfortunately the Canada Health Act does not include a list of medical procedures or services which the federal government thinks are services preventing disease or diagnosing, treating an injury, illness or disability, or a list of medically required services.

I think it is about time the federal government start defining which hospital services and physician services are medically necessary.

Reformers have referred to this list of medically necessary services as core services which should be supported by federal tax dollars.

If it can be proven that a medical procedure or service does not protect, promote and restore physical and mental well-being, that the service does not prevent disease, is not an illness and is not medically required, then this should be sufficient reason to deny federal tax funding for such a procedure. Is that not right?

Further, if it can be proven that abortions actually jeopardize the health and well-being of the patient, the federal government has a duty to withdraw tax funding for this procedure because it violates the purpose of the Canada Health Act as stated in section 3. Terese Ferri's legal analysis concluded that it would be legitimate for the federal government to disqualify from funding those provinces which do insure such services.

That logically leads to the next question. Is abortion medically necessary? Induced abortion as interpreted by the Canadian Medical Association is the active termination of a pregnancy before fetal viability. Viability is considered to be the ability of the fetus to survive independently outside the womb. A fetus is considered viable in Canada after 20 weeks of gestation and/or the fetus weighs 500 grams at birth.

A non-therapeutic abortion is an interruption of a pregnancy for non-medical reasons by any means. A therapeutic abortion is an interruption of pregnancy for legally acceptable medically approved indications. Therapeutic is defined as curative, dealing with healing and, especially, remedies for diseases. I find it hard to believe that anyone can consider most abortions to be the curing or healing of an illness or that a normal pregnancy is considered a disease.

Dr. R.M. Ferri, in a 1994 psychiatric brief, reported a 1983 study of abortion practices in a typical Ontario hospital which revealed that 98.5 per cent of the 704 abortions performed that year were for mental health reasons. To show that this 1983 study is false let me report on another study.

The family planning division of Health and Welfare Canada conducted a study of 554 women who received abortions in Canadian hospitals. Here are the responses to the question: "What is your main reason for your decision to have an abortion?" Two hundred and eleven of the 554 women, or 38 per cent, did not want children at this time, did not want children at all or said their family size was complete. One hundred and one of them, or 18 per cent, said they could not afford a child or that they did not have the money to move to larger accommodations. Ninety-seven, or 17 per cent, said they were too old or too young to have a child, that they were afraid the child would be abnormal or they feared the pregnancy would pose a risk to their health. Sixty-nine, or 12 per cent, said they were not married, did not want their friends to find out about the pregnancy, that the child was not their partner's, that the partner did not want a child or believed the pregnancy threatened their mental health. Seventy-six, or 14 per cent, said they were alone, did not want to raise a child, would have to quit school or a job, or that it would interfere with their career plans.

These responses demonstrate that most women seeking abortions do so for reasons other than treatment for medical or mental health problems.

Dr. Ferri concluded from his literature review that, first, abortion is not a verifiable remedy which significantly improves the health of a patient; second, the safety, efficacy and validity of abortion for mental health reasons has not been proven; third, abortions

performed for psychiatric reasons worsen a woman's mental health; fourth, abortion is not therapeutic and is actually harmful to women's mental health; and fifth, funding by the government under a health care plan cannot be justified.

In 1989 The Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa, Volume 14, No. 4, published a major Canadian survey of studies on abortion for mental and emotional health reasons. The study survey was conducted by Dr. Philip Ney, the psychiatric director of the adolescent unit of the Queen Alexandria Hospital in Victoria, B.C. The study concluded that, first, there is no satisfactory evidence that abortion improves the psychological state. Second, mental ill health has been shown to be worsened by abortion. Third, recent studies are turning up an alarming rate of post-abortion complications. Fourth, the emotional impact of these complications needs to be studied. These are important considerations which we cannot ignore.

The committee to end tax funded abortions concluded in its January 1995 report that abortion is a procedure that disrupts the normal physiologic process and carries a physical risk to the woman undergoing the procedure. In spite of the fact that over 23 million abortions have been performed in North America in the last 25 years there are no good medical studies demonstrating the therapeutic benefit to women on physical, psychiatric or psychological grounds. The procedure, therefore, has no proven medical benefit and cannot be justified as medically necessary in any context other than political. My own review of available research leads me to the same conclusion.

I do not have time today to touch on some of the other health related concerns which abortion raises, for example, the evidence that is mounting that abortion raises a woman's risk for getting breast cancer, a study that needs to be done more thoroughly.

Would ending tax funded abortions violate the charter of rights and freedoms? In preparing for this debate I reviewed three independent legal opinions on the question. Would non-payment of abortion procedures violate the rights guaranteed by sections 7 and 15 of the charter of rights and freedoms?

First, in his November 1994 analysis Frank de Walle of the firm de Walle and McDonald concluded that refusal to fund abortions did not restrict access, did not discriminate and did not place any government obstacle in the path of a woman choosing to terminate her pregnancy.

He added that the government is not obliged to finance rights and used this analogy to prove his point. A right to freedom of expression does not entitle one to demand the government pay for press coverage. Just because you have freedom of speech does not demand that you have the right to demand others pay for the expression of that.

In May 1994 Darren Richards of the law firm Snyder & Company arrived at similar conclusions. He said that the de-insuring of abortion procedures may not be found to violate section 15(1) of the charter. His legal analysis concluded if the courts found such an action to be discriminatory that the de-insuring of medically unnecessary abortion procedures could qualify as a reasonable limitation of rights pursuant to section 1 of the charter.

Mr. Richards also reviewed section 7 of the charter which protects everyone's right to life, liberty and security of the person. He concluded that the non-funding of abortion does not place any government obstacle in the path of a woman choosing to terminate her pregnancy and therefore her to life, liberty and security of the person is not violated.

The third study I would quote is from Terese Ferri, barrister and solicitor in the province of Ontario who concluded that de-insurance of abortion would not infringe on the rights guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

What does the Criminal Code of Canada say about abortion? Section 287 of the Criminal Code made abortions illegal except when completed by a qualified medical practitioner in an accredited or approved hospital. It was struck down in 1988 by the Supreme Court because it violated section 7 of the charter of rights. It is still a criminal offence under section 290 to supply a drug or instruments to be used to cause a miscarriage.

Section 223 of the Criminal Code establishes the point at which a child becomes a human being for the purpose of determining if a homicide has been committed. This section defines that a child is a human being if it has completely proceeded from its mother in a living state and provides that a homicide is committed if a child dies after meeting the definition of a human being.

Therefore any abortion completed before the baby has completely proceeded from its mother's womb is not murder. While late term abortions are not common, I find it unconscionable that the Criminal Code does not prohibit them, but this is a matter for another private member's bill.

I was at a meeting last year at which the speaker was a woman in her late teens. She related some of her objections to abortion. She had survived the abortion procedure. This in itself may not sound too remarkable unless I go on to explain that she was the unborn child that was aborted. We need to change our Criminal Code definition of murder.

In conclusion, Motion M-91 raises several fundamental questions. First, do the people of Canada have the right to a direct say in how the government spends their money? This is a question of democracy and the right of people to have input. Second, abortion is not a medically necessary procedure in most instances and scarce

health dollars should not be spent on it. Third, approval of my motion does not contravene the rights of anyone.

It is wrong for a government to avoid talking about sensitive issues. The essence of what we do in the House of Commons should be to fully debate all issues of concern to the Canadian people. The job of government is to carry out the will of the people. If we cannot decide the issue here it should be referred to the people of Canada and not simply avoided. I therefore make this request. I seek the unanimous consent of the House to have my motion declared votable.

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government House leader when I will receive answers to Questions Nos. 2 and 4. It was not clear to me yesterday. I have been waiting for 80 days for these replies. Prior to the prorogation of the House, I waited for 71 days without an answer.

The answers are a matter of public safety. They include government liability for injuries suffered by prisoners under its care and the unsafe storage of firearms by police and armies. When can I get an answer to these two important questions?

[Question Passed As Order For Return, May 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the government House leader when I can expect to receive answers to my three questions on the Order Paper, Nos. 2, 3 and 4. These questions first appeared on the Order Paper in the second session of the 35th Parliament on February 27, 1996. I requested an answer from the government within 45 days. As of today, 79 days have passed.

[Question Passed As Order For Return, May 15th, 1996]

How many prisoners incarcerated in federal penitentiaries are infected with Hepatitis C, HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) or have AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome), ( a ) how is this information determined to be accurate, ( b ) if a prisoner becomes infected with Hepatitis C, HIV or AIDS while under the care of the federal government will the infected prisoner be able to make a claim for injury, damages or suffering claiming that the government failed to properly protect him or her from the infecting act, ( c ) what specifically is the government doing to protect federal prisoners and guards from becoming infected with Hepatitis C, HIV or AIDS, and ( d ) specifically how much has it cost the federal government, so far and annually, to implement each of the measures the government uses to prevent the spread of Hepatitis C, HIV and AIDS and to protect prisoners and guards from becoming infected with Hepatitis C, HIV and AIDS?

Return tabled.

[Petitions, May 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the second group contains 59 petitions signed by concerned citizens from all across Canada.

They oppose the inclusion of the phrase sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act. The signatures number 1,471 in total and the petitions are still pouring into my office. These Canadians believe freedom from discrimination is already protected in the human rights act without this amendment. A brief summary of this petition indicates that they feel the inclusion of this category will infringe on the rights and freedoms of Canadians in the areas of religion, conscience, belief, expression and association.

[Petitions, May 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have a large number of petitions which I have put into two groups.

I am pleased to present seven petitions today on the subject of gasoline taxes. The petitioners come from many areas of my riding.

Because the cost of a litre of gasoline is about 52 per cent government taxes and because excise taxes on gasoline have risen by 566 per cent in the past 10 years, the petitioners ask Parliament to not increase taxes on gasoline. They feel that we need to use the natural advantage of a low cost energy source to offset the high cost of transporting our goods over great distances to reach their markets.

[Mothers, May 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Sunday was Mother's Day. Who are the most influential people in this nation? They are the parents who teach and train the next generation, especially mothers who nurture and shape the values and direction of our children during the time of their lives that determines to the greatest extent what each child will grow up to be.

Mothers have a tremendous influence on the future of a nation. Families are the basic building block of society. Children that are free to grow and develop in contact with loving caring parents are the healthiest with the greatest potential to contribute to those around them at the community, national and international levels.

All government programs need to be evaluated by a standard that seeks to determine whether it will encourage mothers and fathers to establish healthy lifelong relationships with their children.

I thank god for the mothers of the nation that faithfully serve in circumstances that often go unrecognized. Thanks, Mom.