Pauline Picard

[Sponsorship Program, November 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the person who partially controlled the political direction in the sponsorship scandal was harshly blamed by Justice Gomery for his infringements and omissions and the fact that he “arrogated to himself the direction of a virtually secret program of discretionary spending”.

Given Justice Gomery's very harsh criticism, is that not more than enough grounds to uphold Jean Pelletier's dismissal?

[Parti Québécois, November 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, last night, 29 years to the day after the sweep by René Lévesque's Parti Québécois, the party faithful chose André Boisclair as their leader.

This leadership race, a 149 day marathon, proved beyond all doubt that the idea of Quebec as a sovereign nation is stronger and more present than ever.

The Bloc Québécois salutes all the candidates who campaigned with such determination and loyalty to Quebec during this leadership race.

Thanks to the efforts of all the candidates, the Parti Québécois now has over 147,000 members. The democratic exercise of the past few days attests to the party's strength and health: 76% of all members voted.

With the first step now behind them, sovereignists from all walks of life will join forces to achieve this ambitious and exciting plan for a free Quebec.

[Sponsorship Program, November 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the first question raised in this House on the suspicions of a scandal involving the program called “sponsorship initiatives” was raised by the Bloc Québécois.

On June 6, 2000, the leader of the Bloc Québécois and hon. member for Roberval asked the first of over 440 questions that would lead to the inquiry by Justice John Gomery.

Since then we have learned that Groupe Everest, Lafleur Communications and many others received contracts for several million dollars from Communication Canada or Public Works and Government Services Canada. These firms contributed to the electoral fund of the Liberal Party of Canada to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars—dirty money, as the government's political lieutenant for Quebec called it.

By following the dirty money trail, the Bloc Québécois denounced and uncovered the worst political scandal in Canadian history, a Liberal scandal.

Justice Gomery might not be able to punish anyone, but the public can. Inspired by Quebec's slogan, Je me souviens , Quebeckers—

[Rosa Parks, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the woman affectionately referred to as the mother of the civil rights movement in the United States died yesterday at the age of 92.

December 1, 1955, was a landmark date in the fight against segregation laws in the United States. On a bus in Montgomery, Alabama, a black seamstress took a seat reserved for whites and refused to give it up to a white man. That woman was Rosa Parks.

For her act of defiance, she was arrested and fined $14. A campaign to boycott the bus company ensued and lasted 381 days. The campaign was orchestrated by a young minister who would become famous in his own right: Martin Luther King. The following year, the U.S. Supreme Court declared segregation unconstitutional. Rosa Parks will forever remain an inspiration in our struggle to achieve peace, equality and freedom.

[Taxation, October 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the enormous surplus shows, once again, that the federal government takes in more revenue than it needs to meet the obligations under its jurisdiction.

Does the Minister of Finance agree that it is high time to sit down with Quebec and the provinces in order to review the equalization program and negotiate a new division of the tax fields in order to correct the fiscal imbalance once and for all?

[Taxation, October 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, according to the Globe and Mail , two of the independent forecasters, including the Conference Board, appearing before the Standing Committee on Finance next week, estimate the federal government surplus to be over $10 billion.

Does the minister intend to use the enormous surplus to address the fiscal imbalance, by increasing transfers for post-secondary education, as students have been asking for, and by substantially improving the equalization program?

[Parliament of Canada Act, October 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the debate on Bill C-251 comes at a time when the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is reflecting on a reform of our electoral system.

It is not the first time that the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore has proposed such a measure. I can remember that he did it during the first session of the 37th Parliament. And before him, during the 36th Parliament, Bill C-265, dealing with the same issue, was rejected by the House.

For the benefit of those who are following our proceedings on the parliamentary channel, this bill can be summarized as follows: when a member decides to change political parties or allegiance, that member's seat is immediately deemed to be vacant and the Chair of this House has a duty to call an election. The same goes if an elected official who sits as an independent member in the House decides to join the ranks of a political party.

So, this bill targets those who, for all sorts of reasons, no longer feel comfortable in their political party and wish to join the ranks of another party that better reflects their values.

Need I remind my colleagues that this is how the Bloc Québécois came into being under the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney? Lucien Bouchard, my colleague from Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour and others were no longer comfortable within that party, which had become too narrow for them and for the legitimate aspirations of Quebec.

This bill raises some interesting questions. Subclause 30.1(1) of the bill makes reference to crossing the floor. How can this be defined?

In fact, there is nothing in this bill that clarifies this. Are we to understand that belonging to a political party is limited to political parties registered with the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada? What would become of the splinter groups that run candidates during an election, but do not get any members elected to this House? What does Bill C-251 do for a member that leaves his party and wants to give a voice to a party that is not already represented here, such as the Canadian Action Party, the Communist Party of Canada, the Marijuana Party, the Marxist Leninist Party or the Green Party, to name a few? The hon. member will agree that there would indeed be a change in the political landscape.

However, the bill allows a member elected under one party to leave its ranks and sit as an independent. This provision does not solve anything, since the member can choose to be recognized by the House of Commons as an independent, but can decide, following negotiations, to still support the positions of a certain party until a future election when he will seek office under the new label. Bill C-251 misses its target.

We refer to members who leave one political party to join another as “transfuges”. I want my colleagues to know that the Quebec National Assembly library has an entire series of documents or work on this subject. Bibliography No. 107, entitled Transfuges au sein des partis politiques describes what happens elsewhere, in no less than 15 countries.

There is also the work done in 1987 by Michel Rossignol, from the Library of Parliament, called Les transfuges à la Chambre et le système de parti .

It is my personal opinion that it is vital to address this phenomenon of changing parties, to understand the dynamics involved, its impact, and how frequent a phenomenon it is in this Parliament. That would be a worthwhile study. I know that changes of political affiliation are very common in countries like Brazil.

Hon. members will have figured out that we do not intend to support this bill. The reference tool of this House, Marleau and Montpetit, is unequivocal on the subject of the election of members and their role. Members must assume the responsibilities inherent in their status.

Ours is a central role, and a very important one; in a way we are the incarnation of direct democracy. We are elected directly by our constituents. Our own names are given on the ballot, not just the name of the party with which we are affiliated.

To quote Marleau and Montpetit:

Members sit in the House of Commons to serve as representatives of the people who have elected them to that office. They have wide-ranging responsibilities which include work in the Chamber, committees, their constituencies and political parties.

Besides participating in debates in the Chamber and in committees, and conveying their constituents’ views to the government and advocating on their behalf, Members also have responsibilities in many other areas:

They act as ombudsmen by providing information to constituents and resolving problems.

They act as legislators by either initiating bills of their own or proposing amendments to government and other Members’ bills.

They develop specialized knowledge in one or more of the policy areas dealt with by Parliament, and propose recommendations to the government.

They represent the Parliament of Canada at home and abroad by participating in international conferences and official visits.

So members assume the responsibilities that they were elected to undertake and for which they are paid by the House of Commons. The party to which they belong should not have the right to declare that “a member's election to the House is void”. We agree that this right of termination is legitimate, however, if the member has contravened legislation setting out the overriding code of conduct by which members exercise their parliamentary duties. This termination is not however the responsibility of the party but rather of the authorities of the House or the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada.

Is forcing a turncoat, defector or whatever you want to call them to resign equivalent to preserving the integrity of the electorate's decision? Perhaps at first glance, but we must still trust the public and the electorate. By voting, citizens are mandating someone to represent them and to speak on their behalf in the House of Commons. They turn to that individual; they hold him or her accountable.

We must give the benefit of doubt to the member who has such power, and who no longer feels able to use it properly within a given party. Assuming the individual to be acting in good faith, changing political party will allow him to better defend the interests of his constituents in Parliament. Voters will have the power to punish that person during a subsequent election if they do not approve of his decision.

By choosing to campaign for a political party, the member implicitly agrees with and shares the foundation and values of that party. If the party changes some of its policies with a new leader, if it changes its thrust politically, ethically, economically, constitutionally or whatever, the elected member still has the same responsibility, which is to put his constituents' needs above those of the party.

In conclusion, this bill further limits the political freedom of members who are, in our representative democracy, the foundation of our political system. The public elects the member; it must remain the only judge of his actions.

[Softwood Lumber, October 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in New York City, the Prime Minister unveiled the arsenal he intends to use against the American threat to our softwood lumber industry. The Prime Minister needs to realize that threatening tones alone are not enough.

When will the government get it: loud voices alone will not make the Americans back down, and if it wants to gain some credibility it will have to back up its fine words with some loan guarantees in order to provide the industry with some tools to defend itself?

[Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, October 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the decision of the Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières to inaugurate a new master's level program on managing innovation in SMEs, this fall in Drummondville.

The impetus for this innovative program came from Josée Saint-Pierre, scientific director of the Centre universitaire PME, and Michel Trépanier, who are both professors, researchers and members of the university's research institute on SMEs.

The program, aimed at business and institutional professionals as well as consultants, uses a multidisciplinary approach to the innovation process and its management and, above all, to fostering the creativity needed to develop innovations.

These days, we no longer talk about innovation simply in terms of conquering new markets, we also talk about it when it comes to retaining market share and remaining competitive.

Bravo for your innovation, a first in Quebec.

[Workplace Psychological Harassment Prevention Act, September 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the last hour of this debate at second reading stage of Bill C-360, An Act to prevent psychological harassment in the workplace.

First, allow me to congratulate my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville on her initiative. She has invested a great deal of time and energy in this topic, in which she has long had an interest. She has met with victims of psychological harassment, with unions and with other groups on numerous occasions in order to prepare this bill with its important impact on the health of these victims.

She has also published and co-signed a book on this topic in which she talks about psychological harassment cases in the Public Service. She is currently working on a new book that should be out in the next two weeks, in which she presents cases in the national defence department.

Psychological harassment is not a new phenomenon in our society. It has always existed. In our new work climate, people have to be effective and efficient and to adapt quickly.

How can one tell that one has been a victim of psychological harassment? Physical violence has always been easily identifiable whereas other forms of violence, although they have always been around, have been more difficult to recognize. These forms of violence now have a name: psychological harassment in the workplace.

If you have ever felt excluded, shunned, ridiculed by colleagues or by your boss on numerous occasions; if you have tried by every mean possible to put a stop to demeaning jokes directed at you, but to no avail; if you have felt that your dignity and your integrity, what is most precious to you, were being attacked; if you have experienced any of these situations, you may have been a victim of psychological harassment in the workplace.

Any strategy can destroy someone. However, the strategies used to put a stop to these types of behaviour are often ineffective because the silence, the denial and the tendency to play down what is happening allow psychological harassment to go on.

Again, Quebec has played a leading role in the fight against harassment. The Government of Quebec decided to add a few provisions to its Labour Standards Act. These provisions, which were adopted on June 1, 2004, apply to all employees, whether or not they belong to a union. These new provisions require employers to take measures to prevent psychological harassment and provide a healthy workplace for their employees.

Since that time, numerous complaints have been filed and they are being examined by the Commission des normes du travail. Jean-Pierre Brun, professor and director of the Chaire en gestion de la santé et de la sécurité du travail dans les organisations at Laval University, recognizes also that some complaints stem from a very serious work conflict rather than from a legitimate grievance. He has undertaken a study of 300 complaints to explore this further. His first reading of the situation led him to the conclusion that, despite its flaws, the system that was put in place was necessary.

Let me say to hon. members that more information on this topic is available in a book entitled Politiques contre le harcèlement au travail et réflexions sur le harcèlement psychologique , which I encourage all my colleagues in the House of Commons, and our colleague from the Conservative Party who gave a speech on stress in particular, to read. Psychological harassment leads to stress and affects health; psychological harassment in the workplace must not be denied.

I was saying that the authors, Isabelle and Jean-Maurice Cantin, wrote one of the 56 books nominated for the 2005 Prix du livre d'affaires, an award recognizing the talent of those who write management books in French which are published in Quebec. I should point out that the Prix du livre d'affaires is one of the most significant awards in Canadian literature. The prized book is a serious reference tool for those of us who may want to know more about psychological harassment in the workplace.

Many are faced on a daily basis at their workplace with verbal intimidation, blackmail, exaggerated criticism and abusive comments. Even young school children, children in first, second or third grade, are being taxed by others, and this continues in high school. They are subject to psychological harassment. The book by Isabelle and Jean-Maurice Cantin addresses management approaches and practices used by various businesses and organizations in the private, public and para-public sectors to counter harassment in general and psychological harassment at the workplace in particular. It contains practical advice and models of policies to deal with harassment at the workplace, addresses issues related to the handling of complaints and points to a number of useful references.

The authors dedicated an entire chapter to the consideration of the new psychological harassment provisions that came into force on June 1, 2004, in Quebec. In that chapter, they comment the rights and obligations as well as the remedies that have been included in the Act respecting labour standards, and compare summarily these provisions to those on emotional harassment that continue to be much publicized in France. This is a book for anyone who is interested in learning about harassment at the workplace and steps to prevent it or put an end to it, as the case may be.

On May 19, the Colloque de gestion des ressources humaines took place in the Saguenay; this year it chose to examine the issue of psychological harassment. This issue affects both employers and employees. The chairman of the organizing committee, Sylvain Bouchard, a lawyer, said that Quebec's implementation of the policy against psychological harassment on June 1, 2004, was a great change.

Currently, section 14(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits harassment in the provision of services and facilities in the public federal service and in the federally controlled private sector. But there is no legislation that would make it possible to protect employees in the public service and those governed by the Canada Labour Code. Principles are fine, but we need legislation.

There are several complaints of harassment before the Canadian Human Rights Commission. In May 2001, the Treasury Board implemented a policy protecting against psychological harassment, but it is only a policy, and we believe that it is not enough. A law would have more teeth and more weight. Let it be very clear that we do not want a policy or principles; we want legislation.

This is why I invite all my colleagues in the House to reflect on the cases of victims of harassment in the workplace, in the Canadian public service, and to support this bill so that we finally have legislation to deal with harassment in the workplace.