Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

[Day Care, March 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, still on the subject of children's well-being, given that adequate child care can greatly improve their quality of life, could the minister explain to parents in Quebec and Canada what has become of the 150,000 new day care spaces his government has been promising for three years?

[Unemployment Insurance, March 15th, 1996]

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

Two Ontario women are currently challenging, in court, the parental leave provision of the unemployment insurance plan, which treats adoptive parents very differently from natural parents. There is a huge difference, in that adoptive parents are entitled to 15 fewer weeks of leave.

In light of the fact that the purpose of parental leave is to nurture the child, how can the minister explain this double standard for biological and adoptive parents?

[Canadian Cultural Institutions, March 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party won the election by promising stable financing for Canada's major cultural institutions.

However, since the Liberals came to power, parliamentary appropriations for the National Film Board have dropped from $82 million in 1994-95 to $65 million in 1996-97, not counting further cuts yet to be announced. At this rate, the NFB's budget will have shrunk by 30 per cent in four years on account of the Liberals' slash and burn management.

By imposing repeated funding cuts on the NFB, the CBC and Telefilm Canada, the government is altering the nature of the mandate of these major cultural institutions, simply by cutting off their funding.

We demand that promises be acted on and that stable multiyear financing be provided to enable the CBC, the NFB and Telefilm Canada to fulfil their mandate.

[Privilege, March 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, based on the remarks made in this House by many of the members of the third party, I have the honour of informing you that you have before you an enemy of Canada. Except, there is something I would like to know, and perhaps you are asking yourself the same thing. Who are the real enemies of Canada? Would they by chance be those who dare to believe in Quebec's sovereignty and who abide by the rules of democracy or would they be those who have no qualms aout trampling on democracy? Because it is indeed democracy we are talking about.

The motion introduced by the Reform Party with respect to the communiqué by my colleague for Charlesbourg is, in fact, a denial of freedom of expression, the first step to trashing democracy.

This motion goes far beyond the words in the communiqué at issue. The debate on the alleged seditious intent of this communiqué cannot reasonably be based on the articles of law defining sedition and even less so on the principles of democracy known to all of us and respected by most of us, I hope.

Section 59 of the Criminal Code defines seditious intention as follows: "-every one shall be presumed to have a seditious intention who teaches or advocates, or publishes or circulates any writing that advocates, the use, without the authority of law, of force as a means of accomplishing a governmental change within Canada." Quite an undertaking, that.

In addition, section 62 of that same Criminal Code discusses sedition in relation to military forces, indicating that anyone encouraging members of a force to insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny or refusal of duty is guilty of an act of sedition.

The communiqué as such, you will agree, contains nothing of the sort. No passage in this communiqué can justify this matter's becoming a topic of debate, and still less it's being referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

The communiqué from the hon. member for Charlesbourg had only one purpose: to inform Armed Forces personnel of what would happen in the aftermath of the referendum if there were a yes victory, just as several other communiqués were issued during the referendum campaign concerning federal public servants.

In addition, the creation of a Quebec army after Quebec attained sovereignty was part of the program of the Bloc Quebecois and of the Parti Quebecois, and has even been addressed by specialists in military affairs in major dailies, Charles-Philippe David in La Presse in particular.

Moreover, the attempts by a Montreal lawyer, Mr. Tyler, to go before the courts of Quebec and Ontario with the matter lead to failure. According to the courts, there is nothing in this communiqué to give rise to a charge of sedition.

We are therefore entitled to wonder what the Reform Party's true intentions are in tabling this motion. Is it really motivated by respect for the law? I doubt it.

In light of what we have heard from the various Reformers in recent days on this question, it is increasingly clear that, in the eyes of sensible Quebecers and sensible Canadians, this court room farce is aimed at the Bloc Quebecois and their plans for sovereignty. Proof of this lies in what the hon. member for Kootenay East said yesterday: "This seditious activity of the member of the Bloc Quebecois cannot stand. This is the line in the sand. We go no further. There are people in Canada who see those who would take Quebec out of Canada as being the enemies of Canada." There are many such people, Mr. Speaker, if we are to judge by this speech. The member went on to say: "I will tell you that I am one of them and I am speaking for those people".

At the very heart of this debate is freedom of expression. To the members of the Reform Party, the very words of Quebec sovereignists are seditious, and I would go so far as to say that the very existence of sovereignists is seditious, hence the present motion. Rather than participate democratically in Quebec sovereignty, they prefer to take issue with the basic right of freedom of speech.

The referendum debate in October 1995 took place in an unparalleled climate of democracy. At no time did either the yes or the no side in Quebec attempt to deny the other's right to debate its option, and each side informed people of its position.

Thus, in introducing this motion, the Reformers want to punish the member for Charlesbourg for speaking on the option he defends. His only crime was that of not sharing the vision of the Liberals and the Reformers on Canada's future. The motion therefore denies the right to freedom of speech of Bloc members and thus of Quebecers who support sovereignty in Quebec.

It is therefore of some concern that, in this House, which is a part of the highly democratic institution of the Parliament of Canada, freedom of speech and the right to defend one's position in a democratic context recognized by all citizens are being called into question.

With their amendment, the Liberals are choosing to hide their heads in the sand and refer the question to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, rather than defend the democratic principles guiding debate in society.

Would this strategy be part of plan D, E or F? Otherwise, why threaten to bring those who exercise their freedom of speech to promote sovereignty before a committee in order to judge them on the legality of their remarks? Despite the threats of partitioning and other inflammatory remarks made by Stéphane Dion, which were, moreover, never condemned by the federal Liberal Party, and even less so by the Reform Party, we hope that this Parliament will refuse to approve a motion which is such an incredible breach of democracy.

It seems to me that this unprecedented attack against freedom of speech would have justified Liberals putting aside party politics and their alphabetical plans and vigorously defending-as we do-the very foundations of our democratic rules.

The attitude of the Liberal government is disquieting in a society that boasts it advocates respect for human rights. As a matter of fact, according to the Reform Party's logic, everybody who, during the referendum campaign, discussed the creation of an army in a sovereign Quebec deserves to be accused of sedition. This would include not only all the members of the Bloc, but also all the reporters who discussed the topic or wrote about it-and why not also those who dared to read them or watch them on television?

The interpretation made by the Reform Party of the notion of freedom of speech threatens the rights not only of the sovereignists but also of all the Canadians who oppose in one way or another some public policies or some of the Reform Party's positions.

The Reform Party's motion is in fact a throw back to some of history's dark moments when democracy was trashed-Chile under Pinochet, Greece under the colonels or Spain under Franco.

That is why I will vote against the Reform Party's motion, against the Liberals' amendment and against the amendment to the amendment presented by the Reform Party.

[Supply, March 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Official Opposition members will be proud to vote yes.

[Status Of Women, March 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, given her government's plan to promote gender equality, could the secretary of state tell this House about the impact that these new cuts will have on the promotion of women's equality?

[Status Of Women, March 8th, 1996]

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

Over the last five years, women's groups have seen their subsidies go down 5 per cent every year. Yet, on Wednesday, the Minister of Finance said, and I quote: "If there is one obligation before the government today, it is to do what we must so that confidence can overcome anxiety and hope can replace despair".

Given the disturbing rise in poverty and social problems, and given the importance of the role played by these women's groups, will the minister explain the new 6 per cent reduction which brings to 31 per cent for the last six years the cumulative cuts affecting these groups?

[Petitions, March 6th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, were you to request it, you would no doubt find there is unanimous consent to extend the time usually allowed for petitions by ten minutes.

[The Late Marguerite Duras, March 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I want to mention the passing of Marguerite Duras, a great French writer of international stature. Through her talent, Marguerite Duras helped French literature and culture remain one of the main foundations of contemporary humanism.

She spent her life writing; she lived through and for writing. As the author of many books, she made a name for herself in several literary genres, such as stories, novels, plays and screen plays, including the one for the famous movie "Hiroshima mon amour". Her novel L'Amant , a book that was stopped at the border by Canada Customs, won the Prix Gongourt in 1984.

The Bloc Quebecois salutes this great woman who was called by Le Devoir a ``luminary of 20th century literature''.

[Business Of The House, March 4th, 1996]

Members of the official opposition will vote against the motion.