Jean Chrétien

[Benefits, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we have a piece of legislation in front of the House and there is a lot of discussion in cabinet and in caucus. In our party we consult with caucus members and, contrary to the Reform Party, we listen to them.

In this case it was a result of the work of the party, as it was voted in many party resolutions for more than 15 years, and it will be voted on this afternoon. I am very proud of it. In order to achieve this I have been able to get this bill passed even by giving freedom to members of my party.

I heard yesterday on the news that members of the Bloc Quebecois were complaining they could not vote freely on it. Since this issue has come before the House, everyday we have read silly statements by members of the Reform Party.

[Benefits, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the only discussion we have had is the bill which is in front the House at this moment. That is the only legislation. What goes on in cabinet is part of the cabinet. The result of the work of cabinet is bills that we introduce in the House of Commons. That is it.

Right now we have a bill that will be passed and it will be progress for Canadian society.

[Benefits, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we are voting on a bill in the House of Commons that will ensure there is no discrimination against anybody based on sexual orientation. The completion of this human rights act makes Canada a country in which people with a different language, different colour, different religion and some with different sexual orientation can live. It is a society of tolerance that we have in Canada and we will be voting for that this afternoon.

What the judges decide, they will decide. If Parliament has to legislate, Parliament will legislate. There will be non-discrimination enshrined for the people who happen to be homosexual in Canadian society.

[Benefits, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada will always perform in court the duties of the Attorney General of Canada. He is very capable and we are very privileged to have a man of his knowledge and stature as the Attorney General of Canada and Minister of Justice.

[Benefits, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the minister replied very clearly yesterday. We are voting on Bill C-33 at this moment to make sure there is no discrimination against any part of society.

On the rest he gave an explanation that there are and will be cases in front of the courts. Citizens can appear before courts. Of course the Minister of Justice has to defend the Canadian position, and the Canadian position is the human rights act. The courts

decide according to the laws of Parliament. The minister said he is ready to defend the position of the government before any court.

[Taxation, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the official languages commissioner is a responsible official of the House of Commons, and the matter may be debated in committee, but it is not the responsibility of the government to debate it at this time. This issue is well known. I think that when he was hired, this situation was foreseen, and I, for one, have no other comment to add.

[The Senate, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I fought to have an elected Senate but the leader of the third party campaigned across the nation to defeat the Charlottetown accord. Now the chickens are coming home to roost. Because he did not have the judgment to look at the whole package, he decided to kill it and he has to live with the decision.

At a time when a lot of the senators are Tories and the House of Commons is building legislation to be passed, I will use my privilege and exercise my duty to name a senator who will respect the will of the House of Commons.

[The Senate, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, since 1867 we have had a system where senators are appointed on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. For example, some senators have served this nation very well, such as Senator Hastings who was a first quality public servant for many years. I also had some very pleasant discussions with a senator by the name of Manning who had been appointed by Pierre Trudeau.

I think the member was for an elected Senate and now he is trying to cover his bad judgment when he voted against Charlottetown. When someone destroys something because there is an element he does not like, he kills everything. If the member had used his judgment, today we would have elected senators. However, he did not do that.

The same man has also been asking for free votes since the beginning of the session and he is now forcing his members to vote according to the party line or they are out. At least in this party we let some members vote with freedom.

[The Senate, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, a few years ago we had a vote in this House and in the nation regarding an elected Senate. The leader of the third party voted against the opportunity to have an elected Senate. Obliged by the Canadian Constitution, I will name a senator who I will choose and who will represent my party.

[The Constitution, May 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the agenda is not ready at this time. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs met with representatives of most governments and consulted them regarding the agenda, which will be made known when we have finalized it. I will meet next week with the premier of Quebec. The minister will be in Quebec City on Thursday of this week, and we must also speak with representatives of other governments.

The agenda is not ready yet, but when it is, we will be happy to table it in the House.

As for the promise I made, I submitted a resolution in this very House to that effect. In order to enshrine it in the Canadian Constitution, the consent of the Government of Quebec is necessary. I would be only too glad if Bloc Quebecois members across the way could arrange to have the premier of Quebec tell us that he wants distinct society enshrined in the Constitution.

I am certain that the House of Commons will be delighted to pass the bill, with the approval of the required number of Canadian provinces. But the Government of Quebec must tell us that that is what it wants. We cannot do this unilaterally, because the Constitution does not allow us to.