Ghislain Fournier

[Judges Act, June 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to ask the unanimous consent of the House for the following reason. I have introduced an anti-scab bill which has not yet been drawn, but some six months ago, I moved a motion calling for an inquiry into penitentiaries.

In the penitentiary about which I called for an inquiry, it seems that things have settled down, that things are better now, so I ask unanimous consent to withdraw Motion No. 244 calling for a public inquiry of the administration of the maximum security penitentiary at Port-Cartier, which is scheduled for debate tomorrow at 2.30 p.m.

I believe that you would obtain the consent of the House if you were to ask it.

[Nunavut Act, May 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-39 at third reading.

I am all the more pleased because of the seven native communities that are located in my riding of Manicouagan. The act to create the territory of Nunavut and to organize its government became law on June 10, 1993. It sealed the land claims agreement and set out the legal and political framework for the new territory of Nunavut.

As we know, when Bill C-39 comes into effect, it will modify the map of the Canadian north by creating the territory of Nunavut, which is scheduled to come into being on April 1, 1999. This will be the first time the borders of Canada have been changed since Newfoundland joined the federation in 1949. I know that the Inuit, who make up 80% of the population of Nunavut, 17,500 out of a total 22,000, see this legislation as highly significant.

It will allow them, along with the 20% non-aboriginal population, to administer the 1.9 million square kilometres of their land via a legislative assembly duly elected by universal suffrage.

Nunavut means “our land” in Inuktitut, the language of the Inuit. Their land is immense, representing one-fifth of the continental mass of Canada's 9,970,610 square kilometres.

The territory of Nunavut is made up of three regions and includes 28 Inuit communities. From a geographical point of view, Nunavut is situated in the centre and east of the Northwest Territories, in the far north of Canada, that is north of the 60th parallel. Labrador borders it on the extreme southeast. It is also bordered by various bodies of water: the Arctic Ocean to the north, Baffin Bay to the east, separating it from Greenland, and Hudson's Bay and Ungava Bay to the south.

Bill C-39 establishing Nunavut will divide the Northwest Territories into two distinct entities, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories.

This bill provides for a harmonious devolution of powers from the federal and territorial governments to Nunavut.

It refers to the 1993 legislation, which was amended to include the recommendations of the Nunavut commission. The commission was set up in 1993 with the mandate to advise the governments of Canada and the Northwest Territories, as well as Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., the three parties concerned by the establishment of Nunavut.

Made up of nine members representing the federal and territorial governments as well as Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., the commission considered the administrative and political issues relating to the establishment of Nunavut. These issues are: the transfer of services from the Government of Northwest Territories to that of Nunavut, as well as the timeframe; the funding and development of training programs needed to create a public service for Nunavut made up mostly of Inuit; the planning of the first election of a Nunavut government, and the needs in terms of infrastructure.

The 1993 Nunavut Act stipulated that a general election to choose the members of the new Nunavut Assembly would be held after the new territory was established.

Under Bill C-39, the first general election for the legislative assembly of Nunavut will be held before the new territory is established on April 1, 1999 to allow the legislature to be operational as soon as the establishment occurs.

The legislative assembly will include 19 members, which means that the territory will be divided into 19 electoral districts. This first general election in Nunavut will be based on the current electoral legislation of the Northwest Territories.

Bill C-39 also amends the Northwest Territories Act to adjust the number of seats required in the Northwest Territories legislature.

Finally, Bill C-39 amends the Constitution Act, 1867, to provide for Senate and House of Commons representation for Nunavut. This representation will be similar to that of Yukon and the Northwest Territories.

It is also worth mentioning that, when Nunavut is officially established on April 1, 1999, the laws and ordinances of the Northwest Territories will become the laws of Nunavut. The powers of the new government of Nunavut will be equivalent to those of the existing territorial governments.

The transfer of culture, public housing and health programs should be completed by the year 2009.

Obviously, the transfer of certain jurisdictions from the territorial and federal governments to the new government of Nunavut is somewhat complex. It requires a lot of preparation and, I would say, negotiation. However, it must also be said that the history of the Northwest Territories is complex. The origin of that part of the country and the history of its division into distinct territories go back a long way.

From the time Rupert's Land was divided up, first to form the province of Manitoba in 1870, then to establish the Yukon in 1898, then to carve out the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan in 1905, and finally to establish the present boundaries of the Northwest Territories in 1912, there were different types of administrations and a lot of negotiations between the people and the leaders.

On the aboriginal side, since 1976, Inuit Tapirisat, the Inuit organization, has been suggesting to the territorial and federal leaders to delimit their territory to allow for the settlement of land claims made by the Inuit of Canada.

It took two referendums, in 1982 and 1992, for both sides to agree on the new boundaries.

This bill establishing Nunavut, and its amendments, is the result of more than 25 years of efforts by the Inuit, who fought tirelessly to regain control over their land and their lives.

Obviously, the Bloc Quebecois cannot object to a piece of legislation which crowns so many years of negotiations and allows the Inuit to finally take their place on this continent by taking charge of their own lives.

Thanks to Bill C-39 establishing Nunavut, the Inuit will be in control and they will have all the necessary economic, political, social and cultural levers to look after their development and government on their own. This way, they will be able to act in their own best interest, for the good of their community, ensuring the harmonious development of their territory.

However, my party, speaking through the critic for aboriginal affairs, the hon. member for Saint-Jean, expressed a serious concern at second reading. The Bloc Quebecois remains concerned about the representation of Nunavut in the Senate.

We have nothing against the representation of Nunavut per se. However, representations have been made by our members in the last parliament to abolish the Senate of Canada, that obsolete and ineffective institution.

This institution, which costs Quebeckers and Canadians needlessly, belongs to a different century and operates on patronage. Such patronage appointments deprive our legislative process of the required credibility and objectivity, which is a rather serious problem.

To conclude, another concern expressed by my colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Jean and critic for aboriginal affairs, relates to the islands east of James Bay, south of Hudson Bay and north of Nunavik, in Quebec.

I draw the attention of this House to the fact that the James Bay Cree and the Nunavik Inuit have been trying to negotiate since 1977 with the Department of Indian Affairs, so that we recognize their rights over the waters, the sea ice and the surrounding waters, as well as resources.

Negotiations were effectively suspended very soon after they began, in 1977, because of a dispute over compensation and the status of the regions involved. Since measures were undertaken to create Nunavut, the Cree and the Inuit have been wanting to begin a dialogue on this issue with the department.

Officials from the Grand Council of the Crees of Quebec appeared before the aboriginal affairs committee and expressed their concerns about this bill, as it relates to their claims.

They hope this bill will move the minister of Indian affairs to resume negotiations on the recognition of their rights. They say that they support the creation of Nunavut, but they reaffirm the importance of the negotiations on their rights within the boundaries of Nunavut, and the need to resume these negotiations.

I strongly hope that the minister of Indian affairs and her officials will reply favourably to that call. Otherwise, my party will make it its duty to hound them about this important issue.

I hope that the creation of Nunavut will bring harmony and prosperity to Inuit and aboriginal communities in that part of the country.

At the beginning of my speech, I mentioned that there are aboriginal communities in my riding. Among them are Washat and Maliothenam.

I demand the government keep its word. On the subject of the Inuit, during the election campaign, there was a promise of money for a cultural centre. The Montagnais in Washat and Maliothenam have undertaken the major project of building a cultural centre to promote their culture. Through their initiative they have undertaken a project worth over $3 million.

The Government of Quebec, which promised $700,000, contributed $700,000. The federal government, through the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development solemnly promised $700,000 during the election.

I ask this government whether it is going to contribute the $700,000 or not? Will it honour its commitment? Since we are on the subject of aboriginal peoples, I will take the opportunity to ask the government to honour its commitment and contribute the $700,000, because the construction of the Montagnais cultural centre in Maliothenam and Washat, in Sept-Îles, is just about complete. The centre will be inaugurated on June 22, and they do not yet have the promised $700,000. So, I say to the government “You promised things. Honour your promise. Give them the $700,000”.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, May 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as the member of the Bloc Quebecois for the riding of Manicouagan, I am pleased to rise today to express my party's opposition to one particular element of Bill C-36, namely the creation of the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation.

That part of the bill provides for a $2.5 billion endowment. We are opposed to this unspeakable intrusion of the federal government in an area that is exclusively under Quebec's and the other provinces' jurisdiction. It must be noted that the bill contains two clauses that make it impossible for the Quebec government to get its fair share of the money.

Had the Liberal government wanted to show some goodwill, it would have respected Quebec's jurisdiction in the area of education by amending the Canada Student Loans Act to include scholarships. This would have allowed Quebec to exercise its right to withdraw with full compensation, as it is currently entitled to do under the Canada Student Loans Act.

This bill is specifically designed not to allow a province to withdraw with full compensation. Ottawa puts its need for visibility before the needs expressed unanimously by Quebec.

For more than 30 years, Quebec has had its own loans and scholarships system that is infinitely more sophisticated than that of any other province. The entire education community in Quebec is opposed to this plan. The only way to avoid duplication is to recognize the consensus that exists in Quebec and give the Quebec government the right to withdraw with full compensation.

Let us look at history since it shows clearly the federal government's bad habit of wanting to interfere in the area of education. In 1953, the Liberal federal government of Louis Saint-Laurent tried to subsidize Canadian universities through the National Conference of Canadian Universities.

The Quebec government of Maurice Duplessis killed the federal plan. It opposed the federal government, which wanted to replace with federal subsidies some financial powers that were essential to provinces and, thus, intrude into education, which was an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

In January 1957, in L'Action nationale , Mr. Trudeau wrote, on page 438, and I quote: “Consequently, if a government has such an overabundance of revenues that it undertakes to provide for a part of the common good which is not in its jurisdiction, one can assume that this government has taken more than its share of taxable capacity”.

Today, we can say that the Liberal government has done worse than taking more than its taxable share. It has found room to manoeuver at the expense of the sick, schools and the poor and by forcing provinces to do the dirty work.

The Liberal government intrudes into Quebec's jurisdiction and refuses to take its responsibilities by compensating all hepatitis C victims.

In 1964, the federal government led by Mr. Pearson proposed to offer loans to students and to repay the interest for them. Jean Lesage opposed the proposal because that repayment was a direct grant by the federal government to education.

In the statement he made at the end of the federal provincial conference held in Quebec, from March 31 to April 2 1964, the man whose election campaign slogan was “Maîtres chez nous”, Jean Lesage, declared: “As a matter of fact, we will have to go to court to ensure the constitutional rights of the province are respected, if they do not act on the comments we made”.

On April 16 1964, in a telegram to Jean Lesage, Mr. Pearson said: “The federal government intends to propose arrangements according to which guaranteed bank loans would be made to university students. If a province prefers to go on with its own loan program, it will be eligible to equivalent compensation”.

In short, the federal government made several unsuccessful attempts in the past to invade the education system, and neither the PQ nor the BQ were there to oppose this.

According to the Fédération des travailleurs du Québec, Bill C-36 illustrates the Canadian government's ignorance of the Quebec loans and grants system and of its priorities in the area of education.

According to the president of the Fédération des cégeps, which comprises 48 colleges, Bill C-36 totally ignores what Quebec has understood in the past 30 years with regard to student financial assistance.

The millennium scholarships are only an excuse. The federal government is using the establishment of the fund to encroach on the area of education, which comes under Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction.

In doing so, it is not helping Quebec reduce student debt or fund universities and post-secondary educational institutions. It is just after additional visibility.

There are two major reasons why we strongly oppose the establishment of this fund. Politically, the Bloc Quebecois feels that the millennium fund is an unspeakable intrusion in a Quebec exclusive jurisdiction.

Moreover, the government has come up with such a confusing formula in order to deny Quebec the right to opt out with full compensation that its fund does not achieve the objectives that were set. It will only create inequity and confusion, while the problems of students and post-secondary institutions will remain intact.

Even though the federal government recognizes the tough financial situation of students, the solutions it puts forward ignore the source of the problem, that is the massive cuts in transfer payments. In addition, in the case of Quebec, the proposals put forward are ineffective, they overlap the measures put in place by the Quebec government and they are undoubtedly an intrusion in an area that comes under Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction.

Given the societal choices that Quebec has made over the years, the federal strategy is penalizing it. Indeed, the budget penalizes Quebec, which over the years has made major efforts to keep tuition fees and student debt at reasonable levels.

In Quebec, tuition fees average about $1,700 a year whereas in the rest of Canada they average about $3,200. Likewise, the average student debt in Quebec is $11,000, whereas students in the rest of Canada owe between $17,000 and $25,000.

The government of Quebec suggested that its needs in the education area lie elsewhere and are not the same as those identified by the federal government.

The Quebec share of the millennium fund could be better used if the Quebec government were at liberty to invest this money where the needs in the Quebec education system are more pressing.

The government of Quebec is clear about that: any extra funding for education, whatever the means used, must be directed to the Quebec government which will redistribute it according to its own priorities. The right to opt out with full compensation has existed since 1964 in the area of financial help for students.

Quebec has built itself an effective and efficient system of scholarships that is the envy of students in the other provinces. The government says it is creating this fund to address the problem of student debt.

In conclusion, I must point out that it would be up to the foundation, which, under Bill C-36, has not even the mandate to negotiate with a province, to determine Quebec's fair share.

[International Workers Day, May 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois is proud today to mark International Workers Day.

In 1998, 58% of workers in Quebec are not unionized. They are often the people working in difficult conditions and run the risk of facing psychological harassment or other abuse.

In addition, workers who lose their jobs have an increasingly difficult time qualifying for employment insurance, since the reforms by the Chrétien government penalize them.

Given this situation, the Bloc Quebecois commits to continue the fight to defend workers' rights.

[Mi'Kmaq Education Act, May 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure this morning to speak to Bill C-30 concerning the Mi'kmaq people. Because this is a technical bill and the product of many years of research, I will refer to my notes.

As an associate member representing the Bloc Quebecois on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, I wish to comment on Bill C-30 at second reading.

The bill before us must be passed in order to give effect to an agreement signed by the chiefs of the nine Mi'kmaq first nations and the governments of Canada and Nova Scotia on February 14, 1997. This agreement provides that the federal government, by means of federal legislation, will delegate authority for education on reserves to Mi'kmaq communities.

The final agreement sets out the nature and scope of the powers transferred, including support for primary, elementary, secondary and post-secondary students. The agreement also defines the powers, responsibilities, functions and structures of the Mi'kmaw-Kina'matnewey, which would be the Mi'kmaq organization responsible for education.

Given all the discussions that have taken place between January 1991, when the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs was initially approached about setting up a Mi'kmaq organization responsible for education, and February 14, 1997, when the final agreement was signed with the Chapel Island first nation, it is altogether understandable that we should do our utmost to wrap this up quickly.

The Mi'kmaq have been calling for full authority over education during all this time. Apparently, all the prior stages having been completed, the bill before us must be passed in order to implement this agreement, which was approved, as I mentioned, by all the chiefs of the nine Mi'kmaq first nations and the governments of Canada and Nova Scotia.

Now that a tripartite agreement has been worked out between the province of Nova Scotia and the federal government, which has jurisdiction over first nations education, it seems to me that it is time to wrap things up and proceed to the implementation stage.

This has been in the works since 1991 in a kind of one-step-forward, one step back negotiation process. The first agreement between the federal government and the 13 Mi'kmaq chiefs of Nova Scotia dates from 1992. At that time, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development agreed to transfer educational programs to the first nations. Agreement after agreement followed and finally, on February 14, 1997, a final agreement was signed by 9 of the 13 Mi'kmaq communities, which stipulated that the first nations would have power over education at the primary, elementary and secondary levels.

I would remind the federal government, which is today wondering about the impact of such a transfer of powers to the Mi'kmaq communities or about the first nations' ability to assume the responsibility for educating their members, that there is a precedent in this area, the Cree school board which was created by the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. That agreement was signed more than 25 years ago, on November 11, 1975. If the federal government is questioning this situation, perhaps it is because of its memories of the negotiations with the Cree.

I should also point out to my colleagues from Nova Scotia that they need to be very cautious about one thing. When the agreement with the Cree and the Inuit was negotiated, all points appeared to have been clarified, but Quebec ran into an obstacle nevertheless. That obstacle came from the federal government of the day. It is very certain that, when the famous tripartite agreement was signed, the federal government was acting in good faith. I will merely point out that my colleagues from Nova Scotia need to be very certain of the government's willingness to fulfil all conditions of the contract.

Aboriginal people perhaps do need to be given power over education, but it must be kept in mind that, in 1966, Quebec was forced to claim $119 million from the federal government as reimbursement of the federal share of the costs of educational services put in place by the northern Cree, Inuit and Naskapi communities. Although as we speak, the three parties appear to have reached agreement on all points in this matter, there may well be a flaw in this agreement, as there often is.

When Quebec and the New Quebec school board signed this agreement with the Cree and the Inuit, everything seemed to be clear. But surprises were still to come, particularly where capital assets were concerned. In order to remedy this situation, Quebec had to make investments, but when it came to foot the bill, Quebec had to wait to be reimbursed by the federal government. Quebec therefore had to wait from 1980 to 1996 before getting reimbursed for the federal government's share.

By the time the refund came in 1996, the federal government owed Quebec $130 million. We should therefore have assurances that, if necessary, the government will pay its share.

Furthermore, Nova Scotia should remind the federal government that it cannot speak from both sides of its mouth. It cannot, on the one hand, boast by saying “Look how nice we are, we have decided to allow the aboriginal people in Nova Scotia to take control over their children's education” and, on the other hand, hinder the development of Nova Scotia and its aboriginal people by denying them the large sums owed to them.

I remind this House that the agreement signed on February 14, 1997, has been approved by all stakeholders in the non-aboriginal population of Nova Scotia. All these groups, from the Assembly of first nations to the Nova Scotia Association of School Boards and the diocese, unanimously agree that this agreement, which is a historic one for the province, is a step forward and was the best way to go. This is an opportunity for the aboriginal people in Nova Scotia to demonstrate how autonomous they are.

As an opposition party, the Bloc Quebecois has intervened and continues to intervene in favour of aboriginal people. We have made statements in the House of Commons and through our involvement in federal politics we have been able to build ties with the first nations, the Metis and the Inuit. Our party advocates an ongoing dialogue with all aboriginal and non-aboriginal groups in Quebec's planned society.

The Bloc Quebecois believes it is important that there be focus groups like the forum with equal representation from Quebeckers and aboriginal people. The Bloc Quebecois recognizes aboriginal nations as distinct and, as such, entitled to have their own culture, language, customs and traditions as well as the right to develop their own identity. They should therefore enjoy greater autonomy. The bill before us today is a fine example of this.

We want to reach a consensus through non-violent means, based on the principle of peaceful co-existence between aboriginal nations, Quebec and Canada, both before and after Quebec achieves sovereignty. That is why Quebec asks that the Canadian government speed up all discussions and negotiations on self-government.

This group has written a manifest on the future of relations between aboriginals and Quebeckers. We hope that similar initiatives will foster a better understanding of our vision of a sovereign Quebec.

Moreover, the Bloc Quebecois critic on this issue, the hon. member for Saint-Jean, and the leader of the Bloc Quebecois have initiated discussions with aboriginal groups. A series of meetings are underway between the Bloc Quebecois and the leaders of the Assembly of first nations, including Phil Fontaine and Ghislain Picard, from the Quebec section.

Of course, in the bill before us, the government will have to be vigilant in transferring legislative and administrative responsibilities for education to these nine first nations. If this bill allowed the Mi'kmaq to put in place education systems and institutions that would preserve and respect the values and traditions of their culture, it would still be important to ensure that the programs are in line with those offered in other Nova Scotia schools so as to facilitate the transition from these schools to institutions that are under the jurisdiction of that province or any neighbouring province.

As a matter of fact, the agreement says that school results obtained under the education standards specified in the final agreement must be transferable, without penalty, to any other Mi'kmaq or Canadian teaching institution. If this bill applies to the preschool, primary and secondary levels, members of the first nations who want to pursue their studies should be able to do so without having to readjust.

Canada's action plan on aboriginal issues recognizes the important role played by education in ensuring a promising future to aboriginal communities in general, and to young people in particular. If the bill is passed, we will have to ensure that these young people—who will have attended elementary and secondary schools run by the first nations—are prepared to make a smooth transition to post-secondary institutions. I do not have to tell you how hard it is nowadays for people to find work if they did not get a proper education.

If the bill becomes law, the three parties involved, namely the federal government, Nova Scotia and the participating first nations, will know how to make a success of this initiative. While the federal government should not have to hold the hand of those who will run the new institutions, it will have to form a partnership with aboriginal people, until they are fully able to look after their own institutions.

In any case, the federal government is only involved in education when it comes to aboriginal communities, since education is under provincial jurisdiction.

Nova Scotia agrees with transferring to the Mi'kmaq jurisdiction over education on the reserves. We must now ensure that the federal government takes into consideration the province's co-operation and agreement regarding this issue.

The consultations that led up to the bill took a long time. The consultations with Nova Scotia's first nations alone lasted 18 months. The Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey did everything necessary to distribute the information to all the first nations concerned. It not only informed those directly involved, namely aboriginal people, but also all the stakeholders in Nova Scotia's education system. All agree that this must be done, and nine of the 13 Mi'kmaq communities, which represent about 8,900 people, are prepared to go ahead with the project.

I just used a term we should use with great care. I am referring to the word “community”. I wonder about the definition of that word in the bill. Does it mean that a band council does not represent only one community? Also, in French, do the words ”collectivité” and “communauté” mean the same thing? There is a reference to negotiating with band councils, but the Royal Commission on Aboriginal People recommended that agreements be negotiated with nations, not band councils.

I would like to draw the attention of the House to the costs that will go along with implementation of this system if the bill is accepted. It is said that, in order for the signatory communities to be able to exercise their powers under the final agreement, the parties will have to reach agreements providing financial resources. There is talk of $24 million from the financial framework already in place within the department. Is this a one-time payment, like a separation payment, or is it a recurring amount, to be paid for by all of the taxpayers, year in and year out?

As well, I hope that the scenario proposed is for there to be a single school board for all nine communities, or some sort of consolidation of boards if there is not just one, so as to minimize expenses and avoid the taxpayers' having to pay for unjustified infrastructures.

If this is not the case, allow me to point out that the Government of Quebec, in its desire to put public finances on an even keel, is doing absolutely everything within its power at the present time to reduce education expenditures.

The educational field has been hard hit, as have many others, and decreasing the number of school boards by combining a number of them into one has not always been the best solution.

But rationalization is the new watchword, and school boards have bowed to government demands. In my riding of Manicouagan alone, the five school boards have been reduced to three. The distance between cities is enormous in some cases. The Fermont school board, for instance, has been merged with that of Sept-Îles. The only means of transportation between these two cities is by air.

Quebeckers would therefore take it very ill if their tax dollars were used to fund small school boards.

I also draw the House's attention to the precedent that could be set by this new bill. It would not be surprising, in fact, if other first nations were to call for the same powers with respect to education. Although the Mi'kmaq live within a well-defined and fairly limited area, at least in Nova Scotia, the same is not true of aboriginals such as the Montagnais, who are scattered throughout Quebec.

Aboriginals are calling for increasing autonomy and, as I mentioned a bit earlier in my speech, the Bloc Quebecois has heard the message loud and clear. To those who have perhaps not taken it in yet, I will quote something the late René Lévesque said at a historic meeting with aboriginals in 1978.

Mr. Lévesque said:

Because we do not know each other, we cannot know what, in each other's identity, we must respect. We cannot know what aspirations and ideas to respect because they are unknown to us.

Nothing can be built on ignorance.

In closing, I would mention that the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of Bill C-30, which deals with the transfer of jurisdiction over education from the federal government to the nine first nations in Nova Scotia that signed the February 14 agreement, but would remind the House that all aspects of the bill must be examined and analysed.

In my speech, I referred to the fact that the Bloc Quebecois is still in favour of autonomy for provinces and aboriginal peoples, and especially for Quebec. We feel that education and the health system are the purview of Quebec alone. The federal government has pulled out, taking the money with it, and told the provinces: Make it work. We are keeping the money and leaving you to look after the education system.

[Native Communities, April 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Quebec has also decided to give Quebec's native peoples an opportunity to collect the QST paid by natives and non-natives on and off reserves.

In order to give Quebec's native peoples greater financial autonomy, is the federal government prepared to allow native communities to collect the GST?

[Native Communities, April 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Government of Quebec introduced its new policy of cooperation with Quebec's native peoples, a policy that was very well received by many native leaders, but that requires the cooperation of the federal government.

In a gesture of open-mindedness towards Quebec's native communities, will the federal government agree to match the Government of Quebec's contribution of $125 million over five years for the native people's development fund?

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-28 and, more specifically, to clause 241, which I consider warrants all our attention. Since February 5, everything leads us to believe, as the expression puts it so well, that there is something fishy here.

We all know very well how this matter might be of personal interest to the Minister of Finance, who, it seems, would have every advantage as the sole owner of Canada Steamship Lines if the bill were passed.

How could the Minister of Finance sponsor a bill that includes tax provisions that could benefit his own company, when he is not entitled to speak on this matter in order to avoid a conflict of interest? This state of affairs led to the presentation before the Standing Committee on Finance of five motions that would enable us to get to the bottom of this matter.

First, we asked for testimony from the president of the CSL, representatives of the trust company, the minister himself and Mr. Wilson.

The five motions were important, but the most important one called for the appearance of any other witness who might help the committee understand clause 241. Four of the five motions were rejected.

The only witness allowed was Mr. Wilson, the government's ethics counsellor, who is employed by the Prime Minister, paid by the government and accountable only to the government.

Something unexpected happened in that Mr. Wilson's testimony reinforced our argument when he admitted that the Minister of Finance had not acted properly and that the code of ethics adopted by the government in 1994 had not been respected.

That code of ethics clearly stipulates that public office holders must do everything they can to prevent real, potential or apparent conflicts of interest from arising.

On February 5, 1998, the government's ethics counsellor said on the CBC, and I quote “Canada Steamship Lines has indicated clearly to me that it has no intention of using this provision”.

However, twelve days later, on February 17, this same counsellor stated before the Standing Committee on Finance, and again I quote “Mr. Martin sponsored this bill and questions have been raised by some members that this constitutes an apparent conflict of interest. Had I been informed in advance, before this bill was introduced, there would have been a discussion on how best to handle the introduction of the bill for the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for all tax legislation. However, this prior consideration of our options did not take place as it should have”.

This flagrant lack of impartiality by Mr. Wilson is appalling. And we are not the only ones to express criticism. The Senate is also addressing this issue. In fact, Senator Marjory LeBreton stated in the Upper House that there is an urgent need to establish new guidelines for the ethics counsellor, who should be independent from the government.

This is a matter I could not overlook, and when the Liberal majority on the Standing Committee on Finance denied our request, the three other opposition parties saw, just as we did, that something fishy was going on.

That is why, in a press conference held on February 19, 1998, the four opposition parties requested that the Prime Minister strike a special committee to shed some light on clause 241 of Bill C-28. We are still waiting for an answer.

What is unacceptable is that the Prime Minister is still refusing to clarify this issue for us, and is determined to put obstacles in our path at every turn. It is obvious to us, unfortunately, that everything is co-ordinated from the Prime Minister's office, including the Standing Committee on Finance.

In short, the Liberal government is showing obvious bad faith, and wants to protect its Finance Minister at all costs.

In conclusion, what is important for people to understand is that the Minister of Finance is preparing to get a bill passed which he himself sponsored and from which he very likely will be able to profit. And this is unacceptable.

I also have some serious questions about how available the self-same minister is to look after the financial interests of Quebec when he has demonstrated without a doubt that what is closest to his heart is to have ships plying the waters of the world, instead of concentrating his focus on his work and on keeping our ship with its fleur-de-lis colours afloat financially.

[Canada Labour Code, February 26th, 1998]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-364, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act (scabs and essential services).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Charlevoix for his support. I am extremely pleased to bring this bill to the House. It is one which has proven itself in Quebec since 1977.

This is a bill focusing on respect for the workers of Quebec and of Canada. It has been long awaited, and I hope that this time the Liberal Party of Canada will vote in favour of it and defend workers in Quebec and Canada. (Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and printed)

[Canada Labour Code, February 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today in the debate on second reading of Bill C-19.

It is the outcome of a long process of reforming the labour code. I must say, however, that the minister's praiseworthy intention to reform the code in line with the expectations of both unions and management is, on scrutiny, nothing more than a cosmetic change. Simply put, the Minister of Labour, like the entire government he represents, has only a limited view of what labour relations are all about.

What the government dares to call an in-depth reform of the Canada Labour Code represents nothing worthy of consideration, in my estimation. As a union member myself, I must say I know what I am talking about. I must admit that the energy the Liberal government has expended in this bill is very perplexing to me.

I cannot imagine how a government claiming that employment is the key element of its election platform could ignore anti-scab measures in its reform. The use of replacement workers during labour conflicts is, in my eyes, the most heinous act imaginable. These underhanded tactics trample over the rights of workers aspiring to better working conditions, and the Liberal government is closing its eyes to this issue.

I wonder what the purpose of this labour code reform really is. All insinuations aside, it does seem clear to me that, by presenting a legislative measure of this type, the Minister of Labour is serving interests other than those of the workers. The Liberal Party of Canada, which represents high finance and big business, cannot bring itself to introduce a bill that would improve the conditions of ordinary people.

You are as familiar as I with the saying about not biting that hand that feeds you. This is what Bill C-19 is all about. The Liberals could not introduce a bill that would rub big business the wrong way, because they are the ones greasing the wheels of the giant Liberal political machine. As I said, the Minister of Labour's real interest lies more with defending the status quo for his party's financial backers than with defending honest workers and respecting their rights.

Of course, clause 42 of the bill does forbid the use of replacement workers, but the minister is adding an interpretive framework to this, suggesting that scabs can only be used for the purpose of undermining a trade union's representational capacity.

This, in my opinion, comes down to saying that what cannot be done directly may be done in a roundabout way. The Liberal government's forte is playing with word meanings and making sure that the legislation will be so complicated that it will be virtually impossible to interpret it.

If the Minister of Labour and the rest of the cabinet had really wanted to demonstrate their desire to reform the labour code, the matter of replacement workers would have been dealt with head on, not via political doublespeak which undermines the credibility of Bill C-19.

The Bloc Quebecois has workers' rights and the defence of their interests at heart. My predecessor in this House, in fact, introduced a bill to that effect. But because of the Liberals' logic, the minister is not inclined to consider basic issues. Instead, he is coming up with a bill that is essentially window-dressing, to give the impression that he is acting on highly charged issues.

Similarly, if the minister and the federal government had wanted to adequately reform this part of the labour code, they would have looked at the anti-scab legislation passed in 1977 by the government of René Lévesque. When a labour dispute occurs, the clarity of the legislation greatly helps reduce the risks of negotiations breaking down, and of disgraceful or violent acts being committed. Just remember the sad episode at Ogilvie's. The federal government's refusal to consider the issue shows that the minister missed the boat and that the proposed legislation is just a small step forward for workers.

Bill C-19 also deals with many other issues that are just as important as replacement workers. They include the establishment of the Canada Industrial Relations Board, which will replace the Canada Labour Relations Board. This major element of the reform does not even meet the expectations of the labour organizations. Indeed, unions have said on many occasions that they want members to be appointed from lists submitted by both sides, as is the case for other government organizations.

This is the only way to make sure the rulings of the Canada Labour Relations Board are never challenged. In the past, the appointments made did not always reflect the talent, the expertise and the knowledge to be expected from people who sit on this quasi-judicial tribunal. It can be expected that any controversial decision will be used as a pretext to challenge the competence and the impartiality of some members of the board.

Of course, the minister says he will consult. Indeed, it is important to do so when appointments of this nature are made. However, there would be much more of a balance if the minister used lists submitted by both management and the unions, to fill any vacancy that may occur. Again, the minister is merely pretending to act, much to the disappointment of all those concerned. He is keeping all the powers relating to appointments, in spite of the problems that this is likely to create.

The last point I would like to cover before I finish concerns another major omission regarding the claim by the Public Service Alliance of Canada. It has asked to be removed from the application of the Public Service Staff Relations Act and instead to be covered by the Canada Labour Code.

Why did PSAC and its members make such a request? Because under the Public Service Staff Relations Act they do not have the right to negotiate important provisions, such as job security, which is covered by legislation other than that governing labour relations. This is the case as well for protection against technological changes, job classifications, appointments, promotions and transfers.

Such a change in response to the request of the Public Service Alliance of Canada would also prevent the unfair treatment of a category of Quebec workers. Three categories of workers will be protected by the Quebec legislation prohibiting the use of strikebreakers: those not unionized at all and those that are and are covered by the Canada Labour Code, who are unionized but have no protection against the use of scabs.

In conclusion, Bill C-19 represents another fine opportunity missed by the Minister of Labour. It could have been an opportunity to truly protect workers against the hiring of strikebreakers. It could have been an opportunity to act on the request of the Public Service Alliance of Canada to withdraw from coverage by the Public Service Staff Relations Act.

The minister could also have put an end to discrimination against certain categories of workers in Quebec, who, depending on the legislation that governs their working conditions, will no longer be entitled to the same protection.

In short, as I have said, you do not bite the hand that feeds you. That is no doubt what the Minister of Labour was thinking in formulating Bill C-19. He goes out of his way to avoid taking any advantage away from those who annually contribute so generously to Liberal coffers.

Bill C-19 is nothing more than a lot of razzle-dazzle. Workers will not be fooled. Neither will the Bloc. No one is going to support a bill that, despite the fancy words of the government, does so little to protect and improve workers' rights.