Réal Ménard

[Criminal Code, September 20th, 1994]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I also wish you a good session, because I am glad to see you again after the summer break. I want to thank my colleague for her speech; to tell you the truth, I do not at all consider myself an expert on justice issues, but having listened very closely to the hon. member's speech, I feel some obligation to get into debate with her, in my capacity as human rights critic for my party, especially on one aspect of her speech.

She said that this bill is a necessary reform and talked a little about homosexuality in what I thought were rather pejorative

terms. She said that homosexuality was immoral and that Canadians were not prepared to tolerate it.

I remembered the speech that her colleague, the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and the Status of Women, gave earlier this afternoon, saying that Canadians should become more tolerant of one another.

I feel the need to say so because I really have the impression that the present Minister of Justice will also propose some reforms concerning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, making it an illegal ground for discrimination.

I would like to ask my colleague whether we as parliamentarians should not rather recognize that homosexuality is a different way of expressing one's sexuality. Should we as legislators not recognize, especially when discussing this kind of situation, that homosexuals are estimated to constitute about 10 per cent of the population in nearly all societies and that they are entitled to legal rights? Is calling homosexuality immoral not rather reactionary and intolerant, contrary to what the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism urged us to be?

I would like to know what she thinks because I want to say where I stand when we have the opportunity to discuss these issues in connection with the amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act that the Minister of Justice will present to us. I hope that, whatever side of this House we sit on, we will find a little more open-mindedness.

[Conversion Of Defence Industry, June 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to hear that the Minister of Finance has political identity problems, but I still have a question for him. Given that the spokesman for this new association, Claude Daigneault of SNC Lavallin, announced that 6,500 manufacturing jobs will be lost in the defence industry, can the Minister of FORDQ undertake to do all he can to ensure the conversion of these manufacturing jobs, which are crucial to the Quebec economy?

[Conversion Of Defence Industry, June 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, last week, Quebec's largest defence companies, clearly dissatisfied with Ottawa's policies, announced that they would get together to press the federal government to change its approach in order to facilitate defence conversion.

Does the minister responsible for Quebec's economic development not see in this action a full repudiation of the federal government's policy by Quebec's defence companies and what does he intend to do now to fulfil his party's election promises regarding defence conversion?

[Aids, June 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the member for Wild Rose said something in this House that I found quite outrageous. He condemned the Department of Health for distributing an information brochure on how AIDS is transmitted.

The disturbing thing is that an elected representative of the people does not know that AIDS is a viral infection transmitted through blood or semen. For lack of protection and sufficient information, hundreds of people have contracted this disease and died from it. It is unfortunate that Reform members are so hard on the homosexual community. This gut-level homophobia has no place in Parliament.

Some Reform Party members have shown narrow-mindedness, partisanship and base ignorance of the AIDS problem. The Department of Health should give them an intensive briefing on how AIDS is transmitted; this search for information should be the first step to greater tolerance.

[Human Rights, June 10th, 1994]

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I must tell the Deputy Prime Minister that she did not understand. There is a military junta in power in Burma, and the league is asking that UN agencies not give it any support. My first question dealt with that request, and we are counting on the Deputy Prime Minister to agree to it.

My supplementary is this: We are told by the Department of International Trade that, in view of Burma's human rights abuse record, Canadian corporations are encouraged not to do business with that country. However, its neighbour, China, which is supplying the junta with arms, is not subject to any trade restriction. How can the Deputy Prime Minister justify her government's ambiguous position? I can say it again if it is not clear enough.

[Human Rights, June 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Mr. Win, democratically elected Prime Minister of the provisional government of the Union of Burma, which is prevented from taking office by a military junta, was the guest of the human rights committee. The committee members learned that Burma has one of the worst human rights records in Asia, and holds hundreds of people prisoner for political reasons, including a Nobel peace prize winner.

My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Could she tell us whether the Canadian government intends to agree to the main request of the National Democracy League and oppose any form of financial support to the military junta through various UN agencies?

[Department Of Labour Act, June 3rd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, every member of this House has the right to understand your decision and I would like to understand it.

I raised a point of order about something. The hon. member for Saint-Léonard alleged that-

[Department Of Labour Act, June 3rd, 1994]

On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

[Department Of Labour Act, June 3rd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order. Let there be no mistake. I will not tolerate, and I do not expect that you will either, being accused by the hon. member for Saint-Léonard of politicking. Let me tell you-and I would like to wrap up, if I may-that I have been involved in this issue since 1989. The riding I represent is fairly disadvantaged as compared to that of the hon. member for Saint-Léonard and I find his comment uncalled for.

The real question, the one workers will remember, is: Does this government want-

[Department Of Labour Act, June 3rd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, excuse my inexperience, I am willing to learn. We presented a motion we hoped would be votable to defer a bill and I understand that the government is not going to accept it on the basis of specific criteria which it finds discriminatory. If we were to present our proposal and say that we are committed to remove any mention of eligibility according to a specific number, be it 20 or 100, can we ask the House to reconsider the motion and vote again on it, if the member for Saint-Léonard is willing to be consistent?

You do understand my point of order, Madam Speaker. The member told me that it was not admissible because it was discriminatory. I am willing to remove the element found discriminatory, and I ask the House to reconsider the motion.