Jim Abbott

[Transportation, May 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this Liberal government is abandoning the people of Yarmouth and

southwest Nova Scotia. Their economy depends on the Bluenose ferry to move goods from Nova Scotia to markets on the American east coast. The government plans to cut the service during the winter. People are concerned about the future, but workers and private companies do not have enough information to know how to respond.

Will the transportation minister agree to a wide ranging study on privatizing the year round Bluenose ferry service and will he promise to make the study public so we can all know the facts?

[The Senate, May 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Alberta is the only province with a law requiring the election of senators. It has every right to ask the Prime Minister to respect its opinion.

The Senate today is a functioning part of the parliamentary law making process in Canada. The outdated anachronism of Senate porky patronage appointments is unconscionable and must end because senators today, while not elected, are making key decisions on everything from human rights legislation to the Bank Act.

Last Thursday the Prime Minister said: "I will name a senator who I will choose and who will represent my party in the House of Commons". He also said: "At a time when the senators are all Tories and the House of Commons is building legislation to be

passed, I will use my privilege and exercise my duty to name a senator who will respect the will of the House of Commons".

The Prime Minister clearly shows his aggressive arrogance on this issue when he indicates his belief that the Senate is not for Canadians but is his tool to give the Liberal Party supporters patronage appointments.

[Point Of Order, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have unanimous consent to table a letter addressed to me from Premier Ralph Klein wherein he confirms that he will be asking the Prime Minister to appoint a senator from Alberta to replace the late Senator Earl Hastings.

Such an appointment is to be given by the successful candidate in a senatorial election in accordance with the Senate Elections Act, 1989.

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

Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of my intervention prior to the question period I was trying to make the point that an amendment should be moved that would ensure all Canadians continue to have the most closely held values in our society, namely the freedom of association and freedom of worship. Further, the state should not be intervening in issues that have to do with the church. That has to do with Motion No. 10 by my colleague from Edmonton.

My colleague from Port Moody also added Motions Nos. 13 and 14. Motion No. 13 adds a new clause which states that sexual orientation will not affect the enforcement of provisions of the Criminal Code and Motion No. 14 adds a new clause to affirm that nothing in the bill will result in the extension of same sex benefits.

Members have received rather hollow assurances from the spokespersons for the government that this legislation will do no such thing. I draw to the attention of the government that we have an out of control constitutional industry that is populated by high priced lawyers located primarily here in Ottawa who do nothing but look at the laws that we currently have on the books. What do we find but that we have a constitutional industry or overriding legislation, such as this legislation would be which overrides all sorts of laws and provisions in law.

I suggest there is no way that the government and the justice minister in good conscience can say that this legislation will not form a future challenge to existing legislation.

I wish to quote the member for Mississauga South who today said: "The fundamental point is that all legislation, all policy, is by its very nature discriminatory. Discrimination is not all bad. We all agree that there is unjust discrimination. It is the positive discrimination or, in American terms affirmative action, that allows us to discriminate in favour of the family because of its special status. We discriminate in favour of disabled people, aboriginal people,

seniors, just to name a few. Discrimination is not all unjust. It reflects societal norms and values".

I agree with the member. Perhaps his logical, common sense intervention in this debate is an example of why so many of the members who have been in the House all day long on the Liberal side have been denied the ability to become involved in this debate. They have a point of view that happens to be contrary to all the right thinking Liberals, if you know what I mean, Mr. Speaker, all of those Liberals who know what is right for Canada and will impose it on us whether we like it or not.

What is the scandal of this legislation and the way in which it is being jammed through this House? The scandal is the massive hypocrisy of the Liberal government on this issue. There are people in the Liberal benches who believe the same things that I and my colleagues in the Reform Party believe, indeed the vast majority of Canadians believe, that this is bad, ill-thought out, unnecessary legislation. Yet this government in its hypocrisy is denying them the right to stand up and speak, to which I say to this government, shame on you.

In conclusion, this is a very difficult and very emotional debate for many people in Canada to whom this is a very closely held value. I recognize that.

However, it does not change the fact that denying people the right to express their points of view in the House of Commons is absolute censorship and dictatorship on the part of this government and it should not be countenanced by anyone in the government.

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

Madam Speaker, to begin my portion of this debate I would like to read into the record a column which I just published in our local newspapers.

The federal government has introduced a new Bill C-33 that would introduce the term "sexual orientation" into Canada's human rights charter. Liberal members of Parliament claim that the special inclusion for homosexuals in the charter would ensure their protection.

I believe that all Canadians are entitled to equal rights, responsibilities and protection under our current human rights legislation. In fact, this is a fundamental principle in Canadian law. Section 15(1) of the charter applies to all Canadians: Every individual is equal before the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination-.

If this is the case, you, like me, must be asking yourself why we need to identify a particular group as needing special protection. Each and every one of us is a human being with a right to be treated equally and fairly.

There are some other concerns about the specific language and intention of the bill. The first is that "sexual orientation" is not defined anywhere in Bill C-33. This leaves the bill open to interpretation. The second concern that has been brought to my attention is how including sexual orientation in human rights legislation will affect the right of homosexuals to claim marital or marriage-like status. Finally, that the conscience rights of Canadians who may be morally opposed to homosexual behaviour be protected.

Based on what I have outlined here and what I believe to be the opinion of the majority of my constituents, I will vote against Bill C-33. I am voting no in hopes of reinforcing our belief as Canadians that we are all equal with no special status for any persons or groups.

Speaking to the motions before the House, I support Motion No. 11 moved by one of our members. It adds a new clause defining that sexual orientation will not redefine the terms marriage, family and spouse in any act of Parliament.

I say the following to my friend from Thunder Bay and to other members of the Liberal Party. The government has decided it is going to be including the word family in the preamble to the law. Notwithstanding that the preamble has no force of law and it is only a preamble to the law, the fact that the word family has been put in there undefined creates exactly the same problem as the fact that the term sexual orientation has been put in there undefined.

I therefore will be voting specifically in favour of Motion No. 11 in that the term family is not defined. In addition to that, it will not redefine or define the terms marriage or spouse. This lack of definition and leaving it up to the courts is just a cop-out on the part of the House of Commons. We should say what we mean and mean what we say.

I also support Motion No. 10 moved by one of our members. This motion adds the recognition of the freedom of religious institutions, providing their practices are consistent with the charter of rights and freedoms. It should go without saying that if we extend rights to one group, by definition that means it will infringe on the rights of another group. Otherwise why would we be extending those rights in the first place?

This House as a matter of principle must always guard freedom of association and freedom of worship. This House must stand on the principle that the church may not be interfered with by the state. If, as I believe, this legislation is going to give direction to recognized and organized religious groups and organizations and is going to define what those religious groups are capable of doing or not doing, that is my worst fear. I believe it is a very real fear. It is a very real fear on the basis of what has already occurred in the province of Alberta with respect to this particular question and with respect to a college in the city of Edmonton.

This is not a partisan bill. This has clearly been shown by the fact that there are members of the Liberal Party who, like myself and my colleagues, have serious concerns about the impact of the bill. This is not a political bill in the ordinary sense and therefore I do not want to make strongly partisan comments. I want to respect the fact that there are some people in the Liberal Party who are thinking about the consequences and what this bill will do to the legitimacy of the separation of church and state.

[May 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, in my absence yesterday, this being the first opportunity to address this issue, the Minister of Foreign Affairs attributed comments to me which were factually inaccurate and totally untrue.

The Reform Party has a very clear statement and undertakings on our belief in human rights in Canada. I support the Reform Party on those-

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, May 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, by comparison with the Liberals, the Reform Party policy is clear and consistent on the CBC. We call for the privatization of the CBC.

In spite of spending $2.5 million trying to come up with this funding on the wasted Juneau report, Liberals are still going ahead with the $400 million in cuts. They are getting into privatization through the back door, and the union knows it because its jobs are being contracted out to private industry.

Why will the parliamentary secretary not admit the government is doing privatization at the CBC in spite of the fact it is saying it is not, and this without public debate?

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, May 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, 70 per cent of the workers at CBC are set to strike. They listen to the government when it says it is committed to stable multi-year funding for the CBC, but management knows better.

The Liberals do not keep their promises because in spite of their so-called commitment the government's 1996 budget and main estimates cut almost $400 million from CBC funding.

Will the minister admit the government has not kept its promise, is sowing discontent and confusion at the CBC bargaining table and has no long term plan for the CBC?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member said he would not have sought his seat if he did not believe he could make a difference. Seeing as he ran for the Liberal Party,

how does he feel about the fact that on Bill C-31 which he is speaking to and which was introduced to the House just yesterday, the government has chosen to bring in closure? In other words, it is ending democracy. Can he justify that for us?

Surely if the member thought he could make a difference he must have thought the Liberals were going to be democratic and not autocratic in the way they have shown themselves to be. Does he have any comments about that?

[House Of Commons, April 22nd, 1996]

They have free votes.