Réal Ménard

[Points Of Order, September 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to say that I have no intention of challenging the decisions which you may make in this House.

However, you will recognize, as the leader says, that it is important in our role as members of Parliament to understand what kind of flexibility we have when it comes to asking questions. In my opinion, the issue raised by the point of order is this: When we tried twice to understand the comments made by an hon. member, we did so from a legal standpoint and in the context of the government's activities.

You are well aware that the comments made were paving the way for a review of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Allow me to point to your attention the fact that the question asked is closely related to a governmental responsibility of the Prime Minister.

[Gay Rights, September 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister condone remarks any member of this House may make, challenging the rights of the gay community? Is the Prime Minister responsible enough to answer this question from his seat? That is the question.

[Gay Rights, September 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, following the unspeakable remarks made by a government member, will the Prime Minister demand a public apology?

[Gay Rights, September 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the gay community is still struggling to have its rights

recognized. Last week, the hon. member for Central Nova expressed in this House a rather controversial view concerning this community.

Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the view expressed by the hon. member for Central Nova reflects this government's policy concerning the recognition of gay rights?

[Question Passed As Order For Return, September 23rd, 1994]

With regard to the Defence Industry Productivity Program (DIPP) administered by the Department of Industry, ( a ) which companies have been awarded financial assistance since January 1, 1994, ( b ) what type of financial assistance (grants, repayable loans with or without royalties, tax benefits) did these companies receive, ( c ) what was the amount of financial assistance that each company received, and ( d ) what criteria did the companies receiving assistance have to meet in connection with government requirements promoting defence conversion?

(Return tabled.)

[Health, September 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as far as the remainder is concerned, could the minister indicate the criteria for allocating these funds and which agencies will benefit?

[Health, September 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Health.

In March 1993, the Canadian government released its funding plan for the second phase of the National AIDS Strategy. Ottawa was to spend $211 million on the strategy over the next five years or $42 million annually. Of those $42 million, $1.5 million were not set aside for specific programs but were to be allocated, at the discretion of the minister, to needs not covered by the strategy.

Could the Minister of Health indicate whether according to plan, in 1994-95, in addition to the $40.7 million for standard programs, $1.5 million will be allocated by the minister to the National AIDS Strategy, as discretionary funding?

[Privilege, September 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this afternoon you asked me to refrain from continuing a statement that I wanted to make about certain comments made by my colleague, the hon. member from Nova Scotia.

There are two points on which I would appreciate clarification from the Chair. What I wanted to say faithfully reflected what was said by the hon. member. I now wonder whether the Chair's response to my statement was an indication that there are two kinds of parliamentarians in this House, and why the Chair tolerates such comments.

[Member For Central Nova, September 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, September 20, the hon. member for Central Nova made hateful comments about the gay community, associating homosexuality with bestiality and pedophilia. The Liberal member shows partisanship and a serious lack of judgment by objecting to the fact that an offence motivated by hate, based on sexual orientation-

[Unemployment Insurance Act, September 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise briefly or should I say provide a brief update on one of the obvious inconsistencies in the discourse and policy of this government, namely the relationship that may, and indeed must, exist between the Canadian foreign policy and human rights promotion.

To address this contradiction we have no reason to be proud of, I shall refer to a question I had put to the Deputy Prime Minister on June 10. I asked the Deputy Prime Minister this question on June 10, following a visit by the Prime Minister in exile of Burma to the Standing Committee on Human Rights.

We realized, as a standing committee responsible for the promotion of human rights both within Canada and outside, how much of a discrepancy there was between what this government said -all this talk about legislative instruments and active involvement outside the country being required to promote human rights- and reality.

Such discrepancy is easy to understand considering that as early as 1990, the Canadian government had been pressing for democratic elections to be held in Burma, which is currently run by a military junta. Canada can be said to have participated in this international campaign for elections in Burma.

We realized in the committee that, while Canada had lobbied for Burma to be requested to uphold human rights within its boundaries-because as we know, Burma is one of those Asian countries with the darkest, most worrisome history in that respect, a country where the Nobel Peace Prize winner is imprisoned, where torture is practised and very serious cases of abuse are reported-it also prohibited Canadian businesses from trading with Burma for reasons relating to human rights that we agree with. We believe that foreign policy and the promotion of human rights should be linked somehow.

Imagine our surprise when we discovered that, in the case of China, there was a double standard. And yet China is the main country supplying arms to the military junta currently in power.

The question we can ask ourselves is this: if Burma's human rights record is so important that Canadian companies are not allowed to do business there, why is China, which also commits its share of abuses, which is also inconsistent in promoting human rights-as the 1,200 executions recorded in Amnesty International's latest report demonstrate-not subject to the

same policy? Must there be two types of countries from a political standpoint? The Canadian government will overlook the human rights record of important countries with significant growth and large markets while imposing restrictions on countries with less impact on the international economy.

I say that there should not be a double standard. The government must make adjustments and use the same language so that when we talk about promoting human rights abroad-and I think the government has a responsibility to talk about it-we should have exactly the same requirements for a country of 1.2 billion people as for a country of 3 million inhabitants.

This is-and I will stop here as my time is up-an example of an inconsistent policy the government has no reason to be proud of.

[English]