Hélène Alarie

[Pay Equity, May 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, does the President of Treasury Board realize that his actions are sending the message to major employers under federal jurisdiction that legal obligations can be avoided by challenging them before the courts?

[Pay Equity, May 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of Treasury Board.

Pay equity is not negotiable, it is a matter of justice. Section 11 of the Human Rights Act was adopted in 1977 in order to put an end to economic inequality between men and women in the workplace.

What is the President of Treasury Board waiting for before sitting down with the Public Service Alliance to settle the pay equity issue, which has dragged on since 1997, once and for all?

[International Day Of Mourning For Injured And Fallen Workers, April 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, today is the International Day of Mourning for Injured and Fallen Workers.

Designated by Parliament and observed in more that 70 countries, as well as the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, this day underlines the seriousness of occupational diseases, accidents and deaths.

In federally regulated sectors alone, there is a work related injury every two minutes: 57,000 workers are injured every year, over 50 of them fatally.

In the agricultural sector, between 1991 and 1995, there were 503 deaths, making farming the most dangerous occupation in North America.

There is a huge gap between the legislation governing safety and security in the workplace and its enforcement. It is shameful that even today there are so many workers killed while trying to make a living.

[Calgary Declaration, April 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Jean Charest, the new federalist poster boy in Quebec, announced that he would accept nothing less than the distinct society concept. He also stated that the Calgary declaration was just the beginning of discussions.

Provided Mr. Charest has not changed his tune today, after being called to order by the Liberal Party brass, we need to remember that the Calgary declaration was dragged out of the premiers of English Canada after heavy negotiations behind closed doors.

The federal government is in a bind. It endorsed the Calgary declaration, the final offer from English Canada, and now Jean Charest deems it insufficient and Quebeckers want to debate it in a referendum before they will endorse it.

Is the government going to go back to the drawing board on the Calgary declaration or will it tell Jean Charest, through its minister in charge of plan B—

[Science And Technology, April 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the industry minister wrote in the 1997 report on federal activities in science and technology: “More than ever, people and innovation are key to growth and prosperity.—the life and work of every individual and business will be rooted in the new economy”.

Since it brought down its budget and announced a slight increase in funding for granting councils, the government thinks it will solve all the R&D problems.

However, the cuts imposed by the government have had a severe impact on the scientific and technological community. Since 1993, the number of federal employees working in the science and technology field has gone down by 5,400 person-years, a 15% decrease.

The government should realize there is still a lot to do to bring real stability back to research in Canada and to stop the hemorrhage caused by the drastic cuts it made in this area that is so important to our future.

[Fernand Labrie, April 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Professor Fernand Labrie, Director of the Laval University hospital research centre, has been awarded the Killam prize in health sciences. This prestigious $50,000 award honours eminent world-class Canadian and Quebec researchers working in the private or public sectors.

Fernand Labrie is one of Quebec's most distinguished scientists and most eminent ambassadors in the field of science. He is recognized by his peers throughout the world as a role model for young people embarking upon a career in science.

Dr. Labrie's work on a number of sex hormone-dependent diseases has contributed greatly to the development of knowledge. It is worthy of mention that his clinic at CHUL has become the most important centre in the world for prostate cancer, having treated over 2,000 patients in the past 15 years.

On behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I wish to congratulate this great Quebecker, whose scientific efforts have contributed to improving the lives of many.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, April 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-12. I will use the time I have today to explain to the House why the Bloc Quebecois supports this bill.

Bill C-12 would make members of the RCMP eligible for benefits under the Pension Act. We want members of the RCMP serving abroad to have the same benefits as their counterparts in the armed forces in the event of illness, injury or death.

First, I want to salute the men and women who work as peacekeepers in a sometimes very unstable world. The international community must show solidarity in the face of armed conflicts, famines, droughts and all the other critical situations that exist in the world today.

It is in this spirit of co-operation that we frequently send contingents abroad to lend a helping hand on a temporary basis. Year after year, countries like Haiti, Bosnia and Uganda are added to the list of nations that need our help. As a member of the international community, Canada must respond to these urgent calls for help.

Members of the RCMP have played an active role in peacekeeping missions. Many Canadians and Quebeckers have rolled up their sleeves and offered their help to the countries most in need of it. These men and women have crossed oceans to share their knowledge, their experience and their hope that they can bring peace to this planet.

On a few occasions, the RCMP has been given the difficult task of helping set up an entire police force. The day after the fall of the Duvalier regime, for example, it was necessary to restore Haiti's self-confidence, and this meant building an effective police force.

Quebec and Canada therefore responded to the invitation that went out to them. We have sent our soldiers and our police officers all over the world in order to provide substantial assistance with a number of problems. These countries are grateful to us. Diplomats and ministers are exchanging compliments. Government representatives are proud, sometimes rightly so, that their assistance has been beneficial.

But what about those who go to these countries? What about the soldiers and police officers who risk their lives to make these missions a success? Are we treating them fairly? Are we providing them with proper recognition of their work which, let us be honest, is the reason we have such a good reputation within the international community?

As I have already mentioned, it is all very fine and well to rise in the House and make ministerial statements in support of people setting off overseas, but I also think it would be good for RCMP members to feel supported economically.

This is where Bill C-12 comes in. It tries to address a certain unfairness in the distribution of employee benefits. We realized there was a difference in the levels of pay of members of the RCMP serving on peacekeeping missions and members of the Canadian armed forces serving as peacekeepers on similar missions.

The inequality arises from the fact that the Pension Act currently provides for payment of an allowance in the event of disability or death relating to service in the armed forces. While they are eligible for the same benefits as the armed forces in peace time, the members of the RCMP are not, by definition, entitled to benefits under the Special Duty Area Pension Order.

So, members of the RCMP are not entitled to the same benefits as the people they are working with—the members of the armed forces. This salary difference remained, despite the fact that they are both exposed to the dangers of the special duty areas.

Bill C-12 clearly tries to remedy this anomaly. In fact, by changing section 32(1) in part II of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, the bill remedies the inequality that had existed up to now.

This amendment will provide for a pension to be awarded in accordance with the Pension Act to a member of the RCMP who is disabled or dies as a result of an injury or disease incurred while serving on a peacekeeping mission in a special duty area.

The expression “service on a peacekeeping mission” would not be defined so as not to be limited in the application of the law. A broad interpretation would enable us to apply new provisions, not only to traditional UN peacekeeping missions, but to other duties as well, such as supervising free elections held in special duty areas.

In the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights we had an opportunity to hear a number of witnesses concerned about the changes proposed by Bill C-12. Whether it was Deputy Commissioner David Cleveland, director of RCMP human resources or Staff Sergeant Gaétan Delisle, the president of the association of the members of the RCMP, everyone agreed that the bill corrected injustices concerning the health and safety measures enjoyed by the military, but not the RCMP.

During committee deliberations, we had the opportunity to ask a number of questions of the various representatives. Like most parliamentarians, I agree with the measures put forward in Bill C-12. I took the opportunity to thank the witnesses, who, in their testimony, shared with us what they go through on foreign missions. At the same time, this was an opportunity to find out what kind of support they expected from their government.

In debating Bill C-12, we must bear one thing in mind: parity. This is the purpose of the bill. It is designed to remedy imbalances in the operation of the pension schemes. Basically, the intent of the bill can be summed up as the same coverage for the same risks.

In the future, RCMP and Canadian Forces members will be able to say that they serve under the same conditions with the same benefits.

However, as the members of this House are about to vote in favour of Bill C-12, I must ask them this: once this bill is passed, will we be able to say that any and everyone serving in special duty areas has a pension? In other words, is anyone who falls ill, is injured or killed in a peacekeeping operation eligible for benefits under the Superannuation Act?

Let us not forget that there are police forces besides the RCMP that participate in peacekeeping operations. For instance, municipal police forces in Quebec were actively involved in the training of police in Haiti. For them and for their counterparts in the RCMP and the Canadian Forces, there was a risk involved in accepting to help these communities. In fact, I suggest that parity requires that individuals serving abroad, whether RCMP, military or municipal police, be entitled to the same benefits.

During the hearings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, RCMP officials expressed their view on the case of the municipal police officers who work abroad under the same conditions as their members.

Mr. Cleveland, the RCMP's director of human resources, stated that it was not his intention to have Bill C-12 apply to municipal police officers, since they are not federal employees, unlike RCMP officers. No one can refute that statement. I think we all agree that municipal police officers are not members of the federal public service. However, based on the wording of the RCMP Act, municipal police officers serving in special duty areas could be considered as RCMP officers and thus enjoy the benefits provided under Bill C-12, to ensure equal treatment.

In this regard, I would like to submit to the attention of the House section 7(1)(d) of the RCMP Act, which reads as follows “The Commissioner—designate any member, any supernumerary special constable appointed under this subsection or any temporary employee employed under subsection 10(2) as a peace officer”.

As for subsection 10(2), it provides that “The Commissioner may employ such number of temporary civilian employees at such remuneration and on such other terms and conditions as are prescribed by the Treasury Board, and may at any time dismiss or discharge any such employee”.

Therefore, what prevents the RCMP Commissioner from appointing municipal police officers, so that they are temporarily deemed to be RCMP officers during peacekeeping missions? Municipal police officers could then enjoy the benefits provided under Bill C-12. Far from being farfetched, this proposal would allow all those who take part in peacekeeping missions abroad to enjoy the same benefits.

For the Bloc Quebecois, equal treatment implies that all those who participate in the important task of peacekeeping are treated equally. We think Bill C-12 meets our desire for fair treatment.

Still, we feel that a little goodwill on the part of those involved is all that is necessary to ensure that municipal police officers from Quebec—who do a tremendous job abroad—can also get their fair share.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, April 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak in this House on Bill C-28, which is sponsored by the finance minister.

I will not read the bill, since it is so thick that it discourages most people from conducting a thorough analysis. And yet, this did not prevent the Bloc Quebecois from noticing clause 241 and its two small paragraphs which will amend subsection 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The possible benefits for the finance minister, who is the sole owner of Canada Steamship Lines, an international shipping company, are obvious and yet do not represent even two pages of this 464-page bill.

This raises several questions about the government's and the minister of Finance's real interest in supporting this bill.

While Quebeckers and Canadians pay for the cuts that the Liberal government has been making since 1993, while everyone is tightening their belts, while this government continues slashing federal transfers to the provinces, thus directly affecting people, while the finance minister is boasting about having eliminated the deficit in his last budget without saying that he did it on the backs of the provinces, the finance ministre, in spite of an apparent conflict of interest, is sponsoring a bill that will give him some fiscal advantages.

The whole population should know that some members of the government are very generous to themselves. It is inconceivable for a minister to propose a bill which contains tax provisions favourable to his company. This is an apparent conflict of interest.

The Minister of Finance keeps using several arguments to prove his supposed non-involvement in Bill C-28. He argued in this House that his company has been in a blind trust ever since his appointment to cabinet, and that he would not profit in any way from this bill.

This may be true, but it only applies to the present. As soon as the minister leaves his position, the trust arrangement will cease. Not intending to use a privilege is not the same as not having the right to do so.

Obviously, we do not know enough about section 241 of this bill. The motions introduced in the finance committee by Bloc Quebecois members were all defeated by the Liberal majority, except one allowing the ethics counsellor to appear before the committee. This counsellor is an employee of the Prime Minister, paid by the government and accountable only to his employer.

Yet, the testimony of this witness only served to reinforce our arguments since he acknowledged that he was not an expert in international tax laws and was therefore unable to answer several of our questions. He went as far as saying that there might be an apparent conflict of interest and that, had he been made aware of the implications of section 241, he might have acted differently.

Therefore, it is clear to the Bloc Quebecois and the whole population that the Minister of Finance did not abide by the code of ethics approved by his government in 1994, which says that anyone holding public office should avoid being in a real, potential or apparent conflict of interest. In this case, there is an apparent conflict of interest and this is why I ask, in good faith, that the Minister of Finance withdraw section 241 of Bill C-28 while there is still time left.

As parliamentarians, we have a duty to our fellow citizens to improve their quality of life and collective well-being, not the right to use our power to our own benefit. Surveys show that members of Parliament are not well perceived by the public. After seeing such ways of doing things, it is easy to understand why.

The finance minister says he is innocent of any intention. However, in 1996, he introduced a bill in the House containing the same provisions as clause 241; however, that bill died on the Order Paper. In 1998, the minister came back and sponsored Bill C-28. How could he not be aware, as he would have us believe? How can a minister introduce a bill without knowing its content?

How could Paul Martin be allowed to sponsor a bill containing tax provisions that could be beneficial to his own company, considering he is not allowed to speak on the matter so as not to be in a situation of conflict of interest? In fact, there is appearance of conflict of interest and considering the importance of his position and the integrity with which he should manage the finances of the country, the finance minister should be clear of any suspicion.

This is a warning to the government. We asked the finance minister to delete clause 241 of Bill C-28 until the matter can be cleared up. He should do so as quickly as possible if he wants to preserve the credibility he has left in Quebec and in Canada.

My colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot has introduced another amendment proposing to refer Bill C-28 to the finance committee so witnesses can be questioned and the situation clarified. The amendment says that the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “that” and substituting the following: “Bill C-28, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, be not now read a third time but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Finance for the purpose of reconsidering clause 241.”

I support the amendment proposed by my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot because, in my humble opinion, it answers the numerous issues that the opposition has been raising for more than a month.

[Budget Of Quebec Finance Minister, April 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Quebec finance minister Bernard Landry tabled an excellent budget. With the little leeway available to him, he has shown the transparency and ingenuousness his federal counterpart has not.

The only fly in the ointment is that the President of Treasury Board's testy reaction to it was to call Bernard Landry petty and ungrateful. What next!

In 1996, the President of Treasury Board told us “When Bouchard has to make cuts, those of us in Ottawa will be able to demonstrate that we have the means to preserve the future of social programs.” Then, a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister was boasting that the federal government would be assuming 90% of the costs of the ice storm, when in fact it will barely pay 40%.

Here we have a glowing example of the federal government's cynicism, pettiness and ingratitude. The President of Treasury Board had nothing to say about the Bernard Landry budget, and preferred a personal attack over congratulations for his excellent work under the circumstances. Now, that is pettiness—

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, March 31st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great interest that I rise in this House today to speak on Bill C-36 introduced by the Minister of Finance.

I have followed the whole debate on this extremely controversial bill with great interest. After reading the remarks made by a number of members, I was shocked to see those few colleagues from Quebec that sit across the way speak out in support of certain parts of this bill.

While representing the people of their ridings in Quebec, they support the Canada millennium scholarship foundation proposed by a Prime Minister seeking visibility. This is happening despite the obvious consensus of the Quebec coalition, which was reiterated by the Premier of Quebec in a press conference. I just cannot get over it. This seems to indicate a serious lack of consistency between what Liberal members from Quebec say in Ottawa and what the Liberal wing is saying in Quebec.

In its last budget, the federal government announced that $2.5 billion had been earmarked for education and that he wanted to invest it in a new program, the millennium scholarships program, which, I remind the House, will not provide any relief to the existing education system, after cuts totalling $3 billion in education.

It claims to be putting the fiscal dividend, that is, the budget surplus, to work by investing in education, skills development, assistance for low income families with children and health care, through the Canadian opportunities strategy. A better name for this strategy would be Canadian government visibility strategy.

The Minister of Finance cut federal transfers to the provinces for social assistance, post-secondary education and health as part of the joint effort to put its fiscal house in order. But I would point out that 52% of the results were due to the sacrifices the provinces have had to make. Now that this goal has been reached, the Liberal government wants to act alone and spend budget surpluses instead of making up for the harm done by cutting transfers to the provinces.

During yesterday's meeting between the Premier of Quebec, his education minister, the Prime Minister of Canada and his Minister of Human Resources Development, the two governments agreed to establish a negotiating framework for the infamous millennium scholarships.

Quebec already has its own scholarship program and post-secondary education priorities. The two levels of government agree that there should be no duplication of programs and that Quebec's jurisdiction and priorities in the education sector should be respected.

It is clear, however, that the government opposite wants to celebrate the millennium by making a significant contribution to knowledge through millennium scholarships awarded to students over a ten-year period.

The Quebec coalition representing several organizations does not, however, have the same vision of what is needed to provide real assistance to students. At a press conference yesterday, coalition president Bernard Shapiro, vice-chancellor of McGill University, said, and I quote “We feel that the bill in its present form contains no appropriate provision whereby Quebec could use the important resources allocated to the foundation in a broader manner, consistent with its priorities. Members of the coalition, including Quebec students, believe that the resources set aside for the foundation would be better used within the existing structures and budgets of Quebec's education system”.

We in the Bloc Quebecois support this view. It is obvious that the student population, the faculty and many other individuals are in agreement with the Government of Quebec's position. This is blatant interference in a provincial area of jurisdiction that all governments, since Jean Lesage's day, have ardently defended.

Education is the soul of a people, its very backbone. It allows it to develop as a society, to understand its origins and its past, and to plan its future. It is the cornerstone of any society.

We in Quebec have chosen to invest in the future of our community and of our society with a system of education which responds to the true needs of its students. We have made a choice as a society.

The federal government, on the other hand, with all the cuts it has made since coming to power in 1993, has decided otherwise. Now, having seen its popularity with students dwindling away, it is implementing a new program which will get the flag of Canada onto its cheques.

But students are no fools. They know who cut $3 billion from education, and that provincial governments have had to make some difficult choices and will have to continue to do so, because cuts in federal transfers to the provinces for health and social programs will be in the order of $30 billion from now until the year 2003. We have a social deficit and it is time that deficit was remedied before it is too late.

We are asking the federal government, given that Quebec has exclusive jurisdiction over education, to exclude Quebec from the millennium scholarship program, but with fair and full compensation.

The Liberals are using this battle against the deficit as a pretext to continue privatizating the Canadian economy and are now setting their sights on education. This private foundation, to be established under Bill C-36, will allow the companies funding it to decide, in a certain way, which students deserve financial assistance. Will they make their choice according to the field of study that responds to their needs or the general needs of Quebec?

What about the real budget for research and development of $310 million and not $400 million over three years? That will enable the granting councils to keep their heads above water, but not to expand.

We must not forget that we are at the bottom of the list of G-7 countries in terms of research and development, and nothing indicates things will improve in the future. How can we compete with rival countries? How will we keep our brains? How will we interest our young people in post-secondary education? This budget provides no reassurance.

Another failing of the budget is the fact that the Minister of Finance said not a single word about agriculture. However, there are a lot of problems, which we will be coming back to in the House. Barely 16 lines in 275 pages are devoted to Canada's rural regions. The only reference is to the minister's having given the Farm Credit Corporation more money last year. The only major expenditure in this regard is $20 million over five years and among a number of departments.

Since 1991, the Liberal government has cut the agriculture and agri-food budget by $4 billion, and this year's budget contained other cuts. There is a lot to be said in this regard, and we will come back to it in the coming months.

I will point out there are several failings in Bill C-36, but my colleagues will surely return to other very important aspects of the latest budget of the Minister of Finance.