Maurice Bernier

[Supply, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to direct a question to my colleague from Prince-Albert-Churchill River, but first I would like to make a comment, because, on a number of occasions in his speech he referred to the primacy of law, to the rule of law, to justify his government's intervention in the celebrated case of the person we can now identify as Mr. "B", in reference to plan "B", that is the Bertrand plan.

I am well aware that the member for Prince-Albert-Churchill River is himself a lawyer. He is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. I have not taken law myself, but I believe the first thing we learn when we study law is the principle of the separation of powers. There is a very clear distinction to be made between the political and the judiciary.

The member for Prince-Albert, a lawyer and a politician, can make this distinction, I am sure. He is well aware that, in the

present debate, the Bertrand case is essentially a political matter. All the commentators in Canada agree that it is a political case.

This is my comment. Perhaps he could react to it. Since the rule of law is so important to him, I would like to hear his comments on the reaction of his colleague, the government whip, and of the premier of Newfoundland, Mr. Tobin, his former colleague, when they say they could not care less about the Quebec referendum act and that they did not respect it in the past and will not in the future. What does the rule of law mean in such a case?

[Persons With Disabilities, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, considering that these groups are often the only voice for handicapped people, can the minister tell us with whom he intends to discuss if, through his own fault, these groups disappear?

[Persons With Disabilities, May 16th, 1996]

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

Yesterday, when I asked him about cuts imposed on advocacy groups for the handicapped, the minister said he would keep on talking with these groups regarding their future and their funding.

Since the minister seems to be confirming his intention to resume the dialogue with these groups, is he prepared to go one step further and to restore their funding?

[The Disabled, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the Minister of Human Resources Development has shown us his insensitivity, his thoughtlessness and his blindness with his decision to eliminate subsidies to agencies that help the disabled.

Yesterday, in this House, he even had the audacity to state that he considered it more important to help the disabled than the organizations that represent them. In the same breath, he added that these organizations do a good job. Where is the logic? I do not know.

The minister talks about the federal government's willingness to negotiate with the provinces to find a solution. It is one thing to negotiate transfers, but it is another thing to cut subsidies without giving any consideration to the adverse consequences of such a decision on the organizations and the disabled.

"Let us cut and we will see later on what the consequences are". That seems to be the minister's theme song. Yet he ought to know that gagging people will not make them disappear.

[Persons With Disabilities, May 15th, 1996]

It is the same thing but the letter the department sent to these associations congratulates them for their work and, at the same time, warns

them that they are going to be scrapped. This is what the minister has decided.

Is the minister telling us that the federal government will no longer meet its responsibilities with regard to the handicapped in areas under its jurisdiction, offloading them onto the provinces without any compensation?

[Persons With Disabilities, May 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about the handicapped themselves, we are talking about associations acting on their behalf. There is a slight difference.

[Persons With Disabilities, May 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, last week as his official response to the unanimous report of the Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, the Minister of Human Resources Development came out with an insipid document offering no concrete measures. After the unemployed, it is now the turn of the handicapped to feel the wrath of the minister.

Can the minister confirm that, besides paying them lip service in his report, the only concrete answer he has for advocacy groups for the handicapped is to cut their funding without warning and in an under-handed way, putting them in jeopardy?

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, can we ask the Prime Minister whether he intends to fulfil his commitments regarding all the bills, and Bill C-33 in particular? Does the Prime Minister-

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question to the Prime Minister is an important one. It concerns Bill C-33. Will the Prime Minister keep to his word and make sure that his members follow the party line regarding Bill C-33?

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we have just learned that the Prime Minister has decided that the members of his party will vote freely on Bill C-33, which seeks to add sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Yet, the Minister of Justice has said on numerous occasions that there would be a party line vote on Bill C-33.

In a letter dated October 18, the Prime Minister-