Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

[Division No. 90, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois will vote yea.

[Reference To Supreme Court, February 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a poem entitled “Fortier at the bat”.

Before the court assembled Mr. Fortier had his say What was in the Constitution Was the order of the day Not discouraged for a moment The good people of Quebec Hastened forth to tell the lawyer That he simply looked a wreck For though Plan B he must help save And Lord he wished he could The ball was slipping from his grasp And heading for no good And though he argued loud and long The effort was to fail Before his very eyes alas He saw Quebec prevail The lesson learned, a hard one too Is this, there is no doubt Quebec knows what it has to do And will see its own way out

[Citizenship And Immigration Act, February 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

In response to the publication of the Trempe Report on January 6, the focus of which was an in-depth revision of the Citizenship and Immigration Act, the minister decided to hastily throw together eight days of consultations in eight Canadian cities, refusing any involvement by MPs.

What is the minister's reply to the 30 or so bodies, headed by the Canadian Council for Refugees, who are calling for her to extend the consultations so that the process—

[Canada Evidence Act, February 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today at second reading of Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canada Evidence Act and the Criminal Code in respect of persons with disabilities, to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act in respect of persons with disabilities and other matters and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

I am speaking to this bill as the Bloc Quebecois critic on human rights and the rights of the disabled. Before I begin my speech on Bill S-5, I would first like to point out that it comes to us from the Senate and that the House of Commons, the forum of democracy that it is, occasionally debates bills from the other House.

I should point out that this bill, S-5, is absolutely identical to Bill C-98, which the former Minister of Justice now Minister of Health tabled at the end of the last Parliament.

As the present government chose to allocate issues concerning the rights of the disabled and human rights to both the Department of Human Resources Development and the Department of Justice, I think it would have been far preferable for the Minister of Justice to reintroduce the bill in this House. This approach would indicate the importance the government intends to give to these men and women, who are full-fledged citizens.

The members of the House of Commons have been given a mandate to represent the people and are accountable to them.

The practice of introducing bills in the Senate first and then in the House is questionable to say the least. It could even tend to increase the importance of the other chamber. If we are not careful, we will be back into the whole discussion about the existence of the other chamber, but that is not our aim, particularly as the Bloc Quebecois' position on this is very clear.

Even though it has not come from the House of Commons, I have no hesitation in emphasizing the great importance of this bill for the many physically and mentally disabled members of the community. In fact, four million individuals, 16% of Canada's population, are disabled.

I will, if I may, briefly review what has been done, or rather said, in this Parliament about the status of the disabled.

In 1990, the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons, which no longer exists, tabled a report in which it recommended a broad legislative reform under which all federal departments and agencies, and all crown corporations, would examine and amend their acts and regulations so that the disabled could benefit from existing federal programs. A number of other consultations took place later, but did not result in significant legislative changes.

In June 1996, a federal task force on disability issues was formed. This task force, it should be recalled, was composed exclusively of government members and reported to the justice, human resources development, finance and revenue departments. We should all admit and deplore the fact that little progress has been made with respect to the status of the disabled. The task force's main recommendations have never been followed up.

This bill is perhaps good news, because it could be seen as marking a beginning. But it must not be forgotten that the status of the disabled is the responsibility of several departments and that action is required from each of them in order to implement the task force's recommendations. Is this realistic?

Take, for example, the revenue department, which could introduce legislation to improve tax credits for the disabled. But that is another issue; I will focus for now on the bill before us.

I will address the amendments to the Canada Evidence Act and the Criminal Code, and then the provisions concerning the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Clause 1 of the bill makes two amendments to the Canada Evidence Act. First, it provides for the use of whatever means necessary to allow a witness who has difficulty communicating by reason of a physical disability to give evidence. The use of sign language interpretation is a concrete example of clause 1 of Bill S-5 at work.

The second part of clause 1 adds a section 6.1 to the Canada Evidence Act. This provision would allow for witnesses to use any sensory means, their sense of hearing for instance, to identify an accused. This way, a blind person who witnesses a crime could help identify the accused.

Clauses 2 through 8 of Bill C-5 amend the Criminal Code. Clause 2 creates a new offence. Sexual exploitation of persons with disabilities becomes a crime separate from the generic offence of sexual assault.

This provision specifically recognizes that any person who is in a position of trust or authority toward a person with a disability and sexually abuses this vulnerable person is guilty of an offence. A parallel can be drawn between these provisions and those relating to sexual violence against children, which also constitutes a specific offence.

The purpose of clauses 4 to 7 of the bill is to make it easier for the disabled to serve on a jury. Accommodation must be made to enable a disabled person selected as a juror to discharge this responsibility appropriately and fully like any other citizen.

Clause 8 would authorize video testimony for disabled individuals who have difficulty communicating directly during a proceeding.

To sum up, these provisions amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act and are designed to give disabled individuals full access to the criminal justice system, something organizations for the disabled have long been calling for.

The second aspect of this bill has to do with the Canadian Human Rights Act. First, clause 10 of Bill S-5 introduces what is commonly known as the obligation of accommodation into the Canadian Human Rights Act. Employers and providers of services governed by this act must accommodate the needs of the disabled and of the other groups mentioned in section 2 of the act, unless doing so would impose excessive hardship.

If, for example, a complaint of discrimination is made against a federal department for failing to accommodate the needs of a disabled individual, that department must show that accommodating those needs would have imposed excessive hardship with respect to health, safety or cost.

These are the only three criteria of excessive hardship mentioned in the bill. It would be interesting for the committee to hear what federally regulated employers had to see about this. I sincerely believe that these provisions will allow better integration of the disabled in the working world.

Finally, Bill S-5 creates a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. Right now, there is a human rights tribunal panel composed of a president and 43 part time members.

The proposed tribunal would be made up of a chairperson, a vice-chairperson and 15 members. Creation of a tribunal specializing in human rights will certainly be greeted with interest, since human rights is becoming an increasingly complex area requiring particular expertise. There is already such a tribunal in Quebec, as members know, and it has proven its worth.

I would, however, like to raise a few points into which we will surely have time to go more thoroughly when the bill is examined by the standing committee on justice after second reading.

The first concerns the tribunal's independence. As the Barreau du Québec has already pointed out at a sitting of the Senate committee on legal and constitutional affairs, the question of the tribunal's independence from the Canadian Human Rights Commission would need to be clarified. At the moment, one could assume that the tribunal would be only a component of the Commission, not an independent body.

Clause 48.3 also raises some questions. It gives a great deal of power to the Minister of Justice with respect to disciplinary measures against a member of the tribunal. The fact that the minister can be involved in a disciplinary measure against a member of the tribunal raises questions about the independence of that tribunal. This is a matter into which the committee must look seriously.

As for clause 48.5, it reads as follows:

The full-time members of the Tribunal shall reside in the National Capital Region, as described in the schedule to the National Capital Act, or within forty kilometres of that Region.

This gives me food for thought. People competent to sit on such a specialized tribunal can be found anywhere in Canada or Quebec. To accept this clause means choosing to deprive the tribunal of persons who could well be living in Vancouver or Toronto, Montreal or St. John's, Newfoundland. This, to my mind, is a completely discriminatory rule, and one that is contrary to the public interest.

To summarize my speech, the Bloc Quebecois supports all of the principles of Bill S-5. This bill will provide persons with disabilities with better access to criminal justice as witnesses or jury members. The obligation for accommodations responds to demands from a number of organizations of persons with disabilities.

People with disabilities have all the rights of other citizens. I trust that Bill C-5 will not be the only measure of this legislature to meet their needs and expectations.

[Supply, February 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am really not sure what I should do. Should I avoid answering the questions like my colleagues opposite do? I could make a nice speech instead, with elegance, and perhaps even with a measure of humour.

If I decide to answer my colleague's questions, I will probably show a more mature attitude and more respect for parliamentarians.

The choice between the two is quite clear for me, just as clear as my choice was in 1995, and also in 1980 and 1992.

The first question was about the number of referendums. I would like to quote from the classics by saying: “Hone your work carefully; spare no effort”. There will be as many as it takes.

My deeply held belief is that the Quebec people exists, that it has the right to have a country of its own and to run it in its own way, being respectful of international conventions and of its immediate neighbours and of countries that are a little bit more remote. That is what I believe.

Since this belief is a driving force for me, I am here to achieve a goal. I do not think I or my colleague opposite can ever say that two is enough, or three, or ten.

“Hone your work carefully”. I am confident that Quebeckers will finally take this extraordinary opportunity to join all other nations in the world when the next referendum comes, because we will have our own country by the year 2000.

The second question dealt with democracy and the vote counting.

I am almost tempted to make a comment. The Liberals must be really shattered, they must be really worried to wonder, to draw a parallel between the value of democracy in Quebec and a few unfortunate decisions that were made in all good faith by scrutineers who were under the stress that is normally felt in all polling stations.

Mr. Speaker, like me, you probably had the opportunity to witness the counting of votes, perhaps as a scrutineer or a secretary or a representative of the yes side, the no side or the perhaps side, and to know what goes on. There is some tension in the air. There is some stress and everyone wants to do his or her best. But you know, and I only have to look at my colleagues on the other side, obviously, it is not because one wants to do his or her best that one always does the right things. The evidence is in front of me. The Liberals want to do their best, but sometimes it does not work very well. So democracy is not in jeopardy in Quebec. Democracy is one of our fundamental values and I have confidence in Quebeckers' maturity.

[Supply, February 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.

Today's day of opposition by the Bloc Quebecois is extremely important and significant. The motion moved by my party leader and amended by my colleague for Berthier—Montcalm reads as follows: “That this House recognize the consensus in Quebec that it is for Quebecers to freely decide their own future.”

For Quebeckers, the stakes are basic since the debate deals essentially with democracy and the right of peoples to decide their own future. Whom are we talking about exactly? I am proud to say: the Quebec people who probably naively believed in the 1867 agreement when it was one of the two founding nations of Canada.

One hundred and thirty one years later, what we are talking about is Quebec's right to self-determination, a right it is denied by the federal government, as witness its reference to the Supreme Court. What was happened to cause the federal government to consider the reality of the Quebec people so negligible?

For the past 30 years, relations between the federal government and Quebec have not always been rosy. If I may, I will briefly remind the House of a few important events which will shed some light on what is happening today.

In 1980, four years after the Party Quebecois was elected in 1976, Quebec held its first consultation on the future of Quebec within the Canadian federation. The outcome was clear, the rules of democracy understood and accepted by all concerned.

After the yes side defeat, Quebec abided by the decision of its citizens and continued to act within the Constitution of Canada. Two years later, in 1982, the federal government of Trudeau decided, in a great impetus of independence, to renew and patriate the Constitution. Despite Quebec's unwillingness and despite nice but shallow promises made in 1980, the federal government unilaterally patriated the Constitution.

At that time, the government, once again through a reference order, had asked the Supreme Court to make legitimate a unilateral patriation without the agreement of all the provinces. The answer met the expectations of the federal government. Patriation without the agreement of all the provinces is legal. But is it ethical? That is something else.

Trudeau and his henchmen did not bother with these subtleties. For him, the new Constitution of 1982 would be the right one, and too bad if Quebec did not recognize it.

The problem is neither sovereignists nor Quebec federalists have recognized and recognize the Constitution of 1982.

In 1992, after years of negotiations both difficult and useless, the Canada-wide referendum is held on the Charlottetown accords. In Quebec, this exercise is framed by the Quebec Referendum Act. Again, all parties recognized the rules of the game and no one had any doubt about the legitimacy of this democratic exercise. The referendum of 1992 unequivocally rejected the Charlottetown accords: in Canada, because these accords gave too many powers to Quebec, and in Quebec, because these accords were below the traditional demands of Quebec.

In 1995, Quebec held its second referendum on the future of the Quebec people. This consultation again took place under Quebec's Referendum Act. Once again, the rules of the game were agreed to by all. The issues were clear. No one, not even the Prime Minister of Canada, questioned the legitimacy of the right of Quebeckers to decide their future.

Everyone remembers the result of the 1995 referendum. The yes side, the side that wanted change, got almost 50% of the votes, with 94% of registered voters taking part in this highly democratic exercise.

Having nothing to offer Quebec, the federal government went with what is now known as its plan B, a plan based on fear, a plan based on denying the existence of the Quebec people. One of the main elements of this strategy is the reference to the Supreme Court in order to deny Quebec's right to decide its own future.

Yet, ever since the 1960s, Quebeckers have always thought they could decide their own future and have always acted accordingly. The referendums that were held in Quebec are good examples of that. With its reference to the Supreme Court, the government is giving nine judges it appointed the right to decide Quebec's future. That is a most undemocratic and illegitimate move. When a government asks judges to make political decisions, democracy is always threatened.

The federal government is using the Supreme Court to validate its plan B, just as the Trudeau government seeked approval for unilaterally patriating the Constitution in 1982. The result of this action by the government in 1982 was that Quebec refused to recognize that Constitution. Today, the federal government is invoking this Constitution to pick on Quebeckers, by refusing to recognize the legitimacy of the National Assembly and the free will of the people the assembly represents, in other words, by denying the Quebec people its right to exist.

As in 1982, the federal government stands alone, its positions have garnered no support. About the reference to the Supreme Court, there is a consensus in Quebec that only Quebeckers have the right to decide their own future and that no court of law can take that right away and decide for them.

In fact, even the staunchest federalists in Quebec have decried the tactic used by the government. Mr. Claude Ryan, the former leader of the Liberal Party of Quebec and leader of the No side in 1980, was very clear on the reference issue: “It is for Quebec and for Quebec only to decide its own future.”

In his comments to the amicus curiae, Mr. Ryan said that, on the right to self-determination, which can be interpreted as including the choice to opt for sovereignty, there is in Quebec a broad consensus between the key political parties and the vast majority of politicians working at the provincial level. All agree that, at the end of the day, the future of Quebec, whatever option is chosen, depends on the political will of the Quebec people.

The current leader of the Liberal Party of Quebec and leader of the No side in the 1995 referendum, Mr. Johnson, approved Mr. Ryan's analysis and joined the vast consensus reached in Quebec. The right of Quebeckers to self-determination is a political issue, not a legal one. A legal measure would never stop a nation from democratically deciding its own future.

For the past week, the intergovernmental affairs minister has been making astonishing statements about the Supreme Court reference. After loudly invoking the rule of law, he recognizes, following Mr. Ryan's statements, that democracy prevails, but that the rule of law is essential. For us, the primacy of democracy is a fact and Quebec's right to self-determination cannot be challenged. Because they respect democracy and the right of people to self-determination, because they respect Quebeckers, the nine Supreme Court judges will refuse to answer the questions of the federal government.

Maurice Maeterlinck wrote, and I quote: “There is nothing finer than a key, as long as one does not know what it opens”.

The federal government has given a key to the Supreme Court with the intention of locking up the people of Quebec, but it did not know what this key opened. We see it now with the consensus in Quebec: there is no key to lock up the people of Quebec, there is no key to lock up democracy.

[Supply, February 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine referred in her speech to a huge operation of intellectual manipulation when speaking about the referendum in 1995. I would like to ask her two questions. I am convinced that she has all the intellectual capacity to answer them brilliantly.

My first question is: How does my colleague describe the millions of dollars spent by Option Canada, which did not hesitate to violate the referendum law and the measures governing the funding of political parties within a referendum?

My second question is: How does she describe the declarations of love and the phoney promises that were made loud and strong by the big names of federalism, starting with the Prime Minister and continuing with other big names who are also here in this House?

I am anxious to hear the answer of my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine. I am sure she will do me the honour of clearly answering this question.

[Employment Insurance, February 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

Last December, the Employment Insurance Commission was supposed to file a report with the minister on the first year of employment insurance reform.

Can the minister tell us when he intends to make that report public, and whether the Employment Insurance Commission recommends improvements to the legislation, as the Bloc Quebecois demanded when six bills were tabled in the House December 8?

[The Late David Orlikow, February 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, I would like to offer my sincere condolences to the family of David Orlikow, who died January 19 at the age of 80.

He was born in Winnipeg in 1918 and began his political life in 1945 through involvement in his community first and then as city councillor with the City of Winnipeg until 1958. After serving as a member of the Manitoba legislature from 1958 to 1962, he was elected to the House of Commons for the first time in the June 18, 1962 general election under the banner of the New Democratic Party to represent the people of Winnipeg North. He sat in this House for 26 years consecutively.

Mr. Orlikow is also to be remembered for his involvement in human rights, as president of the Elizabeth Fry Society, as secretary on the human rights committee of the CLC and as director of the Jewish Labour Committee of Canada. His long career in public service is a most honourable one, and his family and friends should be proud of his accomplishments.

[Euthanasia, February 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is in a spirit of respect and compassion that I rise today on Private Member's Business Motion M-123, moved by the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas and amended by my colleague for Berthier—Montcalm last November 4.

That motion, if adopted as amended, would read as follows:

That a special committee be appointed, pursuant to Standing Order 105, to review the provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with euthanasia and physician assisted suicide and that the Committee be instructed to report to the House.

This is not the first time in this House that I have addressed this very sensitive issue of growing concern to our fellow citizens of Quebec and of Canada. The purpose of the amendment put forward by my colleague for Berthier—Montcalm is ensure that the parliamentarians who will address this matter in committee will have all the latitude necessary for such a debate. The committee will then be able to carry out its in-depth examination without needing to concern itself about the very significant and demanding requirements that drafting a bill on this matter demands.

What we are debating here today is one of the great ethical debates in developed countries. In the recent past, and particularly these past few months with the so-called Latimer case, it is becoming clear that public opinion about assisted suicide is polarized.

Everyone remembers Sue Rodriguez' fight for the right to die with dignity. More recently, just last week in fact, a citizen of Manitoba was charged with murdering his wife in another case of assisted suicide.

The House of Commons cannot ignore such situations. It does not have the right to bury its head in the sand.

It is therefore essential that a committee look into these issues, hear what the people and stakeholders have to say, and report to the House. It will then be up to the government to legislate on the matter, while showing respect for values and for individuals.

Since the late 1960s, public attitudes about physician-assisted suicide have changed considerably. A 1968 Gallup poll showed that 43% of respondents believed a physician should be legally authorized to end a patient's life when officially instructed to do so in writing by the patient.

The increasing number of cases that have arisen in recent years dictates that we take a serious look at this issue which involves legal, ethical and moral considerations.

I believe this debate is basically about the right to dignity, the right of terminally ill patients or those with deadly diseases to decide when and how they will die.

There have been tremendous advances in medicine during the 20th century and we all expect miracles from medical research. In addition to saving many lives, medicine has extended life, holding death further at bay.

Palliative care designed to reduce suffering in terminally ill patients has greatly improved too. Everyone recognizes that unbearable pain is incompatible with the kind of respect owed to a person, with a person's right to dignity. Unfortunately, this care is not always the panacea it is made out to be. There are patients who continue to suffer not only physically, but also psychologically and emotionally.

If people are suffering from some irreversible illness which seriously affects their quality of life, they should have the right, if it is their wish, to choose when and how they want to leave this world.

However, let us be very clear: the decision must be made in an informed and competent manner. An increasing number of people are making what is called a “living will” so that, should they become sick or suffer a serious accident, they can choose not to receive care or stop treatment.

The purpose of this motion is not to deal with the advisability of euthanasia for those who do not request such a measure, or who are not in a position to make such a request or to do so in an informed manner. The decision to resort to euthanasia rests with the person. It is an extremely important decision. The decision rests with the person alone.

In this regard, the Latimer case raised major concerns among handicapped people and the groups representing them. Such concerns are understandable and legitimate. This is another reason to consider the issue of assisted suicide from every possible angle. To rule out the right to die with dignity is to negate the very real right of a person to choose how his or her life should end.

The ban on assisted suicide, as stated in section 241 of the Criminal Code, can also lead to other types of abuse. A large number of assisted suicides are conducted illegally. This situation has an adverse effect on the dignity of the person. How can we accept that an act conducted illegally, often away from close ones, in a foreign environment, could be the accepted standard in our society? I do not think this could be the case, because compassion is a value in which we all believe.

A parallel can be made with the abortion issue. Abortion was long considered a criminal act. Still, women had abortions. They had them clandestinely and in conditions that could put their life at risk. Decriminalizing abortion has had the effect of greatly improving the conditions in which these acts take place. Charlatans and quackery have disappeared. Once a woman has made her decision, she is entitled to quality care.

I hope Motion M-123 will get the support of a majority of parliamentarians. If death is part of life, if it is its hidden side, then we have a duty to ensure that conditions exist to preserve and promote people's dignity. For us, and for all our loved ones, can we really choose anything other than a gentle and humane death with dignity?