Gérard Asselin

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate this afternoon on Bill C-33, to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prevent discrimination against homosexuals and lesbians.

How many people have suffered discrimination because of their homosexuality? There are of course people like the members of the Reform Party who go into trench warfare at the sound of the word "homosexuality". How many people have lost their homes or have been driven out of them because of their homosexuality?

Discrimination occurs even at the workplace. There are firms, companies and associations that used to send for and still do send for Cvs when a job competition is announced. How many people have been discriminated against because of their age and have been penalized in the selection process? How many people have been discriminated against and have even been denied an interview where they could explain their skills and how they would go about doing the job? How many people have been bypassed in promotions at the workplace, again as the result of discrimination?

Discrimination is not limited to homosexuality. It is faced by older people, who are often said to be too old to do the job. People have also been passed over because they are considered too old to be promoted. Older people are often offered a retirement program, because their age threatens company performance. Older people currently face a lot of discrimination in our society.

Members of visible minorities also face discrimination. Let us look at an example. In Montreal, 60 per cent of people represent visible minorities, coming from Vietnam, Japan, Italy, Greece and so on. In short, 60 per cent of the present population of Montreal come from cultural communities.

Naturally these people want to put their experience and their qualifications to use for the benefit of their fellow citizens and of a company. Very often, unfortunately, companies do not want them. With Cvs again, a lot of discrimination occurs when a firm looks at an individual's age and nationality and is afraid of his or her effect on business. It does not hire the individual. It does not even give the person a chance to go through a selection interview.

How many people are punished because of their sex? There are a lot more non traditional jobs in industry these days. I myself am a former employee of Reynolds in Baie-Comeau. I am on leave without pay at the moment. In the aluminum plant in Baie-Comeau today there are women electricians, women solderers and women doing jobs that, in the past, were always done by men. Women are being trained in and are doing these jobs.

In French, job posters often specify that the masculine includes the feminine or that the position is open to women. Whether you are a man or a woman, the job is open. Equal skills, equal pay. I think a woman who works beside a man should not earn less because she is an electrician. She should earn the same as the man.

How many people are discriminated against because of language? They say that nowadays, salaries being equal, employers will go for the person who speaks several languages, English and French for example. There are also companies in the tourism field, airlines, travel agencies, which will give priority to people speaking several languages. This can end up penalizing people who have, unfortunately, not had the chance to learn another language, particularly in Quebec where the first language is French. They are highly qualified, through their experience, to work as travel agents, but would be penalized because they do not speak two languages.

And how many people are discriminated against and penalized in Canada because they are disabled? Because of an accident? The person was highly competent, active and cost-effective to the employer but now is pushed aside, sometimes even let go, because of a handicap resulting from accident or illness.

In the Quebec National Assembly in 1977, then Premier Lévesque introduced a clause in the Quebec charter of rights and freedoms which allowed male homosexuals and lesbians to live free of discrimination. So it is already in the Quebec charter, and here we are getting around to it only 20 years later. Quebec has definitely always been ahead of its time in such things.

This is the reason Quebec has sent 53 or 54 Bloc MPs to Ottawa to show the Canadian government that it is high time in 1996 to include the same clause in the federal charter that is in the Quebec charter. This is not, I feel, any sort of luxury. The federal government must evolve, must keep abreast of the latest developments. The Bloc position is quite simply to see that Ottawa

endorses what the Parti Quebecois put in place back in 1977 under René Lévesque.

Some things that have been said by the Reform Party around this bill I would classify as racist remarks and liable to incite to violence. Let me explain.

The comments made by the former Reform whip recently, about moving someone into the back room in a store if the employer were to discover that person to be homosexual, strike me as both vulgar and racist.

The Reform Party is calling for more and more free votes in this House, yet when members call in caucus for their people to be less far to the right, closer to the centre right-as was the case recently when the hon. members for Calgary Southeast, Simcoe Centre and Calgary Centre called for the party to take less radical positions-the Reform caucus jump on them like a pack of wolves. This makes absolutely no sense.

I feel the Reform Party needs to take the path of reason. We have read in the press that the leader of the Reform Party, the hon. member for Calgary Southwest, approved of violence, approved of the Prime Minister's violence toward a demonstrator, especially if a sovereignist. This is inciting violence, inciting his party to violence, and now we see the consequences. We have just had several byelections in Quebec and the Reform Party got only 0.5 per cent of the popular vote in Quebec.

Might I, in closing, make it clear to both this House and the voters who are viewing us at home that there is a great difference between recognizing same sex couples and preventing discrimination.

[Earth Day, April 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, today we celebrate Earth Day. Of course, this day which is dedicated to the conservation of the earth is also linked to the environment. I believe that, as parliamentarians, we are willing to pass and enforce laws to protect the health of the people of Quebec and Canada. We must protect the environment, otherwise the population will experience serious air, health and water problems.

The protection of the environment is also a matter of education and information. I believe that very early on, children must be informed and taught about the environment, first and foremost at home, but also in school. We must protect the environment at work and in our daily lives.

I would encourage school boards do draw up an information and education plan on environmental protection to make our young people aware of this very important issue.

I would also encourage municipalities in Quebec and in Canada to set up environmental protection committees. I would give as an example the municipality of Baie-Comeau, in my riding, which created an agency to protect and improve the environment 10 years ago. The mandate of the agency was and still is to protect the water, the air and the environment as a whole.

We all know that nowadays, municipalities determine their own environmental standards. Therefore, federal, provincial and municipal laws should not overlap if we want to keep inherent costs at a minimum and avoid conflicting legislation that would impede proper application and enforcement in some areas.

In Baie-Comeau, in the riding of Charlevoix, a group called the Corporation d'amélioration et de protection de l'environnement recycles durable goods. We all know that almost everything can be recycled now: paper, cardboard, plastics, glass, wood, steel, etc. That corporation even salvages furniture which it repairs and gives to underprivileged families.

It also collects, repairs, cleans and stores clothing to give it to needy families or those who have lost their belongings in a fire, for example. It collects and repairs household appliances that previously would have ended up in the municipal dump. Nowadays, many municipalities practice selective collection; in so doing, they can reduce their sanitary landfill costs. This gives municipal governments a chance to reduce their costs for sanitary landfills.

You know that today everything is recyclable. I would even say that municipal governments would be well-advised to have their own selective pick-up and their own sorting facilities. This would even protect waterways. Certain Quebec waterways flow into the St. Lawrence River. We know that previously all municipal governments where discharging their waste into the waterways which, eventually, reached the St. Lawrence. At one time, the St. Lawrence River was considered one of the largest open air septic tanks in the world. Yet, some municipal governments are drawing their drinking water from that same river.

Nevertheless, I want to congratulate the minister. Action 21, although a very limited program, is a start. It will allow some 84 projects, totalling some $2.4 million, for the improvement of the environment. I urge all levels of government-federal, provincial and municipal-to do the same.

To conclude, as parliamentary assistant to the hon. member for Laurentides, my job is very important because the environment is the way of the future. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let us celebrate together this Earth Day.

[Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act, March 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would have a few questions to ask and also a few comments to make following the remarks my hon. colleague just made. The hon. member responsible for the Standing Committee on Public Works, who just spoke, chaired the Standing Committee on Public Works during both sessions of this government's mandate.

He reminded us that the Liberal government was elected to put an end to squandering and to administer public funds efficiently. I think that there is a far cry between the government intentions, as described in the red book, and reality.

First, I think that the best way of eliminating waste or squandering is through a procurement policy. The government should have its procurement policies in writing.

We know that the vast majority of government procurement transactions are conducted through tender or electronic bulletin board. I sat on the committee, and the Bloc Quebecois suggested that, to procure goods, materials and services, the government use, in addition to the electronic bulletin board, ads or public notices published in newspapers to ensure that it gets the best prices and that many people have the chance to bid and show their products to the government.

We know that, at present, only those who subscribe to the bulletin board can get referrals and know the government's requirements in order to bid.

In my riding of Charlevoix, there are people who would like to bid to offer their products or services, but they do not have the equipment required to offer their products or services to the government.

I would like the hon. member to tell me something. Does he intend to set himself the goal, in the performance of his duties, of bringing the government or the ministerial side to commit to going to public tender, after specifications have been drawn up, and to awarding the contract to the lowest bidder that meets the requirements?

Also, will there be a written material management policy? Will there be policies regarding equipment inventory? Let me give you an example for the benefit of hon. members. In my constituency office, in Charlevoix, I have only one person working for me, an assistant. When the government furnished my office, in December 1993, I was told that I was entitled to three computers. "Why am I entitled to three computers if I have only one employee, I asked? All I want is one computer, but a good, efficient and efficient one". "No, based on government policy, on House of Commons rules, you need three computers, came the answer". So three computers were installed: it took them a week to install three computers, two of which are never used. Just think of the costs of materials and labour.

This was under previous government policies. And even if this government was elected to eliminate waste, as promised in the red book, nothing came of it. Today, the same policies apply within the House of Commons.

[Endangered Species, March 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.

In the throne speech, the government announced that it intended to introduce a bill on the protection of endangered species. When speaking to the media, the Minister of the Environment added that he was even prepared to extend the scope of the bill tabled by his predecessor, which for once respected Quebec's jurisdiction.

Is the minister aware of the serious warnings from the former Quebec environment minister to his predecessors, exhorting them not to provoke a new battle in an area of responsibility that comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces?

[Supply, March 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois on their excellent work, particularly the party's critic, the member for Mercier, the member for Lévis and the member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup. I congratulate them on the excellent work they are doing on the human resources development committee.

I assure you, members of the Bloc Quebecois who represent us on the human resources development committee, that there are many unemployed workers and low income families. These people expect you to defend them very well in this House, and at all times, because you have the chance to remind the government that it was elected by them and that it made promises in the red book. In it, the Prime Minister committed himself and his team to job creation.

We remember what the Prime Minister said about creating "jobs, jobs, jobs" as well as reducing the deficit. It is important to remind the Prime Minister as well as the Minister of Human Resources Development of those words.

I will also ask the committee to remind the Minister of Human Resources Development not to eliminate the deficit at the expense of the most disadvantaged, but rather to consult the auditor general's report, which indicates clearly to the government exactly where all the wastage of public funds is occurring.

I would like to say to the member for Lévis, who made a very fine speech on seasonal workers, in particular, that there are many seasonal workers in my riding of Charlevoix. Many of them work up to 15 hours per week, for a maximum of 10 to 12 weeks.

Tourism is developing in Charlevoix. We know that summer is very short so, unfortunately, those workers can not qualify for UI.

In my riding, there are also more and more people with innovative ideas and goodwill who want to create their own job. These people invest everything they have earned during their lifetime to create their own business. Unfortunately, there again, the government found the arm's length relationship rule to prevent such investors who are ready to create a business from being eligible for UI after the summer season.

I would like to ask my colleague from Lévis if they tried to bring that arm's length relationship rule to the minister's attention. It is important for Charlevoix because there are many seasonal businesses there. I am thinking, for example, of a landscaping company in which a woman from Charlevoix, her spouse and her brother-in-law invested but, because summer is so short, they are not eligible for UI benefits. Right now, they are getting dangerously close to welfare.

I ask my colleague from Lévis if he intends to defend-

[Supply, March 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on questions and comments.

[Supply, March 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, following the speech just made by my colleague from the government, I will say that, in the riding of Charlevoix as in the rest of Quebec, people do want a reform of the unemployment insurance program, but not at the expense of the most disadvantaged. The minister is confirming what the Bloc Quebecois has been saying, namely that the government intends to reduce its deficit at the expense of the most disadvantaged.

Members will recall that, last year, the unemployment insurance fund had a $5.5 billion surplus and that, this year, the government anticipates a surplus in the order of $5.3 billion. It is not true that there is less unemployment; in fact, there is more. The problem, and the reason why there is more and more money in the unemployment insurance fund, is the increasingly difficult access to the program. With the new reform, seasonal workers who work, for example, 15 hours a week will have to work 45 to 50 weeks in order to be eligible for UI benefits. In other words, these workers will no longer have access to the program.

People find it increasingly difficult to qualify for unemployment insurance and are forced to go on welfare.

Also, with this unemployment insurance reform, the benefit period for people who are eligible is reduced. Therefore, over a 52-week period, with a qualifying period, a person often has to rely on welfare before he or she goes back to work. And not everybody is eligible for welfare. Often times, people have to sell assets that they have accumulated over many years.

Does my colleague recognize the fact that the unemployment insurance fund is entirely paid by workers and employers and that the government cannot appropriate that money since it is there to help people in case they lose their jobs? Does the member recognize that the UI fund is an insurance for workers and that, if the government uses it to reduce its deficit, it is taking something that does not belong to it?

[Irving Whale, March 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary, considering that the government has already spent $12 million on this, does the minister intend to uphold the polluter pays principle and charge the total costs to the Irving company, Canada's second richest family?

[Irving Whale, March 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. Just a few hours ago, a new report on the Irving Whale incident was made public. This study indicates that the barge should have been refloated last summer despite the fact that it contains enough PCBs to pollute a fairly large portion of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The report concludes that the refloating operation should be done next summer.

Can the minister tell us if he intends to follow up on the recommendations made in this report and, if so, can he give us the assurance that no PCBs will be spilled during the refloating and transportation of the barge?

[Petitions, March 6th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, it is with much pride that I join my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois and table a petition bearing 94,000 names, including 7,710 from my riding. The petitioners are asking the government to take measures in order to grant Québec Téléphone a broadcasting license.