I vote nay, Mr. Speaker.
Lost his last election, in 1997, with 33% of the vote.
Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act November 28th, 1995
I vote nay, Mr. Speaker.
Renewal Of Canadian Federalism November 28th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, in 1982, as a result of the unilateral patriation of the Constitution, Quebec lost its veto, a right it had as one of the founding nations of Canada. Since them, every Quebec government had demanded that the federal government rectify the situation.
What is the Prime Minister offering us today? Crumbs. A mere bill, which could be struck down by the next government, creating a regional veto right which completely dilutes Quebec's claims. And there is more. It will be possible to amend the Constitution through a national referendum and sidestep Quebec's National Assembly. This is a far cry from the pre-1982 situation when the National Assembly had a constitutional veto right.
Come on now. Does the Prime Minister really believe that Quebecers will be satisfied with mere symbols which bring about no change whatsoever?
Supply November 21st, 1995
Ridiculous.
The Economist November 9th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, in its latest issue, the prestigious magazine The Economist gives its interpretation of the results of the October 30 referendum in Quebec. Looking at the sociopolitical situation and the relations between Quebec and the rest of Canada, The Economist readily predicts a victory for the independentists next time.
Even foreign observers are not fooled by the stalling tactics tearing English Canada apart. The Economist also said that the referendum, far from representing an affirmation of Canadian unity, does not resolve anything. The real issues undermining the current federal system remain unanswered. That is why The Economist , like the members of the Bloc, predict that English Canada will be unable to accommodate Quebec's aspirations.
Recognition Of Same Sex Spouses September 18th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this debate on the motion put forward by my hon. colleague from Hochelaga-Maisonneuve:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take the measures necessary for the legal recognition of same-sex spouses.
Mr. Speaker, I would like first of all to commend the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve for having the courage to table in this House a motion that makes us see, in terms of human rights, what is really at stake here and, more importantly, where the members of this House, particularly our colleagues from the Reform Party as well as certain members of the Liberal majority, really stand on this issue.
Several of my colleagues, including the hon. member for Chicoutimi who spoke a moment ago, the hon. member for Jonquière who spoke during the first hour of debate and, of course, the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, addressed the merits of the question of recognizing the rights of same sex spouses, the need to take action and the economic impact of such a decision. I therefore have no intention of repeating what was said as these points were quite aptly made.
I would like to address what appears to be the main issue: is this a debate on homosexuality or a debate on human rights?
It is true that we are used to hearing our colleagues from the Reform Party talk that way. One would think that Reform members have become all round right wing fundamentalists. We are used to this kind of language, but there is still a limit to what I can tolerate.
When it comes to despicable, shameful and downright unacceptable remarks, our Liberal colleague from Central Nova takes the cake. She was heard making such remarks more than once in this House; first, during the debate on Bill C-41 and again when she spoke on the motion put forward by my hon. colleague from Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. What she said was a disgrace-I repeat, a disgrace-for this House, the Liberal majority and democracy itself.
What is it that the member for Central Nova said and was applauded for by Reform members? In her remarks on Bill C-41, she said, and I quote: "Homosexuality is not natural; it is immoral and it is undermining the inherent rights and values of our Canadian families and it must not and should not be condoned".
And she added: "-a faction in our society which is undermining and destroying our Canadian values and Christian morality-We have the majority-I suppose she is referring to the heterosexual community here. We have a democracy. I am representing in my viewpoint the majority of Canadians".
If this is the kind of society and the kind of freedom that Canada has to offer, and if the member for Central Nova is, as she claimed, speaking on behalf of most Canadians, then it is urgent for us Quebecers to get out of this country.
We take exception to such comments. The debate in this House is on the motion tabled by my colleague, the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, and it has to do with human rights, not homosexuality. If there are members in this House who have doubts as to their own sexual orientation, they should go for some therapy. This is not the place for group therapy. As a democratic institution, Parliament must ensure that democratic values are respected and promoted. I dare say that one of the most important democratic values is the respect of individuals in each and every one of our families.
We all know men and women who live their homosexuality. Do Reform Party members claim that these people should be eliminated, that their most basic rights should not be recognized? We are not saying that the House should pass a motion to promote homosexuality, no more than it should promote heterosexuality. What we are saying is that if two people, whether a man and a
woman, two men or two women, decide to live together, why should they not be treated with respect and fairness in our laws? This is what the debate is all about. This is the issue that we will vote on in a few minutes.
I did not hear many Liberal Party members speak in favour of this motion. Am I to understand that they support the views expressed by the member for Central Nova?
I am putting the question to them. There are a few minutes left and I would appreciate an answer. This is a fundamental debate on human rights. These days, and this is particularly true of Liberal Party members, many are trying to champion individual freedoms in Quebec. I would like to hear some Liberal members address the issue today.
It should also be pointed out that values evolve with time. Let me quote the member for Central Nova. She made these comments in this House, during the debate on this motion. I could not believe what I was hearing. On June 1, 1995, the member said, in reference to the motion tabled by the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve: "All these demands are encroaching on and undermining the inherent and inviolable rights of families. Families have existed before the church. Families have existed before the state. Parliament has absolutely no legal or constitutional authority to redefine family, or to enter into the realm of the sanctity of marriage". Given the reasoning of the member for Central Nova, there would never have been a Parliament, since Parliament is there to pass legislation and grant rights to the population.
Again, since Parliament necessarily came after families and after the church, it would never have existed, based on the member's reasoning. As we all know, and as the member for Chicoutimi pointed out just a few moments ago, values change over time. Thirty or forty years ago, there was no recognition of common law spouses. Divorced people were pointed at, perceived within their communities as abnormal, as needing to be watched and reported on. Unwed mothers had to hide away, give birth to their babies in institutions and then give them up. All that barely 30 or 40 years ago. That is how it was in Quebec and I imagine it was the same everywhere in Canada.
The disabled were seen as invalids who generally had to be institutionalized. Seventy-five years ago, Canadian women did not have the right to vote. Fifty years ago that was the situation in Quebec. There was slavery in the United States 150 years ago. Four hundred years ago Galileo was imprisoned for saying that the earth was round. Human kind has evolved since it first appeared on this planet. I trust that this process will continue and that the example of the member for Central Nova will be nothing more than one unfortunate anecdote in the history of humanity.
Farm Improvement And Marketing Co-Operatives Loans Act June 2nd, 1995
There is none.
Farm Improvement And Marketing Co-Operatives Loans Act June 2nd, 1995
Two and two make four.
Persons With Disabilities May 31st, 1995
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in response to a question from the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm, the Prime Minister referred to Lise Thibault, who is currently president of the Office des personnes handicapées du Québec, as the president of an association for cripples-he used the French word "infirme"-right in the middle of National Access Awareness Week.
The use of the French word "infirme" by the Prime Minister of Canada is a disgrace and an insult to all persons with disabilities. This word perpetuates a stubborn prejudice suggesting that a handicapped person is ill and must be taken care of.
Although all persons with disabilities do have limitations, the vast majority of them are not ill. The Prime Minister should have the decency not to use disabled people for partisan purposes, let alone refer to them in a patronizing way.
Access Awareness May 30th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that it is National Access Awareness Week.
One of the things that this event permits us to do is to take stock of the headway made over the past few years in the area of accessibility for handicapped persons. In fact, fortunately, our society has recently taken strides towards the social and professional integration of handicapped persons. There remain, however, many more physical obstacles and wide-spread prejudices to overcome.
We must go beyond merely examining our consciences and actually ensure that concrete measures will be taken to permit these people to take their rightful places in our community, especially at this time when the federal government has committed itself to reviewing the Employment Equity Act.
Adm Agri-Industries Ltd. Operations Act May 19th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-313, which was tabled in this House by the hon. member for Verdun-Saint-Paul, who is a government member.
One can see that, while Ogilvie's may be experiencing problems, this is also the case on the other side of this House. Indeed, there seems to be a disagreement regarding the taking of a vote on this bill. Some day, we may find out exactly why. In the meantime, I want to make some comments on the legislation as such. I will take a few moments to relate the chronology of this dispute at Ogilvie Mills Ltd., which is located in Montreal, in the riding of Verdun-Saint-Paul.
The collective agreement in effect at Ogilvie's expired in January 1992, and the company was sold in June of that year by its owners, Labatt, to an American multinational, Archers Daniel Midland.
After the change of ownership, bargaining became very difficult. The new employer behaved somewhat as if it were in a banana republic, brazenly trying to impose its rules and not caring one bit about our traditional ways of bargaining. It showed contempt towards the men and women who work for Ogilvie's. Consequently, on June 6, 1994, the workers voted 97 per cent in favour of a strike.
Why did they make that decision? Contrary to what several may think, particularly on the management side, people who hold a regular, well paid job allowing them a decent quality of life never decide gladly to do without their income and to go on strike. Such a decision is never made for the fun of it but, rather, for serious reasons.
This was the case at Ogilvie's, since the demands made by the new management were utterly excessive in the eyes of any objective observer.
Since then, for close to a year now, the employees have been out on the street, without any hope for a settlement, since the company, taking advantage of the fact that it is federally incorporated and that there is no federal anti-scab legislation, has hired substitute workers and is operating as if nothing had happened, while the real employees, those who worked for the flour mill for over 20 years, are still out on the street and might stay there for quite a while yet.
My colleague for Verdun-Saint-Paul insisted earlier on the fact that this private member's bill is not an anti-scab bill. He is right this bill has nothing in common with an anti-scab bill, but this shows the lack of responsibility on the part of the government which, despite the official opposition's repeated requests over the years and especially recently, has refused to pass anti-scab legislation in this House, which, I am convinced, would have led to a quicker settlement.
Across Canada, 75 per cent of employees working for provincially incorporated companies are protected by anti-scab legislation. This means that, in all the companies governed by provincial laws, in Quebec, Ontario or British Columbia, employees can go through the collective bargaining process, then go out on strike in a civilized and orderly manner, thus establishing a real balance of power. The federal government still refuses to pass such legislation which, as I said, would certainly have solved the problem in this particular case.
I only have a few minutes left, but I want to stress that point, because it is not the first time that we are confronted with this kind of situation, which is likely to occur again many times in the future. The government must realize anti-scab legislation is a necessity. Members opposite seem to want to make absolutely sure that this legislation is not passed in this House, so as not to apply to federally registered companies.
The official opposition supports Bill C-313, which deals with what is called the final offer selection. This is better than nothing. It is reluctantly that the official opposition supports such a measure since, in the context of labour negotiations, the final offer is truly a last resort. Such a solution is often used when every other avenue has been explored, and when workers are at the end of their rope. I know that Ogilvie workers and their representatives hope, after a work stoppage of almost a year, to see such provisions come into effect.
Again, as far as the official opposition is concerned, we unanimously support this approach. We would have liked a vote on this bill, which would have given every member of this House an opportunity to express his or her views by voting for or against it. We already know, however, that there are deep divisions on this issue within the government majority, within the Liberal Party. That is regrettable since, as I said earlier, we
are discussing the fate of men and women who have been on the street without any income for nearly a year. They have children to support, mortgages and rents to pay. An agreement must be negotiated as soon as possible.
I hope that, once this bill is passed, once these employees have gone back to work, they can resume their activities in acceptable conditions, in a climate that is not too hostile.
In conclusion, I hope that the government will think about, really think about, introducing in this House an anti-scab bill that would benefit all workers subject to the Canada Labour Code.