House of Commons Hansard #42 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was family.
Art Hanger Reform Calgary Northeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is the discussion paper that should be introduced into the House for public debate.
My question to the minister is very specific. I want to know what Canadians have the right to know, whether the government intends now or in the future to legislate or regulate what is listed in this secret initiative document, family and dependant benefits for same sex couples and changes to marital and family status. Yes or no?
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, I can understand from recent events why the hon. member would be afraid of public discussion of ideas. There seems to be a price to be paid for it in his party.
I do not have to claim same sex benefits. There are parties before the courts all the time doing that. As Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada I am obligated to respond on behalf of the government. In the discharge of my responsibilities I am preparing discussion papers which will frame a discussion of the policies and approaches to deal with those claims.
If the hon. member's reference is to Bill C-33, the bill speaks for itself. It does not deal with benefits; it deals with discrimination.
Jean-Marc Jacob Bloc Charlesbourg, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
A few short days after the famous top to bottom search of the defence department, military police detained Corporal Purnelle, at the Quebec City airport, in order to prevent him from meeting with commissioners and lawyers of the Somalia inquiry in order to hand over information. Worse yet, the chairman of the inquiry had to intercede personally before the army would release Corporal Purnelle. I think that operation camouflage is still going strong.
How can the minister justify the army's decision to place Corporal Purnelle under surveillance for six months, thus preventing him from speaking with the Commission?
David Collenette LiberalMinister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has not addressed all the facts correctly.
Any member of the armed forces has the right, the duty and the obligation to make evidence available to the commission. I have stated that in the House previously and I state it again today. The obligation to make evidence available does not obviate their responsibility under the National Defence Act to abide by Canadian forces discipline.
If someone wants to give evidence to the commission or if they want to travel to Ottawa to see the commissioners, obviously they have to seek permission of commanding officers so their posts are not abandoned in a wanton way.
This individual had every right to come here. All he had to do was ask before he arrived. That is the reason there may be a disciplinary matter involved.
Jean-Marc Jacob Bloc Charlesbourg, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am disgusted by the minister's answer. I think he was arrested simply for his own safety, probably.
The minister has no understanding of what goes on in his department. Does he plan a quick response to the demands of counsel for an end to the blackmail and intimidation of Corporal Purnelle, no doubt for his own protection?
David Collenette LiberalMinister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs
Mr. Speaker, to turn the hon. member's comment on him, sometimes I wonder what is going on in his head because he obviously does not pay attention to the facts.
The Minister of National Defence does not get involved in disciplinary matters with the Canadian forces. That is a matter for the forces to deal with. However, I can assure the hon. member and all members that no member of the armed forces will be prevented from giving information to the Somalia commission.
Herb Dhaliwal Liberal Vancouver South, BC
Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans travelled to Vancouver to meet with fishing industry representatives. While in Vancouver the minister announced the reinstatement of salmonoid enhancement programs in British Columbia. I congratulate him for that decision.
Over the past two weeks the minister has met with a number of stakeholders both here and in Vancouver. I thank him for taking the time to meet with many of these groups.
Herb Dhaliwal Liberal Vancouver South, BC
Could the minister inform the House of the results of these meetings?
FisheriesOral Question Period
Bonavista—Trinity—Conception Newfoundland & Labrador
Liberal
Fred Mifflin LiberalMinister of Fisheries and Oceans
Mr. Speaker, in addition to announcing the return of salmonoid enhancement programs, I did have the opportunity when in British Columbia to meet with eight different groups representing many sectors within the commercial fishery, union groups, aboriginal groups, packers and coastal communities.
We all agreed on the objective, sustainability, viability of the industry and conservation, although there was not a 100 per cent consensus on the way it should be achieved.
In every group discussion was positive and many suggestions were offered which, I am pleased to announce to the House, I will be able to take into consideration and in the next few days announce some adjustments and fine tuning to the main plan that will remain as is but will be adjusted to soften the blow.
Stephen Harper Reform Calgary West, AB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on the last question put by the member for Calgary Northeast to the Minister of Justice.
The Minister of Justice has indicated in introducing legislation in the House that Parliament and not the courts should settle certain important issues. Why then is he content on the issue of same sex benefits to allow the courts and tribunals to settle those questions? Why will he not table legislation that respects the vote of Parliament that same sex benefits not be provided?
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, I do not know what vote my hon. friend is referring to.
What the government has acted on is discrimination. That is what Bill C-33 is about, and any effort to divert the discussion from discrimination to collateral matters such as benefits or provincial matters such as marriage or adoption is simply an effort to avoid the true issue of Bill C-33.
Stephen Harper Reform Calgary West, AB
Mr. Speaker, you will check the record that Parliament voted on this in the fall.
It was the minister who made this connection when he said in XTRA West on March 12, 1994: ``If the government takes the position that you cannot discriminate, it follows as a matter of logic that you have spousal entitlement to benefits''.
Is that his position? If it is not his position, will he clarify any legislation before the House to ensure there is not mandatory provision of same sex entitlements?
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, there is no need to clarify Bill C-33; it speaks for itself. It deals not with benefits, it deals not with marriage, it deals not with adoption. It deals with discrimination, which we are against.
In terms of benefits and logic, I point out to the hon. member that in the years since March, 1994, when that quote was recorded, the Supreme Court of Canada decided the case of Egan and Nesbit. It decided that notwithstanding that sexual orientation is a ground within section 15 of the charter on which discrimination is prohibited, the benefits do not automatically follow; so much for logic, and that is the law.
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour.
The Sims report on part I of the Canada Labour Code was divided in its opinion on the use of replacement workers.
Could the Minister of Labour tell us his position on the use of replacement workers, commonly known as scabs. I would like a clear answer.
Alfonso Gagliano LiberalMinister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, as the member said, the Sims report was divided on the matter.
In April, I consulted within the department. That is now concluded. Here again, unfortunately, there was no consensus. I am currently giving the matter consideration and will soon submit my position to cabinet and to caucus. When the amendments to the Canada Labour Code are tabled in the House, the hon. member will have the opportunity to learn the government's position, which he will no doubt comment on.
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC
Mr. Speaker, is the minister prepared to say that the use of strike breakers aggravates labour disputes and that anti-scab legislation would contribute to establishing and maintaining civilized negotiations?
Alfonso Gagliano LiberalMinister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the hon. member that I could propose the best labour legislation in the House. If the parties do not bargain in good faith, there will always be disputes. So I hope I will be able to propose amendments that will bring some balance to collective bargaining so we may have industrial peace.
Jim Hart Reform Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of National Defence tried to blame a $250,000 retirement party paid for with taxpayer money on his previous chief of defence staff.
"We have a new chief of defence staff who has laid down the rules to senior military officers that they have to behave in a way with the public's money as the public would have them behave".
Will the minister today tell the House and Canadians specifically the new rule on spending limits on retirement parties?
David Collenette LiberalMinister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs
Mr. Speaker, I answered this question fully yesterday.
Members of the armed forces must be very cognizant of the fiscal realities facing the country. They have to be very careful how they administer their budgets.
The example given yesterday was obviously extravagant and unacceptable. I appreciate that in military tradition ceremony is very important, but this must be balanced with the need to be prudent with taxpayer money.
Jim Hart Reform Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the auditor general reported serious problems with the Department of National Defence's ability to deal with the government's increased demands on our troops.
How can the minister allow expenditure of taxpayer funds on retirement parties when the auditor general reports that equipment deficiencies do not allow our troops to perform their assigned tasks within acceptable risk levels?
David Collenette LiberalMinister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs
Mr. Speaker, much of what the auditor general said yesterday in his report has been debated in the House. It has been the subject of questions and answers in question period.
Since this government has come to power we have addressed those concerns. We have re-equipped by announcing the armoured personnel carrier purchase. We have provided new bullet proof vests, new guns, new night time vision goggles. We have given a lot of new equipment to the army so it can do its job in peacekeeping missions.
Colleen Beaumier Liberal Brampton, ON
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Today is International Red Cross Day.
On Parliament Hill and across Canada young Canadians are embarking on a worldwide campaign to ban the use of anti-personnel land mines. What will the government do to support this initiative by the Red Cross and young Canadians to ban land mines?
Lloyd Axworthy LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, three weeks ago when I visited Bosnia perhaps the most disturbing sight was a number of young people who had lost limbs due to the vicious weapons of anti-personnel land mines.
That is why it was so encouraging today to go on the front lawn of Parliament Hill where young Canadians were out showing their
faith and solidarity with other young people around the world to share some of the responsibility for bringing to an end the use of these awful weapons.
Canada is one of the few countries that have banned outright the use of anti-personnel land mines. Furthermore, we are leading the fight in the United Nations and the OAS to have an outright ban. It was very encouraging this morning when the Prime Minister met with the German foreign minister who indicated they will work with us in a culmination of partnership to bring an end to the use of these weapons.
That is the way we keep faith with the victims of land mines I saw three weeks ago.
[Translation]
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
A Canadian citizen, Stéphane Sbikowski, has been a prisoner in a Venezuelan penitentiary for 17 months now, without his case having even been heard.
Three weeks ago, we asked the Secretary of State for Africa and Latin America if she intended to use political pressure to speed up the hearing of Mr. Sbikowski's case. Her reply at that time was that her department would contact us-