Réal Ménard

[Quebec's Right To Self-Determination, December 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I consider our debate particularly rewarding. I believe the word "gall" will pass in parliamentary language, but I will use the word "nerve" instead. It takes a certain amount of nerve on the part of our colleague and continued friend for Calgary West for him to rise in this House and say we are not a people, because, as the people of Quebec watching will have understood, the member, in his sometimes unparliamentary spontaneity, clearly said that he did not consider Quebec was entitled to self-determination, because Quebecers were not a people. I find something extremely disquieting in the desire to engage in dialogue on this basis.

I realize that there has been a federalist movement in this House and throughout our history. It is entitled to be heard and to speak. I do not think, however, that you will find many in Quebec, whatever the family, who will not acknowledge that we are a people.

Quebec's parliament, the National Assembly, has in three official documents acknowledged that Quebecers are a people and, in doing so, has accorded the province the right to self-determination. These documents, which have been fairly unanimously approved are: the act to establish the commission to determine the political and constitutional future of Quebec, the act respecting the process for determining the political and constitutional future of Quebec and the motion of the National Assembly of 1991.

When I was a student, I read with pleasure, whether the reading was assigned or optional I read with equal pleasure, the writings of the member for Vancouver Quadra, who joined with Senator Beaudoin in writing a book. I thought he belonged to a school that recognized Quebecers as a people. It is true that our being a people does not automatically entitle us, under international law, to the right to secede. What prompted the five legal experts to conclude that we did have the right to secede was the rejection of the 1982 Constitution. There is a convention in international law which says that a people cannot decide by itself it has a right to self-determination unless that right has been recognized. As part of their grounds for determining the right to self-determination under international law they used the fact that Quebec did not ratify the 1982 Constitition through the most legal of channels possible.

At any rate, as the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve I understand, as do my colleagues, that in a democracy one cannot be more sovereignist that democratic. One is equally sovereignist and

democratic, but by virtue of being as sovereignist as we are democratic, we are well placed to understand our right to hold a referendum in future. No smoke and mirrors on the part of the federal government can deny Quebec the right under a law passed by the National Assembly, a law on public consultation, to go to the people and offer them the opportunity to choose and to mandate their government to accede to sovereignty.

When that day comes and there is a majority behind that mandate I am sure our colleagues, both in the government party and in the Reform party, will understand that they have no choice but to sit down at the negotiating table and engage in a dialogue on the basis of total equality, nation to nation, as should have always been the case.

[Quebec's Right To Self-Determination, December 11th, 1995]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should, in accordance with international law, recognize Quebec's inalienable right to choose its political destiny and consequently its right to self-determination.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorely tempted to dedicate my speech to the member for Kingston and the Islands. You will understand how proud I am to make this speech, because constitutional dialogue requires a discussion, not of a distinct society but rather of what is as plain as the nose on our face, what is an accepted fact and a sociological reality: Quebec is a nation.

As you know, when international law recognizes the right to self-determination, the holders of that right are individuals who together are characterized as a people and form a nation.

First and foremost, let me state that on this side we are totally convinced that Quebec is indeed a nation, which is to say it has its own vernacular, controls its territory, has its own legal system, and possesses a proud history which is the focus for its collective feeling of belonging. Obviously, there is a fifth element in Quebec's right to self-determination, a collective desire for it.

I feel that it would be important, to say the least, and one of the most positive indications for our future, if this House were to acknowledge this morning that Quebec is a nation and therefore entitled to self-determination. An examination of international law shows that the right to self-determination means specifically the right to freely choose a collective destiny. Most often, but not always, this takes the form of a referendum process.

I trust that all of the hon. members speaking in this debate will acknowledge that Quebec is blessed with highly democratic and up to date legislation on public consultation. No parliamentarian could object to the fact that Quebec held a referendum last October. Nothing could prevent Quebec from holding a referendum in 12 months, 26 months, 3 years or even six weeks if it so desires, to determine freely its collective future.

There is a paradox here, because to foreign observers, even those well up on the Canadian political scene, constitutional reform has been central to the political debate in this country for the past 30 years. When we started talking about constitutional reform 30 years ago, there were two tendencies. One said patriate the Constitution first and include a Canadian charter of human rights. Mr. Trudeau chose to take the same position during the eighties, but the fact remains this was already being discussed in the early sixties.

There was a second tendency, mainly in Quebec, to say that the important thing was not necessarily patriating the Constitution which at the time, I may recall, had no official French version while half of its sections were already obsolete, so Quebec's political leaders said, and I am sure the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands will remember this, that the important thing was not necessarily-that was how Quebec's leaders felt at the time, in any case-to patriate the Constitution but to revise thoroughly the balance of Canadian federalism, which meant reviewing sections 91 and 92.

This would be the position held by all Quebec's leaders, whatever their political stripe, from Jean Lesage onward. Among those who succeeded Lesage, there would be this insistence that for Quebecers, the crucial point was not the Constitution as that last trace of colonialism but the fact that Quebec should have a certain number of powers which were sadly lacking. It was on this basis that constitutional reform was to begin.

Of course the process, which would go on for 30 years, gave rise to a number of political doctrines. Some people became experts on the subject, including Richard Arès, who spent much of his life examining the national question. Of course there were many others, and we can say that during the past 30 years, constitutional reform has given rise to three major political anchors for Quebec.

In the 1960s, the idea that Quebec should have a special status was picked up by Gérard Fillion, who, at the time, was editor in chief of Le Devoir . This marked the first attempt to amend the Constitution and to change the colour of the constitutional debate.

With Le Devoir , Gérard Fillion and a number of other intellectuals, it was felt that all of Canada's institutions required reworking. There was even talk of the Senate. There was increasing discussion obviously of an official languages act as well. There was a feeling of special status. In other words, the fact that Quebec, in addition to being a province, was a nation and had a special responsibility towards all French speakers in this part of North America had to be recognized.

With this idea of special status, it became clear that Quebec had to be seen to be a French society in a binational context expressed in all of Canada's major institutions.

This idea was set aside to some extent and gave rise, a bit later, about five years later, to the idea of associated states. Those who remember the political and constitutional debate in Quebec will remember this idea. The idea of associated states or two nations, on an equal basis, involved the idea of full equality, an idea that reached a much fuller and much more concrete conclusion with the idea, proposed by the Parti Quebecois and its president and founder René Lévesque, of sovereignty association.

The common denominator, however, in these three ideologies, these three constitutional doctrines, is that Quebec is a nation. Each time a Quebec premier went along to the constitutional table, it was in this context. There is a reason for our always making this claim as one of Quebec's constitutional demands, including in Victoria.

I found that a little funny. As some veteran members of this House will recall, the Victoria formula was not only about regional vetoes but also about giving Quebec more power over language and social policies. According to then Premier Robert Bourassa, however, that did not go far enough.

Will the House of Commons, which is supposed to be a fairly accurate reflection of Canada, have the courage to recognize that there are two nations in Canada and that one of them will therefore probably move toward full and true sovereignty? This, of course, will be achieved through a referendum to be held in coming months.

Yet, it is difficult to understand how, 30 years after initiating the debate on constitutional renewal, we are now considering Bill C-110, which all but ignores the major constitutional demands traditionally made by Quebec. Even without going as far as recognizing Quebec's right to sovereignty in a bill, how can a Prime Minister such as the one now in office, who has been a key witness to the events of the past 30 years in Quebec, believe that he will satisfy a single Quebecer with a bill offering nothing but a hypothetical veto that is not even enshrined in the Constitution.

What prevented the Prime Minister and his government from considering Quebec's major constitutional demands and ensuring that federal spending powers are defined in Bill C-110, for example? For the past 30 years, this has been part of a set of demands that have been renewed by every successive administration and government.

If the Prime Minister had been serious, he would have included a minimum of demands in Bill C-110, namely to limit federal spending powers, resolve the issue of residual powers, give Quebec more power over language matters, and recognize that Quebec is the only authority on language.

Even the Pepin-Robarts report, that Pierre Elliott Trudeau liked quoting from ad nauseam, recommended, besides a Confederation Chamber, the notion of recognizing Quebec as distinct, because, through its National Assembly, the Quebec government is the only real government ever to have been run by francophones in this part of the country. What would have kept the Prime Minister from recognizing that Quebec does have, regarding language, certain prerogatives?

The key issue of manpower is also at the heart of Quebec's demands. But this issue does not basically mean that, within the context of national standards, the Government of Quebec will be allowed to manage a program. That certainly was not what all the people who, in the past 30 years, recognized the need for Quebec to manage what could be call globally labour market policies had in mind.

Now the situation emerges where Quebec is told: "You will have the right to take back manpower programs, provided however that your program is compatible with our national standards". That is the crux of the problem.

How can they think that national standards could be established regarding something as changing and fluctuating as the labour market, when we know full well that, even within an economic space as small as the Quebec economy, labour market policies vary from region to region. The reality in the Gaspesian Peninsula is not the same as in Montreal. We find ourselves in a relatively disturbing situation, to the extent that those who launched the constitutional debate, those who worked to ensure that Quebec is treated more fairly and more in accordance with its status as a nation within Confederation, now find themselves with a constitutional proposal that is disappointing to say the least.

We could have gone a lot farther. That is part of the list of demands. What keeps us from recognizing Quebec as a distinct society? The term "distinct society" is absolutely meaningless. Just ask Library of Parliament researchers to go through the literature on international law. They will not find a legal basis to the effect that we are a distinct society. That concept is absolutely

meaningless in terms of what Quebec truly is and in terms of its nationhood.

The government, and in particular the Minister of Justice, who seems somewhat reluctant, will have to take notice of that. We understand that the Minister of Justice may not the best informed person regarding claims made by Quebec in recent years, but there are well informed people in cabinet, including the Minister of Labour, who has some experience on the Quebec political arena, and who may miss it at times. In any case, there are people in this government who know very well that Quebec is a nation, that it has a right to self-determination, like any other group forming a people and a nation, and that nothing will keep Quebec from holding another referendum when it chooses to do so. Quebec will hold a referendum when it has democratically decided to ask its citizens to make the inevitable choice.

In a debate like this, we cannot help but think of someone like André Laurendeau. In some respects, André Laurendeau is like a spiritual father to the Bloc Quebecois because he too, in his days, believed it was important to have a sovereignist front right here in this Parliament, to protect Quebec's interests.

For several years, André Laurendeau was the member for Montréal-Sainte-Marie. He accepted Lester B. Pearson's invitation to co-chair the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission. When he and his team tabled the preliminary report, the white paper, I think he understood something which is at the heart of the present political and constitutional wranglings in Canada. You will recall that he wrote "Out of disappointment will come the irreparable". The irreparable, of course, is sovereignty.

André Laurendeau had clearly understood that the federal regime's inability to acknowledge that there are two nations which must be treated as equals, that there are two nations in fact and in law which must engage in dialogue and treat each other as perfect equals, and that from this inability of the federal regime and those who personify it to recognize those two nations the irreparable will ensue. The irreparable will be-already is-that feeling. There is great satisfaction in seeing that in less than a decade the soverignist option has made a ten per cent gain.

There are not many examples of an idea which was initially perceived as being really marginal ending up with democratic backing that has become more and more solid; it is now headed toward a majority.

We are not wrong in this. I would like to state in closing that we in Quebec are committed, as is the rest of Canada, to engaging in a dialogue on the basis of what we are, through and through, which is a nation. Discussions between nations are on a totally equal footing. That equality will be made official in a democratic referendum, which will be Quebec's next rendez-vous with destiny.

It is my belief that today's debate ought to afford an opportunity, particularly on the government side, for recognition that Quebec is a nation, that it is entitled to self-determination, and that this right to self-determination justifies its demands for full and complete sovereignty.

[Constitutional Amendments Act, December 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my speech-in the hope that the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, who is my deskmate, will do me the honour of going along with my line of reasoning-by proposing that we try to imagine what it would be like if we had André Laurendeau, Lionel Groulx, Hubert Aquin, Robert Bourassa and Claude Ryan sitting in opposition.

I named these people, because each and every one of them, at some time or other, has been involved in the process of constitutional review, in different ways of course. I, myself, have been very interested in the process of constitutional review. It has enabled me to pursue my studies. The process of constitutional review arose from the 1960s idea that the Constitution had to be reviewed.

I would say that, for Quebec, the process of constitutional review between the 1960s and now has had two main thrusts. The first, I believe, applies to the entire Quebec family. Both the provincial Liberals and the slightly more nationalist folks acknowledge that reviewing sections 91 and 92 on the devolution of power is what counts in the constitutional review.

This is particularly true, because, as you will remember, in the early 1960s, with Jean Lesage, there was a movement in English Canada to patriate the Constitution and give it an amending formula, because the 33 Fathers of Confederation had not thought of giving it one. Jean Lesage and Jacques-Yvan Morin, and others after them, felt sections 91 and 92 had to be reviewed first, before the question of patriating the Constitution was dealt with. This then is the first thrust, which remains extremely important today, and, obviously, we can see we are a long way from it with Bill C-110.

The second and possibly the most important thrust-and that is why I referred to the man who, in a way, is like the father of the Bloc Quebecois, namely André Laurendeau, who, you may recall, was elected to the National Assembly in 1944. André Laurendeau took up Prime Minister Pearson's challenge-to whom some people do not hesitate to liken our current Prime Minister-and quit Le Devoir in the early 1960s to co-chair the Laurendeau-Dunton commission.

This royal commission is no doubt the true testament to Quebec nationalism. For the first time in a constitutional document-and I am referring here to the preliminary report tabled in 1965, commonly called the white paper-André Laurendeau and his fellow members of the commission urged English Canada to recognize the co-existence of two nations in Canada. There is a sentence in the white paper that is a important as it is short, on which I wrote my graduate thesis, and I would like to quote it today. André Laurendeau was truly a visionary when he said: "Out of disappointment will come the irreparable".

Of course, the irreparable is Quebec's sovereignty. Around 1965, sovereignty was in a latent, embryonic state in Quebec. Now, 30 years later, 30 years after André Laurendeau tabled his white paper, we are debating a bill introduced by a Liberal government who will not even recognize Quebec as a nation. That is what is so tragic in all this. No constitutional talks can take place without first recognizing that, in this country, we have two nations, which are equal in fact and in law. We must work to ensure that these two nations can start talking.

For those who belong the same school of thought as me, the best way to open a dialogue is, of course, sovereignty or a sovereignty-partnership formula. Those from another school of thought, which I respect and who won the October referendum, think that something can be worked out within the federal system. There is something that I cannot figure out about federal strategists. We cannot begrudge the current Minister of Justice. He is a rather nice man, a distinguished mind, a rising star in the Liberal camp. We cannot hold a grudge against him for not fully grasping the finer nuances of the constitutional debate.

How can the Prime Minister, who has been a member of this House since 1967-long before you, Mr. Speaker, became a member, if I am not mistaken-who has been a key player and a key witness in this constitutional review process, think that some Quebecers will be satisfied with an administrative bill that will not,

of course, be entrenched in the Constitution, and that only offers a possible right of veto.

A veto is, of course, important. We used it when Jean Lesage was tempted to accept the Fulton-Favreau formula requiring the unanimous consent of the provinces, and when Robert Bourassa was also tempted to accept the 1971 Victoria Charter, which is different from what we have before us today and which is sometimes compared with what is being offered today. As you may recall, Victoria would have given back to Quebec all of its powers over language, as the Pepin-Robarts Commission did a little later.

How can anyone on the side of the government majority think that any Quebecer-whether on the Daniel Johnson team, on the Jacques Parizeau team, or with any lobby in Quebec-will say yes to a proposal like this one?

The government has put itself in a very awkward and unenlightened position, in my opinion, by forcing the loyal opposition, one of the best oppositions this government has ever known, to say no. I know that the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell will understand that the minimum requirements for reviewing the Constitution cannot be any less than what was proposed in the Meech Lake accord.

As you know, the Meech Lake accord contained five minimum requirements. Personally, I would never have voted for the Meech Lake accord, because even though it was a bare minimum, it did not provide the essential, namely Quebec's recognition as a nation and, more importantly, it did not provide any additional power to Quebec, while also being tragically silent on the language issue.

But let us presume that everyone is acting in good faith and is trying to engage in a dialogue. How can the Prime Minister and his team possibly think that Bill C-110 is adequate, considering that the five conditions included in Meech were an absolute minimum?

Meech also sought to ensure that the Supreme Court played a role in a balanced Canadian federation, and therefore, to restore that balance, Quebec must be represented by judges who reflect its civil law tradition.

There was also the idea, which is probably the most important one for us but is also important for English Canada, that the federal spending power had to be clearly defined, since a number of experts agree that there is a direct link between the use of that spending power by the federal government and the current deficit.

I respectfully submit, out of respect for the past, that if those whom I named were here now, including Claude Ryan-and I do not know how he is perceived by this government-none of them, who all sought to protect Quebec's interests and future, would agree with Bill C-110. I hope the government reviews its position and comes up with something more substantial, so as to launch a true dialogue.

[Fight Against Aids, December 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that, in spite of the growing epidemic, the minister has not even managed to spend all the moneys allocated to her for the fight against AIDS. I ask her to rise in this House and

to promise on her honour to extend the strategy and to spend the funds allocated. This would be the best way for her to show solidarity with the victims, and I hope she will make that commitment.

[Fight Against Aids, December 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. Today is World AIDS Day. The epidemic, far from being under control, has reached unexpected proportions. From 1982 to 1995, 15,000 cases of AIDS were reported in Canada. Over the next five years, another 15,000 cases will be identified. In the meantime, the minister does nothing but make empty speeches and is incapable of pledging to maintain the national AIDS strategy.

Given the terrible ravages of that disease, how can the minister justify that she is contemplating saving $40.7 million per year, at the expense of people living with AIDS, by giving up the national AIDS strategy? Such a decision would be shameful.

[Gala Des Masques, November 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Gala des Masques, a moving event underlining the richness of Quebec theatre was held last night. Today, we in the Bloc Quebecois wish to pay tribute to the Quebec theatre actors, producers, directors and technicians, whose art lights up the stages of Quebec, Canada and the world.

As Jean-Louis Millette, one of the most talented theatre actors in Quebec, pointed out, we can be very proud of Quebec theatre. We have no cause to be jealous of any other country in the world.

We are all honoured by the creativity, talent, artistic research, and mastery of both classical and modern plays shown by these artists from every region of Quebec.

All Quebec plays performed around the world are a source of pride in and recognition of our cultural strength and vitality. Congratulations to all our artists and creators.

[Hiv, November 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that the minister will make this year's "Bye! Bye!". I will ask her a supplementary question.

The minister has nice sounding words, but does she realize what the inefficiency of Health Canada means for the persons infected, especially when they know that their American counterparts are able to make good use of that drug, a drug developed here?

[Hiv, November 23rd, 1995]

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

In 1989, a Quebec company, BioChem, developed a very important drug for the treatment of HIV infection, called 3TC. The American Food and Drug Administration has approved 3TC for sale in the United States. Because of the administrative slowness of Health Canada, the Americans are able to profit from this discovery before we do.

How can the minister explain that 3TC, a drug developed here, is already approved for use in the United States, while Health Canada is dragging its feet?

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, November 23rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, let me first start by saying that our worst nightmare has come true. What we feared when we embarked upon the last referendum campaign was that the central government would disregard one of the most solid consensus we have ever seen in the province of Quebec.

This most solid and deep-rooted consensus is that we will never be able to do anything about the employment situation if we do not give the levers required to deal with labour market-related problems to the most capable level of government to do so.

Right now, the best government to give Quebec a labour market policy to efficiently fight unemployment is not the central government, but rather the National Assembly of Quebec.

Why are we saying that it is not the central government? Because the central government has to make decisions about a labour market that covers five regions, and we know that the labour market situation in New-Brunswick is nothing like the situation in Quebec.

This is why several, if not all, of the major stakeholders on the Quebec labour market are opposed to Bill C-96.

Let me remind the House of some of the organizations that are against Bill C-96. There is the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre, the Institut canadien de l'éducation des adultes, the FTQ, the CLC, and despite this coalition of organizations representing tens of thousands of citizens, the central government has the nerve, the gall to introduce in this House a bill that would allow the federal to interfere in an area without any mandate to do so.

I hope that the government whip and his team will finally come to their senses and realize that they are doing something irreparable by submitting Bill C-96.

Yet, when you think about it it is obvious that everything which concerns the labour market comes under provincial jurisdiction. Surely, no member of this House is unaware that the labour code, the CSST, orders respecting collective agreements and mass layoffs are areas of provincial jurisdiction and that it is perfectly natural that labour market-related policies are the specific and exclusive business of the provinces.

Let me remind the House of a fact: unemployment is not innate. One is not born unemployed. Unemployment has nothing to do with genetics. Nor has it anything to do with the language one speaks. A person's language does not bear on his or her working skills. How is it, then, that within the federation the unemployment rate has always been higher in Quebec than in Ontario? Workers in both provinces have about the same qualifications and live in about the same social and economic environment. How is it that for the last 20 or 25 years Quebec has had a higher rate of unemployment than Ontario? And I am sure we could give very concrete examples of countries where unemployment was successfully eliminated. They have what is called a frictional unemployment rate of about 3 or 4 per cent, reflecting the number of people who quit their job for a very particular reason and are looking for another one.

How is it that we are unable in our system to create conditions allowing all those who want to work to find a job? Naturally, there are those who cannot work because they are handicapped and those who are momentarily out of work and those who do not want to work. But how is it that in 1995 qualified and competent people who truly want to work find themselves in a system where the government is unable to create conditions leading to their employment? You do not have to be a rocket scientist or have three doctorates to understand that if unemployment is not a matter of heredity or of language, there must be political reasons to explain why the unemployment rate is at 11, 12 or 13 per cent.

These political reasons are very clear: we have two governments which impede each other's initiatives regarding labour market. The best example of this inefficiency, my colleague the member for Trois-Rivières referred to it, is of course the existence of two manpower centre networks which cancel each other's initiatives.

Let me just remind you that Ottawa administers just as many programs as Quebec does. Quebec has approximately 25 programs to put people back to work and so does Ottawa. What this means is that if the people that we, as members, meet in our constituency office, and I am sure that this happens to you too, are UI recipients, they are eligible for some programs, but if they receive income security benefits, they are eligible for some programs but not for others.

I believe we are mature and lucid enough as parlementarians to say that the situation we must aim at is having only one government that will control all powers and levers in order to help put people back to work, away from that unacceptable situation called unemployment.

This decision, this wish is incompatible with the existence of two governments and it certainly is incompatible with the fact that two governments can each have 25 programs without any coordination between them. Instead of proposing what all important stakeholders in Quebec are asking, that is that the federal government pull out of the labour sector, this government has the nerve, the irresponsibility and the irreverence to give us a bill, Bill C-96, which increases the powers of the minister in labour matters.

Can you imagine such a situation where all Quebec stakeholders are asking for one thing and the Government of Quebec, speaking as one, is incoherently saying the exact opposite? We must not forget that the social cost of unemployment was estimated and I am

convinced that all parliamentarians are concerned about this situation.

I would like to remind you that we have, in Quebec, a very respectable and respected organization called the Forum pour l'emploi. Of course, this employment forum expressed the wish to see all manpower policies transferred to Quebec, but it also analyzed the social cost of unemployment. It estimated that-I know this will give you quite a shock, so I will say it slowly-the economic cost of unemployment for 1993, that is 1993 A.D., not 200 years ago, was about $30 billion.

This means that, because the government is perhaps considering maintaining a duplication of structures, our society has to put up with a shortfall of $30 billion. That is the reality. That is what is unbearable with Bill C-96. Not only will the government not respect the consensus that exists in Quebec, it included in the bill dispositions that will allow it to disregard the authority of the Quebec government and give direct funding to organizations like CDECs or direct it through other channels for the delivery of manpower related services, all this without going through the principal stakeholder, the Quebec government.

But that will not last long. Something will happen soon. There will be a grass-roots movement. People will take to the streets when they realize that we cannot support inefficiencies, that there is no reason to tolerate unemployment rates of 11, 12 or 13 per cent when other western societies are able to give work to everybody.

Since you are telling me that my time is up, Madam Speaker, I will conclude by saying that this bill in unacceptable and that we hope that the government will see the light and respect Quebec's jurisdictions.

[Canada Labour Code, November 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am highly tempted to dedicate this speech to the government whip, but I will resist the urge.

It might a good idea to remind everyone of what this bill is all about. Thanks are due to the member for Manicouagan for having introduced this private member's bill, the purpose of which is to prohibit the hiring of persons to replace employees of an employer under the Canada Labour Code or of the Public Service who are on strike or locked out.

Why did I insist on reading the purpose of this bill word for word? Because the bill under consideration is a logical follow-up to rights workers presently have, the right to unionize, the right to strike. What surprises me, in the statements I heard from the government majority as well as from the Reform Party, is that they claimed that providing anti-scab mechanisms would hinder any attempt at mediation prior to a strike.

Members will agree that, in a labour organisation, a strike is a final step and it is defined as such by the legislator. No parliamentarian wishes to see strikes become a spontaneous solution in the workplace. Everybody agrees on the fact that any group that goes on strike was forced to do so by circumstances. Adopting antiscab legislation does not spare us the previous steps.

I cannot see why government members as well as our Reform Party colleagues have presented this bill as a rather sorry mess without going into this kind of nuance that we feel is very significant. Worse still, the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister-whom I usually respect and will continue to respect as long as you are in the Chair-argued that this measure was put forward by the Conservatives in Ontario.

First, you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, to ask the parliamentary secretary not to quote that government too often. I do not think that government should serve as reference to the government majority unless, as we suspected, blue or red in Ottawa amounts exactly to the same thing and that no distinction has to be established.

Until very recently, three provinces making up 70 per cent of the labour force were protected by antiscab provisions. What did this have as a concrete effect? Two things. As we have said on several occasions an antiscab legislation brings an element of civility, of courtesy to a power relationship that could be tempted to break negotiations. That is the first thing.

What very concrete effect does this have? When we look at the specialized literature on the subject, we learn, and that has been a powerful argument raised by the member for Manicouagan, that in provinces where there are laws such as this one, labour disputes do not last as long. I think this is an objective which must be supported.

It is not the first time that we have a legislation such as this one. In its time, the NDP suggested a similar provision. The member for Richelieu did so in a more recent past. Yet, no agreement was achieved, they were not successful in ensuring that a provision, without being insignificant, would be a tool for the legislator, a tool for those who are concerned with labour relations and a tool for the management of human resources.

What do we say when we are in favour of a provision such as this one? We say that, a few years ago, as a society, the people of Quebec and Canada democratically voted for a recourse, and that is the right to strike. Admittedly, this is a last resort. A strike is never fun for the union, the workers or the employer, because this has to do with carrying out work.

When there is a work stoppage, we can all agree that, unavoidably, the economy in general is affected. This kind of situation is not desirable. Once it has been democratically recognized by a society-and you will recall that, around the time when discussions started, people used to say, even in the public service, before there was a legal right to strike: "The Queen does not negotiate with her subjects". I am sure that those of us who are older will remember. For me, this is history, but some were there when all this was happening.

Once the choice has been democratically made to give workers the right to strike, we, as legislators, have the duty and responsibility to ensure that strikes are carried out with civility and without violence.

When you have workers who get up every morning to earn a living, who must go on strike for various reasons including improved standards and better salaries, and who see their jobs threatened by scabs doing their work, you end up with a potentially explosive situation.

As even the political neophytes among us know, without antiscab legislation all long term strikes involved violence.

We as legislators-and I am sure my colleagues across the way will agree-have a responsibility to ensure that the people who exercice their right to strike, a right that is recognized and well defined, can do so in the right conditions.

I did not quite understand the comments made by the previous speaker, who, as we know, is rather easy to get along with. He seemed to be saying that they would rather try to use existing mechanisms. That goes without saying.

Furthermore, the hon. member for Manicouagan, wise man and experienced parliamentarian that he is, provided in the legislation a sound instrument known as an essential services board. This is to say that, even in cases where the final step a strike is taken, it will be recognized that nobody can be taken hostage because a democratic right is used, and that certain conditions have to be met, a notice has to be given and essential services have to be maintained.

Where have all the true Liberals gone? People on the other side-the government whip among them-tell us that they are Liberal in the noble, true and historical sense of the word. They tell us they are Liberals. To be a Liberal, to be a liberal, is to recognize a number of rights in a very clear context.

What are they afraid of? I would like to ask them, through you, why they are afraid of such a bill. Is it because workers will be able to exercise their democratic right to go out on strike? If this legislation is not passed on the pretext that it is incomplete, this will bring us back to a dramatic truth about this Parliament, which is that our labour minister is a time shared minister, a part time minister. A full time minister would have had taken her responsibilities. Since it came into office two years ago, this government has had ample time and opportunity to introduce a major revision of the Labour Code.

We have a part time minister, and the government whip will agree that this is why we are in a deplorable situation where the Labour Code has not undergone a major overhaul.

This is a balanced and democratic bill. It reflects values that are widely recognized in our society.

If the government majority went so far as to oppose this bill, I am sure that the price it would have to pay would be extremely high, both in Quebec and elsewhere, because workers under federal jurisdiction have the right to be legally protected against the possible use of scabs.

You are indicating to me that my time is up. My colleagues will be disappointed, but I will use this last opportunity to urge them to adopt such a bill.