Lucienne Robillard

[Department Of Citizenship And Immigration, March 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, one thing is for sure: every Citizenship and Immigration employee is expected to abide by existing legislation, including our own Immigration Act, and to follow a code of conduct.

When irregularities occurred in the past, the deputy minister asked Mr. Tassé to determine whether any illicit act had been committed by department employees and report back; hence the Tassé report.

Mr. Tassé himself concluded that there was no evidence of illegality. And I should point out that nowhere in his report does Mr. Tassé talk about immigration staff giving bribes. This minister would not stand for that.

[Immigration, March 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the priority of the department of immigration is first and foremost to guarantee the security of Canadians. As a country, we definitely will not welcome people with a criminal or terrorist past.

However, our Canadian laws allow some legal recourse that we must respect. Once all legal means have been used, as in the present case, we must proceed with the removal of the person and this is what we will do in this situation.

[Immigration, March 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is very normal for the person in question to use any legal means he can find in our Immigration Act. So he did use all the remedies permitted by law. In February, the federal court gave a ruling on the removal of this person. At this moment, the removal process is being finalized.

[Employment Insurance Act, December 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the motion before us today, since it will allow us to consider Bill C-111, on employment insurance immediately.

With this motion, the government shows the importance of this legislative measure and the need to immediately undertake detailed consideration of its content.

The proposed reform is a very complex one. It has been discussed for months and months now, openly and publicly across Canada, and if there is one consensus that has emerged from these consultations, it is to give a new orientation to the entire unemployment insurance program.

It was quite a challenge: how to give a new direction to unemployment insurance? During these consultations, a number of ideas were proposed. What we have before us today represents a real change of direction, a major reform of what used to be unemployment insurance. It needs to be really well understood, which is why we shall need to take all of the time available in

committee to study this change of direction and to ensure that the bill before us will really meet the objectives we have set.

Those objectives are, of course, part of our overall job strategy. I believe that each and every person in this country understands just what a priority it is for all Canadians have jobs, to keep their jobs, or to create jobs. Unemployment insurance reform was considered in that overall context. It is but one element in this government's strategy for maintaining jobs and creating new ones, not a strategy in itself.

Over the years, we have seen that the unemployment insurance program as it existed led to a number of problems. First of all, we have seen how very quickly the costs have risen. Just think, in 1982 the program cost $8 billion, while by 1995 it was up to $16 billion. With the passing years we have seen the program being overused. When I say overuse, it is certainly not my intention to blame workers who receive unemployment insurance benefits, as the official opposition seems to imply, but it is a fact that over the years, the unemployment insurance plan had become more like an income support plan. We also found that the system was overused by employers to the extent that it influenced their hiring approach. That is why we had to get back to basics.

We also found that over the years inequities had developed in the system. It was designed at a time when employment was widely available, when people worked from 9 to 5, 35 hours a week. That is no longer the case in 1995. So a number of inequities had developed in the system, and I am thinking more particularly of part time workers. Working part time has become a way of life, so how can we make the system available to part-time workers as well?

We also found that the system tended to favour those on higher salaries, when we looked at how benefits were distributed. Could we restore a measure of equity to the unemployment insurance system? That is why what we have here is a thorough reform. This is a new system that wants to give workers and employers an incentive to maintain jobs and create jobs.

So there are three important elements in this reform. Number one: unemployment insurance benefits; number two: employment benefits, and number three: a transitional job creation fund to help the most disadvantaged regions in our country. I think this reform is comprehensive in its approach to these dimensions.

I would like to say a few words about employment benefits, because since this reform was announced by my colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development, we have heard a number of views on these employment benefits, how they will be implemented, how we will work together with the provinces to give our workers an incentive to be on the labour market and our employers an incentive to maintain jobs.

I think it was very clear that in this reform the government was intent on developing pro-active employment measures. That is why it has specifically identified five employment benefit measures. The government intends to develop, implement and evaluate them with the provinces. So, imagine my surprise at discovering last week that the Bloc Quebecois in its opposition day motion was criticizing the unemployment insurance reform, saying it increased overlap and duplication.

I must say that I could see our friends opposite had not yet read the bill, because the reverse is clearly true. We are in fact trying to avoid overlap and duplication. I also heard it said that the federal government wanted to supervise the provinces, because the bill defined requirements for employment measures. So, here again, you can imagine my surprise.

The bill talks of guidelines. There is nothing about national standards. It talks about guidelines. There are six different guidelines. Let us have a look at them and see how a provincial government could object to them. The first really aims at avoiding overlap and duplication. Clause 57 of the bill provides that we are to aim for: a ) harmonization with provincial employment initiatives to ensure that there is no unnecessary overlap or duplication;

That seems clear. Every effort must be made to ensure that there is no overlap but rather complementarity when a province already has employment measures.

In this regard, as far as Quebec is concerned, I must tell you that it is quite a challenge, because there are now something like three service delivery networks in Quebec. There is the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre, which has offices in all regions of Quebec; the Travail Québec centres, which are scattered throughout the province; and the Employment Canada centres.

Even within the province of Quebec, there is an obvious need for harmonization between the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre, the Travail Québec centres and the Employment Canada centres.

This is one of the guidelines; there are five others that show our desire to be as flexible as possible. I cannot see how a province could object. But again, this bill will be referred to a committee for consideration and we will see how it can be enhanced.

Looking at the overall impact of this bill on all Canadian provinces and at Quebec's situation, I can tell you that Quebec comes out ahead. At the present time, for every dollar contributed, Quebec receives $1.33. After the reform, for every dollar contributed, it will receive $1.31. Quebec will still come out ahead.

In addition, like any other province, Quebec will have control over employment benefits, as it has always demanded over the years.

Both sides must show some goodwill. In this regard, I want to commend the open-mindedness of Quebec's Minister of Employment who, unlike the Bloc Quebecois, agreed to sit down with us to determine how we can provide better services to Quebec workers.

In conclusion, I hope that the committee will help improve and enhance the bill before us.

[Recognition Of Quebec As A Distinct Society, December 6th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the members of the House of Commons in the debate on the motion to recognize Quebec as a distinct society within Canada. In order to properly understand the true scope of what the Government of Canada is doing by proposing this resolution, it must be interpreted in the light of the vote this past October 30.

Quebecers had two very clear things to tell us: they want to be recognized within Canada for what they are: a people with a French-speaking majority and a different and distinct culture. They also want to see profound changes made to the way the Canadian federation operates.

Of course, our government needs to respond to economic imperatives and to the necessity of ensuring the continuation of our social programs, and this requires new partnerships with the provinces. We must, however, also acknowledge the reality of Quebec's malaise, a malaise directly linked to the wounds of the past, the most severe of these being the failure of the Meech Lake Accord.

The Leader of the Opposition, in his reply to the Prime Minister's speech, has given us his version of the recent history of our country and the path it took through the constitutional to-ing and fro-ing. Allow me then to give you my version, that of a Quebecer with a totally different perspective. I was there when the Meech Lake Accord failed.

Unlike the Parti Québecois and a number of the Bloc members who voted against Meech, what I wanted along with most of my fellow citizens was for there to be recognition that Quebec is distinct, different, and it was my impression at that time that this country did not accept me for who and what I was.

However, I understood that it was not the country that was refusing to recognize me. It was not my fellow citizens who were not willing to recognize me. It was rather the very process of constitutional negotiations and of agreement ratification that led us to this dead end. This is why I wondered, is it necessary to break up my country just because we have difficulty agreeing on the process to be used?

The answer is clear to me. I believe it is possible to pursue the discussion and continue to build this prosperous country in an atmosphere of respect and generosity.

It is my firm belief, with the majority of Quebecers, that it is possible for us to reconcile two realities: our identity as Quebecers, of which we are extremely proud, and our identity as part of Canada.

I have always believed that these two realities are in no way mutually exclusive, and that they do not in any way justify the destruction of a country built up by the generations before us with such effort and determination. That is what I defended then as a member of the Liberal Government in Quebec, and that is what I defend now as a member of this Liberal Government in Ottawa.

During the referendum campaign, the Prime Minister of Canada made commitments he is meeting today by recognizing that Quebec is a distinct society. To do so is to recognize history, our common history. To do so is to remember the origins of the Canada of 1867 which opted for a federal system designed to reconcile Quebec's right to be a distinct and provincial autonomy with the need to work together to build this vast country of ours that is Canada.

In a speech to the Quebec Legislative Assembly on November 24, 1871, Sir Wilfrid Laurier said, and I quote: "It is a historical fact that the federal system was adopted only to maintain the exceptional and unique position of the province of Quebec on the American continent".

Do not get me wrong. I am simply stressing that unlike those who believe that separation is the only way for Quebec to take its place within Canada, I am convinced we can deal with this matter in a different way, without breaking up the country.

The Leader of the Opposition may argue that distinct society is no longer an issue in Quebec but the fact remains that Quebecers earnestly want their distinctiveness to be recognized. This government understands that. Of course, some people would have preferred to see this recognition immediately entrenched in the Constitution, because the logical corollary of this recognition is its inclusion in the basic law of our country.

We would have preferred to do so now. However, the PQ government and the leader of the Bloc Quebecois have already closed the door on any discussion. Nevertheless, by rejecting the proposal for Quebec's separation on October 30, Quebecers clearly gave their provincial government a mandate to work together with the Canadian government to find practical solutions and help Quebec develop its potential within the Canadian federation.

The government of Canada understood the message and presented, in an initial gesture of openness, the motion we are debating today in the House of Commons. We have met our commitment. The ball is now in the court of the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois. By their stubborn refusal to consider any options for change, they are saying no to Quebecers. Make no mistake: whether the option selected to describe distinct society is Meech 1, Meech 2, Meech 3, Charlottetown 1, Charlottetown 2 or Charlottetown 3, the response of the leader of the Bloc Quebecois was very clear: "I am a sovereigntist and I will never sign an agreement with the Canadian government".

The Leader of the Opposition often says Quebecers look to the past to justify their choice. I say to him today that Quebecers will also remember that the Bloc Quebecois and its leader refused to vote for the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society in this House.

To recognize Quebec as a distinct society within Canada is a step in the right direction, as our federalist partners from Quebec acknowledged. It will provide the foundation for new, constructive relations with all our fellow Canadians. For once, the Parliament of Canada will be united. And when we have passed this motion,

Parliament will have to consider the distinct identity of Quebec. For the first time, elected representatives of all Canadians will make a solemn and meaningful gesture towards the people of Quebec. As a Quebecer, I am proud to be part of a government that recognizes the distinct identity of the people of Quebec, and I am proud to be a member of this government which will continue to work towards including this recognition of the Canadian Constitution.

Because the interests of Quebec and the interests of Canada as a whole are involved, I will vote in favour of this motion.

[Questions On The Order Paper, November 6th, 1995]

The Non-Smokers Health Act affects almost 650,000 workers in about 26,700 workplaces under federal jurisdiction and approximately 240,000 employees of the Public Service of Canada. a ) (i) There is no estimate of the number or percentage of federally regulated workers who are exposed to environmental

tobacco smoke resulting from smoking where smoking is permitted and ( a ) (ii) where smoking is not permitted. b ) Under the UI act, ``just cause'' for voluntarily leaving an employment exists where, having regard to all the circumstances, the claimant had no reasonable alternative to leaving employment.

Working conditions that constitute a danger to health or safety is one of the 13 specific circumstances identified by the legislation that may constitute just cause for voluntarily leaving employment.

Before leaving the employment, a reasonable alternative for the person working in such a place would be to report the situation to the employer and/or the union so that the situation can be remedied within a reasonable period of time. If the situation still does not improve and the working conditions likely affect his or her health, a person could reasonably prove his or her point by means of a medical certificate or other similar document. c ) (i) The national statistics at our disposal reveal that from April 1, 1990 to March 31, 1995, there were 144 inspections and 467 complaint investigations conducted under the Non-smokers Health Act. c ) (ii) Until the Contraventions Act (Bill C-46) is proclaimed, issuing warnings or initiating prosecutions are the only alternatives to ``ticketing'' an individual for non-compliance. To this end, labour branch officials ask the employer or employee to sign an assurance of voluntary compliance (AVCs), by which they make the commitment to cease the contravention within a specified period of time. Failure to do so can lead to prosecution. From April 1, 1990 to March 31, 1995, a total of 156 AVCs have been received by safety officers and no prosecutions have been initiated.

[Referendum Campaign, October 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister stated very clearly that this country is on the road to change and that, in order to meet the challenges of the 21st century, Canada as a whole has no choice but to change because we now face international competitors that were not even on the scene 10 years ago.

We must question our ways of doing things. We must review the role of the various levels of government and this is what we in the federal government will work on after a No vote in the referendum.

[Referendum Campaign, October 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I will have to quote the Prime Minister's statement in extenso, since the member of the Bloc Quebecois omitted part of the sentence. He said, and I quote: "We will keep open all the other roads to change, including administrative and constitutional means".

I think the intent is quite clear: to keep open both administrative and constitutional roads to change. Throughout this country's history, we have found various ways to make changes, without necessarily reopening the constitution. At this time, we only have to look at the whole issue of immigration in Quebec and all the powers granted to Quebec to choose its immigrants and welcome them into Quebec society. All this was done by administrative means. So we should certainly not set aside this way of effecting changes.

[Referendum Campaign, October 25th, 1995]

And as the Prime Minister of all Canadians, including Quebecers, it is his responsibility to make clear the seriousness of the choice awaiting us on October 30-the destruction of our country, Canada.

I repeat that this is not just any country in the world, it is a country which we are proud of and which we have grown and developed in. I can tell you that everyone who believes in this country will do everything they can so that everybody says no to separation on October 30.

[Referendum Campaign, October 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, probably the member for the Bloc Quebecois made a mistake when she spoke of our Prime Minister as the prime minister of English Canada. As far as I know, our Prime Minister, a francophone from Shawinigan, is the Prime Minister of all Canadians.