That in relation to Bill C-33, an act to amend the Human Rights Act, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage of the bill, and one sitting day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill and, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the day allotted to the consideration of the report stage and on the allotted day to the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.(1520)
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Daviault
Deshaies
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Frazer
Gauthier
Gilmour
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Lalonde
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-87
PAIRED MEMBERS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion carried.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-33. This legislation will amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation.
Currently the act forbids discrimination against Canadians because of their race, national or ethnic origins, colour, religion, age, marital status, family status or disabilities.
(1605)
The purpose of this legislation is to insert into the act that which the courts have already declared into law in Canada. We know there is much emotion surrounding this bill. We also know this has been a policy of the federal Liberals since 1978, affirmed again at our last policy convention in 1994.
We know also that this has been included in the acts of eight provinces and territories in Canada. My province of Ontario introduced sexual orientation into its human rights act in 1986, some ten years ago. We also know the human rights commissions of all remaining Canadian jurisdictions have recommended that sexual orientation be added to human rights legislation.
There seems to be a lot of confusion and misinterpretation regarding this legislation. Much of it centres around its possible effects on the family. I remind the House the family is important to me, as it is to the people of Guelph- Wellington. Family must be the centre of our lives. I would not hesitate to speak out against any legislation which would end the importance of our families. That is why I am pleased to note in the bill's preamble these important words: ``And whereas the government recognizes and affirms the importance of family as the foundation of Canadian society and that nothing in this act alters its fundamental role in society''.
Those are comforting words. The family is the foundation of society and must continue to be respected and promoted as such. The preamble's purpose is to remind Canadians and parliamentarians that the act deals with discrimination in employment and the provision of goods and services. The fundamental role of family will not be altered by this amendment.
Canada is the best country in the world. We do not need the United Nations to remind us of that, although it continues to do so in poll after poll. It is the best country because of our cherished tradition of caring for one another. Health care, social services, education and public pensions are examples of why the world looks to us as a nation to copy.
Canadians enjoy the unique privilege of being the world's best. Our federal government must lead by defending the principle of equality for all Canadians, everyone. Our social programs and our health care are not the only reason we are the best. We are the best because we have shown tolerance and understanding to each other. We care for our aged. We look out for one another in need and we do not accept bigotry, intolerance or discrimination.
There seems to be a lot of discussion about the legislation which would in effect cover about 10 per cent of the workforce. The act specifies that a person cannot be fired, denied a promotion or refused access to goods and services because of who they are. However, sometimes it is important to remind Canadians of what legislation does not say.
In this case the act does not apply to religious, cultural or educational institutions. It does not apply to residential accommodation. It does not apply to retail and manufacturing businesses and it does not apply to provincial jurisdictions. It does not tell us what to do in our homes.
Canadians cannot accept intolerance. Certainly no one, particularly those in positions of power or leadership, would accept that people should be fired or placed at the back of a room or a bus because someone else finds their colour, their religion, their age, their sexual orientation offensive. Or would they?
It is possible there are still some Canadians who would rather fire an employee, no matter how good that person is, because a client or a customer is somehow offended by their colour or who they are.
(1610 )
Those ideas proved the worth of this legislation. Those ideas proved Canadians still need protection, not special rights, because they happen to be black, Jewish, Chinese or over 50 years old.
Reformers argue they want to see the list of prohibited grounds repealed altogether, ensuring equal treatment for all Canadians. Obviously they do not all agree.
However, let me challenge them to visit a seniors group and remind them they want to end protection based on age. Let them visit a synagogue, mosque or Christian church and tell the congregation they want to end protection based on religion. Let them visit women who have been fired or who lacked promotion because of the simple fact they are women.
We need no lesson on equality from Reformers. The sad reason we need to protect people is that there are those in this great country who believe the back of the bus is the place for some of us. There are those who believe the back of the room is the place to hide while bigotry, racism and intolerance are accepted.
We as a government, as elected officials, must take a stand and say we do not tolerate bigotry. We cannot accept that some Canadians, our sons, daughters, mothers, daughters, co-workers, employees and friends, are denied goods and services, are overlooked for promotion, are ignored or, worse, beaten because of who they are. The only thing we must be intolerant of is intolerance against others.
This amendment has the support of such national organizations as the Canadian Jewish Congress, the YWCA, the Canadian Bankers Association, the Canadian Bar Association and the Anglican Church of Canada.
I know there is concern about this legislation. Much of this concern has resulted from the importance of marriage and family. I know there are individuals who enjoy stretching the facts. These same people said that gun control would lead to confiscation and that Bill C-41 would lead to the legalization of pedophilia.
However, what we are doing here is recognizing that certain Canadians require our protection in certain parts of their lives. This does not condone what they do elsewhere.
Allow me to quote Sean Durkan from the May 5, 1996 edition of the Ottawa Sun:
Telling someone they must sit at the back of the bus until such a time as a way can be worked out to place everyone at the back of that bus does not cut it.It is time to get off that bus and back on the road to tolerance and understanding.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am informed the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth would like to have Motion No. 8 withdrawn because it is substantially the same as Motion No. 7. I have consulted with the whips of the two other parties and they have no objection to this proposition.
There is a consequential amendment, I have been told. Perhaps I could indicate to other members to examine Motion No. 1 because I think it is consequential to Motion No. 8; it has a direct relationship.
In any case, I would like to now ask if the House would consent to have Motion No. 8 withdrawn.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Do we have the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw Motion No. 8 in Group No. 3?
An hon. member: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I have another point of order. There is also Motion No. 1 which I would like to ask colleagues to examine. I believe it is purely consequential by the information given to me. Perhaps after the next debate we could have it removed because it is consequential. Now that No. 8 does not exist that amendment does not do anything. If the House is satisfied with that I will come back to the House in a few minutes, perhaps after the next speaker.
(1615)
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member speaking about society.
I stand in a House that was built on the principle of democracy and today I watched the government vote against democracy. By moving closure on this debate it is stopping the people from having their say. If members want to talk about hypocrisy they had better start doing what they are supposed to be doing in a supposedly democratic House.
I wish to express the strong opposition of my constituents to the government's legislation for adding the undefined phrase sexual orientation to the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Since I became a member of Parliament in 1993 no issue, no government action or inaction, has provoked such an outpouring of letters, faxes and petitions to my office. No issue has had a greater impact, yet closure has been moved in the House on it.
People are concerned for many reasons. First is the needless haste, the almost diehard rush of the government, to ram this very important legislation through Parliament without giving the people of Canada adequate opportunity to study its possible impacts and to reach public agreement on whether it is advisable.
The government is pretending, because the bill is so short, that there is virtually nothing in it. People give more apparent thought to getting the oil changed in their cars than the government has given to adding the undefined phrase sexual orientation to a list in the human rights act of forbidden grounds of discrimination.
One other action of this government provoked a similar degree of public protest and that was Bill C-68, which will take police officers off our streets in order to process gun registrations for law-abiding Canadians while doing virtually nothing to end the criminal misuse of firearms. For that legislation the same justice minister made a point of bragging how he had consulted with the public.
Day after day he read to hon. members a list of the groups which he visited, a list of the groups which supported that very controversial legislation. He apparently made a point of at least notifying such groups and now we hear from the groups that this was not true in all cases. But he did express this. He seriously considered amendments, if not outright in their opposition to his legislation, to at least seek consensus and to answer their concerns by modifying his original proposal.
I believe his legislation was bad because there is no proof that it will ever reduce criminal misuse of firearms. At least the justice minister gave an appearance of listening to the people. However, not in this case.
Currently the Canadian pension plan secretariat has been helping with hearings across Canada so that all Canadians can have the opportunity to speak about changes to their pension.
When the subject of doctor assisted suicide came before Parliament during the first session, the other place held extensive hearings and produced a significant report. The government ap-
peared to listen because it did not proceed with legislation. Even now the government is listening to different groups.
Let us look at the Devco development, the Cape Breton Development Corporation, which will seriously affect the future of the Atlantic region, especially the Cape Breton coal mining industry. It is prompting serious Senate hearings to examine the plans put forward. Community members and labour leaders as well as local legislatures have had opportunity to come to Ottawa and lobby members, including officials of Natural Resource Canada, to try to ensure that the best possible decision is made.
(1620 )
We are all aware that sometimes such hearings are more for public relations than for the real purpose of listening to Canadians. However, the people of Canada can at least hope that the government will listen to them. The people can at least get the impression that Parliament, including the Prime Minister and his cabinet, is acting as responsibly as possible about issues which Canadians perceive to be important. Not in this case.
Past governments have viewed it as being so important that people must have hope they will be listened to that they even added a special section to the Criminal Code so that some of the worst criminals in our history would be guaranteed the opportunity of getting a hearing for early parole, even if they have been a serial murderer who has been tried and found guilty. Sometimes they have even confessed their guilt for the killing of many people and for the terrible pain and suffering they have inflicted on the surviving family and friends. Supposedly even those murderers must be assured that there is some hope they will be listened to by the government.
Surely the fact that every member of Parliament has received hundreds if not thousands of faxes, letters and petitions about the government's plan to add the undefined phrase sexual orientation to the human rights act ought to have convinced even this government that the people of Canada view this legislation as very serious business indeed.
What do we get? We get closure. A gag order. That is the government's response to the people of Canada.
Is the government listening? No. Is it showing respect for the fact that very often the people of Canada have a collective wisdom which is far greater than anything displayed by a government? No. Is the government holding cross country hearings? No. Will there be a Senate committee appointed to look into the issue? No.
The Minister of Justice is turning his back on the Canadian people. He is listening instead to a very small special interest group. He has not made any significant effort to seek a consensus from Canadians on how he should proceed.
The government has brought forward Bill C-33 with the kind of extreme haste that reasonable people could only expect when dealing with a major national emergency. By contrast, the west coast grain handlers went on strike during the first session of the 35th Parliament, putting thousands of people out of work and threatening Canada's international reputation as a reliable supplier of grain. Even then the government did not act with such haste.
What effort has the justice minister made on Bill C-33 to contact groups which could reasonably be expected to have concerns or perhaps to oppose the legislation outright? What effort has the government made to seek the consensus of Canadians before proceeding with legislation to add the undefined phrase sexual orientation to the human rights act?
The laws that are made and passed in the House will affect the people of Canada forever, yet the government refuses to consult the people. It is shameful.
Unlike serial killers, which the government thinks must have the hope of special hearings, it gives people opposed to including the undefined phrase sexual orientation in the human rights act no hope at all that their concerns will be examined. Instead it substitutes name calling, like bigot, racist and homophobic to anybody who stands up to question the legislation. That is how much respect the government has for democracy.
The second reason I oppose the legislation is that members of Parliament have not been given any proof that homosexuals and lesbians are not being paid fairly, are not being promoted or are not being admitted as students in our colleges and universities. On the contrary, we have proof. The member for Port Moody-Coquitlam pointed out to the government that the gay population in North America appears to have full access to a standard of living which is considerably above average.
(1625)
The government usually presents hon. members with pages and pages of statistics regarding, for example, the recognizably lower household incomes of aboriginal peoples compared with non-aboriginal peoples, or the much smaller percentage of women compared with men in management positions. We gets reams of statistics on these issues from the government.
Where are the pages, where are the statistics on this issue? Nowhere. The answer is clear. The government has no statistics to support this legislation. It has never had any statistics supporting this legislation.
I would like to remind my hon. colleagues that the government also assured Canadians that passing the Young Offenders Act would not result in an increase of any youth crime. on the contrary, from 1986 to 1994, violent youth crime-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The hon. member's time has expired.
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on Bill C-33, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act which will prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.
The proposals have generated deep, passionate and powerful discussion on both sides of the issue, and a maelstrom of notions of family, religion and entitlement to benefits. There are strongly held views among my colleagues in the House, among my constituents of Erie, among the citizens of this country.
I respect and have considered the views of all who have written letters, placed phone calls to my office and made personal presentations. I am most appreciative of their time, their concerns and their prayers. I listened intently to the differing opinions and approaches of each individual and organization that made presentations to the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons. I have thought long and hard on this issue, at times with confusion, at times with anxiety, at times with anguish and finally with resolve.
Now the time has come to take a stand, to cast a vote. In full knowledge of the free vote status of this decision, I have concluded that I will support Bill C-33 for a very good reason: It is simply the right thing to do. Let me explain.
This issue is one of human rights, of dignity, of equality, of the universal principle that no individual should be discriminated against because of who or what they are.
The federal government as well as every province and territory in Canada has human rights legislation. The current Canadian Human Rights Act contains a list of prohibited grounds of discrimination which includes race, colour, religion, age, sex, marital or family status and disability. Canadians are protected whether they are of Italian, Sri Lankan or English stock, black, yellow, brown or white, Jewish, Christian or Muslim, young or old, man or woman, married or single, parent or childless. The act does not create any special group or any special rights. This bill would add the term sexual orientation to that list, no special group, no special rights.
The application of the Canadian Human Rights Act is restricted to employment in and the provision of goods and services by the federal government and federally regulated businesses such as banks, airlines and telecommunications companies. These organizations employ about 10 per cent of the workforce which makes for a very limited application. Most employers such as schools, small businesses and religious and cultural organizations are regulated provincially and would not be affected by the proposed legislation.
There are four basic reasons why sexual orientation should be included in the Canadian Human Rights Act. First, as a matter of fundamental fairness, the amendment will ensure that Canadians cannot be discriminated against in the areas of federal employment, accommodation and access to goods and services solely because of their sexual orientation. This means, for example, Canadians cannot be fired for being homosexual or indeed heterosexual.
Some may say it is not necessary in this day and age. Let me remind the House of the recent intemperate, base and discriminating remarks made against blacks and homosexuals by two Reform members of the House, the highest court in the land. These inexcusable comments sickened me and Canadians everywhere. Some may say it is necessary, very much so.
Second, it is necessary to bring the text of the Canadian Human Rights Act into conformity with the charter. The Ontario Court of Appeal in Haig v. Canada held that the Canadian Human Rights Act would in future be read as though sexual orientation were already a prohibited ground of discrimination. It is already with us. The courts are already setting policy which should be a prerogative of Parliament. It is our responsibility, indeed our obligation, to codify this fundamental right and principle of equality. The courts are telling parliamentarians to do our jobs or they will do it for us.
Third, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously held in Egan and Nesbitt v. Canada that sexual orientation is a prohibited ground of discrimination under the equality provisions of section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The problem is the charter does not apply to private companies and federally regulated industries. The Canadian Human Rights Act does. Accordingly the Canadian Human Rights Act is being amended to give protection on the basis of sexual orientation to gays and lesbians in the private sector workplace.
(1630)
Fourth, the proposed amendment will bring the federal act into conformity with eight provinces and territories which have already amended their human rights legislation to include sexual orientation: Quebec in 1977, Ontario in 1986, Yukon in 1987, Nova Scotia in 1991, New Brunswick in 1992, British Columbia in 1992, and Saskatchewan in 1993. The nature of this legislation is not new or revolutionary. We are simply catching up to the provinces.
My constituents are surprised on being reminded that in 1986 the province of Ontario added sexual orientation as a prohibited ground in its human rights legislation. Did this open the floodgates? Not as a matter of course, not automatically. Indeed eight long years later the Ontario government introduced specific legislation, Bill 167, directed at enlarging the definition of spousal
relationships in Ontario, that same sex couples were entitled to the same rights as applied to common law heterosexual couples.
It is interesting to note that the bill was defeated. Let us not lose the logic of this event. Issues such as adoption by homosexuals were separate and distinct and did not automatically follow the adding of sexual orientation to the Ontario human rights legislation. No, we were not consumed by the flood waters.
Let me continue with a brief but most important consideration of what the Canadian Human Rights Act does not do. It does not negatively impact on the traditional family nor change the definition of marriage, family or spouse. This is explicitly reinforced in the preamble where it is stated ``-the government recognizes and affirms the importance of family as the foundation of Canadian society and that nothing in this act alters its fundamental role in society''.
In fact the Supreme Court of Canada in the Mossop case rejected claims that the term ``family status'' in the Canadian Human Rights Act includes couples of the same sex. This was the decision of the court then and remains the law now. It is good law that I agree with.
It does not condone nor condemn sexual orientation, neither homosexuality nor heterosexuality. It does not extend same sex benefits to partners of gays and lesbians. Again the Supreme Court of Canada in the Egan case refused to support the extension of pension benefits to same sex partners in its decision that the Old Age Security Act does not violate the charter by defining spouse to apply only to couples of the opposite sex.
It does not legitimize nor legalize pedophilia, which is a crime under the Criminal Code of Canada, whether the perpetrator is heterosexual or homosexual and is not a matter of sexual orientation.
As mentioned, I also took note of submissions by the witnesses before the human rights committee which coloured an overriding element of this debate, the human element. I listened to the opinions of psychiatrists who confirmed that a homosexual orientation was not learned or influenced behaviour but set in the womb by the mysteries of conception and fetal development. I listened to a young female who stood in the top five percentile of the officer rank only to be honourably discharged from the Canadian Armed Forces solely because she was a lesbian.
There was the love of mothers of gay and lesbian children all of whom struggled with their child's sexual orientation, fear, societal rejection and persecution and ultimately acceptance and peace, as well as the wasteful suicides of the many who did not. There were comments and support by the Ottawa-Carleton regional police chief and two officers from the bias crime units who denounced discrimination, intolerance and hate. There were the representations of various religious groups who came down forcefully and convincingly on both sides of the argument.
It is interesting that those who opposed the legislation for religious reasons adamantly affirmed their abhorrence for discrimination but feared the slippery slope which they felt the legislation could lead to. Am I to vote against the basic fundamental human right on fears that it may lead to something else? Is this correct, is this right, especially when one notes the familial interpretation of our courts to date?
I also wish to send a message to members of the homosexual community cautioning them not to chortle with glee on the passage of this legislation. I strongly support the traditional family and heterosexual spouses. I strongly oppose same sex marriages, adoption or measures that advocate a homosexual lifestyle and would vote against legislative initiatives in this regard. Bill C-33 does not fall in this category.
Bill C-33 is not a gay rights bill as its opponents and the media delight in its reference. It is a human rights bill, pure and simple.
Bill C-33 is not about special rights for anyone. It is about equal rights for everyone. All Canadians have a fundamental right to be free from discrimination. It is not enough to be against discrimination. We must act to prevent discrimination.
Let me bring this discussion to a personal level. What parent could argue that a son or daughter who is gay or lesbian should have less protection from workplace discrimination or less access to services than anyone else? Not this parent of five children.
It is often said that a society is judged by how the majority treats its minorities. Canada's world renowned and admirable human rights record speaks volumes of who we are as a people. Bigotry cannot be changed overnight. We must educate, we must learn. The objective of this legislation is to end discrimination, nothing more and nothing less. In all good conscience, who could not support this objective?
(1635)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon.. member for Huron-Bruce-taxation; the hon. member for Mackenzie-fisheries.
[English]
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Madam Speaker, recently I was interviewed by a reporter from a major newspaper in western Canada. It was an extended interview and she asked me about my experience as a politician and a parliamentarian.
I explained to her that I had never been a politician before 1993, that it was the first time I had been elected to anything. When she asked me how I found politics I frankly told her that I certainly had had my eyes opened in the last two and one-half years. She kept at me asking me what I meant and what kind of experience it had been for me. I told her that to be bluntly honest, politics is a dirty, rotten, slimy business in Canada. When she asked me to explain, I said I could not think of a better way to illustrate and underline that than what was going on with Bill C-33.
Hundreds and hundreds of letters and phone calls and faxes are coming from people from all over Canada to my office and to all the members' offices in Ottawa, to my constituency office and even to my home. The only other piece of legislation that has caused as much of an uproar in my constituency as this legislation has is Bill C-68 which as my colleague pointed out also came from this same minister.
At least on Bill C-68, we had the opportunity for a full and open debate. Yes, the government adopted legislation that flew in the face of what a majority of Canadians wanted. Yes, the government forced its will on the people, but at least there was the opportunity for the bill to be debated in public for an extended period time. The justice committee had an opportunity to examine the legislation and propose amendments to it and to call witnesses. It was a protracted debate. At least there was an opportunity for Canadians to express their widespread opposition to it. Unfortunately in the end, it went through but at least the process was adhered to.
In this instance, a piece of legislation is being rammed through this House of Commons without debate. The government is trying to get this legislation passed before Canadians wake up and realize what is going on.
The government would like to have it a done deal before it has to face the music. Those who write editorials have not even had a chance to pick at this and highlight some of the discrepancies in the minister's statements and some of the discrepancies in what the legislation purports to do and actually will do. The government wants to have this all a done deal, put away in the closet before Canadians wake up.
This bill is not about discrimination. As my colleague who also asked, show us where there is a problem with discrimination against homosexuals in Canada. Show us where this kind of legislation is required. It does not exist.
This legislation is not about equality. It is about inequality. It is about special status. In the minister's own words, he says one thing to one group of people, one special interest group and then he stands up in front of all Canadians and says something completely different. He tells the gay community: ``This is a major win for you guys''. Then he tells Canadians: ``Do not worry, this is basically window dressing. It is an amendment to the human rights code so that there is no discrimination against gay and lesbian people''.
Clearly, there is a real hypocrisy going on behind the scenes that will not stand the light of day. I spoke with people outside on the steps of this House who are protesting what is going on in here. They know full well the hypocritical remarks the minister has made, the duplicity of the government's bill and its attempt to ram it through without debate, invoking closure time and again.
(1640)
Mr. Stinson: Unbelievable.
Mr. Scott (Skeena): It is unbelievable and it is unacceptable. This is not democracy. This is a minister who has a very narrow agenda. He is imposing his will not only on the Canadian people, but on his colleagues as well. I am sure most of them did not want to see the legislation come before the House and certainly do not want to support it. However, this is the way democracy works in Canada today.
It calls into question the parliamentary process and underlines the need for the changes that the Reform Party of Canada has proposed. But I will not get into that right now. I will stay on the subject.
The justice minister has admitted in his public statements that Bill C-33 will lead to special status. I do not have his quote in front of be, so I will paraphrase: ``Obviously, when you recognize the sexual orientation aspect of this bill it must lead to same sex benefits and the recognition of marital status''. It cannot help but do that.
The justice minister knows it full well because he said it. He is the representative of the Canadian public on justice matters. He cannot stand now and tell the Canadian people that that is not what the bill is all about. I know we are not allowed to use certain words in the House, and it is unfortunate because sometimes those words are needed to describe the actions of some members.
I have received in my office about 180 calls and faxes from constituents. They have said very clearly and overwhelmingly: ``Do not support this legislation. Vote against it''. On the other side I got one phone call in the last two weeks saying: ``I want you to support this legislation''. All the rest have said no. We are receiving petitions daily.
The government is trying to ram and stuff this legislation through the House so quickly that members cannot get petitions through the clerk of petitions fast enough to get them into the House before the legislation becomes law. How can this be called a
democracy when people do not even get a chance to express their opinions by petitioning the government and have the petitions duly noted and recorded before the legislation becomes reality?
What is going on with this legislation? It does not stand the light of day. It is what gives Parliament a bad name. It is what the Liberals ranted and railed about when they were in opposition and the Conservatives invoked closure and time allocation time after time. Now, when they are the government they are doing exactly the same thing. Obviously, they were crying crocodile tears back then. They have no real commitment to democracy. They have no real commitment to opening up the House and allowing proper debate to take place. They have no real inclination to move with the Canadian people on these issues. They want to impose their vision on the Canadian people.
There is a gulf between the vision of this government and its cabinet and the vision of the Canadian people. A gulf is widening in many ways. This is another example. It is undermining the faith of ordinary Canadians in their government and in the system.
I submit that as long as we continue down this road that gulf will widen even more and the Canadian people will become more disillusioned. I also submit, as I have said many times in the House, this government by these actions, by this arrogant, top down social engineering attitude is going to destroy itself. It has to face the voters in the next election. It will have to explain to ordinary Canadians why it invoked time allocation and closure and why it rammed this legislation through the House of Commons, why it ignored the wishes of ordinary Canadians right across Canada. It will pay the price.
(1645 )
In the meantime, it is certainly a sad day for our nation that the government is moving with as much speed as I have ever seen on any piece of legislation to ram this through and make it a done deal before Canadians even realize what is going on.
I conclude by saying what I said to the reporter. Politics in Canada in 1996 is a dirty, rotten, slimy business.
Ms. Maria Minna (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am very proud to rise today to support Bill C-33.
I have listened for some time now to both sides of the argument. I have listened to some exaggerations sometimes on both sides. However, when we get right down to the essential facts of the issue we have to accept that it is clearly a human rights issue. There is no other way of looking at it.
We can look at every aspect of it. If we look at the provinces we see that most have already adopted this measure in their human rights acts. It has existed for 20 years in Quebec and for 10 years in Ontario. It has not changed the interpretation of adoption in those provinces. In the Ontario legislature it had to be introduced as a separate bill which was defeated at that time. Therefore the courts have not used this section as a way of interpreting spousal benefit, adoption, marital status or whatever. It has nothing whatever to do with that. It strictly deals with discrimination, plain and simple.
Many of us have in our lifetimes experienced discrimination. Those people who have never had to deal with it have no idea what it does to a person's sense of self-respect, self-being and the ability to continue on with their lives. I have experienced some of that in my lifetime. I come from a community where at the time that kind of discrimination was meted out. There are many other groups that still deal with that daily.
As a country, we are proud to deal with minorities. We have always said we must protect minorities, otherwise we have no democracy. If it is strictly a rule of the majority then there is no democracy.
This issue does not deal with pedophilia, as some people are suggesting. Pedophilia is a crime. To suggest this bill does anything but give people basic human rights is distorting the facts. We can distort and misrepresent people's statements all we want but the facts will not change no matter which way we look at it. We can read people's statements and misinterpret and misrepresent them but that does not change the fact that this is a basic issue of human rights and nothing else.
We talk about families. All the amendments refer in one way or another to the traditional family and how this is to affect family structure. I defy anyone to tell me exactly what the perfect family is. Some of my colleagues will say it is husband, wife, children, perhaps adopted, and maybe pets. However, we have single mothers, single fathers, older siblings raising younger siblings, aunts, uncles and grandparents raising children. We have all kinds of family structures.
We also have children who go from one divorce to another where the parent may have divorced two or three times. We have families from which someone has been abandoned. We have families in which there is abuse and the children must be taken away. We have a majority of good families, but family is a term that basically means a place where children are nurtured, looked after and raised with love, attention and stimulation.
I have risen in the House many times to talk about issues like child poverty, child care and assisting parents with their children so that we do not have situations such as the one mentioned recently in the Toronto Star in which a mother left her five-year-old to look after a two-year-old in the library. Or another in which an eleven-year old was at home looking after two younger siblings because the mother was working. They are locked in the home after school hours. There are many cases of latch key kids in society.
(1650)
That to me is a moral issue. A society that does not make children its priority, does not ensure the development of the children both emotionally and nutritionally is protected, is hindering the future of those children. That is a moral issue.
We do not have enough discussions about that. I do not hear a great deal of uproar and indignation about those issues in the House. I would like to hear members opposite talk about how we might eradicate child poverty in Canada, how we might address the fact that children are living on the streets and that education is being cut back in Ontario and in Alberta. These are moral issues. I do not hear any member opposite standing up and fighting for those issues. Instead I hear fearmongering on the issue of rights.
I learned the other day that South Africa has a new constitution and a new bill of rights. Guess what? South Africa has written into its bill of rights sexual orientation without any qualifiers. South Africa not too long ago practised apartheid, which we fought by boycott. South Africa has acknowledged before we have basic human rights in its society, a very interesting twist.
With respect to these changes we have heard talk about crime, pedophilia and all kinds of horrible things, and spousal benefits and whatever else. If anyone looked at the history of Canada, what has happened in the provinces, what has happened in Supreme Court decisions before this, that has not been the case. We cannot make legislation on the basis of prejudice. We have to make legislation to protect minorities. As a society that is the only way we can move ahead and ensure we have a society which reflects in its every day actions tolerance and respect for one another and which protects its minorities.
I have no problem whatsoever supporting this legislation. To me it is a basic issue of human rights. It has nothing whatever to do with moral issues. There are many other moral issues on which I wish to spend my time and for which I wish to fight so we can enter the 21st century having eradicated child poverty. We must deal with the very issues on which members opposite are talking. We must strengthen individuals within society.
When we talk about family we keep forgetting that gay and lesbians come from families. They are people's children. They have not just appeared out of thin air. They are children of heterosexual couples. I am sure they are loved and supported by their parents. We are not inventing these people. This is not a choice.
I dare anyone in the House to tell me that being lesbian or gay is a matter of choice. If it were a choice, why would anyone choose to be discriminated against, to be abused, to be attacked physically and to commit suicide because life is so difficult? Why would they choose such a tortuous way to live when they could easily choose another, much easier way to live? It is not a choice.
The legislation must address that issue. We have to deal with basic human rights in Canada. I am very proud to stand here to say I support the legislation. I hope other members of the House will find it within themselves to deal with the realities and be generous enough to acknowledge the realities and to support the bill as well.
(1655)
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I rise today to address at report stage Bill C-33 and to discuss the issue itself.
There has been much debate about issues concerning the rights and status of gays and lesbians in society. It is an issue of vital importance. It involves many aspects of social policy.
This is a divisive issue. Whether members argue in favour of this bill or against it, it should not be construed, as some in the House have done, that they are bigots, racists or prejudiced. There are solid arguments on both sides of this issue. There are many Canadians who feel both ways on this issue, as witnessed by many of the polls. Therefore it is our obligation to listen to what everyone has to say and not start branding and labelling each other as bigots and racists, as has been happening this past week.
This issue involves two things, and the legal rights of the individual should not be construed as legal rights of groups. The first is the matter of discrimination and the legal rights of the individual. The equality rights provision in section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not specifically prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, although several court decisions and a number of analyses have concluded that section 15 is open and does cover sexual orientation. In other words, many argue and judges have ordered that it be read into court decisions, that it is there. Therefore many believe it should be specifically written in the charter along with race and the rest on the list.
One of the amendments the Reform Party will be putting forward is not to have a list. We believe in the equality of all citizens and all peoples, and no one, no matter who they are or what they are, should be discriminated against, period. It is the list that causes confusion. It is the list that causes hatred. It is the list that needs to be removed.
On the legal rights of the group, there is the slippery slope argument that if we add the words sexual orientation it will lead to same sex benefits and same sex marriage, which at the present time in Canada are not permitted. Spouse is defined in heterosexual terms, not homosexual terms. These are the fears many in Canada have, that this bill will lead to something else. They are against
discrimination, as I am, but they are also against same sex benefits, same sex marriage, same sex adoption and erosion of the family.
Why not define sexual orientation? Why not look at the list and not have a list? Those are some questions this party has asked. On that basis many on the other side are saying we are for discrimination.
I stand before the House and I say I am against discrimination but I am also against same sex marriages, same sex adoption and same sex benefits because those are rights and benefits society gives, and they are privileges. It is not against the law for an employer not to grant same sex benefits. If they want to do it, they can. It should not be the law that they must. There is a fear that this will lead to that. I do not have that problem but some do. I am trying to point out there are arguments on both sides.
If this bill passes, as it will because the Liberals have enough members to vote for it, if the homosexual communities then use the Canadian Human Rights Act to say in a legal argument, in a court case, that because company X has denied same sex benefits it is discriminating against them, that will be wrong. That will be totally wrong and it will prove that those people who voted against this bill on that slippery slope argument are correct.
That is why both sides of this argument should have respect. That is why both sides of this argument should restore some sanity to this issue and look at it on a more rational and reasonable basis rather than getting carried away with the emotional element.
(1700 )
I have done something in my riding which is very important to the Reform Party. It represents how we are doing politics differently. We have our policies and our principles on which we were elected and which we are here to represent. We have policies and principles in our blue book which I will defend at all times.
We also have a way to represent people between election years. If I get a sense that people in my riding do not wish me to vote with my caucus, or if they wish me to vote in support of the government on a certain bill, if my ears perks up-on this issue they have because it is a divisive issue-I will do what I did earlier. Two years ago in my first householder I talked about this issue and indicated what the Minister of Justice was planning. We had town hall meetings. I sent a survey to all households to which I received 1,470 responses. In Calgary Centre the response was very strong that I should vote yes to support such an amendment.
Since that time the issue has been percolating. I feel confident that people in Calgary Centre, that little cosmos, that little part of the world, deserve and should have the benefit of a member of Parliament who will take the time to find out what they think.
Subsequently I conducted a scientific random sampling poll. I hired a professional firm. I have just finished the poll with the results. I have the report in my hands. There were three questions this time around. I asked the very same question as the Angus Reid poll which was held at the end of April, a poll that said 59 per cent of Canadians were in favour of amending the Canadian Human Rights Act.
However, if the results were broken down by province, 57 per cent of Albertans were against adding sexual orientation to the Canadian Human Rights Act. Manitoba and Saskatchewan were lumped together to produce a figure of 49 per cent against, even though they have provincial legislation that includes sexual orientation.
There is proof that a lot of Canadians are against this. To call those people who are against this bill prejudiced and bigoted is not right. I wish the people on the other side would stop doing that. Everybody has a right to their opinions and everybody has the right to vote according to either their conscience or the wishes of their constituents.
An hon. member: No one has the right to discriminate.
Mr. Silye: I agree, nobody has the right to discriminate, which is what this bill is about, and I agree with that. However, there is that slippery slope.
For the member who has pointed that out to me, if groups like EGALE use this in a legal argument, that member might have some red in her face. She will realize our job is to look ahead to see if there are negative impacts of any bill. That is what some of these members are doing. They have the right to do it. Let us stop calling them prejudiced if they vote against this bill.
Getting back to my survey, currently in Calgary Centre 60 per cent are in favour of amending the human rights act by adding these two words.
I will be voting according to the sampling in the two polls I have conducted. I have a clear consensus in my constituency that this is what the people wish me to do. They also know my personal point of view. This is that extra step. To me this is how we can do politics differently and still be true to our policies.
Not everybody in the country agrees with every Liberal policy. Not everybody in the country agrees with every Reform policy although they are card carrying members of each party. It is about time we recognized that and it is about time we tried to work on a participatory democracy. It is harder to do this, but in the long run it is worthwhile.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am delighted to speak in support of Bill C-33. Members of Parliament have an obligation to state the facts and clarify and dispel the myths that have existed in society. Only then can we ensure we are really giving valid information to our citizenry and thereby proper support to this bill.
The bill will prohibit discrimination, the essence and soul of this piece of legislation.
Let me start with the preamble of the bill. Let me restate:
Whereas the Government of Canada affirms the dignity and worth of all individuals and recognizes that they have the right to be free from discrimination in employment and the provision of goods and services, and that that right is based on respect for the rule of law and lawful conduct by all;(1705)
Who would disagree with the preamble? Show me a citizen.
The purpose of this act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an equal opportunity to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted.The purpose is very clear. Let us convey that message to all citizens and we will have a fuller understanding of the bill and its importance.
It is important to underscore that the purpose of human rights legislation, as this amendment is to this piece of law, is to protect vulnerable groups, not to prey on them.
Recently there was an advertisement in the Globe and Mail which raised a couple of concerns, that Bill C-33 will give special status to homosexuals, that the bill could have a profound effect on Canadian society and would threaten the institution of marriage and family.
I respect their concerns, but they have been based on a misunderstanding of the bill itself and our laws and of the separation of the church and the state.
Bill C-33 will not give special status to anyone. No one could credibly argue federal and provincial human rights legislations now confers special status on Catholics or Protestants, on husbands or wives, or on those with disabilities. Although each of these is expressly covered by the existing statutes, it is obvious no such special status is conferred.
On the matter of the consequences of Bill C-33, we have to restate some of the fundamental principles. The Canadian Human Rights Act applies only to employment and the provision of goods and services coming under federal legislation. The Canadian Human Rights Act does not and cannot affect law on marriage. Ask any constitutional expert or any lawyer.
Even the Supreme Court of Canada has already decided in a recent case that family status does not include same sex relationships. Therefore we should not worry about that. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court came to the same conclusion that family status does not include same sex relationships.
With respect to the possible effects on benefits, Bill C-33 does not change law on benefits. Again, the Supreme Court of Canada has said unanimously that sexual orientation is a prohibited ground of discrimination under the equality provision, section 15 of the charter. However, the same court also held that such discrimination did not support the extension to same sex partners of the pension benefits which were the issue in that case.
The Canadian Human Rights Act and consequently the amendment now before the House have absolutely no application to marriage. The common law has always provided that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. The common law has equal force with any statute law.
With respect to a need for definition, over the years there has been considerable understanding by which tribunals and courts have looked at discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. They have developed an understanding of this term. They have interpreted it to mean homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality.
(1710)
The Canadian Human Rights Act and therefore Bill C-33 do not apply to churches and religious organizations. The latter comes under provincial jurisdiction. Even if for the sake of argument the Canadian Human Rights Act were to apply, the Supreme Court of Canada has already held that it is reasonable and justifiable for a given religious school to require that the religious views of its instructors conform with the view of the church.
Moreover, we have to remember the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It overrides all other laws, whether federal or provincial. It has supremacy over the Canadian Human Rights Act. Nothing that could be done in the Canadian Human Rights Act could take primacy over the charter of rights and freedoms or affect the freedom of religion, expression or association guaranteed by the charter.
I state my full support for the bill. I hope that we all together clearly state to our Canadian citizenry the facts of the case, the governing Canadian constitution and its primacy over any piece of legislation things that are feared could happen will not happen. I suggest we all gather together and support the bill unanimously.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-33, an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act.
The legislation will add sexual orientation to the list of categories offered special protection under the Canadian Human Rights Act.
I speak to this for two reasons, to be a voice for my constituents and to make the point as clearly as I can in such little time that Reformers are strong defenders of equality in this country.
I begin by reading a quote from a clergyman, Martin Niemöller, in March 1984, on his experience during the second world war and on the lack of resistance to the Nazis. The quote was put on my desk earlier today by the member for Don Valley North. I have heard the quote before, but each time I read it I find it so powerful I think it is worth presenting again. It certainly gives me a message:
``First they came for the Jews. I was silent. I was not a Jew. Then they came for the communists. I was silent. I was not a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists. I was silent. I was not a trade unionist. They came for me. There was no one left to speak for me''.
Clearly we must stop this categorization of people in the country. That message was given very clearly in the quote. I will explain very directly and as succinctly as possible why Reform opposes Bill C-33.
All Canadians are already equal before the law. This is a fundamental principle of Canadian law. Section 15(1) of the charter applies to all Canadians.
(1715 )
It states: ``Every individual is equal before the law and has the right to the equal protection and the equal benefit of the law without discrimination''. The protection is in our law.
This also incidentally and perhaps importantly is the first principle in the Reform blue book, our book of policy and principles. The very first principle says this same thing. That is why Reformers believe passionately in the equality of all Canadians. There is not nor should there be any Canadian more equal than others.
I would like to end with one very short quote. I have to ask why this legislation is before the House. Does it mean that Liberals are all bad people or evil people? I say no. This quote explains why this legislation is before the House-
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In accordance with the order adopted earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put fortwith all questions necessary to dispose of report stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.
Accordingly, Motion No. 1 is negatived.
(Motion No. 1 negatived.)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The next question is on Motion No. 9. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): A recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
[English]
Mr. Silye: Would the Chair please explain why we are going through all the motions when the bell has not rung to give notice of the votes?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): We are going to put all the motions and once we know which motions the House wishes to have a recorded vote on, then we will ring the bells for a recorded vote on those motions.
Mr. Thompson: A point of order, Madam Speaker. With all respect, I would like to mention that before we even knew what was happening-the translation was very slow-we were into the second motion. We were trying to catch up with the translation when we were already into the second motion. With all due respect, it was a little bit behind.
I would have personally liked to have had a chance to stand against Motion No. 1.
(1720)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The next question is on Motion No. 10. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): A recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
[English]
Mr. Assadourian: Madam Speaker, Motion No. 10 is in the name of the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest and he is not here. Can we accept his motion?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The motion has already been moved and seconded.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 11. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): A recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The question is now on Motion No. 12. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): A recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 14. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): A recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe that you would find unanimous consent that all motions on today's Order Paper on Bill C-33 be deemed to have been read and that a recorded division be deemed to have been asked on the following: report stage Motions Nos. 18, 2, 3, 17, 19, 21, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8A, because Motion No. 8 has been revoked, Motions Nos. 16 and 16A.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is there unanimous consent for the hon. whip's motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 18
That Bill C-33, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 8, on page 2, the following:
``3.(2) For greater certainty, nothing in Sections 2 or 3 of this Act shall be construed by any court or tribunal in such a way as to add, read in, or include the words sexual orientation in Section 16 of this Act.''The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-33, in the Preamble, be amended by replacing lines 8 to 12, on page 1, with the following:
``And whereas the Government recognizes and affirms the importance of the traditional, heterosexual institution of marriage and family as the foundation of Canadian society and that nothing in this Act alters its fundamental role in society.''The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-33, in the Preamble, be amended by adding after line 12, on page 1, the following:
``And whereas the Government acknowledges that the term ``family'', for the purpose of this legislation, means heterosexual couples and their natural or adopted issue;
And whereas the Government acknowledges that ``family'', as the term is so limited herein, occupies an irreplaceable role in the procreation and nurturing of children, upon which the future of our society depends;''.The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 17
That Bill C-33, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 8, on page 2, the following:
``(1.1) In subsection (1), ``marital status'' means the status of being married, single, separated, divorced, widowed or cohabiting with an individual of the opposite sex in a conjugal relationship for at least one year.
(1.2) In subsection (1.1), ``being married'' means being married to a person of the opposite sex.''
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 19
That Bill C-33, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 8, on page 2, the following:
``(1.1) For the purpose of section 2 and this section, ``family status'' means the status of heterosexual couples and their natural or adopted issue.''The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 21
That Bill C-33, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 8, on page 2, the following:
``(1.1) In this section and section 2, ``family'' means individuals connected by blood relationship, marriage or adoption.
(1.2) In subsection (1.1) ``marriage'' means the legal union between a man and a woman as recognized by the state.''The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-33, in Clause 1, be amended by deleting lines 17 to 33, on page 1.The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-33, in Clause 1, be amended
(a) by replacing line 19, on page 1, the following:
``2.(1) The purpose of this Act is to extend the'';
(b) by adding, after line 33, on page 1, the following:
``2.(2) For all purposes of this Act, sexual orientation means, only, heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality and refers only to consenting adults acting within the law.''
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-33, in Clause 1, be amended
(a) by replacing line 19, on page 1, the following:
``2.(1) The purpose of this Act is to extend the'';
(b) by adding, after line 33, on page 1, the following:
``2.(2) For all purposes of this Act, marital status and family status shall not be construed or interpreted by any court or tribunal so as to mean or include two or more unrelated persons of the same sex.''The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-33, in Clause 1,be amended
(a) by replacing line 19, on page 1, the following:
``2.(1) The purpose of this Act is to extend the'';
(b) by adding, after line 33, on page 1, the following:
``2.(2) For greater certainty, nothing in Sections 2 or 3 of this Act shall be construed or interpreted by any court or tribunal in such a way as to grant or extend benefits available to persons of the opposite sex and related by marriage or at common law, to unrelated persons of the same sex living together, or to recognize as a family or as married, unrelated persons of the same sex.''The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova, Lib.) 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-''.The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 16
That Bill C-33, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 8, on page 2.The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 16A
That Bill C-33, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 6, on page 2, with the following:
``sex, marital status, family''.The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at report stage of Bill C-33.
Call in the members.
(1740)
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 9. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 9 obviates the necessity for the question being put on Motion No. 13. However, if Motion No. 9 is defeated, the division will also apply to Motion No. 13.
(The House divided on Motion No. 9, which was negatived on the following division:)
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Vanclief
Verran
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-169
(1755)
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 9 defeated. Therefore Motion No. 13 is defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 10.
(The House divided on Motion No. 10, which was negatived on the following division):
PAIRED MEMBERS
(1800 )
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 10 defeated.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 11. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 11 obviates the necessity for the question being put on Motion No. 15. However, if Motion No. 11 is defeated, the division will also apply to Motion No. 15.
(The House divided on Motion No. 11, which was negatived on the following division:)
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Nault
Nunez
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Vanclief
Verran
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-169
(1810)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 11 lost. Consequently, Motion No. 15 is lost as well.
The next question is on Motion No. 12.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, in view of the fact that Motions Nos. 12 and 14 are under the same name, the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam, I wonder if the House would be willing to give its consent to apply the same result for those two motions only.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 12.
(The House divided on Motion No. 12, which was negatived on the following division:)
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Cowling
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Jong
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Vanclief
Verran
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-172
(1820)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 12 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 14.
(The House divided on Motion No. 14, which was negatived on the following division:)
Byrne
Campbell
Canuel
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Cowling
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Jong
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Graham
Grose
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Nault
Nunez
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Vanclief
Verran
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-167
(1830)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 14 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 18.
(The House divided on Motion No. 18, which was negatived on the following division:)
Canuel
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Comuzzi
Cowling
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Nault
Nunez
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Vanclief
Verran
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-162
de Savoye
Debien
Dingwall
Dubé
Duhamel
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Landry
Lefebvre
Marchi
Pagtakhan
Rocheleau
Sheridan
St-Laurent
Valeri
Walker
(1835)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 18 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 2 in Group 2.
(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on the following division:)
Cohen
Collenette
Cowling
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Jong
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hubbard
Irwin
Jacob
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Nault
Nunez
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Simmons
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Vanclief
Verran
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-159
(1845)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 2 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 3.
(The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was negatived on the following division:)
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Graham
Grose
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jacob
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Nault
Nunez
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Verran
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-164
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 3 lost. The next question is on Motion No. 17. If Motion No. 17 is agreed to, it will not be necessary to proceed to the division no Motion No. 20. If Motion No. 17 is negatived, the division will also apply to Motion No. 20.
(The House divided on Motion No. 17, which was negatived on the following division:)
Keyes
Kirkby
Kraft Sloan
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
Maloney
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McWhinney
Ménard
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Nault
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Northumberland)
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Vanclief
Verran
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-121
(1905)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 17 lost. Consequently, Motion No. 20 is also lost.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 19.
(The House divided on Motion No. 19, which was negatived on the following division:)
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-45
NAYS
(1910)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 19 lost.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 21.
(The House divided on Motion No. 21, which was negatived on the following division:)
Cowling
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Graham
Grose
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
Maloney
Manley
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McWhinney
Ménard
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Nault
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Simmons
St. Denis
Stewart (Northumberland)
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Ur
Vanclief
Verran
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed -118
(1920)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 21 lost.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 4 in Group No. 3.
(The House divided on Motion No. 4, which was negatived on the following division:)
Verran
Wells
Wood
Young
Zed-95
(1925)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 4 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 5.
(The House divided on Motion No. 5, which was megatived on the following division:)
Godfrey
Grey (Beaver River)
Harb
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harvard
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Kerpan
Keyes
Kirkby
Kraft Sloan
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
Manley
Manning
Marleau
Massé
Mayfield
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McWhinney
Ménard
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Nault
Patry
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Schmidt
Simmons
Speaker
Stewart (Northumberland)
Strahl
Thompson
Vanclief
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Wood
Young
Zed-80
(1930)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No.5 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 6.
[English]
Mrs. Hayes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have a clarification. It has been indicated to me that I was not counted on the last vote.
The Deputy Speaker: I gather the member was not seen. If there is unanimous consent she can be counted. Agreed?
Some hon. members: No.
(The House divided on Motion No. 6, which was negatived on the following division:)
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Jordan
Kerpan
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McTeague
Meredith
Morrison
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Solberg
Speaker
Steckle
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Thompson
Wappel
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-55
Gagnon (Québec)
Landry
Lefebvre
Marchi
Pagtakhan
Rocheleau
Sheridan
St-Laurent
Valeri
Walker
(1940)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 6 negatived.
The next question is on Motion No. 7.
(The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was negatived on the following division:)
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McWhinney
Ménard
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Nault
Payne
Peters
Pettigrew
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Reed
Richardson
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
St. Denis
Stewart (Northumberland)
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Verran
Wells
Wood
Young
Zed-80
(1945)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 7 lost.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. My apologies but we could not hear the vote. The microphone system was not working.
The Deputy Speaker: The vote was 80 to 54.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 8A.
(The House divided on Motion No. 8A, which was negatived on the following division:)
(1950 )
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion 8A is lost.
I wonder if members would be kind enough not to leave during the vote. It is making it very difficult for the people who have to keep track.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 16.
(The House divided on Motion No. 16, which was negatived on the following division:)
Kirkby
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
Maloney
Manley
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
Ménard
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Simmons
Speller
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Terrana
Thalheimer
Ur
Vanclief
Verran
Wells
Wood
Young-104
(2000)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 16 lost.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 16A.
(The House divided on Motion No. 16A which was negatived on the following division:)
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-48
(2005)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 16A lost.
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) moved that the bill be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Nunez
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Simmons
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Vanclief
Verran
Wells
Wood
Young
Zed -153
(2015)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to.)
[English]
When shall the bill be read the third time? At the next sitting of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all members of the House, I would like to thank the officers at the table and the Chair for a very professional and well done job.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Deputy Speaker: There is no Private Members' Business today because of the delay. The motion will be postponed until a future sitting.