Denis Coderre

[Interparliamentary Delegations, December 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to understand. A while ago, my colleague for Notre-Dame-de-Grace—Lachine could not even read her motion. She could not be heard. I would like some consistency, if our colleagues have presentations, if that is the ruling of the Chair, then hon. members—

[Canadian Foundation For Innovation, December 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, they tell me that today there was a smile on the face of the statue of Maurice Duplessis in front of the Quebec National Assembly.

Why is that? Because the separatist government has decided to resort to a method worthy of the Duplessis era, namely to cut off universities and research centres if they receive funding from the Government of Canada, the Canadian Foundation for Innovation in particular.

That is the latest bright idea of the Bloc's head office in Quebec City, where they had run out of ideas for stirring up the Government of Canada. So here we are, back to the old dark days in Quebec.

University administrators are, understandably, not comfortable with the situation. Researchers do not like separatist politicians trying to make political hay at their expense. The federal program was, moreover, created in keeping with the rules and meets community concerns.

Because of the challenges of research and the strong competition in this area of activity, Canada is forced to step up its efforts to create a comfortable niche for itself. Quebec must not push the sector of high technology and innovation aside. Another fine opportunity for the development of Quebec has been lost by the separatists.

[Canada Marine Act, December 5th, 1997]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I will not sit still and allow someone of the ilk of that Bloc member to call me a dog. He has just insulted the members of the public who voted for me and I ask him to withdraw his words—

[Quebec City Council, December 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Quebec City council finally has decided to set up a working group to determine the criteria governing the occasional or permanent raising of flags in front of city hall.

We do not need any criteria or committees to find out whether we love the Canadian flag. Pride in our country is not occasional or temporary. It is permanent.

The pride of our country is not a temporary or transitory thing, but it is a permanent pride.

We think the Canadian flag represents the value of belonging to a nation that is growing in the spirit of tolerance and openness to others and to the world. Another ridiculous decision forced by the mayor of Quebec City.

We would never agree to criteria for occasional support for our country. We should ask the separatists if they want to break up our country occasionally.

[Division No. 49, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is demagoguery and he knows full well that provocation was used upstairs—

[Division No. 49, December 2nd, 1997]

No, I will not apologize and say the same kind of drivel as my friend the member for Richelieu because I said what I said. I said that we need this special legislation based on previous settlements negotiated with Treasury Board because we are proceeding in a responsible manner.

[Division No. 49, December 2nd, 1997]

If it had been put to union members, they might have accepted this settlement. What is certain—

[Division No. 49, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, again, it is too easy to quote things out of context. One thing is for sure, yes, it is true, a package deal was on the table that could have allowed these workers—

[Division No. 49, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to recognize the work the hon. member has done because he is an honourable man.

The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst is an honourable man. Those who know me know that, for 15 years now, I have been involved in public life and working for the workers. My father was a carpenter. I come of working-class stock and I have always stood up for the workers.

But when we put questions to workers instead of union representatives, we do not always get the same message. So, it is not because we do not agree with him that we are against unions or against union members. Surely this piece of legislation will help our citizens get their services back. It will preserve jobs and help the needy.

[Division No. 49, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, when a member is asking questions and is on the defensive like he is, when he has to resort to crisis management in his speech, I think I was right to speak the way I did and that, once again, the government was right.

One thing is sure, we stood up for Canadians. I conducted a survey in my riding and 76% of the people agree with this kind of legislation. Of all those who called me, 76% said they agreed. There are even postal workers in my riding who told me they are eager to go back to work, that they understand and they will go back to work.

So it is clear that those people over there have lost touch with reality.