Debates of Dec. 2nd, 1994

Human Rights

[Sharon Hayes, Reform, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice and relates to a recent directive given by the Canadian Human Rights Commission to its tribunals.

Apparently they have been ordered to hear four complaints of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, three of which pertain to same sex spousal benefits.

Why has the minister allowed such a directive when the legislation to amend the act to include sexual orientation has not even been introduced in the House, never mind been approved by the will of the people? Is this just another example of ignoring the genuine concerns of Canadians, including some members of his own party?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should understand that the human rights commission is an independent body which is not under the control or direction of the government or any minister thereof.

The commission is obligated by law to make up its own mind based on its own investigation and the exercise of its own independent judgment with respect to those matters to refer to tribunals for hearing. We would not want it any other way. There must be independence.

While she may ask me as the minister responsible to the House for the Human Rights Act and its administration to speak to matters of structure or of the human rights system, I do not direct the commission in what decisions to make or what matters to undertake in terms of hearings.

[Sharon Hayes, Reform, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for that response. I do feel the minister has made it clear he is convinced that there is wide support for this issue.

I challenge the minister today, as he is unwilling to challenge the Human Rights Commission, will he not agree if he thinks there is so much support to allow a free vote on this issue so that the real will of the people on this issue can be expressed?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, that is a separate question and I understand it is separate. I am prepared to deal with that as a matter for which I am responsible, that is to say whether the Human Rights Act should be amended to add certain words. That is my responsibility.

We are dealing with commitments made by the Prime Minister and by me, not so much based on polling for support but based on principles and what is right, on fundamental justice.

The amendment which is under discussion has to do with adding sexual orientation as a ground on which discrimination is prohibited. I would have thought that on that principle, that is to say whether discrimination should be prohibited against somebody only on the basis of their sexual orientation, there is not much debate.

On the subsidiary questions, separate questions, of whether there should be same sex benefits or whether there should be this or that form of marriage, those are entirely separate. We are not proposing any amendments to deal with those. We are talking about discrimination and it is on that issue I would have thought there is not a great deal of controversy.

National Defence

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. The minister's new procurement policy, which consists in buying equipment already operational and available on the world market, will have harmful consequences on the Canadian defence industry.

In his white paper tabled yesterday, the minister recognizes that it is vital to promote defence conversion, but no concrete solutions are proposed.

How can the minister explain that his white paper does not contain any concrete initiatives on defence conversion, given the clear commitment made in the red book?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of Industry, will talk perhaps on a supplementary on the matter dealing with conversion specifically as announced in the white paper.

With respect to the capital purchases that we have announced, we do have in Canada the capacity to build armoured personnel carriers. One company has served the Canadian and foreign markets quite well, the General Motors diesel division in London, Ontario. Many components are built across the country including in the member's home province of Quebec.

In terms of the helicopters, I have to emphasize that while this could in all likelihood come from external sources, much of the work with respect to avionics, electronics and integrated systems probably would all be done in Canada because anybody who wants to sell to a country like Canada equipment of such cost knows that it is in the best interest of being competitive to source a lot of that work in Canada. I do believe that the equipment purchases will not have the effect the hon. member says.

Finally, with respect to the submarines, I covered that yesterday. This is simply a matter of exploring whether this is a good deal for Canada. That question will be looked at very carefully before a decision is taken.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously the minister did not answer my question. I hope his wife will remind him of that.

Does the minister not realize that the existing defence material program, DIPP, of which only a part concerns defence conversion, is clearly insufficient, and that he must show leadership with his colleagues from Industry and Public Works to implement a true conversion strategy for that industry?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is very hard to figure out what the Bloc wants.

First, one member tells us not to buy military equipment because it is a waste, and then one of his colleagues says that we must save the defence industry.

It is always a little hard for me to understand quite where this party is coming from. Its two wings do not always beat at the same pace.

The fundamental issue that we need to deal with is the use of the existing program DIPP as a defence conversion program. As the hon. member knows, of the 41 applications approved by this government under DIPP so far 39 have been for civilian or dual use purposes. Clearly that has been the key tool in assisting industries in their defence conversion.

More important, and I have said this repeatedly and I hope other members understand how important this is, the government's strategy in helping the Canadian industries in all sectors is not to throw money at them. It is to provide them with the strategic advice and assistance that will enable them to be competitive in the world markets. That is the key to their success.

Agriculture

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this week marks the end of the 30-day discussion period between the U.S. and Canada on proposals made by the U.S. department of agriculture that all Canadian grain shipments to the United States must go to a feed lot, a feed mill or an end user and require an end user certificate.

What have we heard from the minister of agriculture on this issue? Silence.

My question to the minister is what action has the minister taken on this issue which is a direct violation of the August 1 Canada-U.S. grain pact on wheat which specified that neither country would introduce any new trade restricting measures until the deal's one-year term ended?

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food]

Mr. Speaker, to the member across the way, he should get his facts straight. The United States has not yet made its decision on whether it is going to put end use certificates in place.

We have expressed to the United States our views on that. It knows our views and we will await its action as far as end use certificates.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I expected, the minister has done absolutely nothing on this issue. The United States has not made the decision yet therefore it is not urgent.

Why has the government done nothing? I would expect that the reason is that it could be wanting to protect the Canadian Wheat Board at the expense of farmers. For the Canadian Wheat Board end user certificates only involve slight inconvenience, while for the farmers it will put an end to their market in the United States.

Why has the minister once again chosen to avoid the real issue which is reform of the Canadian Wheat Board, a change which he has acknowledged farmers want, by letting American foreign policy solve the problems for him here at home?

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food]

Mr. Speaker, I again remind the hon. member that the United States has not yet made the decision that he would obviously like it to make. It should be pointed out that he has made that assumption and western wheat growers and farmers should note that.

I repeat, the Canadian government and the minister have made our views very clear to the United States as far as how we would view its imposition of end use certificates. That discussion will continue and we will await its reaction to our views.

Income Tax

[Raymond Bonin, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, many Canadians are concerned about the tax loopholes which make it possible for the rich to invest in order to avoid paying taxes.

My question is for the Minister of National Revenue. Can the minister tell my constituents what he is doing to ensure that all Canadians pay their fair share of taxes?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his concern on this very important issue.

The Minister of Finance and I issued yesterday a press release outlining changes to the tax system that will plug loopholes with respect to tax shelters. We are particularly concerned that there are many people who are taking advantage of what were originally set up as legitimate opportunities in high risk areas. They are now taking these opportunities simply to avoid paying taxes.

For example, we have uncovered tax shelters where no business activity was being undertaken and the only thing the individual received in return for their investment was a brochure; that is, the only thing other than a tax benefit of substantial proportions.

We will continue to make sure that the tax system is fair for Canadians and we will make changes as necessary to make sure that all Canadians pay their fair share.

Defence Policy

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in his white paper the defence minister claims that he is going to save $7 billion over the next five years. Yet the minister is planning to buy numerous helicopters, submarines and a good deal more. In short, the Department of National Defence is embarking on an unjustified equipment purchase program which will be the source of additional waste.

Since today's international context does not justify new capital expenditures, how can the defence minister explain, in view of the present fiscal restraints, the planned purchases listed in his white paper?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, there has always been in the capital program of national defence spanning a 15-year period the need to replace certain types of equipment. Those allocations were made.

Over the last number of budgets, including those of the former government, $21 billion has been cut off the projected expenditures for national defence, including a lot of the capital program.

We announced yesterday that we will be cutting $15 billion out of the capital program over the next 15 years for planning purposes. With respect to helicopters, I am surprised that the hon. member would make the assertion that we do not need to replace helicopters when he knows that the Sea Kings and the Labradors are coming to the end of their life.

Even if he does not agree that our state of the art ships and our refurbished destroyers should not have combat helicopters on board, surely he, from a province that has a coastline and uses the search and rescue facility, has to agree that the Government of Canada will be committing a grievous error if we did not make provision for new equipment even on the search and rescue end which is purely civilian.

Justice

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Ian John Hutton has been serving a life sentence for murder at the Archibald Centre halfway house in Vaughan, Ontario.

He failed to return to the facility on November 28 and a Canada-wide warrant has been issued for him. Can the Solicitor General explain why a murderer who is classified on CPIC as being violent and an escape risk is serving time at a halfway house?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to get the fullest possible information on this and give it directly to the hon. member. She has raised a serious question.

Employment

[Jim Jordan, Liberal, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is great news for all Canadians when more and more working men and women find meaningful employment in this country.

The number of Canadians unemployed is still too high but it is below 10 per cent for the first time in several years in Canada.

In examining the employment figures, has the secretary of state for finance a breakdown of the numbers and has he determined how many of the new jobs are worthwhile, rewarding and full time jobs as opposed to part time jobs?

[Doug Peters, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, that is good news for Canada. This raises to over 400,000 the number of new jobs that have been created in this country this year alone. All these jobs are full time jobs. Indeed, last month there was a growth in employment of some 95,000 new jobs. All those were full time jobs. There was an actual drop in part time employment.

I remind this House that a Prime Minister of a previous government said we would not get the unemployment rate below 10 per cent this decade. The Liberal government brings in next decade's unemployment levels this year.

Hibernia

[George S. Rideout, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in question period dealing with questions on Hibernia there was a request to table the report of the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board.

I have the pleasure to deliver, in both official languages, the report as well as, in both official languages, a copy of all the contracts that have been given to the province of Quebec in relation to the Hibernia project.

Government Response To Petitions

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to certain petitions.

Petitions

[Maurice Dumas, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, this petition comes from the Association féminine d'action sociale du Québec. It is signed by 437 petitioners.

They urge Parliament to press the government not to go ahead with its voice mail project for the elderly.

[Jean Payne, Liberal, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw to the attention of the House a petition signed by residents of the regions of St. Mary's, The Capes and Whitbourne area in the province of Newfoundland in the riding of St. John's West. I fully support this petition which reads as follows.

"We the undersigned residents of the province of Newfoundland draw the attention of the House to the following: That there is a severe unemployment problem in this area of our province causing great hardship to many residents. Therefore, your petitioners call upon Parliament to provide emergency response funding to provide employment in the short term to alleviate this hardship".

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce three petitions today. The first one asks Parliament to ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously. I support that petition.