Stephen Harper

[Benefits, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister is committed to the idea that it is not discrimination to refuse to provide same sex benefits, will he amend the human rights act to make that absolutely clear?

[Benefits, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's answer does not address the question.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission disagrees with his interpretation. The justice minister in past statements disagrees with that position. Justice Lamer in the Mossop decision disagreed with that position. Even members of his own party disagree with that position. The MP for Ontario said-

[Benefits, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I realize the Liberals want a new leader but that is their problem. I will ask the Prime Minister a question anyway.

Max Yalden, the former head of the human rights commission, testified before a parliamentary committee in 1994: "We believe that if sexual orientation is included by the courts in the act and even if it is more obviously included by Parliament, it would be discriminatory on the ground of sexual orientation to give benefits of one sort or another to a common law couple and yet deny them to a same sex couple".

Why do the Prime Minister and the government insist exactly the opposite is true when the commission charged with administering the act disagrees with their opinion?

[Benefits, May 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, you will check the record that Parliament voted on this in the fall.

It was the minister who made this connection when he said in XTRA West on March 12, 1994: ``If the government takes the position that you cannot discriminate, it follows as a matter of logic that you have spousal entitlement to benefits''.

Is that his position? If it is not his position, will he clarify any legislation before the House to ensure there is not mandatory provision of same sex entitlements?

[Benefits, May 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on the last question put by the member for Calgary Northeast to the Minister of Justice.

The Minister of Justice has indicated in introducing legislation in the House that Parliament and not the courts should settle certain important issues. Why then is he content on the issue of same sex benefits to allow the courts and tribunals to settle those questions? Why will he not table legislation that respects the vote of Parliament that same sex benefits not be provided?

[Goods And Services Tax, May 1st, 1996]

Those are your promises.

[Deputy Prime Minister, April 30th, 1996]

I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

As the Prime Minister knows, the Deputy Prime Minister was booed at the Copps Coliseum in Hamilton because of her own performance and of the government's performance on the GST.

Here are some of the headlines that appeared in the Quebec newspapers: "Everybody Misunderstood", "GST: the End of a

Charade", "Smoke and Mirrors", in La Presse ; ``Copps the Joker'', in Le Devoir . There is national unity on this issue.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister act honourably and resign, as she promised during the last election campaign?

[Deputy Prime Minister, April 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister tried to use the cost of a byelection as an excuse for not fulfilling her solemn, precise and calculated promise to electors in Hamilton East in the last election to resign if the GST is not scrapped.

Every elector there knows every month and every year the Deputy Prime Minister spends here adds hundreds of thousands of dollars to taxpayers' liability for her MP and minister's pension.

Instead of using this bogus excuse, will she simply do the right thing, resign and allow a byelection?

[Ontario, March 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians were disgusted last night to watch the goings on at Queen's Park. As provincial governments struggle to deal with federal Liberal budget cuts to the provinces it becomes increasingly obvious the Ontario Liberals, NDP and other leftist organizations hope to block the Harris agenda through an orchestrated campaign of strikes, intimidation, violence and general thuggery.

It is evident the Ontario left hopes to achieve through force what it failed to achieve at the ballot box.

The common sense revolution is no longer merely about restoring fiscal sanity and hope to Canada's heartland, it is now also about preserving democracy and protecting the right of taxpayers to control their government.

At this time of grave threat to democracy and the economy of Ontario, the Ontario provincial government can count on the support of Reformers for our common objectives.

I call on the federal PC leader to end his silence and to do likewise.

[Supply, March 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, of course there is a role for government, as I and my colleagues have stated. That is why we are here. There is a role for government to lay the groundwork for the kind of economy that provides growth and opportunity for people, which is what it should be doing. It should be concentrating on those things it can do for the people of Labrador to exploit their opportunities and have real economic growth.

If the hon. member thinks the historic policies of the Liberal Party have genuinely levelled the playing field in Labrador or Atlantic Canada or some of our northern regions and made those places areas of hope, growth and opportunity, he is sadly mistaken about the economy of those regions and about the economic record of the Liberal Party.