Peter Milliken

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 7th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate on this very important bill, particularly after the speech of the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster.

Some members have suggested there is no need for the law being proposed in this bill. I submit that if they have any doubt as to the evidence required in support of such a law they need only look at the legions of cases that have been brought before the Human Rights Commission of Canada, many of which have been subsequently appealed to the courts of the country, dealing with acts of discrimination perpetrated against members of minority communities; not only ones based on sexual orientation but others.

Discrimination is rife and rampant in Canada. I acknowledge that we have made significant gains in the last 10 years, but there is a continuing problem with discrimination. This bill, in amending the Canadian Human Rights Act, seeks to bring to an end that discrimination.

We have seen evidence of that discrimination in the statements made recently by some members of the Reform Party outside the House. I will not go into those in detail. However, those statements have forced the leader of the Reform Party into issuing a manifesto, although a little late perhaps. I will quote from it because I think his reasons for opposing this bill and those he has put forward for his party are not reasonable or accurate. I quote from this morning's edition of the Ottawa Citizen:

Reformers are opposing the government's gay rights bill, not because they favour discrimination, but because they favour a better approach to prevention of discrimination. The party supports affirming the equality of all Canadians before the law rather than protecting that equality through the creation of special categories of Canadians with group rights. But the inability-or unwillingness-of some Reform MPs to support this principled reason for opposing Bill C-33 is at the root of the party's immediate problems.

I am sure even the member for Halifax finds the last statement a little hard to swallow. Some of us find difficulty with the first part as well, and I will deal with that.

What is the leader of the Reform Party proposing in terms of affirmation of equality for all Canadians? What is this chimera being put before us as a basis for changing this law?

[Queen's University, May 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to one of the most innovative programs in education today, the Queen's University Master of Business Administration for Science and Technology, which will greet its inaugural class today in Kingston.

With the implementation of this program, Queen's University has set a new standard for business education in Canada. By privatizing its MBA, Queen's will spend twice the amount compared to other schools on program delivery per student.

Also, by concentrating the program into one year, it will cost students less to achieve their MBA. In addition, Queen's will lend qualified applicants up to $30,000, a sum which they do not have to repay until they obtain a job earning at least $50,000 per year.

Queen's will deliver this program using the most sophisticated educational technology available in the world. A brand new facility located on Queen's campus in Kingston compares favourably with those of the world's premier business schools.

I hope that all members will join me in saluting Mr. Ken Wong, Mr. Tom Anger and Dean Margot Northey of the Queen's School of Business for their innovative response to educational needs in Canada.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 6th, 1996]

Oh, no. We did create jobs.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 6th, 1996]

We have created them.

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 2nd, 1996]

What docking facilities, operated by the Department of Transport, are used to provide ferry services to islands in Canada and what are the costs of operation, maintenance and repair of such facilities ( a ) in dollars and ( b ) as a percentage of similar costs for all docking facilities owned and/or operated by the department in Canada?

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said in her remarks that the Reform Party was all in favour of equal rights for all Canadians. Yet it appears that her intention is to get rid of part of the Canadian Human Rights Act and take away rights that have been granted.

It is my view, and I think the view of most Canadians, that the provisions of the act which prohibit discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted, have been widely accepted as advancing the interests and the opportunities for the persons named on that list, which is, of course. the vast majority of the Canadian population, since sex after all is one of the prohibited grounds.

I understand that most women's groups feel their interests have been advanced by the legislation. I am also of the view that most persons who come from various ethnic backgrounds or persons of colour feel that their interests have been advanced by this legislation and so have persons with disabilities in particular. I mention those groups because they are strongly in support of this legislation.

If the hon. member thinks that there should be equality for all, why does she oppose the inclusion of persons who are being discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation? They have provided ample evidence of this discrimination over the years. They have sought this amendment for many years and now Reform Party members seek to exclude them from this list because in their view they are unworthy of inclusion.

Why does the hon. member not come clean and admit that is the real reason behind her remarks? It is not because she does not think this act has done a good job. She is not advocating repeal of this act and she knows it. I invite her to answer that comment. Is she not trying to simply whitewash the Reform Party position by saying everyone should be equal.

[Petitions, May 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by numerous residents of Kingston and area.

The petitioners pray and call on Parliament to proceed immediately with amendments to the Criminal Code to ensure that the sentence given to anyone convicted of driving while impaired or causing injury or death while impaired, reflects both the severity of the crime and a zero tolerance by Canada toward the crime.

[Supply, April 29th, 1996]

Nonsense.

[Public Service Employment Act, April 19th, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-271, an act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (appeal procedures).

Mr. Speaker, in 1988 the Standing Joint Committee for Regulatory Scrutiny adopted a report which recommended changes in the regulations dealing with the way the Public Service Commission deals with appeals.

The report of the committee was apparently adopted by the House and a response was required from the government. The response came in the dying days of the session before the election in 1988 and the commission which reports to Parliament decided not to proceed with any of the recommendations.

Subsequently, the act has been amended in some areas but some other changes are contained in this bill. In view of the intransigence of the commission and in view of the other changes that were not adopted, I have proceeded with this bill again, as I had done so in the previous Parliament, in order to make it mandatory in the act that certain procedural safeguards recommended by the committee in that old Parliament be incorporated as part of the rules of the Public Service Commission.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Financial Administration Act, April 19th, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-270, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act (session of Parliament).

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amendment to the Financial Administration Act is to prevent the kind of abuse this House suffered under the previous Tory government when in 1989 special warrants of the Governor General were used and the regular supply proceedings were thereby avoided.

The purpose of this act is to stop that kind of abuse of Parliament. It will ensure that Governor General warrants may not be used between sessions of Parliament but only after a dissolution of Parliament and before the recall of a new Parliament.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)