Réal Ménard

[Human Rights, April 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell the House when he will introduce his own bill, and can he make a clear commitment that he will not water down the provision on sexual orientation as a prohibited ground for discrimination, as proposed in Bill S-2?

[Human Rights, April 26th, 1996]

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

On March 20, in response to a question from the Leader of the Opposition and following the tabling of the Yalden report, the Prime Minister pledged to introduce, before the next election, a bill to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, so as to include sexual orientation among the prohibited grounds for discrimination.

Can the minister tell us if he intends to introduce his own bill to finally fulfil the promise made by the Prime Minister during the last federal election campaign, or does he intend to support Bill S-2 introduced by the Senate?

[National Day Of Mourning, April 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised by the speech of our friend, the parliamentary secretary to the minister. I also want to make it clear that the Bloc Quebecois supports the hon. member's motion. It is not enough to wish to review the Canada Labour Code, as the government pledged to do. As a society, we must strive to achieve a balance between legislation and symbols.

The NDP member is asking us to remember that people who were working in a workplace that was not as safe as it should have been lost their lives.

Let me tell you about a personal experience. Before becoming an MP, I was executive assistant to the current Quebec minister of employment and consultation. Barely one week into my new job-and still very much excited about it-I met a mother whom I will never forget. I had never seen her before. She was in her early forties. A single mother, she told me that her 18 year old son-he could have been your son or the parliamentary secretary's son-was dead.

He had died at work. I clearly remember that he worked on Notre-Dame street, for a company that builds frames for paintings. He was driving a lift truck. This was in January. On the way to the shipping department, the lift truck tipped and the worker was killed.

This is not a rare occurrence. I got interested in this issue because, in Quebec, we asked for a coroner's inquest. An inquest was held and we realized that the whole issue of handling and driving lift trucks in the workplace needed to be regulated. If these regulations had been in place earlier, working conditions would have been safer and Mrs. Poulin's son would probably still be with us.

The parliamentary secretary says that the government will proceed with a review of the Labour Code. This is fine and we are looking forward to participating in this exercise. How should a potential revision of the Labour Code prevent us from making a highly symbolic gesture and expressing in very practical terms our solidarity with workers who have been killed on the job?

I think some effort must be made, mathematically, to try to understand this phenomenon, because, once again, it is not exceptional. It is all very well to be in a society with labour laws. It is all very well to be in a society with occupational health and safety committees. It is all very well to have part II of the Labour Code, which governs the whole area of occupational health and safety. The figures remain very disturbing indeed.

I looked for a more in-depth analysis of the type of accident and of the sort of people at risk or who lose their life at the workplace, and I came up with the following figures. Every five working days, in other words every week, in areas of federal jurisdiction, because this is what we are talking about, a worker dies. So, in this particular week, there is a statistical chance a worker who got up this morning and went to work will die, because he is in an unsafe workplace or because of a whole lot of other factors. However, the

fact remains that, in Canada, in 1996, once a week a worker will lose his life at the workplace.

Every two minutes, again in Canada, in federal jurisdiction, a worker is injured. Obviously the extent of the injury varies, but the fact remains that, every two minutes, in Canada, in businesses under federal jurisdiction, a worker is injured. As a result, 57,000 workers are injured or killed in accidents every year.

Is it too much to ask ourselves as members of Parliament to make a gesture, to remind ourselves that we, as parliamentarians, have not made every effort, taken every step so that we can rise today and say that there are no work accidents in Canada, that no one has died because of a disregard for safety in the workplace.

As the hon. member from the NDP pointed out, it is not only a matter of life-although it is, of course, our first concern. Work accidents also have an impact on a country's economic health.

According to the Department of Labour, which is headed by the hon. member for Saint-Léonard, a total of $100 million-which is a substantial amount of money; it is not an epiphenomenon or marginal reality-is paid in compensation to workers who cannot earn a salary as a result of an accident. We must do something about this.

There is another figure I find interesting: reducing by one day the average amount of time lost per accident in an area of federal jurisdiction-this should be of interest to the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance-could save $2.6 million a year in compensation costs.

Of course, one of the merits of the motion tabled by the member from the NDP is that it makes us realize we still have some way to go to make the workplace totally safe.

It also reminds us that people lose their lives while trying to earn a living and that, as a society, we cannot tolerate such a situation. One of the means suggested to us for showing that we will not tolerate it to keep it fresh in our minds.

One of the means of keeping it in our fresh in our minds is, of course, through some visible sign. It has great significance for a country-as you know, in this country there are many nations-it really means something to have a flag at half mast. Flying a flag at half mast means that, instead of an isolated action, we are inviting people collectively to remember.

And what we have to remember is that still in Canada-although in the past too there were people who lost their lives while trying to earn a living, even before the days of industrialization-still in 1996, not a week goes by, according to the Department of Labour-not the NDP member, not the Bloc, not the CSN, not the FTQ, but the Department of Labour, under the direction of the hon. member for Saint-Léonard-not a single week goes by without a workplace death.

There are financial repercussions to all this. The estimated amount of payments to injured workers, not unemployed workers, is $100 million. This reality of work related accidents and fatalities affects the private sector particularly, yes, but it also affects crown corporations and the various federal departments.

I have a few figures to submit to you concerning the reality in the federal workplace. According to the Department of Labour, every 50 working days, one worker in a crown corporation or a federal department dies. Every nine minutes, one worker in a crown corporation or a federal department is injured. This means an annual total of 12,800 workers involved in accidents, sometimes fatal ones. This amounts to $23 million.

Twenty-three million dollars is exactly the amount of the deficit in the government's current operating account. Twenty-three million dollars are paid out in benefits to replace lost income as the result of accidents. In total, this represents 239,000 working days lost due to accidents.

Have you ever considered that, in Canada, the greatest cause of days lost at work or of lack of productivity at the workplace is not strikes. It is in fact accidents on the job that, once again, in too many cases mean people lose their lives.

We support this motion. This does not prevent us from mentioning for the benefit of our listeners that we are not starting from scratch. Part II of the Labour Code sets out employers' obligations. It provides very clearly that employers must ensure the health and safety of their employees.

It also provides that employees are not to handle dangerous products and are to advise their immediate superiors of any situation that might compromise workers' safety.

We must remember, nevertheless, despite these clear provisions in part II of the Canada Labour Code that-and we must not forget this; I cannot say it often or long enough-every week in Canada a worker dies as the result of an accident on the job. The costs are very high in economic terms, and we as parliamentarians must do everything in our power to put a stop to this situation.

One particular way, as the member is proposing, is to remember. One way to remember is to lower the flag to half mast-a very powerful symbol.

[Canada Labour Code, April 24th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I find it regrettable to say the least that the government did not agree to hold a vote, and I want to say that if the government so wishes, we will be pleased to oblige. Since there is already a subcommittee on labour, it would be very easy to look at the hon. member's bill and to give it the attention that it deserves.

Madam Speaker, I do not forget that I must look at you when I address the Chair, as is our rule.

I want to thank the hon. member and remind him that we have all met, in our offices, with workers who had been laid off. If we represent a riding located in a large Canadian city, particularly a city that has undergone an intense industrialization process, we are all the more likely to find ourselves in the situation described by the hon. member and to meet with workers experiencing a loss of qualification process that is often related to age.

The hon. member clearly showed the existence of a two tier system which discriminates against those who are losing their qualifications in the labour market, and also against those who must pay, since these people are entitled to a public or private pension.

We are talking here about an amendment to Part III of the Labour Code. The Canada Labour Code is made up of three parts. The first one deals with grievances and the whole issue of collective bargaining and collective agreements. The second part deals with occupational health and safety. The third part is the equivalent of a minimum employment standards act and lists, among others, the obligations relating to severance pay.

The Canada Labour Code is an important tool which concerns about 15 per cent of the labour force, including all those who work in banks, interprovincial transportation, hauling, or any of the areas that come under the jurisdiction of the Canadian government.

The third part of the Labour Code is important because it deals with employees' rights, employers' obligations, hours of work, minimum wages, equal wages, annual vacations, general holidays, maternity leave, severance pay, unjust dismissal and the recovery of unpaid salaries.

The Minister of Labour recently asked a task force chaired by the Mr. Sim, which produced the Sim report, to determine what amendments should be made to the Labour Code. It is agreed that, in its present form, the Labour Code is not adequate to meet the major challenges of the labour market.

Again, it would have been very appropriate, in my view, to support the hon. member's bill, since we have reached the point where the Labour Code must be reviewed.

I find it unfortunate that party politics prevent us from considering a bill based on its merit. There is no doubt that, beyond any partisan consideration-you know how much I have disagreed with what the Reformers have said in the past-the fact remains that the bill before us today is relevant, in that it will help workers, and older workers in particular. The government's partisan motives are unfortunate.

What are we dealing with? We are dealing with the requirement, under section 236 of the Canada Labour Code, which is quite clear and specific, to pay an employee whose employment is terminated severance pay. Provided the employee has completed twelve of employment with the same business or establishment, the employer is required to pay the employee either two days wages at the employee's regular rate of wages for his regular hours of work in respect of each completed year of employment or five days wages

at the employee's regular rate of wages for his regular hours of work.

This is an explicit provision and it is clear that, in a context of globalization, in which the labour market is changing rapidly and the use of technology is growing, with machines gradually taking the place of workers, loss of qualification and thus layoff are not unusual.

Except that, in the case of a layoff, the employer is not required by law to give severance pay even if the employees being laid off are entitled to a public or private pension. Given that this provision applies to pensions under the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, the Old Age Security Act, including the guaranteed income supplement and spouse's allowance, as well as retirement pensions under the Canada pension plan or the Quebec pension plan, what the hon. member is suggesting is that we put an end to an unfair, discriminatory and all too common practice.

It is important to understand what our colleague went through. He received a worker with 28 years of service who was laid off by an established business in his riding, a capital and labour intensive business. This is not an exceptional situation. Government members who refused their consent to their colleague should bear in mind that it could have been their own brother or father.

It could be my father. He has been working in the same textile factory for 30 years. He is 58 years old and works in a vulnerable sector. Given the changes the textile sector is experiencing, my father may well be laid off some day, despite being an honest worker and valued employee. If our parents, our friends who are a little older are employed by a company working in any sector subject to the federal code, they may be laid off and deprived of severance pay.

I think it is very important to remind the House that severance pay is earned; it is not a privilege. It is a right linked to seniority, to services rendered. It is not optional.

Not only must the Labour Code be reviewed and improved as proposed by the hon. member from the Reform Party, but we as parliamentarians must reflect on this some day. The Labour Code must be tightened. What is needed is legislation on plant closings and layoffs, as there is in Ontario and other provinces across Canada.

There are some regions in the country where it costs a business almost nothing to lay off workers. This is what is unacceptable in a system such as ours.

All this is to tell you that it would have been preferable for the government not to indulge in party politics, to recognize that we all have older workers in our ridings, that this provision in the Labour Code is outdated, that it is a provision that does not respect workers. Without wishing to offend my friend in the Reform Party, I would go even further. This is a bill that could have been tabled by the NDP. It is a bill tabled by an MP who cares about workers, who respects people who, in the environment of large and small businesses, are experiencing situations of discrimination.

Once again, I repeat, this is an ideal time to approve this sort of proposal, because we are going to be making commitments in the wake of the Sims report. And the parliamentary secretary knows very well that the labour minister is now conducting consultations, that he is going to visit five major cities across Canada, and that a subcommittee on labour has already been created. It would have been a simple matter for this subcommittee to receive the bill, to hear witnesses, and to move very, very rapidly to recognize the relevance of the bill that has been introduced.

With my time running out, and my energy with it, because it is already 6 o'clock, I ask you again if you would seek the unanimous consent of this House, in light of the information I have provided, to have this bill deemed votable and sent to a committee. I ask the parliamentary secretary, in all humility and kindness, to give his consent, because it is a bill that will serve workers.

[Supply, April 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, you are surely as fond as I of the hon. member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, and his questions, each one more brilliant than the last. Without a doubt the answer is one you would give yourself, Mr. Speaker, that there must be assurance that, in any circumstances, profit motives such as international trade must not take precedence over any permissiveness in the area of human rights violations. I believe that there has been sufficient unanimity today in this House for me to state that we recognize that international trade is a very important dimension of international life. We recognize that the history of Canada has been built on trade, but this must never lead us to neglect the vital importance of promoting human rights, as the Liberals have since they formed the government in October 1993.

[Supply, April 23rd, 1996]

And friend.

[Supply, April 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, today, by tabling a motion urging us as parliamentarians to recognize the Armenian genocide regardless of partisan considerations, the official opposition wants to show clearly that it remembers and hopes to help increase public awareness of what is probably the greatest tragedy, the most unacceptable, the most intolerable, the most shameful thing that can happen in the life of a society. Genocide must be condemned as a totally unacceptable instrument of national policy.

This is an extremely sad day in Canadian politics because we now know that there are hypocritical members in this Parliament. There are people who talk from both sides of their mouths. This is extremely sad, because we as parliamentarians had a rare opportunity to join together in reminding ourselves that violence has played too large a role in this century.

The history of the Armenian people is that of a persistent, continuous determination to survive and assert themselves. Historic Armenia, the great Armenia, which stretched from the Black Sea to Mesopotamia, covered an area of 300,000 square kilometres.

Armenia was independent until 1045, until the Middle Ages. Historiographers agree that what kept Armenia independent and united until the Middle Ages was its religion, its language and its settlement of ancestral lands. It is in the 19th century that the Armenians' world came crashing down.

According to historians, three successive governments are to blame for the scattering and genocide of the Armenian community.

Like the Armenian people, we remember the government of Hamid II. We also remember that, at the turn of the century, there was a hope for the future because of a democratic government, an apparently liberal government advocating greater freedom of speech, a government that could have been more sensitive to the Armenian community. However, the new Turkish government did not turn out that way. After the Republic of Armenia was proclaimed, one might have expected things to change, but they did not, which brings us to the events of 1915-17, when 1.5 million people died in the Armenian genocide.

Let us stop for a moment to try to understand what could be happening in this Parliament today. We have a member who, since he was democratically elected by the people of Ahuntsic, has been an extraordinary ally of the Armenian community. We have, in the person of the hon. member for Ahuntsic, someone who has made us sensitive to what has been the very first genocide of the 20th century. Without any partisanship, this member is calling on us, as parliamentarians, to remember. Why? Because by remembering, we avoid making the same mistakes over and over. I am convinced that all our fellow parliamentarians who will participate in this

debate today will remember and want to remember, without acrimony or hostility, so that history does not repeat itself.

Why did this government not hesitate for a moment to release $500,000 to help set up a war crimes tribunal in the former Yugoslavia? This tribunal will not only try to understand what happened, but also to identify and take action against those responsible. I clearly recall sitting in this House as the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Immigration made her speech, in which she indicated that this tribunal would have nine members, including a Canadian lawyer, and the word "genocide" was used without hesitation.

The same with the recent events in Rwanda, although we were not afraid to take a lucid look at the situation in that particular case. We were not afraid to call things by their rightful name, seeing that, as parliamentarians, we believe in the power of words. Anyone who believes in the power of words is able to use the appropriate word. In this case, the word to use in our speeches-and we should say it loud and clear in a unanimous voice-is not tragedy, desolation, exaction or wrongdoing, it is genocide.

Why is this government afraid, insecure all of sudden and carrying partisanship to the point of acting like a tartuffe and an hypocrite, by making all kinds of amendments to dilute a motion that would have made us grow in stature as parliamentarians. I will tell you why. And I do not think it takes a Ph.D. in political science to figure out what the members opposite are up to.

We all know that Turkey is a middle power in the Middle East. We also know that Turkey plays a lead role, it is a key player within NATO. This government refuses to seize the opportunity to take its responsibilities and to truly promote human rights by calling a spade a spade.

Do you think Armenians are proud of the Canadian government today? Do you think anyone working for non-profit organizations, in the international co-operation sector, or for any of the major international organizations responsible for the protection of human rights is proud of the hypocritical attitude of this government? No.

A few days ago, I had the pleasure of attending the UN conference on human rights, in Geneva. The speeches made on that occasion by the Canadian delegation stressed how supportive and involved Canada was regarding any international mission that concerns human rights. Where is the consistency between being involved in any number of UN initiatives to promote human rights and being about to vote like this government?

Some might say that, when it comes to history, all sorts of interpretations can be made. I will conclude by reminding you of something very important. In April 1984, the Permanent People's Tribunal was asked to answer the three following questions: Was the Armenian people a victim of deportation and massacre during the First World War? Second question: Do these events constitute a genocide? Third question: What were the consequences, both for the international community and for the parties involved?

The answer is as follows, and I conclude with that: The Permanent People's Tribunal, whose members could all have sat on the International court of justice, concluded that: "Armenian populations were and are a people whose basic, individual and collective rights should or must be respected, in accordance with international law. The extermination of Armenian populations through deportation and massacre is an imprescriptible crime of genocide-genocide, Mr. Speaker-within the meaning of the convention of December 9, 1948".

The international law has spoken and the official opposition has taken its responsibilities. It is up to this government to show the integrity and the courage expected of it.

[Supply, April 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our colleague for the sensitivity she has always displayed concerning the issues of racism and social justice. However, I want to make sure I understand the true meaning of the message she has delivered this morning.

She shares the concerns of members as a whole regarding the use of violence which has become too widespread throughout this century. I want to make sure that she believes, as I do, that violence, whatever its form, is unacceptable.

However, there is in Canadian policy a certain amount of inconsistency I have trouble understanding; my colleague will perhaps take the time to clarify this for me. The Canadian government has committed $500,000 to set up a human rights tribunal to investigate war crimes and wrongdoings in the former Yugoslavia. This international tribunal will be made up of nine judges, including one Canadian.

We followed very closely the statements made by the Canadian government on Rwanda. In both cases, the Canadian government had no qualms about talking of genocide. The reason being that, when it comes to words, there is a scale of sorts to describe things.

My colleague will agree that genocide is violence at its worst. Why is it that the Canadian government does not hesitate to talk about genocide regarding events in Rwanda? Why is it that it has no qualms about freeing $500,000 in the case of the former Yugoslavia? Why is it reluctant to describe for what they were the events which occurred in Armenia in 1915 and had the hallmark of a genocide, and to call a spade a spade?

[Nuclear Fusion, April 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources has announced the elimination of the $7.5 million grant that was paid annually to the tokamak project at the Canadian centre for magnetic fusion located in Varennes.

By killing this research project on a new form of clean energy that creates jobs, the minister sacrifices 20 years of development work in the area of fusion, $70 million in infrastructure and about 100 specialized jobs.

The minister had the audacity to say in this House that about 25 per cent of her department's investments in research and development were in Quebec. However, the union of professional scientists at the Institut de recherche en énergie du Québec tells us that, at the present time, the federal Department of Natural Resources and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited spend only 8 per cent of their energy research and development budget in Quebec. With the elimination of the tokamak project, this would fall to 6 per cent.

Once again Quebec is the big loser as a result of cuts made without any consideration for the future.

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, April 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, you will understand that no matter how repetitive and expected this question is, it is still relevant. Allow me to stress the excellent work the member did on the human resources development committee; he was a very vocal representative of the Bloc Quebecois on this issue.

I appreciate his question all the more as there are certain parallels to be drawn between Lévis and Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. We both have in our ridings people who have experienced de-skilling. For the most part, this is the history of my riding. It used to be a thriving city. It is hard to believe that between 1883 and 1918 Hochelaga-Maisonneuve had such a vibrant industrial sector that it was called the Pittsburg of Canada. I know that in his riding too, I am thinking about shipyard workers among others, there has been a de-skilling process.

What the member for Lévis is asking us to realize is that periodically through the history of federalism and through the history of the Liberal Party, we have witnessed a profoundly despicable, not to say shameful, and I believe totally unacceptable manoeuvre on the part of a government refusing to accept the position of a legitimately elected government, its counterpart in Quebec, and instead going through intermediaries.

This was done in the sixties on the language issue, such an outcry was raised that the government had to back down. What is unacceptable in this bill, I believe, is the push toward centralization and the lack of respect for the authorized agencies.

As far as manpower policies are concerned, the authorized agency is the Government of Quebec. So by what authority, what rationale would a government, even a Liberal government, think it has the right to use a CDEC, a municipality or any other agency or corporate entity to ignore Quebec's wishes?

All this must not keep us from seeing-I will try to be brief because I would be most honoured if the member for Kingston and the Islands were to be so daring as to ask me a question-that as long as there will be duplication of resources, some people will not receive training. Mr. Speaker, look at the member for Kingston and the Islands, I think he wants to talk to me.