Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

[Employment Insurance Act, December 8th, 1997]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-299, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (premiums and Employment Insurance Account).

Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that the EI fund is paid for by employees and employers. It is therefore clear that this fund should be separate from the federal government's general operating budget, as opposed to the present state of affairs.

The purpose of the bill is twofold: first, to give the Employment Insurance Commission exclusive authority for setting premium rates; second, to ensure that there is a specific Employment Insurance appropriation account, for the very purpose of preventing the Liberal government and perhaps others from continuing to dip blithely into the fund belonging to workers and employers.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Pierre Perreault, December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Saturday evening, in Montreal, it was a time of celebration for the many guests at the dinner marking the 50th anniversary of the Mouvement national des Québécoises et des Québécois.

Like the mouvement's president, Monique Vézina, I want to pay tribute to the MNQ, which, through the unrelenting dedication of its members, has been supporting the Quebec people in its difficult yet necessary quest for identity. On that occasion, the MNQ silver medal was awarded to the man from the “pays sans bon sens”, poet and filmmaker Pierre Perreault.

Pierre Perreault is a true Quebecker who wants to have his own country, and it is with great respect and admiration that we congratulate him on this outstanding recognition bestowed on him by the Mouvement national des Québécois et des Québécoises.

[Access To Information Act, December 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on Bill C-208, an act to amend the Access to Information Act.

First, I would like to congratulate the government member who is introducing this bill, the hon. member for Brampton-West—Mississauga. It goes to show clearly that private member's bills are crucial to the vitality of this House.

This enactment provides sanctions against any person who improperly destroys or falsifies government records in an attempt to deny right of access to information under the Access to Information Act.

Right now, the Access to Information Act does not provide severe enough sanctions for this type of violation. Section 67 reads as follows:

1. (1) No person shall obstruct the Information Commissioner or any person acting on behalf or under the direction of the Commissioner in the performance of the Commissioner's duties and functions under this Act.

This is serious. What are the sanctions?

(2) Every person who contravenes this section is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars.

Nowadays, $1,000 is not a lot of money.

Bill C-208 is a bit more realistic. It makes it a criminal offence for anyone who tries to destroy or falsify official records or who omits to keep such records. Anyone found guilty of this offence is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to both. Already we see that the penalties are much heavier.

The obvious purpose of this bill is to meet, at least in part, the concerns raised by the information commissioner in his last two annual reports. But I believe that it is specifically designed to meet the concerns of the public in Canada and in Quebec. This is especially true following the Somalia inquiry, when people found out, in very disturbing circumstances, that truth with a capital T was not reality in government backrooms.

In fact, the awareness that this inquiry created in the public now makes it absolutely necessary that a bill like the one we have before us, Bill C-208, be adopted.

In his 1995-1996 annual report, the information commissioner expressed his deep concern that the Access to Information Act was not being rigorously enforced. This is what he had to say “After 13 years of operation of this Act, it is unfortunate to have to report several very disturbing manoeuvres to hinder the right of access to government documents, including destruction, falsification and cover-up”. It should be noted that the commissioner's office conducted investigations into three major incidents during 1995-1996. That was only the tip of the iceberg.

For example, at Transport Canada, a high official—there are not tens of thousands of them—ordered his staff to destroy every copy of an audit report dealing with a project on which he knew that an access to information request had been made.

At National Defence, a journalist alleging that certain documents had been falsified before release to him under the Access to Information Act asked the commissioner to investigate. The outcome of the investigation was that the journalist's allegations were correct. Not only had the documents been tampered with before release, but orders had been given afterward to destroy the originals. What is very worrisome about this, is that those orders came from high up.

The information commissioner's third example cames from Health Canada. During the sittings of the Krever commission, testimony revealed that minutes of Canadian Blood Committee meetings had been destroyed in the late 1980s. According to the commissioner, the time has come to amend the Access to Information Act to provide sanctions in the event of flagrant violations of its provisions. He added that legislation considered toothless is rapidly depleted of content, if not totally cast aside.

To go from that to saying that the current legislation is almost meaningless is but a short hop.

Again in his 1996-97 annual report the commissioner repeats that the current legislation cannot be effectively enforced. On the subject of tainted blood specifically, the commissioner calls the lawmakers to task saying that the deplorable examples of measures taken by officials to destroy information had sounded the alarm. As recommended in last year's report, the Access to Information Act should make it an offence to commit any act or omission aimed at denying rights provided under the act. Such an offence should carry a penalty of at least five years emprisonment, which this bill provides.

In short, how many reports will the commissioner have to write before the government and the members of the House of Commons get the message that it is time for reform? How long will we have to wait before we pass new sanctions that will make it clear to managers and officials that the right to access to information is not to be denied and that to do so will result in sanctions.

Bill C-208 is a commendable piece of legislation, which we will support enthusiastically. However, it must be noted that this reform is incomplete in many respects. But we all know that anything can be improved. For example, we must be aware of the fact that documents subject to an access to information request are seldom destroyed or falsified by those who will really benefit from their disappearance. Indeed, in many cases, the order to take such actions comes from a superior or a high official.

The bill as drafted does not make any distinction between the person who commits the offence and the person who benefits from the offence. Therefore, the Access to Information Act should prohibit any employer or any person in a position of authority within a federal institution from retaliating or threatening to retaliate against a person who refuses to destroy or falsify a document.

A complete bill should include three types of offences: first, destroying or falsifying documents; second, ordering the destruction or falsification of documents; and third, retaliating against a person who refuses to destroy or falsify documents.

We believe the intent of Bill C-208 is commendable, and that is why we will support it. That is also why we hope to have the opportunity at some point to discuss Bill C-286, which deals with the falsification and destruction of documents, but also with access to confidential Privy Council documents.

[Diane Francis, December 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we live in a democracy where everyone has the right to express his views, but when I read Diane Francis' paper in the Financial Post of December 2, she made me sad. It is fine if she chooses to be a federalist, but there are limits to saying absolutely anything in the name of Canada's supreme interest.

When somebody says that Lucien Bouchard's government supports acts and political groups that it publicly denounces, I ask myself how far she is ready to go in her soiling campaign against Quebec. We had Mao's China, Stalin's Russia and, according to Diane Francis, we now have Bouchard's Quebec.

Despite what she may think, she harms everyone in Quebec, including federalists. And the more I read English Canada's editorialists and columnists, the more I wonder whether disinformation and stalinisation of sovereignist leaders are now part of fundamental Canadian values. This is a pretty shameful thing.

[International Day Of Disabled Persons, December 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, today, on the International Day of Disabled Persons, the Quebec National Assembly made the official proclamation of the Quebec Week of Disabled Persons. For one week, we will focus on our fellow citizens who live each and every day with diminished autonomy.

With their tenacity, courage and skills, these men and women who deserve our full admiration have made names for themselves in the world of culture and sport, as well as in professional, social and community involvement.

In the coming days, let us take time to examine our share of responsibility in improving their quality of life. We can, without a doubt, use as a guide for our reflections the theme of the Quebec week: Access is independence; everyone gains from it.

Guaranteeing access is a collective obligation. Independence is a precious gift, but each of us knows what a fragile gift it is. May the week of the disabled raise our awareness of that reality.

[The Late Jack Pickersgill, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, today, on behalf of my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, I would like to offer my most sincere condolences to the family of Jack Pickersgill, who passed away on November 14.

Born at Wyecombe, Ontario in 1905, Mr. Pickersgill enjoyed a long and fruitful career on the Hill. He entered politics in 1937 as a secretary in the office of the Prime Minister of the time, Mackenzie King. He also served under Louis Saint-Laurent, who appointed him as Clerk of the Privy Council in 1952 and Secretary to the PMO.

In 1953 he moved from behind the scenes into an elected role as the MP for Bonavista—Twillingate, Newfoundland, the riding he represented until his resignation in 1967.

During his parliamentary career, Mr. Pickersgill held the positions of Secretary of State and Minister of Immigration. From his time in opposition from 1957 to 1963, we owe the axiom that one should never ask a question without already knowing what the answer will be.

With the Liberals' return to power in 1963, he became Minister of Transport until he left the House of Commons to assume the presidency of the Canadian Transport Commission, where he remained until 1972.

On behalf of myself and my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, I want his family and friends to know that they have every reason to be proud of all his accomplishments during a long and fruitful political career.

[Asbestos Industry, November 28th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of International Trade.

The federal government claims to be making every effort to save the asbestos industry. Yet recently, we heard the press secretary to the Minister for International Trade say that there was no action plan.

Are we to understand that there is no strategy to save the asbestos industry and that the minister does not intend to raise this issue with the World Trade Organization?

[Quebec Sovereignty, November 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, in May 1963, in its Speech from the Throne, the Pearson government recognized that Canada was a bilingual and multicultural country. In order to promote national unity, it called for co-operative federalism with the provinces. In the same breath, that government implemented a series of programs coming under provincial jurisdiction.

Thirty-four years later, in 1997, the Liberal government reiterates that Canada is still a bilingual and multicultural country. To enhance national unity, it is promoting a new orientation for federalism based on partnership with the provinces. Yet, we are faced with a new series of encroachments on programs under provincial jurisdiction.

History repeats itself. Flexible federalism means rigid status quo, it means going backwards. In Quebec, we want to go forward, we want real change. That is why we want sovereignty.

[Quebec Economy, November 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, where have all the scarecrows gone?

Until last May, the members opposite were constantly making inflammatory statements on the economic consequences of political uncertainty in Quebec. This fall, however, our scarecrows have stayed out of sight, strangely enough. It is true that there is a lot of good news.

With the socioeconomic summit launched by Premier Bouchard, there is a tremendous rise in new investments all over Quebec. It is said that economic growth will be greater than in France, Germany, the United States, Italy and Japan.

In spite of the economic disaster handed down by the provincial Liberals and of enormous federal cuts, the Parti Quebecois government is continuing to put Quebec's economy and finances back on track. This has sent our economic scarecrows into hiding.

Could it be that they have decided to do like the birds and fly South? If that is the case, good for them, they can stay there. We wish them a good holiday.

[The Late Robert Thompson, November 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, both personally and on behalf of my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, I would like to offer my most sincere condolences to the family of Robert Thompson, who passed away on November 16.

Mr. Thompson was born in Duluth, Minnesota. After World War II, he was involved in the reconstruction of Ethiopia, holding a number of senior positions within the Ethiopian government. He earned particular renown as the director of the Ethiopian Air Force Academy, and subsequently as the deputy minister of education, a position he held for 16 years.

On his return to Canada in 1958, Mr. Thompson got actively involved in politics. He became the leader of the Social Credit Party in 1962. That same year marked his first election to the House of Commons. He was to represent the people of Red Deer for 10 years, first as a Social Credit MP from 1962 to 1967, and then as a Conservative from 1968 to 1972.

Once he left politics, Mr. Thompson moved on to a distinguished career as a professor of political science and vice-chairman of the board of governors of Trinity-Western University. In 1975 he was appointed Canadian High Commissioner to Singapore.

We parliamentarians realize full well how demanding political life is, and what commitment and generosity it demands. For this reason, we must pay particular tribute to the professionalism and devotion shown by Mr. Thompson throughout his entire political career. His family and friends have every reason to be proud of him and of all his accomplishments.