Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

[Quebec Government, March 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Liberals saw the light. The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine recognized that the sovereignists were doing a fine job of managing Quebec's finances, since investments there will grow by 8.4% in 1998, as compared with 6.2% in Canada and 5% in Ontario.

The Bloc Quebecois applauds both these pieces of good news: investments for Quebec and the Bouchard government receiving acclaim from the Liberals. After discovering that there is water on the moon, it is very encouraging to see that members across the floor are waking up.

I have also noticed that the Liberals admitted this week that sovereignists are doing a good job in Quebec, and they also support a Conservative to lead the Quebec Liberal Party.

Can you believe, Mr. Speaker, that the members across the way have finally realized that behind every problem in Quebec there is a Liberal?

[Alcan, February 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, a historic agreement has been reached between the management and employees of Alcan that will ensure operational stability in some 10 plants and research centres for the next 18 years.

As the member for Jonquière, I am proud to join with the Quebec premier, Lucien Bouchard, in congratulating both parties and recognizing this rather extraordinary example of solidarity and partnership, which will both protect and maintain jobs, improve working conditions and enable employees to take a greater role in the affairs of the company.

My congratulations, once again, to the unionized workers and the management of Alcan.

[Child Sexual Abuse, February 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, during the last Parliament, the Bloc Quebecois presented a petition signed by more than 40,000 persons condemning child sexual abuse.

The petitioners were calling for the minimum sentence for a first sexual offence conviction to be raised to two years, five years for a repeat offence, for a review and assessment of treatments offered to abusers serving their sentences, for a post-release follow-up on the effectiveness of treatment, and for assurance that compensation measures and support would be made available to sexually abused children and their families.

Shortly thereafter, a general election was called. The petition therefore received no response from Parliament, and nothing has changed. The new Minister of Justice has still made no announcement.

Given the importance of this subject, I call on the minister to follow up on this petition, which I personally endorse. The minister must act.

[Access To Information Act, February 12th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to speak to Bill C-208, an act to amend the Access to Information Act.

I would first like to point out that the entire matter of access to information is of special interest to me. This is why I eagerly accepted the invitation of my Bloc Quebecois colleagues to speak to this bill.

On December 1 last year, I spoke in this House in favour of another bill, Bill C-216, which was also intended to amend the Access to Information Act by broadening its application to include crown corporations. At the time, I read a variety of documents on the application of the Access to Information Act and I noted, like a number of us today, that it requires certain amendments to ensure that it serves the intentions of its authors.

I would like to let the member for Brampton West—Mississauga know that the Bloc Quebecois supports the bill she introduced, since it improves the Access to Information Act by providing severe penalties for certain infractions. The act we are dealing with today was passed in 1982, and it came into effect the following year.

It gives Quebeckers and Canadians the right to access information recorded in any form whatsoever, for the most part relating to government institutions with a few important exceptions I have already listed, Crown corporations in particular.

Like our fellow citizens, we as members of Parliament regularly make use of the Access to Information Act to obtain more information on how our institutions operate. That act constitutes an invaluable tool in our work and provides numerous answers for our constituents.

Bill C-208 represents an interesting advance, an improvement to the act, by penalizing severely anyone who attempts to destroy or falsify documents, or neglects to retain them. The penalty for such offences would be a maximum imprisonment of five years and/or a maximum fine of $10,000.

You will agree with me that these are worthwhile amendments, since they represent an unequivocal sanction of any person attempting to flaunt the Access to Information Act.

It has been much said that the Access to Information Act is a toothless piece of legislation that does not meet today's requirements. None other than the present Privacy Commissioner, John Grace, is among the critics. The Privacy Commissioner has a variety of concerns, but where the object of this bill is concerned, he has spoken out strongly against the lax enforcement of the Access to Information Act.

After seven years of observation in his capacity as Privacy Commissioner, Mr. Grace has drawn some very worthwhile conclusions for the purposes of our examination. In particular, he points out that it lacks effective enforcement mechanisms. In his 1995-96 annual report, he lists three serious incidents which serve as typical examples of someone's blocking the right of access to government documents by destroying or falsifying documents, or by camouflaging them.

Three departments were involved: Transport Canada, National Defence and Health Canada. In each case, public servants falsified documents, or simply destroyed them. I do not want to be a prophet of doom, but I think the commissioner's discoveries are but the tip of the iceberg.

His 1996-97 annual report on the tainted blood scandal sounded the alarm on a number of terrible cases. The general remarks of the information commissioner on the act he applies are not, therefore, surprising. Allow me to read you his remarks, which summarize our position on the question, and I quote:

The access law has proved itself toothless to respond in any punitive way beyond exposing the wrongdoing. While exposure is far from being entirely ineffective, some penalty provisions in the access law are overdue. Nothing should focus the mind of any would-be record destroyer more than one conviction or one penalty levied upon a public official for such behaviour.

While we support the amendments to the Access to Information Act in Bill C-208, I have to say they do not go far enough.

In his latest annual report, the information commission revealed that a number of offences were the responsibility of senior officials, who used their authority to have their subordinates destroy or falsify documents. In all fairness, the distinction should be made between the person doing the act and the person making the decision, and this distinction is not provided for in Bill C-208.

Furthermore, in addition to the destruction or falsification of a document, provision should be made for the fact that ordering destruction or falsification of a document or using the threat of reprisal against a person who refuses to obey such orders constitute offences.

These are other situations not covered in the bill to which we are giving our full attention today. The maximum sentence of five years for an offence as provided for in the bill is consistent with the recommendations made by the information commissioner in his 1996-97 annual report.

By making it a criminal offence for anyone to commit such an act, we are adding a dissuasive force that should be enough to make a number of potential offenders think twice.

Despite the good points raised in Bill C-208, broader reflection is required if the necessary improvements are to be made to the Access to Information Act.

To this end, we hope to have the opportunity eventually to discuss Bill-286, which suggests a broader reform, with particular attention to falsification and destruction of documents and to access to confidences of the Privy Council, which is also accountable to the people of Quebec and of Canada.

The Access to Information Act is like a jewel without a box. As the information commissioner put it, legislation considered toothless is rapidly depleted of content, if not totally cast aside.

It is high time that we, as parliamentarians, take action before it is too late. Let us not wait for several more reports from the information commissioner before introducing the necessary amendments to the Access to Information Act. And the reason we must do this, even though all these amendments will have no real impact without a stronger institutional will, expressed at the highest echelons of the federal administration, is so that the act as implemented will embody its underlying ideals.

I therefore urge all parliamentarians to support Bill C-208.

[Supply, February 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Terrebonne—Blainville for his question. I fully agree with him.

I think he is right. The Canadian government completely ignored the fact that there are two founding peoples when it referred the case to the Supreme Court. There are the Canadian people and the Quebec people. By referring these three questions to the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court, the federal government misused that institution and proved that it has no sense of fair play.

I want to state for the record that, by referring the case of Quebec sovereignty to the Supreme Court of Canada, the federal government loaded the dice in its favour, as it always does.

[Supply, February 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Jonquière, who was democratically elected June 2 to represent the constituents of my riding in the House of Commons, I wish to support the motion introduced by the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, concerning the future of the Quebec people, and to repeat my conviction that Quebeckers alone have the right to decide their future, and that the current reference to the Supreme Court on the sovereignty of Quebec is contrary to our democratic values.

I have spent several years of my life in community and political work and throughout these experiences and for as long as I can remember, I have observed Quebeckers' attachment to the democratic values of our society.

The referendums to date have always had a high turnout, showing our people's wish to decide their own future.

On the eve of the Supreme Court hearing on the legitimacy of a unilateral declaration of independence by Quebec, I think it vital to appeal to all Canadians and to point out to them once again that the Chrétien government is on the wrong track in relying on a legal authority to resolve the essentially political question of a people's right to decide its own future freely and to take responsibility for its destiny.

I am not a lawyer and I am not about to launch into legal arguments. My eminent colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois are doing a brilliant job today of demonstrating the futility of the exercise in which the Supreme Court is now engaged.

What I want instead is to appeal to common sense, which is in keeping with the feelings of the majority of Quebeckers, whether federalists or nationalists, concerning what I would call the hijacking of democracy.

We are again seeing a process which fits perfectly into Plan B, concocted by the Chrétien government to keep Quebec within the Canadian federation. This time, though, the reference to the Supreme Court strikes me as totally pathetic, since it is evidence of the failure of the Chrétien government to rise to the challenge of renewing the Canadian federation.

The Chrétien government's strategy was to stir up public opinion in Quebec on the legality of a unilateral decision to secede. Instead, it is being bombarded on all sides with the testimonials of Quebeckers stating their right to self-determination loud and clear. Whether federalist or sovereignist, all join in opposition to the federal claims on the right to self-determination. All agree that it is for Quebeckers to decide their own future.

The federal government is presently facing a strong consensus, a common front of all those who have at heart the defence of our democratic values and the institutions with which we have equipped ourselves in Quebec in order to express our societal choices. The federal encroachment in the Supreme Court was found unacceptable, even by such people as Claude Ryan and Daniel Johnson, although they headed the federalist forces in the last two referendums.

By so doing, they confirmed the fundamental break between the Quebec Liberal Party and the federal Liberals.

By rejecting the very substance of the legal arguments raised by the Chrétien government, Claude Ryan and Daniel Johnson have rejected beforehand the ruling by the Supreme Court.

Besides, Mr. Speaker, we have witnessed the establishment of a non- partisan groups composed of sovereignists and federalists, like the Pro-Démocratie group, which was joined by key figures like Monique Vézina, Jean-Claude Rivet, Pierre Paquette and André Tremblay, to name only a few.

Leading the movement which has always been more in evidence in all classes of Quebec society, the Pro-Démocratie group makes a point of condemning the initiative of the federal government in the following terms: “We share the conviction that the constitutional debate is first of all a political debate and that it should be resolved by political means. Constitutional law is based on decisions made by the people. It is not the role of constitutional law to substitute itself to the people's prerogative of choosing their own political system.”

Other key figures like Cardinal Jean-Claude Turcotte, archbishop of Montreal, and Monseigneur Bertrand Blanchette, archbishop of the diocese of Rimouski, have said that the Supreme Court should not decide the future of the Quebec people, thus echoing the position taken by the bishops of Quebec and Canada in favour of self-determination, at the centennial of Confederation in 1967.

I wish to stress one more time that all these people think it is up to the people of Quebec to decide their own future.

It must be recognized that the highest court in the country is widely mistrusted in Quebec today. Everyone of us will remember that in 1980, in the famous case regarding the veto right that Quebec thought it had, the Supreme Court concluded that the federal government could amend the Constitution with the support of a substantial majority of the provinces.

This constitutional deadlock has lasted for 15 years. Quebec has learned that within the existing system, no compromise is acceptable to the English-Canadian majority.

For 15 years, political players have been prisoners of that majority and incapable of renewing the federal system.

The federal government has found no better solution than to go into the legal arena in an attempt to muzzle the democratic expression of a whole people.

With this new case, the Supreme Court is heading towards a new impasse. Should we be surprised? Is it any wonder the supreme court defends the institutions that created it?

In the end, it is nothing more than the expression of the centralizing will of the federal government and bears witness to the impasse facing Canadian federation. The fact is that the Chrétien government has no argument to counter the advance of the sovereignist movement.

The reference to the supreme court is, in the words of Quebec premier Lucien Bouchard, an act of powerlessness. In addition, the reference to the supreme court arises from the change in public opinion in Canada, which is galvanizing around the doctrine of the equality of the provinces and the denial of any special status for Quebec other than a symbolic and totally insignificant one.

When I see the consensus within Quebec on our democratic values and the defence of our institutions, I am more than ever sure we can meet the challenges facing us in building our country.

I invite all of you watching me on television to express your opposition to the Chrétien government's initiative.

Our struggle will not end until we have given ourselves a country for the year 2000, because what counts for us is the right to decide our future. Let us be proud to be Quebeckers.

[Winter Olympic Games, February 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this evening will mark the opening of the 18th Olympic Games in Nagano, Japan. For two weeks, the world's best athletes will inspire a wide range of emotions in millions of people.

Some 2,400 men and women from 80 countries will boldly and bravely compete for the gold, silver and bronze medals in 68 events.

The Bloc Quebecois members are proud of the 43 Quebeckers on the 155-member Canadian team. Myriam Bédard and Jean-Luc Brassard have made their mark in Olympic history. They are setting out along with other athletes, whose cherished and justified dream it is to mount the podium.

We wish all the athletes in the Canadian delegation good luck. May they return home satisfied and rewarded for the years of courage, perseverance and tenacity that propelled them to Nagano.

[Reference To Supreme Court, February 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the prime minister and intergovernmental affairs minister received a basic lesson in democracy from two of their federalist allies.

Claude Ryan and Daniel Johnson publicly disavowed Plan B of the federal strategy, reference of the Quebec question to the Supreme Court. Loud and clear, they affirmed the right of the Quebec people to freely determine its own future.

What is important, however, is that these two former leaders of the 1980 and 1995 no campaigns clearly represent the emergence of a consensus in Quebec on this matter. They felt obliged to insist that the future of Quebec is in the hands of the people of Quebec.

The federal government must face facts: the strategy of going to the Supreme Court turned out to be a very bad idea. Since a Quebec consensus is in place, reference to the Supreme Court is pointless.

[Violence Against Aboriginal Women, December 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, violence in Canada's aboriginal communities is omnipresent. It is a constant threat to the safety and the development of the full potential of aboriginal children and women.

During the hearings of the royal commission, First nations, Inuit and Metis women said they would like to see better support services, and also alcohol and drug abuse programs that are more effective and better suited to their environment.

I urge the Liberal government to follow up on the commission's recommendation by implementing community projects and a health care system for aboriginals, in which women will have a decision making role.

These women are aware of the consequences of violence in their communities and they want to be part of the new reality, so that their physical and psychological well-being, and that of their children, will finally be protected. The federal government must take immediate action in this area.

[Postal Services Continuation Act, 1997, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with other Bloc colleagues.

Yesterday, we finally witnessed a long awaited moment. The minister responsible for the Canada Post Corporation introduced Bill C-24, an act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services. I say “awaited” because the way things were evolving, all those who sit in this House could see it coming.

The legislation before us forces some 45,000 Canada Post employees to go back to work, while also depriving them of fundamental rights, such as the right to negotiate working conditions that will give them satisfaction in their job while also being beneficial to their employer.

To put it simply, the dice were loaded. The Canada Post Corporation knew that it could count on special legislation from the minister responsible.

Remember the memo by the Canadian Direct Marketing Association made public by CUPW on August 7. According to the memo, Canada Post had received assurances from the minister responsible that, should a strike occur, the government would pass back to work legislation.

Bloc Quebecois members believe that, in this context, the deadlock in the negotiations is the result of the bad faith displayed by the Canada Post Corporation. This is why we say from the outset that we disagree with Bill C-24.

It is not so much the labour minister, but the minister responsible for the Canada Post Corporation who is to be blamed in this whole episode.

Quebeckers and Canadians must know that the minister responsible for Canada Post undermined the negotiations. For example, he said, on November 18, when both sides had undertaken exploratory talks, that the union was uncompromising, that it would be to blame should privatization occur, and that the government had the right to resort to special legislation. Enough is enough.

A brief look at what is at stake shows that, generally speaking, the union is asking for greater job security. This means converting overtime into permanent jobs. In this regard, it is interesting to note that the union agreed to reduce by half, from 3,000 to 1,500, the number of permanent jobs it wants to see created. The other union demands are: extending door to door postal services, a cost of living increase, plus a pay raise and a work contract for a period of 18 months to 2 years.

Canada Post, for its part, wants to cut salary costs by some $200 million, which amounts to cutting 4,000 jobs. It is offering to create 500 permanent positions rather than the 1,500 sought by the union. The government is missing a golden opportunity to create jobs, not vulnerable jobs, but permanent jobs and to spread the wealth among people who want to work. We must not forget that Canada Post is not running a deficit.

What is more, Canada Post is offering a salary increase over three years, with 1.5% the first year, 1.75% the second and 2% the third, plus the cost of living index. With its bill, the government is imposing salaries that are lower than those in the latest management offer of November 17, which proposed the same increases but six months earlier.

We were never given any indication that the employer was making concessions on its demand that it recover $200 million from salary costs. Bolstered by various interventions by the minister responsible for Canada Post, the corporation's management held the line while it awaited the special legislation introduced by the Liberal government.

Bill C-24 is therefore the result of abortive negotiations, in which the bargaining process did not follow its usual course. Had it done so, it would have been cemented by an agreement negotiated solely by the parties, as the Bloc Quebecois has called for since the outset.

The Bloc has always upheld the principle of free negotiations and it continues to do so. My colleagues and I are, however, aware that as things stand now the two parties are at an impasse. The situation is not surprising given that Canada Post is a subsidiary of the Liberal Party of Canada, the place where senators are appointed when there is no place for them in the Senate.

This is why the Bloc will be proposing a series of amendments when the House sits in committee of the whole. These amendments aim primarily at hastening the end of the dispute so as to improve labour-management relations, which were sorely tested, and to resume postal services to Quebeckers, who are waiting impatiently for them.

The clauses the Bloc has difficulty with are clauses 9, 12, 8, 10, 15 and 17.

Clause 9 sets out the principles guiding the mediator-arbitrator in reaching his decision. Specifically, it says that the mediator-arbitrator shall be guided by the need for terms and conditions of employment that are consistent with those in comparable industries in the private and public sectors and that will provide the necessary degree of flexibility to ensure the short- and long-term economic viability and competitiveness of the corporation. The Bloc Quebecois condemns these guidelines binding the mediator-arbitrator, because they represent an amendment to the Canada Post Corporation Act, which refers to a self-sustaining financial basis rather than competitiveness.

With clause 9, the Minister of Labour is clearly indicating that Canada Post must be run like a private business. This is at considerable odds with the public service character provided for under its own legislation, the Canada Post Corporation Act. The Bloc Quebecois therefore asked the government to give serious consideration to an amendment whereby the mediator-arbitrator must instead be guided by considerations consistent with a self-sustaining public service, as set out in Canada Post's incorporating statute. We already have the government's assurance that this amendment will be approved and that it will have a mitigating effect in the context of arbitration.

Clause 12 sets workers' rates of pay for the new agreement.

The Bloc Quebecois feels that the government could have left the salary issue in abeyance so as to give the union an opportunity to present its arguments to the mediator-arbitrator. This is why we are asking the government to amend clause 12 and give unions at least the rates of pay contained in the employer's last offer.

Clauses 8 and 10 make provision for the government to appoint the mediator-arbitrator. The Bloc rejects these clauses, being of the opinion that it is up to the government to see that unions are consulted. This, in our view, is a prerequisite to any real mediation that would be acceptable to everyone, because it would be someone above all suspicion, someone respected by all the parties.

Clause 15 also poses a problem. It states that the government will pass on the mediation bill to both parties. This strikes us as seriously wrong, given that the government played a primary role in the dispute now dragging on. The Bloc Quebecois feels that the government must pay the cost of the mediation it is imposing, and that is why we are asking that clause 15 be deleted.

Clause 17 sets the fines for those who contravene the legislation. A rapid calculation shows that it could cost the union up to $50 million a day to break the law. It is understandable—