Denis Coderre

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I can talk for 20 minutes if you want. You want me to conclude? Fine. I can come back if you want. I can talk for a long time.

One thing is certain: this government acted responsibly. It took its responsibilities. We believe in the right to strike. We believe in collective bargaining. We let the two sides have a go at it.

Do not get me wrong: I have nothing against the union or its members. I have absolutely nothing against the union or its members, but when I hear the Bloc lecturing us at every opportunity, I cannot accept it and I wonder who is working for who. I have a right to ask myself this question.

When $54 million are lost every day, when charities are deprived of millions of dollars that are needed to help the poor, the government must act responsibly. When the public does not get the service to which it is entitled, the government must govern and take its responsibilities.

If you do not agree with this, ask the public, ask all those who are watching us. The thousands of people watching us today will understand one thing. They will understand that members on this side who will vote for the special legislation are looking after the interests of Quebeckers and all Canadians. Again, I just realized why, in the latest poll conducted in Quebec, 54% support the federal Liberal Party, while 30% support the Bloc Quebecois.

The Bloc Quebecois may kick a big fuss, it may try to tarnish our reputation, it may talk nonsense, the facts are there and people who are watching us will judge for themselves. There are those who will be voting for this special law—it is not perfect, but one thing is clear, this 540-page collective agreement will be in effect. If you want me to read parts of this document, I could do so all night, but if the average person had such a collective agreement, he or she would be very, very happy.

When someone can receive jackets, trousers, hats, caps, and shirts, when someone has five days off to get married and when his or her spouse has the same benefits—and I have nothing against that—these are the result of negotiations, and negotiations are a good thing. The special law, when it is passed, will be extending this collective agreement.

They still have another chance. There is one vote remaining. I congratulate the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert who had the courage to do what she believed in and who said “For me, this is not how it should be. I am on the side of the people and I support the special legislation”.

If I hear the member for Terrebonne—Blainville quoting Karl Marx, the other friend of his leader, I will end by quoting Mao. He said “Cow dung is more useful than dogma. At least it can be used as a fertilizer”.