Richard Marceau

[Government Services Act, 1999, March 23rd, 1999]

Yes, Les misérables , among others. Incidentally—

[Government Services Act, 1999, March 23rd, 1999]

—and that, this time, on behalf of his constituents, he will vote against forcing the workers of Canada and Quebec back to work.

A motion like this one leaves me speechless, as I channel all the expressions of anger I have heard from the workers I have met, all their outrage at the government's attitude.

Just recently some of my office staff spoke with Viviane Mathieu, the union president at Donnaconna penitentiary. She was on the verge of tears. “What can we do,” she said, “if we are no longer able to exercise our right to negotiate a collective agreement freely? What can we do?” She felt she was at the end of her tether, and rightly so. What can be done, when workers are forced back to work against their will, when they have every right to continue to negotiate?

Not only that, but this is done in an underhand manner. It is done through the back door. It is done hypocritically. We know very well that the Liberal Party is very familiar with closed door policies, with deals made behind closed doors. This is what happened in 1981, when the Minister of Justice of the day, now the Prime Minister of Canada, negotiated a new constitution behind Quebec's back. That was called the “night of the long knives”.

We know that this highly undemocratic party is continuing the same odious tradition, one which in my opinion merits absolutely no consideration by Canadians.

Special legislation ought to be a last-ditch effort. As my colleague from Beauce is well aware, not all avenues have been exhausted, far from it. We believe that workers have the right to strike. This is a fundamental right, and one which is in a number of international conventions. It is a right that is recognized by the International Labour Organization, of which Canada is a member, moreover.

What is the Canadian government doing? To our great shame, it is trying to abolish this fundamental right with a stroke of the pen, with special legislation. This is a right for which millions of workers have fought throughout the world. Those who are familiar with French literature may remember the stunnning novels written by Zola on this subject. I cannot believe that the government would revert to the attitude that prevailed during the industrial revolution, when workers counted for nothing practically.

The government is reverting to a reactionary policy. Where are we headed? Let us reread Zola, the great thinkers and the great novelists of the late 19th century. Where does the government want to take us? To the abolition of the right of Quebec and Canadian workers—

[Government Services Act, 1999, March 23rd, 1999]

I see my colleague, the member for Beauce, getting excited already. As soon as he hears anything that makes sense, we know that he either votes against it because it comes from the opposition, or he leaves and does not give people a chance to say their piece.

In fact, the member for Beauce, who says he represents his constituents well, voted against striking a committee to examine the idea of single currency, while the business community, which is exporting over 80% of what it produces to the United States, is calling for this kind of study so that it can maximize cross-border exports.

I hope the member for Beauce will, for once, stand up instead of bowing down before the sacred cow represented by the government—

[Government Services Act, 1999, March 23rd, 1999]

Premier Duplessis used to say “You know, in a good government there is no need for an opposition”. This is the same attitude we are seeing from this Liberal government, which is telling us that no matter what the opposition has to say, it will not listen and will ram this piece of legislation down our throats.

It is important to remember that the Liberal Party of Canada was elected with only 38% of the vote. This means that 62% of Canadians voted against it. This highly democratic party is using its questionable legitimacy to force back to work Canadian workers who are legally exercising their right to strike.

This is a disgraceful, undemocratic, bulldozer policy, in short an illegitimate policy on the part of a so-called democratic government.

[Government Services Act, 1999, March 23rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, it is with some apprehension that I rise to speak today. There are not many members with the oratorical talent of the member for Mississauga West. He is capable of working himself into a frenzy for minutes on end without saying anything, when he is not spouting nonsense.

I must therefore congratulate the member for Mississauga West on his exceptional ability as a speaker and it is with some trepidation that I rise to speak today.

I hope that the member for Mississauga West, along with his colleagues, will follow the example of the Bloc Quebecois, who listened calmly to his speech, and that he in turn will listen very calmly to everything I have to say and hang on my every word, as I took in every word that he had to say.

It is important to have a clear picture of what we will be talking about. We have to know the text of the motion that was introduced by the government House leader. Here is what it says:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of this House—

All that goes out the window.

—a bill in the name of the President of the Treasury Board, entitled an act to provide for the resumption and continuation of government services, shall be disposed as follows:

Commencing when the said bill is read a first time and concluding when the said bill is read a third time, the House shall not adjourn except pursuant to a motion proposed by a minister of the crown and no Private Members' Business shall be taken up;

The said bill may be read twice or thrice in one sitting;

After being read a second time, the said bill shall be referred to a committee of the whole;

During consideration of the said bill, no division shall be deferred.

I want to tell my colleagues opposite, who were talking about the huge cost of keeping the House of Commons running, that it is their own motion that says the House shall not adjourn except pursuant to a motion proposed by a minister of the crown. We know full well that it is a lot more expensive to keep this place running at night than during the day.

If they want to complain about the even greater costs that will result from this debate, they just have to talk to their House leader who is forcing the House to sit extended hours at a cost of $22,000 an hour, I think. It must be more expensive when there is overtime involved. At time and a half, it is $33,000 an hour. At double time, it is $44,000 an hour. It is outrageous. And they are the ones accusing the opposition of wanting to spend the taxpayers' money.

I would be ashamed to say such things in the House. It is their fault that the House will be sitting so late.

Since I have been here in this House, I have been terribly surprised at the attitude of Liberal backbenchers, who are nothing but doormats. We heard over the week-end that the Senate was going to debate the possibility for Canada to use a common currency. This is what the outstanding speaker from Mississauga West suggested.

Senators are going to debate the issue whereas, in this House, we will not, although we are the only elected chamber, and willing to do it. It is absolutely incredible that such an archaic, outdated and undemocratic body will debate a proposal so vital to the future of Canada and Quebec when the House of Commons will not. This is due to the trained seal attitude of the Liberals, who decided this issue would not be discussed in the House.

They refused to discuss such a forward thinking idea as the creation of a pan-American monetary union. They similarly decided not to discuss such a fundamental issue as the right and freedom of Canadian workers to strike.

This harks back to the Duplessis area. As members know, Duplessis was a member of the National Assembly and Premier of Quebec from 1936 to 1939, and from 1944 to 1959, if my memory serves me right. My colleague from Trois-Rivières will confirm this. Am I right?

[Government Services Act, 1999, March 23rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I am disappointed that so few members got to hear the member's eloquent speech. I do not see a quorum in the House. Perhaps we should call for one, for the benefit of members.

[Government Services Act, 1999, March 23rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

The member opposite is using his cellular telephone. This is completely unacceptable.

[Government Services Act, 1999, March 23rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I find the hon. member's remarks totally unacceptable. The government must make sure there is quorum and must have members present in the House. As long as the government does not make sure there is quorum, we have a right, as members of this parliament, to call for a quorum count.

[Government Services Act, 1999, March 23rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I call for a quorum check. I see the House is virtually empty.

[Supply, March 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I just learned a few moments ago that, according to a poll the FM 93 radio station in Quebec City held during one of its shows, 91% of its listeners are in favour of a pan-American monetary union.

So, my question to my hon. colleague from Lotbinière is the following: Is he surprised at the results compiled by the FM 93 radio station?