Réal Ménard

[Aids, September 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, since it has already been two years since a committee of experts submitted to the government specific recommendations on the kinds of measures needed in prisons, can the Minister of Health explain to us why his government has done nothing in the past two years?

[Aids, September 20th, 1996]

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

Last Tuesday, the Canadian AIDS Society and the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network tabled a study showing that the number of HIV-positive inmates in Canadian prisons had risen by 46 per cent between 1994 and 1996.

Does the Minister of Health intend to make vigorous representations to his colleague, the solicitor general, to convince him to take urgent measures to stop the spread of AIDS in Canadian prisons?

[Committees Of The House, September 19th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, here you can see this inability to take a position on issues and the use of tricks to avoid the real debates. This is why these people, at least I hope for the sake of Canadians and Quebecers, will never be the government nor the official opposition.

Here we are, acting in a responsible way, talking about the real problems and ensuring that the voice of Quebec is and continues to be heard. We are all, without exception, very enthusiastic about the future.

[Committees Of The House, September 19th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I would like to carry on with my speech.

[Committees Of The House, September 19th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I can see as you do that the government majority is pleased to hear what I have to say, and I will not be afraid to speak my mind.

The fundamental reality we are faced with here is that we have a democratically elected opposition composed of 53 members who agreed to comply with democratic rules with regard to party fundraising, rules that were rejected by both the Reform Party and the government majority in this House.

We are being told today that our work as parliamentarians, particularly our work in committee, is useless. That is what the Reform members are saying. They are saying that our work as parliamentarians is useless because they are not the official opposition.

That is sheer hypocrisy. You will recall that less than two weeks after we came to this House, the leader of the Reform Party invited us to a luncheon where he told us that his party would have a new image, that we would see a new way of doing politics, that his party would be democratic, that it would enrich debate.

Despite the fact that we have a system where the people have their say, where they can choose their representatives democratically, some members have the gall to tell us today that this system is worthless with regard to committees, because they are not the official opposition. It certainly takes some nerve to rise in this House today and make that kind of comment.

How should we evaluate the work of the opposition? We have a democratic opposition.

And we are here because we received a mandate. What is that mandate? It was given to us during a democratic electoral campaign held according to public rules. The people of Quebec chose 53, 54 members from the Bloc Quebecois. That is a fact.

What is so painful for the Reform Party members? I hope that one of them will have the courage to stand up and say it instead of their usual hypocritical speech. What counts in democracy is not what you have on your head, but what you have in it and how much

brain power you have that determines whether you should aspire to form the official opposition.

What does the Reform opposition have to say? What do the Reformists say about public finances? And on the foreign affairs policy? And what about human rights? What do they have to say about the big debates of the moment? And about the recognition of the rights of Quebec? They have nothing to say and this is why not only will they not form the official opposition after the next elections, but we will see to it that they are completely wiped out.

I challenge you, Madam Speaker, and any of the Reformers-who are a throwback to bygone days-to give us an example of any occasion where we have been remiss, either with respect to content, policy or ethics, or in connection with attendance in the House, or our use of any of the prerogatives of the official opposition. I challenge them to give us one example.

We know very well that we have done our work properly. We have done it like those who know that, when the official opposition rises in the House, it speaks on behalf of the Quebec people, who made a democratic choice, and who will do so again in order to reach an ideal that we have never concealed, which is to see that, when it so decides, Quebec will be able to attain sovereignty.

But did that mean that, when we had the opportunity, we were not able to honestly and respectfully represent a broad range of Canadians? Yes, we were able to do so. We were able to do so when we spoke about Bosnia. We were able to do so when we spoke about renewing institutions internationally, particulary with respect to the United Nations. We agree that, in specific cases, the Quebec nation may have interests in common with the rest of Canada, but we have never compromised our principles.

Did the Reform Party fight against family trusts? Did you hear them on this issue? Did the Liberals get up and fight when apparently two billion dollars had more or less legally left the country, left Canada? Did they stand up and fight? No.

What bothers both these parties is that we take a unique position. We have something different to say, something specific.

I know both the Reform Party and the government majority wish we could blend in with the rest of Canada. But that will not happen, because we know what Quebecers will do, because they are capable of democratically choosing what is in their own interests. And being guided by their own interests means electing spokespersons exclusively dedicated to promoting the interests of Quebec.

In the same breath, I hasten to say that each and everyone of us has friends in English Canada, and we believe that the best way to conduct our political business in the next century is in the form of a partnership.

That is what we believe, and we are not naive about the eventuality, the plausibility and the eminently desirable policy of maintaining a Canadian common market. We are not naive in this respect.

I am concerned to say the least that the Reform Party has nothing to say about these issues. To rise in the House with all the naivety and indignation of a convent school girl of 17 and say they are unhappy because in committee they are not the official opposition is an affront to democracy.

Democracy is about being able to elect the people who represent us. Do Reform Party members seriously believe that with this kind of holier than thou attitude, devoid of any common sense, they will win the popular vote? Is that what they believe? I hope not.

[Atomic Energy Of Canada Limited, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is sweet in her confusion, but my supplementary is as follows.

Is the minister aware that Canatom, which she put at the top of the list of companies benefiting from AECL contracts in Quebec, did not get the contract to build the CANDU-6s that will be sold to China. It was in fact the American firm Bechtel that got this lucrative contract. Is she aware and is she asleep?

[Atomic Energy Of Canada Limited, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.

Earlier this week, the minister tried to convince the House that decisions by Atomic Energy of Canada did not involve her. It did not prevent her from claiming that this crown corporation would provide Quebec with $100 million in economic benefits with each sale of a CANDU-6, a figure strongly contested by those responsible for marketing this equipment.

Will the minister acknowledge that, if Atomic Energy of Canada moves from Montreal to Toronto, the businesses she listed the day before yesterday are very likely to transfer part of their operations to Toronto as well to be close to the source of their contracts? Will she recognize this?

[Federal Court Act, June 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I think that, in introducing this kind of amendment, the hon. member for Saint-Hubert was trying to make it very clear that there is currently some discrimination, and the comparison made by the previous speaker between a nursing program and a medicine program is not valid, since, in one case, the program does not necessarily lead to university degree.

As for law, I think all the hon. members must realize that a bachelor's degree is required and that future lawyers all undergo the same training for three years. This means that, if each of us here picked at random and visited any law faculty, whether at l'Université de Montréal or at any other university in Quebec, we would find future notaries attending classes alongside future lawyers. The hon. member for Outremont should know, since he is himself a lawyer. The core curriculum, including securities theory and constitutional law, is the same for all three years.

I think it would be interesting if those who oppose the official opposition's amendment told us why a person with legal training, training identical to that of notaries except for the last year of the bar, should be authorized to deliver judgment from the bench or to practice law by joining the judicial branch.

I think that the hon. member for Saint-Hubert is right and I know she is sensitive to any form of discrimination. We must fight side by side. I think that the hon. member for Saint-Hubert is right to say that the government would fail miserably if it had to pass the discrimination test under the Charter, as it intends to perpetuate discrimination by rejecting this amendment.

[Public Service Staff Relations Act, June 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure to speak to you again aboutthis new group of motions.

I do not know if the government is finally going to agree with the official opposition that the situation we are in is of great concern, as the member for Kamouraska-Rivière du Loup said. We cannot behave as if the charter of rights did not exist. What is the use of having a government constantly reminding us about principles? How often have ministers risen in the House, the Prime Minister first and foremost?

How can we forget the Prime Minister's cries straight from the heart, sincere cries no doubt, telling us that we live in the greatest country on earth, a country based on freedom and democracy?

How, then, can this be compatible with the bill before us today and the way the government is going to treat these workers, these honest citizens, who have a particular mission to carry out in our society as police officers and rehabilitation workers, and who have to face situations that are sometimes critical or extremely thorny?

The truth is, and we must repeat it for the benefit of our listeners who have just tuned in, that in spite of decisions rendered by various courts of law and supreme courts, this heartless, stubborn government that is not listening, this doomsday government, which is coming to the end of the session and is akin to a government at the end of its mandate, is ignoring the most basic principles of demacracy.

Let me review the facts. If the government implements this measure, 16,000 persons will be denied a very fundamental right, one which is the basis of democracy, that is the right to participate in the definition of their own working conditions. It is also the right to be judged, in the event of a dispute, a conflict or unfair practices, by a third party who is neither judge nor party, as is the case for all public servants.

Why such an obstinate attitude? What is going on in the heads of the government members? What can the leaders of this government be thinking of to violate a moratorium whereby we were to examine the Canada Labour Code in September, just a few weeks from now, in accordance with the Sims report. You will recall that the former labour minister, who is now Minister of Canadian Heritage, had created a task force presided by Mr. Sims, a specialist in labour relations in western Canada, who, with the help of an industrial relations specialist, Mr. Blouin from Université Laval, and other members, decided to make some very specific recommendations to the government suggesting that the Canada Labour Code be updated, since no thorough review of that code had been done since 1972.

We had agreed that a parliamentary committee would hear witnesses who would speak about the review, the modernisation of the Canada Labour Code, and tell us how to proceed to update the first part pertaining to unfair labour practices, the second part on the OHSC or more precisely occupational safety, and the third part listing the minimum standards that are so important for all workers across the country who do not have a collective agreement.

We could have, in a very democratic and enlightened way, benefited from the debate the Minister of Labour, and member for Saint-Léonard, was hoping for. Instead, we are now in a very upsetting situation. You know that as the official opposition, we have a basic mandate to carry out. We must work to improve the government, to make it more and more efficient, to bring about a more enlightened government when dealing with the issues it brings up.

I do not need to tell you that with the government we have at the present time it is a full time job and, to be frank, we do not see the light at the end of the tunnel. There is no predictable way out for us in a foreseeable future. We do not see any way to improve this government, to improve its practices.

How can you expect any form of co-operation in this House, a co-operation which goes through you, Mr. Speaker, when the government remains as stubborn as it has been. Those who are watching us today, those who would like to understand what is going on in the Parliament of Canada, how are they going to react when they learn that there has been a decision, the Gingras decision, which said that the RCMP, the 16,000 employees-in fact 18,000-are part of the public service? But you know that the government is so-I do not know if you are going to let me say that-astute, although it is not what it really is, you know very well that it is not the word astute that I should be using, but devious,

even dishonest; the government is so crafty that it is creating two categories of workers within the RCMP.

It allows 2,000 civilian employees to have access to collective bargaining. But it tells the 16,000 others that they do not. This is the extremely harmful, perfidious, age old theory of dividing to conquer.

Let us recall what is happening and watch as government members blush. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour, who is with us today, will listen to what I am saying, because if this man has some conscience, if there is moral fibre in the government members, they must know they are going against decisions that were made by the courts.

The decision was clear and simple. How can government members support a bill that goes against the courts? That is what we are talking about today. We say, and we will repeat it again and again, and we will try, as opposition members, until we get a very concrete result, to have RCMP members obtain the fundamental right, the right that is enshrined at the very core of our freedoms of functioning, of our democratic freedoms here in Canada and in Quebec, the right to freely negotiate their working conditions.

Mr. Speaker, have you ever thought-I am sure you did, because I know you have an alert mind-about the number of hours we spend in the workplace? Sometimes, it seems quite unbelievable, but I must say it is because we spend many hours in the workplace. It is because we are far from having reached the leisure society the generation of the member for Rosemont had promised us that we must have interesting working conditions in a work environment, so that things go smoothly, so that workers are motivated. That certainly means something in a work environment, in a public body such as the RCMP.

Motivation is not without significance. We are convinced that motivation requires the right to negotiate freely, with full knowledge of the facts, as well as the right to be represented by a bargaining agent to determine working conditions.

We would have understood to a certain extent if a government member had risen to tell the opposition: "Yes, but you know that, for those who have a mission as specific as that of RCMP members, the right to strike must be examined very closely". But this is not the issue. RCMP members, or the 16,000 workers concerned, are so reasonable-and they even have their own draft bill-that they are saying to the government and to the official opposition: "We do not want the right to strike as our last resort. We want what several municipalities have implemented".

Members will recall that several police forces have exercised the right to bargain freely, and today we, as parliamentarians, are being asked to do something so reasonable that we cannot understand the government's refusal to see the facts. They are asking not only for the right to bargain freely, but also for binding arbitration. The word "binding" does have a legal meaning. It means that the parties are bound and must agree to allow a mediator to make a decision. This is the real issue.

We are not very proud of what is happening. We are witnessing the actions of a very petty government. And that is an understatement. These people have chosen to turn a deaf ear and they are about to shamelessly betray a principle which is central to the very functioning of our society. Canadians will not forget and their verdict will be pitiless because they will mobilize. We will help them. They will come to Parliament Hill. They will appear before parliamentary committees.

You know-and I will conclude because my time is running out-that the best way to oppose an idea in democracy is to propose a better one, but not to come to us with a skimpy piece of legislation that has only four clauses. This measure is so skimpy it is laughable. I do hope that the government will have second thoughts about it.

[Public Service Staff Relations Act, June 18th, 1996]

Archaic is the word. The member for Lévis, never lacking for the word thanks to his past experience, knows very well that this sort of situation brings no credit to Parliament.

The RCMP union representatives, believe it or not, produced a special edition of the magazine Action , in which they proposed the wording of a bill. I am sorely tempted to introduce it on my own as a private member's bill. It would not be the first time this sort of thing has been done, as the member for Rosemont knows.

Finally, I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that, if we are not careful and if we continue to ignore the most basic rights of the members of the RCMP, the work atmosphere will continue to worsen. Nothing good will come out of a situation like this.

I would like to identify five grievances, five statements of fact drawn to the attention of each parliamentarian, which should unite us in our rejection of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I will identify them by order of importance and will do so carefully knowing that you are listening attentively to what I have to say.

What the RCMP says in its special edition is, first, that the denial of the freedom of association and collective bargaining rights for members of the RCMP is unacceptable and this is according to the logic we explained this morning.

We are also saying there were acts of retaliation against RCMP members who dared to support and promote collective bargaining. It is all reminiscent of the underworld, with mobster-style bosses making for an intolerable job atmosphere. That happens when you are both judge and judged. This is the kind of unhealthy situation that can happen when you are unable to distinguish between decisions that you must take as a manager and those you make when adjudicating grievances or litigations.

We also say, it is obvious and members must keep it in mind when they vote on Bill C-30, that the present divisional representation system, being completely controlled by the RCMP commissioner, is essentially aimed at creating an hostile atmosphere for collective bargaining.

Four, there is no independent and binding system for grievance adjudication in matters of discipline or any other known area or type of violation.

Five, Mr. Speaker, since you are reminding me that time flies, I will only mention the tremendous waste of public funds engulfed in this inefficient and unacceptable system. While I have an audience, I am taking the opportunity to denounce the fact that there is no family policy, as we were reminded a moment ago by the heartfelt cry of a young Canadian citizen.

In conclusion, the fact is that, as members of Parliament, we must reject Bill C-30 because it does not respect the fundamental right to collective bargaining and to have a say in their working conditions that all our country's workers are entitled to, including members of the RCMP. I call upon all my colleagues to vote against Bill C-30 and to ensure that it be referred to the labour committee where witnesses can present the House with original proposals concerning the RCMP.