Réal Ménard

[Telecommunications, April 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry would surely be held in higher esteem if he answered the question.

And so I ask him: Given that the government decided on September 12, 1994 to overturn the decision of the CRTC, which did not serve the interests of the Prime Minister's son-in-law, -and I want it to be very clear-would the Minister of Industry show us today, from his seat, the memorandum he received from the Prime Minister asking to be completely kept out of the government's decisions in this matter?

Can the sponsor of the Lobbyists Registration Act table the memorandum that will enable us to understand and shed some light on this matter?

[Telecommunications, April 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am feeling sick to my stomach, but I will nevertheless put my question to the Minister of Industry.

In the endless series of intimate relations this government has with the extended Liberal family, the matter of Power DirecTv continues to raise a number of questions about the actual involvement of the Prime Minister and his entourage.

Could the Minister of Industry, the self-styled champion of transparency, tell us clearly when the Prime Minister informed him that he did not want to be involved in any way with Power DirecTv in which his son-in-law has interests? When did the Prime Minister tell him, about that, exactly?

[Occupational Health And Safety, April 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on this day of mourning, I join with all my colleagues in extending my heartfelt sympathy to the many families who have lost loved ones to work accidents.

In 1993, there were 758 work-related deaths in Canada. It is difficult to understand how workers can still risk their lives on the job in this day and age. Yet, thousands of workers still face this reality, especially in the construction, transportation, mining and manufacturing sectors, which still account for over 60 per cent of workplace fatalities.

We cannot be satisfied with the recent decline in the number of industrial accidents in Canada. Occupational safety is one of the most important social objectives of this century and must remain so as long as people continue to die on the job. In this regard, I can only urge the Canadian government to adopt occupational health and safety practices and policies based on those in effect in Quebec.

[Legal Recognition Of Same Sex Spouses, April 26th, 1995]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should take the measures necessary for the legal recognition of same sex spouses.

Madam Speaker, it must be realized that major social changes require some disruption.

I thank you for calling the House to order and I want to stress how important this motion is to me and how I fully appreciate the opportunity we have in this Parliament to raise an issue which, in many countries, is the object of repression.

First of all, I would like to point out that the motion I am tabling today calls on us as members of Parliament to recognize same sex spouses. What this means is that we as members of Parliament recognize and urge the government to take the measures necessary to recognize that same sex individuals, whether two men or two women, can have a satisfactory loving and sexual relationship. On such a basis, nothing could justify legislators condoning discriminatory practices.

First of all, I wish to point out that what is to be debated in the next few minutes and hours is not the concept of family or the issue of adoption but the question of free choice for two same sex individuals who want to enjoy a relationship.

I would like to draw a comparison between feelings of love and religious feelings. I had an old theology professor who used to say about religious belief that a religious person is one who believes that mysteries exist and that we cannot apprehend the world around us in its totality for we are hindered by our conventional senses, while one who sees problems where he or she should see mysteries is not a religious but a superstitious person. I suggest that religious belief is universal and transcends denominational boundaries. Whether Catholic, Protestant, Quaker or what not, we have religious beliefs and values and this is a matter of feeling.

Love is the same kind of feeling. Whether or not this love is between two men or two women, the fact remains that what is experienced in terms of relationship is the same.

I would say that, today, we are picking up where Pierre Elliott Trudeau and John Turner left off and, with a majority vote on this motion in Parliament, we would basically be taking another step forward.

You will recall that it was John Turner and not Pierre Elliott Trudeau who, as Minister of Justice, decriminalized homosexuality through the passage of Bill C-150 in December 1968. Of course, as we recall, this was an omnibus bill which included a number of amendments relating to lotteries and abortion.

But the main thing is that, in 1968, it was recognized in a mature way, in a generous society which is no doubt even more so today, that two consenting adults, or as paragraph 149(a) of the Criminal Code put it, two persons who are both over the age of 21 can engage freely in sexual activity- provided, naturally, that they have reached the legal age, which was 21 in those days-and that they consensually agree to be in a relationship.

I think that, as a society, we are now going a further step in saying that, as a society, we will not tolerate that individuals who knowingly and willingly get into a same sex relationship should suffer economic, social or fiscal discrimination.

That is what this motion is about. I have heard all kinds of remarks and comparisons which, if I may say so, were quite misguided.

Before getting down to the specifics, I want to say that the gay community, to which I belong, is a fine community. Our fellow citizens, as well as the gay community, must realize that a person can be gay and still be a taxpayer, a worker and a happy human being. The best way for society to integrate its various groups and make them feel comfortable is to accept their differences. It will be very interesting to see how, as we prepare for the 21st century, Canada and Quebec will be prepared to accept these differences.

Ultimately, no one can contend, from a psychological or anthropological point of view, that homosexuality is something abnormal. In psychology, the term abnormal refers to something which is unhealthy from a psychological or physiological point of view. A person can be a homosexual or a lesbian and still be a member of the workforce, a happy human being, a conscientious worker, as well as an active member of his or her community. In fact, this is the case of most people I know.

Yet, even though several administrative tribunals, employers and provincial governments-including Ontario-have recognized same sex spouses, the fact is that, in 1995, there is still a great deal of discrimination.

In recognizing same sex spouses, we have to take a look at the scope of the current notion of spouses, which is defined strictly in heterosexist terms.

With the diligent and much appreciated help of the Library researchers, I sought to find out how many acts in Canada contain a definition of "spouse" in heterosexist terms, that is a definition referring to spouses of two different sexes. Madam Speaker, you will surely be surprised to learn that, for all intents and purposes, there are about 60 such acts. You have no idea of all the lines of activity concerned. I have a list here which includes the Bankruptcy Act, the Evidence Act, the Carriage by Air Act and the Excise Tax Act. Therefore, this issue does not just involve social and fringe benefits, as well as pensions. It also concerns all sorts of other rights in a vast array of sectors in our society.

We are not starting from scratch. Some progress has been made and it would be extremely dishonest on my part to claim that nothing has been done since 1968. I think the best example I could give you is the fact that 11 major Canadian cities-Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, Hamilton, Waterloo, Toronto, Winnipeg, Regina, Calgary, Edmonton and that wonderful city where I am sure you would all love to spend your vacation, Vancouver-have also recognized same sex spouses.

I asked our researchers to join me and the human resources managers in each one of these municipalities in evaluating the fiscal impact on municipalities. Of course we should realize that a municipality is not a central government, and I know that is something we have to consider. It is also a fact that each of these cities signed a contract with a private insurance company for health insurance. They let an insurance company offer coverage. It is also a fact, and I think one could not expect it to be otherwise, that when these cities and municipalities recognized same sex spouses, there were no additional costs because after all, would anyone rise in this House and claim that two 30-year old lesbians have more dental appointments that a heterosexual couple? That two gays in their forties need hospital care more often than their heterosexual counterparts?

So it is clear that recognition of same sex spouses is not a money issue, at least based on what one could reasonably expect to be the case in these municipalities, since the homosexual community, the members of that community do not differ physically from heterosexuals. I know some people said that there might be neurological or glandular or hormonal differences, but upon closer analysis, these theories did not hold water.

I hope that this debate, which is an extremely important one, will reflect what this 35th Parliament is prepared to do to enhance the equality of all Canadians and Quebecers. Once again, this is not supposed to be a debate on adoption and redefining the family, matters that Parliament would have no mandate to discuss in any case.

As a person who is a committed and militant gay, I have no hesitation in saying that two men or two women do not constitute a family. For a family, you need children. I am not saying that two men or two women would be unable to provide an environment comparable to what a heterosexual couple could offer, but that is not the point of this debate.

So this is an appeal for generosity and openness, since for the legislator, there can be no grounds for discrimination. Since homosexual couples are made up of taxpayers-a number of them are taxpayers-, they are part of the labour market and are involved in the community, there is no objective reason for allowing the discrimination to rage on.

Before concluding, I would like to provide a number of examples to illustrate how insidious it can be. Even though I am an idealist, opposed to pragmatists, discrimination is tangible and a day to day experience in the lives of the people in this community.

I have chosen this example, which concerns a number of areas of activity: unemployment insurance. Unemployment insurance is no charity. As you know, after the Conservatives opted out, unfortunately, with the Liberals following suit, unemployment insurance was no longer an assistance plan. It became an insurance plan, with workers paying for unemployment insurance, along with employers, of course.

I will give you an example. A claimant can, in certain instances, voluntarily leave his job if his or her spouse is transferred to another city. It is clear that a gay or lesbian couple appearing before an unemployment insurance officer because one partner must move to another city for job-related reasons will not enjoy the same benefits a heterosexual couple might.

Obviously, discrimination is a major concern. Such an issue concerning the Income Tax Act was of real concern to the community. In the past 10 to 15 years, social laws have tended to acknowledge common law spouses. Under most Canadian laws, you must meet the following two conditions to have your relationship recognized and to acquire the same rights as a

married couple. You must share accommodation with the same person for at least one year and you must identify yourselves publicly as a couple.

Regarding income tax, and the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot follows all developments in this area very closely, as he is the finance critic, since 1987, the definition of the term "spouse" in the Income Tax Act has been the following: a person of the opposite sex living in a situation similar to that of marital union. What rights would same sex couples acquire, what would be the significance of recognizing them from an income tax point of view? It would give them the right to claim credits for dependents.

They would also gain access to spousal RRSPs, and we all know how important RRSPs are for preparing, obviously, for retirement and old age, since governments are withdrawing from this area. I would like to take this opportunity to say first off that the gay community is a beautiful community, within which it is not unusual to see couples who have been together for 20, 25 or 30 years. I know that many people tend to think that same sex relationships, gay relationships, are short-lived, futile, superficial, but I personally can vouch for the fact, as can others, that it is not unusual to see same sex relationships last 20, 25 or 30 years.

We can safely say that the same is not always true of the heterosexual community. Of course, there are also couples that last 20, 25 or 30 years, but one must also acknowledge, in all fairness, that the same exists in the gay community. Therefore, if I may use a specific example, recognizing same sex spouses for income tax purposes would also mean they could use RRSP limits to their mutual advantage, claim a parent of their spouse as a dependent, transfer to the other spouse some unused tax credits for pension purposes, tuition fees or disability credits.

We could also talk about the Canada Pension Plan. Since 1986, it has recognized a spouse of the opposite sex that has been living with the contributor for one year or more. It means that, in the case of heterosexual couples in Canada, when one spouse has contributed to the Canada Pension Plan, at the time of death, undoubtedly a tragic event, the other is entitled to part of the pension. This is also a form of discrimination against homosexual and gay couples.

Another very obvious example is a case concerning the Old Age Security Act that is now before the Supreme Court, which is expected to hand down its decision in May, and it will be interesting to see what this decision will be. You know that, under this act, when two people live together and their total income is under a certain level, one of them can receive a guaranteed income supplement. Unfortunately, two homosexuals or two lesbians who have been living together for 10, 15 or 20 years in some cases, cannot get the guaranteed income supplement when their income is under that threshold.

We could also talk about pensions in the Canadian public service. The issue, as far as public service pensions are concerned, is that, when a heterosexual partner dies, the surviving partner is entitled to a portion of the pension. There are very concrete, commonplace examples to show clearly that same sex partners living as a couple, who freely got into this relationship, honourable citizens who are participants in the the workforce and, in most cases, want to contribute to society, are discriminated against.

This is a test for Parliament. We could choose to act as if this reality did not exist, but it does. I think that we must be driven by a feeling of generosity which should lead us ultimately to accept our differences. This motion provides us with an opportunity to discuss one difference which has been of concern to all societies. Allow me, in closing, to be optimistic about its chances of being adopted.

[Employment Equity, April 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am both disappointed and disturbed that today members are asked to consider a motion which seems to be totally removed from reality and that, with all due respect for its author, appears to be based on a completely erroneous interpretation of the Employment Equity Act.

I would like to point out that the hon. member seems to associate the existence of the Employment Equity act with a tendency on the part of some employers to hire incompetent people. To make this kind of connection encourages prejudice and is entirely absurd.

Before going any further, I would like to recall for the benefit of our listeners and of our colleagues in this House that the sole purpose of the Employment Equity Act, which has existed since 1986, is to ensure that our labour force is more representative of Quebec and Canadian society.

To achieve this, we ask employers to try, as part of their hiring practices, to include four so-called designated groups, namely women, aboriginal people, visible minorities and disabled people, in view of the fact that in the labour market, people do not all have the same opportunities, and there are people who are discriminated against and who have trouble getting the jobs for which they are qualified. To think that because we have an Employment Equity Act like the one we have had since 1990 and which we are in the process of reviewing, there is some connection between the existence of this Act and the practice of some employers to hire incompetent people, is patently absurd.

I may recall that section 6 of the old and the new Employment Equity Act clearly says:

the obligation to implement employment equity does not require an employer a ) to take a particular measure to implement employment equity where the taking of that measure would cause undue hardship to the employer; b ) to hire or promote unqualified persons.

That is made very clear in the Act.

We believe it is important to have an Employment Equity Act because we know perfectly well that the labour market alone is not likely to provide this equality between various groups. My proof is our colleague for North Vancouver, who began his remarks by saying that legislation on employment equity was no longer necessary. Let us have a look at the comments of groups that have studied the legislation, specifically, the Canadian Human Rights Commission. It is almost dishonest to say that Whites are victims of reverse discrimination. This prejudice must be stopped, fought from the start.

I sit on the Standing Committee on Human Rights, and, since January, we have been trying to improve the Employment Equity Act, as we realize there are gaps in it. Let us remember what Commissioner Max Yalden, who is as critical as a person can be before the government, said. As you know, he is well versed in the workings of government, having been in government since 1956, even before I was born. He said that, in 1993, able bodied caucasian males accounted for approximately 55 per cent of all workers newly hired for permanent full time positions by employers covered under federal legislation on employment equity. This is significantly higher than the proportion of able bodied Whites on the labour market; the figure in this case is 45 per cent.

So, people who try to convince us that Whites without disabilities are discriminated against are not aware of the statistics or of the reality of the labour market.

The Employment Equity Act says that some people are systematically discriminated against. That means that, if corrective measures are not taken, some groups will continue to receive unequal treatment. What form does this inequality take? It works by forming the five following groups: groups with higher than average rates of unemployment; groups with lower than average incomes; groups which are over-represented in lower paying professions and groups with less opportunity for advancement.

This is particularly true, as we will see, for aboriginal people and handicapped people. Lastly, there are also groups which are under-represented in higher paying professions, with good job prospects and which are in expansion. That is the general picture of discrimination that the designated categories face, groups like handicapped people, aboriginal people, members of visible minorities and women.

Let us take a look to see whether discrimination against these groups has really ceased over the last few months, as the hon. member claims. Let us look at each category. Women make up 52 per cent of the population of Canada, but in 1993-that is not very long ago-they accounted for only 45 per cent of the Canadian labour force. Last year, women continued to be paid about one third less than their male counterparts. This means that, in the labour market of 1993, a woman doing a job of equal value, for which she was equally qualified, earned two thirds of what a man earned to do the same job. If that is not discrimination, I wonder what the hon. member for North Vancouver calls it.

Second, 52 per cent of the time, women, who, as we know, make up 52 per cent of the population of Canada and 45 per cent of the Canadian labour force, end up in jobs in the lower service echelons, as office clerks or secretaries, jobs which are naturally lower paid.

It should also be pointed out about career women with a university degree that 18 per cent of White females who graduated in commerce, business administration or industrial management and were hired in the past few months were assigned positions below their professional qualifications. That is 18 per cent of women university graduates whose positions are below their professional qualifications, as compared to only 5 per cent of men, according to Statistics Canada.

I think it is to refuse to recognize the reality of the target groups, i.e. the female population, to think and to tell us that labour market equilibrium has been reached and that we no longer need an act like the Employment Equity Act.

Another situation is that of the aboriginal people. The Employment Equity Committee heard many witnesses on that issue. Our friend from the Reform Party certainly did not mention it, and I am sure you will be very surprised to learn about this, but the native people represent 3.8 per cent of the total population of Canada. Up until now however, they have succeeded in getting only 1.4 per cent of all the jobs available to the workforce. These are recent data and they show clearly that, not only do native people have a hard time entering the labour market, but their unemployment rate is exactly twice as high as the national average.

These data also show, Mr. Speaker, that the income of native people is $10,000 below that of other Canadians. I will conclude by saying that these examples of discrimination are still very much current and that Parliament must pass a legislation as this one on employment equity to promote a better balance within the Canadian labour force.

[Human Rights, April 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development has once again shown a lack of consistency and vision when developing government policies that are supposed to protect citizens who are treated unfairly.

Last February, he tabled amendments to the Employment Equity Act. The commission's new responsibilities include enforcement of the Employment Equity Act, establishing an employment equity review tribunal and, last but not least, auditing reports submitted by private sector employers. According to the Human Rights Commissioner, the commission would need 15 new officers to carry out these new responsibilities.

The minister has probably forgotten that he himself closed the commission's regional offices and cut its budget by more than $3 million. This makes no sense at all.

[Petitions, March 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the relevant provisions of our Standing Orders, I have the pleasure of submitting a petition signed by 41 petitioners who call upon Parliament to act swiftly to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to explicitly proscribe discrimination based on sexual orientation in every area under federal jurisdiction and take the necessary steps to have same sex live-in partners recognized in federal legislation.

[Air Carriers, March 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, how can the minister draw a parallel between Hong Kong, a route which Air Canada is ready to start servicing in the summer, thus creating 500 jobs, and Germany, a route which Canadian cannot even start servicing by the end of the year because it does not have enough planes?

[Air Carriers, March 31st, 1995]

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

The minister is always telling us about the progress he has made in the air transport industry and the satisfaction expressed by the presidents of the two main carriers. In fact, since his international route allocation policy was announced in late December, and because of his decisions systematically favouring Canadian International in the allocation of international routes, Air Canada shares are taking a beating on the stock market.

My question is this: How can the minister maintain that he acted fairly and equitably, when, according to Standard and Poor, Air Canada has been hurt by the minister's recent decisions giving Canadian International access to the American market, Chicago and New York in particular, without any compensation for Air Canada?

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, March 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague is a generous and intelligent man, so I am disappointed with his comparison. I wish to tell him that, since the fall of the Berlin Wall, 21 countries have achieved sovereignty and, out of these 21 countries, it is easy to talk about the economic difficulties experienced by Slovakia. On the other hand, I can give him a list of 20 countries which, not in the distant past but since the fall of the Berlin Wall, have managed their sovereignty successfully. We will have the opportunity to talk about this again later.

I wish to address one element of my colleague's question. What I told the hon. parliamentary secretary is that there are several examples of federalism in the world. Canadian federalism has two distinctive features. Canada is a continental country, unlike the other federalist countries we are familiar with. It is a continental country with two nations. Since being elected to this House, I have seen that there is a gap between the parties. On this side, because we are in touch with Quebec, we know that we are a nation.

Prince Edward Island is not a nation. British Columbia is not a nation. They are great places in the world, with generous people. I spent my vacation in Prince Edward Island and it is a wonderful part of the country, but it is not a nation. Again, it is a wonderful part of the country. Being a nation involves having a distinct language, a distinct legal system, government control, a collective will to live together. These elements make us a nation under international law.

Canada is indeed a great country, and I am able to recognize this. But what I said about Canadian federalism is that, although Canada is a great country, although I have many friends on the other side of this House, including the parliamentary secretary, Canada as it now exists cannot allow two nations to achieve self-realization. That is why, in the next century-and saying this does not show contempt, secessionist tendencies or obtuseness-Canada must be redesigned so that both nations can enjoy a relationship as political equals and economic partners.

When my hon. colleague tells me that his niece, of whom he is no doubt very proud, speaks three languages, it is something that must be applauded. However, the hon. member is confusing the collective dimension with the individual dimension.

I wish that all members of this House were multilingual. Three mornings a week, I get up at seven in the morning to learn English so I can discuss with my hon. colleagues. But all this does not change anything to the fact that Quebec is a nation and must have all the powers, its own country and its own government.