Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members vote no.
House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2000, with 43% of the vote.
Division No. 300 December 7th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members vote no.
Division No. 299 December 7th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members vote no.
International Day Of Disabled Persons December 3rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, December 3, the international day of disabled persons, is a fine beginning to the third edition of Quebec's week of disabled persons.
Throughout Quebec, a number of different activities will focus on the theme “Independence through access—everyone stands to gain”.
For the disabled, access to facilities and to adapted transportation is fundamental, as is the right to adapted education and training leading to access to the labour market. For them, as for the rest of us, access is independence. Although much progress has been made, everyone will agree that much more remains to be done.
I would like to make particular mention of the Office des personnes handicapées du Québec. In its 20 years of existence, this organization has done much to encourage co-operation between the various organizations, thus helping to give the disabled the voice to which they are entitled.
“Independence through access—everyone stands to gain”. I certainly believe it.
Official Languages Commissioner November 27th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I would still like the minister to elaborate.
According to the article in the National Post , two people are on the short list: Jean-Jacques Blais and Jean-Pierre Kingsley.
Since Mr. Kingsley indicated in the same report that he has never been contacted in this regard, is the government not getting ready to reward another friend of the regime and hand out a patronage appointment to Mr. Blais?
Official Languages Commissioner November 27th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, today we read in the National Post that the government is getting ready to appoint a new official languages commissioner.
Although the government promised to appoint a successor to Dr. Goldbloom before Christmas, the Bloc Quebecois has not yet been consulted on the matter.
Does the government intend to respect the precedent it recently set for the position of access to information commissioner and allow the House to debate the matter?
Canadian Human Rights Act November 17th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak on private member's Bill S-11, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act in order to add social condition as a prohibited ground of discrimination.
This is a short bill. It contains only two clauses. But it nevertheless addressed a shortcoming in the existing Canadian human rights legislation, a major shortcoming, by prohibiting discrimination on the basis of social condition.
The first clause of the bill states that:
Section 2 of the Canadian Human rights Act is replaced by the following:
The purpose of this act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that every individual should have an equal opportunity with other individuals to make for himself or herself the life that he or she is able and wishes to have, consistent with his or her duties and obligations as a member of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, social condition, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted.
Clause 2 reads as follows:
3.(1) For all purposes of this act, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, social condition, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted are prohibited grounds of discrimination.
It might be interesting to take a brief look at the meaning of “social condition” and its importance in the various provinces.
In Quebec for instance, this ground of discrimination is part and parcel of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, whose section 10 reads as follows:
(Discrimination forbidden)
Moreover, the Ontario Charter of Human Rights stipulates that receiving social assistance is a banned ground for discrimination only in connection with housing. In Manitoba, in Alberta and in Nova Scotia, source of income is a forbidden ground for discrimination. In Saskatchewan, it is receiving social assistance, while Newfoundland refers to social background.
In fact, all of these provisions are aimed at banning discrimination based on poverty. In practice, however, this is unfortunately limited to being a welfare recipient.
Only the Quebec law includes a broader interpretation by having integrated the term “social condition” without restricting it to receiving social assistance. Quebec jurisprudence has, in fact, defined social condition as encompassing income, occupation, level of education, and social background. It is therefore a very broad interpretation, one aimed at clearly emphasizing that it is forbidden to discriminate against the poor, who are becoming more and more numerous as we know.
One example of discrimination based on social condition is a landlord's refusal to rent to a person solely because that person is on welfare. Here, the reason for refusal is not based on the ability or inability to pay the rent, but solely on the fact that the person is receiving social assistance.
Another example, under federal jurisdiction this time, would be a bank's refusal to open an account for a person on welfare. It is a matter of public knowledge that certain banks do not hesitate to charge for opening an account, this being particularly aimed at social assistance recipients.
I think this bill sends the message that at the dawn of the third millennium discrimination against poor people is unacceptable. Quebec long ago adopted this value. It is high time the poor were protected against discrimination in areas of federal jurisdiction.
At a time of globalization and free trade, it is more important than ever that individuals' basic rights be respected, especially the right to equal opportunity.
In this context, it is totally unacceptable for business people, such as the president of Bombardier International, to be anxious about the Prime Minister's discussion of human rights in Malaysia. It is true that it may be easier for the little guy from Saint-Maurice to talk about human rights in Malaysia than to respect them in Vancouver.
Nevertheless, it is regrettable when fundamental human rights are sacrificed at the altar of international trade.
We cannot fail but protest the fact that current Liberal government policies are broadening the rift between rich and poor. More and more children are growing up in poverty in Canada, more and more families are poor.
Entrenching Bill S-11 in the charter should amount to more than wishful thinking. The best way to fight discrimination against social condition is to improve the living conditions of our fellow citizens who find themselves in difficult economic straits incompatible with human dignity.
This government must take specific action to ensure justice for our society's most disadvantaged. Changing the employment insurance plan, returning to the provinces the money savagely cut from transfers, reducing income tax for the middle class—these are all ways to show that the improvement of social conditions is a priority of this government.
Unfortunately, I fear that such wishes, while easily realized, will not become a reality. However, I would hope that Bill S-11 will be passed unanimously by this House. It at least will become a reality.
Marine Conservation Areas Act November 16th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois will vote nay on this motion.
Tobacco Act November 16th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois vote yes.
Marine Conservation Areas Act November 16th, 1998
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today at second reading of Bill C-48, an act respecting marine conservation areas.
First, I must point out that, as everyone knows, the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of measures to protect the environment, but not at any cost.
For example, members will remember that the Bloc Quebecois supported the government regarding the bill that led to the establishment of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, in 1997. That legislation, along with the act passed by the Quebec government, resulted in the establishment of the first marine conservation area in Canada, and we are proud of that.
Under the legislation, both governments continue to exercise their respective jurisdiction in the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park. The park includes only the marine environment. Its boundaries can be changed, provided there is agreement between the two governments and provided they hold joint public hearings on the issue. These are among the main legislative provisions adopted in 1997.
The important thing here is that the establishment of that park was the result of a co-operative effort by the federal and Quebec governments. It is unfortunate that the federal government did not choose to follow the same procedure in the case of Bill C-48.
The government could have followed other examples, such as phase III of the St. Lawrence action plan. Let me briefly remind members what happened.
On June 8, 1998, the environment ministers of Canada and of Quebec announced phase III of the St. Lawrence development plan, the bill for which would be shared equally by both levels of government. This is another example of a joint project that respects the jurisdictions of each government.
Unfortunately, the approach in Bill C-48 is not even remotely comparable. How then can the federal government be so naive as to think that the Bloc Quebecois would support this bill? With this bill, the federal government, far from relying on dialogue, is seeking to unilaterally impose marine conservation areas, regardless of the fact that Quebec has jurisdiction over its own territory and its environment.
But there is more. The federal government, not content with getting involved in Quebec's jurisdictions and sincerely believing that ridicule does not kill anyone, is duplicating itself.
Indeed, the bill will establish marine conservation areas, thus creating a new structure for Heritage Canada and duplicating existing marine protected areas at fisheries and oceans, and Environment Canada's protected offshore areas. This means that the quarrelling is far from over.
It is clear to everyone that Bill C-48 does not respect the integrity of the Quebec territory. In order to establish a marine area, the federal government must first become the owner of the territory where such an area will be created.
But there is a problem, that is the Constitution of 1867. Indeed, section 92.5 provides that the management and sale of public lands comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. Quebec is still a province.
In Quebec, the Quebec legislation on crown lands applies to all crown lands in Quebec, including beds of waterways and lakes and the bed of the St. Lawrence river, estuary and gulf, which belong to Quebec by sovereign right.
This same legislation provides that Quebec cannot transfer its lands to the federal government. The federal government, however, is not going to be intimidated by Quebec laws, that is common knowledge. Heritage Canada intends to establish its marine conservation areas in the St. Lawrence, the St. Lawrence estuary and the Gulf of St. Lawrence, three areas in which the ocean floor is under Quebec's jurisdiction.
Heritage Canada will thus force Quebec to cede its exclusive jurisdiction over its ocean floor. What a fine example of co-operative federalism. The condition essential to the establishment of marine areas in the St. Lawrence is the transfer of ownership rights to the federal government.
Not satisfied with meddling in Quebec's jurisdiction, the federal government is doing its best to overlap a number of its departments. What is the logic in the federal government's decision to create marine conservation areas under the authority of Heritage Canada, marine protection zones under fisheries and oceans and marine wildlife reserves under Environment Canada?
According to fisheries and oceans, one site could be zoned three different ways and thus come under three federal departments, which would each apply its own specific rules, and all of this would come under three different legislative measures.
God knows which waters the fish will choose. As for the officials, I do not think the stomach of Jonas' whale could ever contain them all as they try to reach some sort of understanding.
Once again, and this is not the first time since 1993, I am faced with a dilemma. If federal departments cannot work together, how can we expect the federal government to work with the provinces? Heritage Canada flavoured marine conservation areas—no thanks. Give me a sovereign Quebec, and quickly.
Health Care November 6th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, this week the minister told us that a Liberal caucus committee was looking into various options which would allow the federal government to re-invest in health. I find that far from reassuring.
In this area, as in many others, this government's main concern is not what is best for patients, but what gives it the most visibility. How can it justify putting the effort to get the maple leaf onto as many cheques as possible ahead of those who are sick?