Réal Ménard

[Canada Labour Code, March 8th, 1996]

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

[Canada Labour Code, March 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin, as tradition dictates, with my congratulations to the new Minister of Labour on the responsibilities conferred upon him by the Prime Minister this past January. I am certain he will be equal to those responsibilities, and I know that his community, both the people of Saint-Léonard and the members of his community of origin, must be extremely proud to see one of their own rise to such heights, knowing the great influence that goes with the position.

Before going to the heart of the subject, I would like to state that I would have liked to see him begin his career as Minister of Labour begin by introducing legislation similar to Quebec's anti-scab legislation. I have no doubt that he will do so in the coming days and months, and this will represent a real test of his influence within Cabinet. I am issuing this friendly challenge to him, in the certainty that he will be capable of honouring that commitment.

The Bloc supports the bill most enthusiastically, for in the end it represents a delegation of powers, as we have said. The thought has crossed our minds that, if the Minister of Labour respects his commitments properly, he could be moved to the intergovernmental relations portfolio and, inspired by the dynamics of Bill C-3, step up the return of powers to the provinces.

Essentially, as the Minister has pointed out, we are remedying a situation in which, if he did not act, there would have been a very real risk of split labour relations jurisdiction in three nuclear facilities, as well as in the Saskatchewan uranium mines.

As the minister has said, the 1993 Supreme Court ruled that labour relations relating to nuclear facilities came under the Canada Labour Code, which went against 50 years of labour relations practice, because the provinces had been the ones to pass regulations, set guidelines and generally oversee labour relations for all that time.

We are delighted that the minister thinks it better we return to the status quo. This approach to intervention leaves the Bloc very comfortable supporting Bill C-3. Could you perhaps check later whether there is consent for the House to go into committee of the whole, and I will even propose it, if I may, because we would like to act quickly.

I should perhaps point out what we are talking about in our attempt to describe the nuclear sector. If the bill is adopted, it would apply to, as we said, Ontario Hydro, Hydro-Québec, New Brunswick Power and Saskatchewan uranium mines. It could apply to some 9,000 workers, including between 6,000 and 8,000 in Ontario.

We can understand the minister's desire to act quickly, because Ontario, with 6,000 employees in the nuclear sector, gets 60 per cent of its hydro electric power from nuclear energy. I understand the minister is also concerned about the vote at Ontario Hydro among the unions represented on the subject of strike mandates. If the situation remains unchanged, if our information is correct, Ontario Hydro and the unions represented could declare a strike as of April 1.

I understand that the minister obviously does not want anyone to be deprived of his right to strike, which is a last resort means, but which, in certain circumstances, is appropriate. But the minister, like us, thinks that strike action should be a matter for provincial labour relations.

We repeat, this practice should be contagious. We are obviously delighted by the minister's decision to retroactively return the field of labour relations in the nuclear sector to the provinces. At the start of the debate, we thought the minister should do so, not by regulating it, but within a legislative context through a delegation of power between legislative bodies or through amicable agreement.

The minister, with the help of his officials, has convinced us that, in this specific case, a number of technical reasons make it impossible; however I do understand-this is a solemn promise on the part of the minister, who is known to be true to his words, and through him of the whole community he represents-that when the Quebec labour minister, the MLA for Matane, sends him the regulatory framework proposed by Quebec, the minister is promising it will be the regulatory framework that will apply to Hydro-Québec and the Gentilly nuclear plant.

Why does Quebec want to have its own regulatory framework? Quite simply, it is very important for us, and I do understand why the minister did not want to venture out in this area, since the regulatory framework will define which Quebec laws will apply to this field of jurisdiction, as Quebec workers will henceforth come under Quebec laws, still of course very specifically within the nuclear industry.

For the information of our listeners, and to make sure it is absolutely clear in the minister's mind, this delegation of authority will result in the Act respecting Labour Standards applying to a number of non unionized workers. You know, Mr. Speaker, how important this act is. My colleague sitting next to me, who is an expert in labour relations, knows very well that, for all non unionized workers, labour standards are the closest thing they have to a collective agreement. They deal with bereavement leave, holidays, monetary as well as normative issues.

We understand that the Essential Services Act would also apply, for the benefit of these workers. I imagine that the minister must be very pleased; now he can begin to reflect on the need, for the federal government, to establish a mechanism similar to what we have in Quebec with the Essential Services Council. The minister will find there a model which has allowed us to strike not a perfect balance, but a rather satisfactory balance in labour relations.

Legislation on essential services and councils authorises the workers to go out on strike in very clearly determined circumstances and always as an ultimate recourse. We know that strikes always penalize, but they can also be necessary in some situations, but users and consumers cannot be left without services we consider to be essential.

Retrocession would also give the CSST authority for all workers concerned, and the minister mentioned that point. I am also thinking, again if our information is accurate, of the construction workers.

This is not the most important bill the minister will introduce in this House, we will not judge him on this bill, but I understand there is a regulatory vacuum in this area which made it imperative for him to correct the situation. We support this bill, again I repeat, because of the retrocession to those provinces that request it.

On that point, in committee of the whole, I will have the opportunity to ask the minister to ensure that the provinces approve the retrocession because, according to the briefing we had, the bill specifies "after consultation with the provinces".

I wonder whether it would not have been more appropriate, from a legislative point of view, to mention agreement with the provinces rather than consultation. The minister, given his political experience, knows that he could find himself in the following situation. As he is well aware, labour relations in Ontario are in turmoil, the premier of that province has a right-wing agenda and has threatened, even started, to dismantle the anti-scab legislation. It is not impossible that the minister would come under pressure from workers who would find it more advantageous to work under the provisions of the Canada Labour Code in some particular situations.

He could even come under pressure from third parties, in particular unions working within a labour confederation, interested in having the Canada Labour Code apply to their workplace.

I know that the minister will not waver and that he will make sure that his contacts, unlike what happened with Bill C-76, are not various intermediary bodies or other groups like unions or employers, although in that case this last example is probably not relevant, and that the delegation of authority will be given with the consent of the provinces.

We are also going to make sure in committee of the whole that this delegation of authority, even if it is through regulation, is total and final. What worries a number of unions, in particular the Syndicat des professionnels d'Hydro-Québec-and we understand

that from a parliamentary point of view-is that a regulation could easily be overridden by another regulation.

We are going to make sure that we do not find ourselves in a situation where the delegation of authority could be temporary, lasting only a few months before being superseded by a new regulation that would undo what the minister is proposing today.

We support the bill, and we will co-operate so that it can be passed as quickly as possible.

However, the minister will allow me to go back to the antiscab legislation and, if he wants, I will readily work very hard with him so that we can have a debate in the House on this subject and I know that the hon. member for Manicouagan has dealt with the matter.

It is inconceivable that some 18 years after Quebec gave itself an antiscab legislation, workers under federal jurisdiction still cannot use it. It is no small matter; it concerns 10 per cent of the labour force, employees who are working in major areas such as the public service, interprovincial transportation, radio and television broadcasting, telecommunications, cable television, banks and nuclear plants.

Need I remind the House that it affects-I mention this because I got the exact numbers yesterday-more than 8,500 employers in 40,000 work locations. Imagine the rejoicing in this Parliament if the minister decided to make history and to fully exert his influence in cabinet. He would give us the pleasure, during the present session, in the context of the work of this House, of providing Canada with provisions that would be included in the labour code and offer an additional guarantee, an additional means.

What is a legislation that sets out guidelines for the right to strike? What is a legislation that prevents the use of scabs? It is an additional way of having civilized labour relations.

I think the hon. member for Manicouagan was extremely eloquent on that. There is a direct correlation between the existence of an antiscab legislation and the recurrence of labour disputes.

If the minister wants, we will both be very relentless on this issue. We will be the "Laurel and Hardy" of labour relations in terms of antiscab legislation and I want to assure him of my whole co-operation on this matter.

For the time being, we support Bill C-3 and may I be allowed to move once again that we sit in committee of the whole in order to speed up things.

[Speech From The Throne, March 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, sitting here listening to the hon. member, whom I congratulate on his new role, I was reminded of my days as a student at Université de Montréal. Incidentally, I would like to remind the hon. member of a professor, a former colleague of his, with whom he published a book on constitutional review.

I know that the hon. member is from the moderate wing of his party and I caught myself thinking how nice it would have been, in light of things to come, if he had been the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs instead of the current minister. I wish he had held that position because the meaning of the old Jesuit proverb, according to which the relevance of what you say is not determined by how loudly you say it, is lost on the current incumbent. During the referendum debate, if we had had someone like the hon. member to speak to on the other side, we would certainly have been able to lay the basis of a real dialogue.

I know that you would like me to put a question to him, and that is exactly what I anm about to do. The hon. member is quite familiar with the constitutional background of this country, which rests on three main doctrines-special status, associated states and sovereignty-association-which I have had the pleasure of studying as part of a master thesis that no one has read.

Does the hon. member agree that the partnership offer that the Government of Quebec put on the table during the last referendum campaign is the best way to achieve reconciliation between the two founding peoples of Canada, and would he mind rising in his place and telling us whether or not, as a constitutional expert, he is prepared to concur with this offer?

[Speech From The Throne, March 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I was afraid you might have forgotten me, but I can see you had not.

I would like you to know that it is nice to have you back. I wish to thank my hon. colleague for his speech, in which I could feel how truly committed he is to his riding. It was clear to me that the hon. member had very deep roots in the community that he represents here, in the House of Commons.

However, I would like to share my thoughts with him concerning two or three statements he made. The hon. member referred to the lack of advanced technology in his community, and I can easily imagine that high technology industries could be rather scarce in a rural area. This is an issue of great interest to me, and I would like

to ask the hon. member what concrete steps were taken by the government, in his opinion, in support of science and technology?

I am putting the question to him while bearing in mind that consultations were held at both the regional and the national level, and that the government had promised to table a white paper on science and technology. We are in the somewhat paradoxical situation where ministers keep telling us: "Canada is a developed country. Canada is a country of plentiful resources. Canada is rich with brainpower". But when you take a look at government reports-and I will close on this, because I can detect a trace of impatience in you, which is not in your true nature-and consult the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology, you learn that Canada ranks second to last in terms of public and private support for research and development.

[Human Rights, February 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister not ashamed, as the leading citizen of this country, to go back on a promise and thus to perpetuate discrimination against the gays and lesbians of this country? This is disgraceful, and we have the right to expect the Prime Minister to keep his word.

[Human Rights, February 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to give the Deputy Prime Minister a chance to quote from a page of the red book. My question is for the Prime Minister, who recently announced that he did not intend to keep his word and to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation as the eleventh grounds for non-discrimination.

Will the Prime Minister again commit to honouring his word and will he proceed with the necessary amendments in keeping with his campaign promises?

[Petitions, February 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition that reads as follows: "We citizens residing in Quebec wish to point out to the House of Commons:

That it is innocent and defenceless people who pay the price, like 11-year old Daniel Desrochers who died in Montreal on August 13, 1995 as a result of a bombing in the Hochelaga-Maisonneuve area, an attack aimed specifically at an alleged member of a criminal organization. That police forces do not have the tools and legislation they need to fight organized crime. That the Communauté urbaine de Montréal, the city of Montreal and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, among others, have called for the urgent adoption of anti-gang legislation by Canada. That organized crime threatens democracy, our individual freedoms and the safety of the population, including innocent people, as demonstrated in the August 9 attack. The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to adopt anti-gang legislation and agree to this demand".

This petition is signed by 60,000 people, and I support it.

[Criminal Code, February 29th, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-202, an act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal organization).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a bill to amend the Criminal Code, which will essentially provide Canada with anti-gang legislation. The main purpose of this bill is to set a new policy condemning those who live off the proceeds of crime.

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

[Same Sex Spouses, December 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, a few days ago, Treasury Board made a major move to recognize same sex spouses.

By relaxing the interpretation of its collective agreements, Treasury Board granted six benefits to employees living with a same sex spouse.

These benefits include bereavement leave, family leave, leave for the relocation of the spouse, as well as the reimbursement of travel and moving expenses of the spouse of a diplomat posted abroad.

These provisions apply to 200,000 federal public servants. The logical thing to do for the government would now be to grant same sex spouses the other benefits to which are entitled all federal public servants.

[Aids Control, December 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Tuesday, December 12, 1995 will go down in history as a day of achievement and hope in the fight against AIDS.

Yesterday, Health Canada's Drugs Directorate approved, as part of a priority review process, the use of 3TC with Retrovir in the treatment of AIDS infections.

3TC was discovered by Biochem Pharma in Montreal and developed by Glaxo Wellcome. This is a Quebec achievement of which the whole scientific community can be proud.

I wish to express my sincere gratitude to Biochem Pharma for its research efforts of the past few years. They have not been in vain. I hope that this breakthrough will open the door to other discoveries that will not only significantly improve the quality of life of people with AIDS but also cure them.