Yves Rocheleau

[Liberal Candidate In Hull—Aylmer, October 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the conduct of Marcel Proulx, the Liberal candidate in the riding of Hull—Aylmer, leaves something to be desired, to say the least.

Even the government's complacent ethics commissioner is obliged to admit that Mr. Proulx has stretched the rules of ethics a bit too far by not revealing his financial problems when he became Marcel Massé's chief of staff.

The allegation against Mr. Proulx is not of a criminal nature, of course, but his conduct says a lot about the lack of ethics he has shown in recent years.

Mr. Proulx certainly does not engender pride among the citizens of Hull—Aylmer, any more than he engenders pride among the members of the Liberal Party of Canada, even though Liberal supporters are trying to explain to the people of Hull—Aylmer that Mr. Proulx's behaviour is not so serious and that he can justify it.

The fact remains that Mr. Proulx has just entered politics with at least one strike against him already.

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, October 19th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to rise on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois to speak to Bill C-6, formerly Bill C-54.

There are some in the Quebec society and elsewhere who are questioning the role of the Bloc Quebecois here in the House. Madam Speaker, as a representative of a Quebec riding, this is the perfect demonstration of the role played by the Bloc Quebecois in this House, which is, in addition to promoting sovereignty, to speak up for Quebec's interests.

Where are the other members from Quebec? Where are they? Let us imagine what would happen if we were still in the days of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, to whom people are still paying homage today. If out of 75 members in this House we had 74 sheep, as was the case for Quebec in those days, what would they be doing faced with a bill on personal information such as Bill C-6?

It is an obvious intrusion, undue and unbridled, on the part of a minister who is displaying a self-serving attitude we did not think he was capable of. As we will recall, he introduced this bill on October 1st 1998, only days before the opening of the OECD meeting on electronic commerce in Ottawa. The then industry minister, who is the same as today, was hosting the meeting.

He probably wanted to look good to his international counterparts, pretending he was concerned about the real issues in his area, probably to raise his profile although this was going against public interest.

There is a consensus in Quebec according to which the federal government should not intervene in the field of personal information, since this issue is quite well covered by Quebec's law. As my colleagues already mentioned it, it is the bar and the Quebec council of employers, among others, and not only us, who are saying it. These organizations asked the Government of Canada where it was heading with its project.

The bar, through its president, Me Jacques Fournier, wrote on February 14, to my colleague of Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, and said:

“First, we are puzzled by the lack of correlation between the title of the act and its contents”.

This is what the president of the bar said. It is normally embarrassing for the government.

Indeed, the bill has more to do with the protection of personal information in the private sector than with the promotion of electronic commerce.

Yet, the subject of the meeting was electronic commerce. But the government wanted to show itself in the best light. The same thing happens when terms are changed, as my colleague from Frontenac—Mégantic said earlier. “Unemployment insurance” was changed by “employment insurance”. They are changing words to show themselves in a better light in front of the people.

The president of the bar continues to denounce the federal project by saying:

Quebec's policy has been applied in Quebec for close to five years now. This policy is well known and businesses are accustomed to it”. Consequently, Quebec's bar essentially subscribes to the recommendation made by the information access commission, and I quote: “In order to prevent all confusion and to ensure that all Quebecers can continue to benefit from a complete policy in matters of personal information protection, we propose that Bill C-54 be amended by providing explicitly that the federal act will not apply to businesses already subjected to the Act respecting the protection of personal information in the private sector”.

Let me continue quoting from the president of the bar:

We would go even further. We think the bill should be incorporated by reference in the Quebec legislation, even in federal areas of jurisdiction, in order to prevent confusion, overlap, and duplication of legislation in Quebec.

We have been condemning for 40 years this duplication between federal and provincial legislation that makes such a mess in our institutions. That is why we are trying to convince more and more people in Quebec that sovereignty is the solution to all these problems. We should get out in order to be in a better position to deal with the rest of Canada as equal partners.

The president said further:

We believe the Quebec plan for the protection of personal information in the private sector is better than the one in Bill C-54, now Bill C-6, particularly as concerns rights of appeal and efficiency.

The merits of the bill cannot withstand the serious examination made by the president of the bar or the Commission d'accès à l'information, which has a mandate to speak out, because we are dealing here with personal information.

However, I have been particularly impressed by what I read from the testimony of the Conseil du patronat. This organization is a legitimate advocate for business interests. It certainly has more ties with the Council for Canadian Unity than it does with the Parti québécois executive, for example.

This organization has written a chapter that is as good as many sovereignist speeches. I will read it to you since I still have a little time left; it is absolutely beautiful because it shows, once again, the Canadian mess which becomes more and more institutionalized.

In the brief it submitted to the Standing Committee on Industry, the Conseil du patronat is critical of the communication of information.

I quote the brief on page 5:

Because of the double jurisdiction, the companies falling under provincial jurisdiction will wonder whether the personal information which is collected from them and consequently protected by Quebec's legislation and which is transmitted to a company falling under federal jurisdiction and carrying business in Quebec will be governed by Quebec's rules or Canada's rules. In addition, within a single file, some information could be subject to both statutes.

It is easy to manage for someone who is in the private sector, who has to do business, who has to deal with a union, who has orders to fill and deadlines to meet—we know how complicated it is—and who is confronted with such legislation that clearly shows the existence of two solitudes.

The fact that nobody on that side of the House nor over there seems to be interested in this bill, with the exception of the Quebec's members, clearly illustrates the Canadian drama, the two solitudes, the fact that something is going wrong.

So, along the lines of Reed Scowen, the government is also addressing Canadians. Maybe the time has come for our country to reflect on where we are all going together. It might be better for each to proceed along its own solidly built road running in the same direction, rather than crashing head on and trying to gain the right of way in an area already governed perfectly well by provinces, and Quebec in particular with an entire culture behind it that is suited to this type of problem.

Now to go on with the disclosure of information, again quoting from the brief submitted by the Conseil du patronat:

What about the organizations whose activities are connected to federal jurisdiction, for instance loan companies and airports? One could even conceive of different rules applying to one and the same file, depending on whether the information collected, used or held is covered by Quebec or federal law.

This is a constant muddle.

Moreover, any Quebec business with a branch in another province—such as an insurance company—that is required to send it information gathered in Quebec would have to know whether to refer to the Quebec or the federal legislation on protection of that information. Similarly, if the information in question is stored in a computerized data bank in Quebec but accessible by another company outside Quebec, which legislation would apply?”

Now, coming to the conclusion of this chapter:

These are all questions for which we find no answers at this time, and ones that will pose huge problems to businesses if the bill is passed in its present form.

This then, is what the business people have to say, the language they use, and these are the ones responsible for added value in our society.

We ought to ask ourselves some questions when people like this speak up so courageously to government. Normally, they are on the same side. It is no secret that these are natural allies. But they are telling the government: “Stop, do not continue with this bill.” This is, moreover, the position of the Bloc Quebecois. It is an indefensible bill.

Instead of spending his time on such a bill, the minister should be focussing more attention on the GM affair. He should quit behaving to the Quebec ministers as if he were an Ontario minister and abandon the scornful tone he uses with Quebec's deputy premier and minister of industry and commerce.

[Canada Elections Act, October 19th, 1999]

This is shameful, because it is primitive. So-called civilized societies such as ours should ensure that rules are in place to protect government decision makers from undue influence.

This is what democratic financing is all about. This is what we realized in Quebec. We set a limit of $3,000 for contributions made to political parties, and such contributions can only be made by voters.

The Parti Quebecois government is depending on no one in particular, but on everyone, whereas this government depends on financial backers such as oil and pharmaceutical companies, banks and logging companies. All these businesses contribute tens of thousands of dollars and, in return, get privileged access to the ministers and the Prime Minister. This is unacceptable, it is a unending scandal, and it is easy to figure out why the government sometimes makes very dubious decisions. It is all a matter of cause and effect.

When the financing process is flawed, it is not possible to look after the public's interest only. The government must take other things into account, because the telephone could ring at any time and someone might say “We will remember this the next time you come looking for work or money”.

Nowadays, governing is complicated enough in itself. Therefore, it is a good thing that the Quebec government does not have to concern itself with private interests. This is the strength of the Quebec government, given the complexities involved. It is free to act. It only needs to do so intelligently, whereas the federal government must accommodate all kinds of phantoms who remain nameless.

My second major criticism has to do with the appointment process for returning officers. This is issue is not as well known. We are talking here about the qualifications of individuals who hold strategic positions in each of the ridings, during elections. These positions should be filled through a process that is above suspicion.

Here again, what we have is basic and primitive; it does not provide any protection against abuse. All these people possess personal qualities that are beyond doubt, but there is one condition that must be met to be a returning officer for Elections Canada, or so it seems, although it is not written down anywhere: to be a member of the Liberal Party of Canada. It is even better if one has been the president or vice-president of an association, and better yet a defeated candidate.

This is unacceptable, and primitive. It smacks of the way things are done in a banana republic. Canada is one of the western democracies that go around preaching to the whole world on how things should be done. We travel all over the planet to tell people how to govern themselves, and yet to this very day we still tolerate having as one of the main, yet hidden, criteria for appointment active membership in the Liberal Party of Canada.

To top it all off, the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada saw how incongruous and unacceptable the situation was, and has long been recommending that the Canadian government change the rules so that, like Quebec, there would be a competition to designate elections staff, as indeed there should be.

Finally—and I shall close with this—the last weakness is that there is not a word about voters being required to identify themselves with a card or some other means. Given the impersonal character of our society and our big cities, it is completely normal for citizens to be required to identify themselves to the person at the polling station, since we know all the funny business there can be.

It is in within the order of things for voters to be required to identify themselves to whoever is duly mandated to require it before giving them authorization to vote, a fundamental right in a democracy.

Yet again, this is a considerable weakness in the bill and one against which we must speak out.

[Canada Elections Act, October 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased to take the floor for the first time in this new session, and especially so because we are debating the Canada Elections Act, which is supposed to be completely amended by Bill C-2, an act respecting the election of members to the House of Commons, repealing other acts relating to elections and making consequential amendments to other acts.

I am very happy to take part in this debate because I have been involved in the consultations undertaken by the chief electoral officer after the May 2, 1997 election. He was looking for ways to improve this legislation which is rather outdated. For well over 30 years, it has not been revised significantly, and the chief electoral officer was striving to have it amended significantly.

After what I had gone through and what had been reported to me in my riding during the election, I got involved in this process with the help of an excellent lawyer and friend of mine, Jean-François Lacoursière. As a legal adviser to the Bloc and a good adviser on electoral law, an area in which his expert opinion has been frequently sought, he agreed to write a report which I have tabled in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, a report we may come back to. It has hardly been mentioned.

Incidentally, it is very hard to find one's way around in this bill. Mr. Lacoursière himself told me some time ago that the Canada Elections Act was very difficult to consult and to understand. This is not normal. The federal government is already being criticized for its lack of transparency. The elections act is an extremely important important tool in that it is the basis of the election process in our country.

Therefore, it is important to call a spade a spade. It is important for the thousands of people who have to work with the Canada Elections Act at some point to be able to find whatever they are looking for quickly and efficiently instead of always feeling lost in the legalese used by government lawyers—we hope they themselves can find their way through it. It really is difficult to consult that document, which is at least one inch thick. Something is wrong here.

The problems raised by Mr. Lacoursière dealt with issues that will undoubtedly be raised again, issues like voting by mail, a process that is riddled with flaws, and voting at mobile polling stations, a process that will certainly have to be refined.

In my speech, I will touch on three main elements of this bill on which we are criticizing the government. First, there is political party financing, which is not a new issue but which deserves to be raised again because of the scandalous way in which political parties are managed and because of the connections that exist between large corporations and the election funds of traditional political parties in Canada.

Second, we want to address the designation of returning officers. Third, we want to talk about voter identification, something that leaves a lot to be desired and, here again, we can give some examples from Quebec.

Party financing is really outdated. We have not made any progress in this area. We know full well that the legislation is full of holes that allow corporations as well as individuals to shamelessly contribute all they want to Canada's traditional political parties.

Issues like the Onex proposal, which I feel, as a Quebecer, goes against the best interests of Quebec and maybe even of all of Canada and which, notwithstanding its basic flaws, demonstrates the more or less honourable relationship between the Liberal Party of Canada and the main promoter of the Onex deal, can only further undermine the proposal. We feel this entitles us to criticize this proposal all we want.

Its credibility is open to question, given the known relationship between one of the major contributors to the Liberal Party, former Cabinet members and current party managers. The federal government blithely announced that there will be a moratorium, as if it were one of its own management decisions. Obviously, it is part of the Onex agenda to get the federal government involved at some point by taking such a measure to help the deal along.

The Canadian government obviously committed itself in favour of Onex, for reasons that may too shameful to mention because they are related to the financing of the party currently in office.

[Doctors Without Borders, October 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the organization Doctors Without Borders, which has been providing international medical assistance for the past 28 years.

Doctors Without Borders was founded by three young French physicians in 1971, at the time of the Biafra crisis. The founders wanted to assert their independence from traditional medical organizations in order to be able to denounce the atrocities going on before their eyes with all the vigour born of youth.

Since then, Doctors Without Borders has been involved in humanitarian endeavours in an impressive number of conflicts and disasters, in particular the war in Lebanon in 1976, the terrible famine in Ethiopia in 1980, the earthquake in Armenia in 1988, and most recently the war in Kosovo.

As one of the founders said recently “After nearly 30 years of activities, we are not sure that speaking out always saves lives, but we do know that silence kills”.

Our heartiest congratulations to Doctors Without Borders for its contribution to the ideal of peace and the elimination of suffering in the world.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, May 31st, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in today's debate on Bill C-32, an act respecting pollution prevention and the protection of the environment and human health in order to contribute to sustainable development. It could not have come at a better time, and this is one of the reasons I am interested in the debate.

There is an important problem in my riding of Trois-Rivières with regard to the National Defence Proof and Experimental Test Establishment at Lake Saint-Pierre, where testing is conducted in co-operation with SNC Industrial Technologies Inc. This proof and experimental test establishment has been in existence for over 50 years, since 1947.

In this context, I would like to pay tribute to the people who have been the engine and the soul of the movement known as the lakeside residents' action group, set up in Pointe-du-Lac, namely Messrs. Philippe Giroule and Jacques Brouillard, for their tenacity and perseverance. They have been fighting for eight years to expose the activities of the National Defence Department in the Lake Saint-Pierre area, which activities of course entail pollution and an attack on the lake's extraordinary ecosystem.

I would just like to pay tribute to these people who have shown great tenacity. They have lobbied diligently over the last eight years to make both the federal and Quebec governments aware of the problem.

Just as an indication, over eight years, they have had to deal with five national defence ministers and five environment ministers in the Government of Canada. This goes to show how persevering they have been.

Personally, I had to get involved. On June 12, 1996, I proudly presented a petition signed by 3,000 people who were condemning the activities of the Department of National Defence regarding this issue. I can say that the situation is changing.

As the name of that centre suggests, experiments and tests are conducted on shells, both inside and outside the facility. It is the activities taking place outside that pose a problem. They literally shell Lake Saint-Pierre. A large number of these shells are live. The shelling takes place in winter and summer. In the summer, shells fall directly into the water and sink to the bottom. In the winter, they stay on the ice. They either remain there until the spring, when they sink to the bottom of the lake or, and this is more worrisome in a way, the current can move these shells hundreds of kilometres downstream. This makes the whole issue even more problematic, because there is increasing awareness regarding the cleaning and the safety measures that are required.

A tragedy occurred in 1982. One person was killed and nine were injured, when someone mistook a shell for a log to be used in a bonfire, on Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. The person tossed the shell into the fire. The shell then exploded with the tragic consequences I just mentioned. Other similar incidents could occur. It is urgent that the government take action.

I want to pay tribute to the hon. member for Jonquière, who dealt with this issue with great skill, along with the hon. member for Joliette, who sits on the Standing Committee on National Defence, to ensure that the federal government be formally made aware of the situation. This was done through the Standing Committee on the Environment.

The committee passed a resolution recommending to the government that a moratorium be put in place effective January 1, 2000. We personally would have preferred it be put in effect immediately. It will be interesting to see whether this government has the political will to put a stop to these activities.

It will be interesting to see how politics deal with this resolution, which appears very positive and would be in public interest.

The Department of National Defence must stop considering Lake Saint-Pierre a garbage can. Lake Saint-Pierre is in fact an extraordinary ecosystem. It has been recognized by the United Nations, through UNESCO. It is from this perspective it must be seen and not from that of the Department of National Defence, as has been the case up to now.

I would also like to look at the very important question of Bill C-32 from a constitutional perspective.

I, who consider myself an old and longstanding sovereignist, consider Bill C-32 part of a new initiative and a new tack taken by the federal government, which is weaving a canvas in which the Canada of tomorrow, the Canada of the years 2000, the Canada of the next century, will be a centralized and unitarian Canada in which the provincial governments will become branch offices, and, to use the term of my colleague opposite, the minister responsible for regional development, partners that are no doubt given better treatment than the hospitals, school boards and the chambers of commerce, but partners all the same.

This is what the future holds for the Canadian provinces. As my colleague from Témiscamingue said earlier, the federal government acts very efficiently and slowly. Slowly but surely, the federal government is spinning its web in order to make sure that the decisions are made here and no longer in Nova Scotia, Vancouver, or Toronto, and certainly not in Quebec City, so that this country can be effective internationally. It has no choice.

This is what Canada must do. It is what provincial governments will probably have to recognize in provincial back rooms, but it is a disaster for Quebec, which is a nation, to see the Canadian government spinning its web to ensure that the decisions are made here.

In the case of Bill C-32, it is not complicated, because the federal government is forced to play its hand. We find this political hand clearly set out in paragraph 9(1):

The Minister may negotiate an agreement with a government or with an aboriginal people with respect to the administration of this Act.

The reservation that will ensure that Canada will be administered the way the federal government wants it to be administered is to be found in paragraph 9(9), which reads as follows:

No agreement made under this section shall limit or restrict the carrying out of any action the Minister—

The federal minister, of course.

—deems necessary for the administration and enforcement of this Act, including the conduct of inspections or investigations.

This is being done systematically, with the complicity, the collaboration and the blessing of Canadian institutions, the Canadian administrative structure, particularly the supreme court, which handed down a ruling overturning decisions by Quebec's courts, which recognized the supremacy of the Government of Quebec with respect to the environment.

Historically, this was a shared jurisdiction, as recognized by the Quebec courts and the courts of appeal. We now have the supreme court telling us that, from now on, the federal government will have ultimate jurisdiction in this area.

There was also the environment commissioner, who ruled, in connection with pulp and paper, that, in the event of negligence on the part of a province, the federal government had the last word. The federal government is free to interfere in provincial matters. The other provinces may feel this is a good thing. It is a Canadian issue and concerns them. In fact, if I were federalist, I would be as fond as centralizing as Trudeau was. But this is quite upsetting to Quebec as a nation.

This is not the first time that such an attempt is made. We have to realize that. This is where the government machinery is really efficient.

It happened recently in education, with the millennium scholarship program, in a recognized area of provincial jurisdiction.

It has also happened recently in the area of justice, with the Young Offenders Act, a field where the province of Quebec is doing exceptionally well and where it is now being told by the federal government to move aside and implement the federal policy, a more punitive policy than that of Quebec, where there is a coalition in this area.

It has happened in the revenue area, where a Canada Customs and Revenue Agency will soon offer to collect taxes on behalf of the various levels of government, not only the federal government, but also the provinces, the municipalities, and even to act on behalf of private corporations that would want to use its services.

This only goes to prove that here, in Ottawa, centralization is still the main focus.

We regularly see the intrusion in the area of health care, where the government of Quebec has taken some very innovative measures that the federal government is now implementing by setting national standards from coast to coast, without respecting Quebec's precedence in this area of jurisdiction.

[Fédération De L'Âge D'Or De La Mauricie, May 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Fédération de l'âge d'or de la Mauricie is this year celebrating its 30th anniversary in Trois-Rivières.

Indeed, it was in 1969 that senior citizens met to bring together people 50 years of age and older proposing activities to suit their needs and interests.

The Fédération de l'âge d'or de la Mauricie is the birthplace of all seniors' groups in Quebec. On May 19 and 20, thousands of people will gather in Trois-Rivières under the banner “La Fédération, in tune with society for all ages”.

As the member for Trois-Rivières, I am proud to pay tribute to all those attending. In this, the international year of older persons, I can assure them they have the support of the Bloc Quebecois in defending their interests and in demanding fairness and respect from this government.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have a turn at speaking to Bill C-78, an act to establish the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act and other related acts.

I am all the more pleased because I will be speaking as well as the labour critic, a role which has led me in recent weeks to examine the sometimes sorry lot of public servants.

In fact, a few weeks ago we saw once again that the state as employer gave precedence to its power as a legislator over its power as a negotiator. And it is holding the line on that. Now we have another bill that is completely in the government's favour.

Federal public servants will have to remember the President of Treasury Board, now arriving, as the member for Hull-Aylmer, when it comes time for the next elections and the next referendum. Those on the other side of the floor will have to learn to pass legislation, not just in the supposedly collective interest, but also perhaps in a greater spirit of generosity than what is motivating the government at present.

Thousands of people and billions of dollars are involved here. Overall, there are some 275,000 contributors to the pension fund. We are talking about 160,000 retirees and 52,000 surviving spouses, people who have lived with public servants.

We are talking about a surplus of $30 billion that has accumulated since the fund was first established in 1924. Between 1924 and 1998, a period of 74 years, some $75 billion have been accumulated in surpluses, with the particular surplus we are looking at being $30 billion. Believe it or not, $14.9 billion of this come from the public service superannuation fund per se, $2.4 billion from the RCMP superannuation fund, and almost $13 billion from the Canadian forces superannuation fund.

This $30 billion surplus directly affects government employees. Just as the federal government decided to use the money in the EI fund to bring down the deficit, to the detriment of this country's unemployed workers, now it has decided to lower the national debt, this time dipping into the accumulated money in its employees' pension funds.

It is a bit disconcerting from a public morale point of view to see a body as important to the Canadian economy as the federal government acting in this manner, given the moral authority it carries. It is disconcerting to say the least.

In addition, this belies all the government's supposed attempts at proceeding with caution. On the face of it, the government has made an effort. In 1996, it established the Public Service Superannuation Act Advisory Committee.

Surprisingly, the President of the Treasury Board was quite positive at the time in his remarks, praising the efforts of the workers, the union representatives and the government. He said they had made a generous effort, that they were perceptive and that he planned to implement many of the recommendations. He said the work had been productive.

I think he did not anticipate the authority of the Minister of Finance, who saw things quite differently than he did. The Minister of Finance decided that it would go instead into the consolidated fund to pay off the debt.

In this body known as the federal government, there is no real collaboration, unlike Quebec, in brackets, between unionized workers, government employees and the government as such. The government decides arbitrarily, unilaterally, in the hopes the unions will go along.

We can also say it is in contradiction with the advisory committee I spoke of earlier. It followed none of the recommendations the committee made.

And yet, it would be so simple if the government complied with the law that applies generally to the funds in the federal government pension plan. If it applied the regulations of the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, the problems and disputes we are facing today would not exist.

This is where the government is acting once again unilaterally and arbitrarily. This legislation currently applies to all jobs covered by federal regulations, except a job for Her Majesty in Right of Canada.

So it is all very well for others, but it is not a good thing when one works directly for the public service of Canada, because the government as employer prefers to issue its own rules to its own advantage.

Under the regulations, an actuarial gain must first be used to reduce an outstanding debt or a solvency deficit. This is what the regulations provide.

Also, the regulations state that the balance must be used to increase benefits or to reduce the employer's contributions related to the normal costs of the plan, or must be left in the plan. If I understand correctly, this applies to any corporation under federal jurisdiction, like Canadian Pacific or Sun Life for example. Any corporation under federal jurisdiction must abide by the rules set out by the federal government, even though it does not abide by these rules itself.

The regulations also provide that all or part of the surplus can be reimbursed if the surplus is in excess of twice the employer's contributions or 25% of the plan's liabilities, if the administrator has notified plan participants, in writing, of his or her intention to withdraw part of the surplus and of their right to submit to the superintendent, in writing, their comments on the withdrawal and if the superintendent has approved the reimbursement.

Therefore, if we applied these rules, we would not have the problems we have today.

What we propose, among other things, is that employees be present at the table, that they be an integral part of the committee instead of being represented by a person who is appointed by the President of the Treasury Board. Right now, out of 12 committee members, employees and unions will be represented by one person appointed by the President of the Treasury Board. This situation is not normal; it will breed challenges and condemnation.

In compliance with the wishes of employees and pensioners, we want a management board to be set up with a mandate to design the pension plan, to provide for its financing, to manage any surplus or deficit, to manage the plan and to ensure adequate financing for the payment of benefits.

This is simple, but fair. This is all the opposition is asking for and all the public servants are asking for.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, May 10th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-68, an act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other acts.

It is a very important piece of legislation that deals directly with one of the most delicate aspects of our collective behaviour. When dealing with youth crime, it is important that society behave correctly so that the situation does not become worse for the individual who is directly involved and that measures be taken to ensure adequate rehabilitation.

In this regard, Quebec has a very legitimate historical position which seems to be the envy of many other countries and which has had notable and undeniable success.

I would like to share with you an excerpt from the report brought forth in 1995 by the task force established by the Government of Quebec to look into the Young Offenders Act. It is called the Jasmin report, no doubt after the chairman of the task force. This excerpt truly reflects the position of the Bloc Quebecois, which is valiantly put forward by the member for Berthier—Montcalm. I take this opportunity to recognize the excellent work he has done on this issue, as he usually does on any issue he tackles.

I quote from the Jasmin report:

It is often easier to change a law than to change practices of intervention. It may be tempting to think that tougher legislation is the answer to the problems of delinquency.

Simplistic responses blind us to the full extent of complex problems and create the false impression that we are doing what is necessary to resolve them.

One such simplistic response is substituting get-tough measures for educational approaches. This, however, overlooks the fact that adolescents are still in the process of learning, and it means they are being saddled with full responsibility for delinquency, as if the society and environment they live in had nothing to do with it.

I think these lines are a good reflection of Quebec's very progressive position, one which has proved itself and, as I mentioned earlier, is the envy of many.

This is the position of the Quebec coalition, which is opposed to the federal government's plan to change the rules of the game, putting Quebec in its place to a certain extent, and refusing to follow Quebec's lead. On the contrary, the federal government is siding with the Reform Party, which takes a right wing approach, an approach pushed by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan when they were in office, an American approach the effects of which are becoming increasingly apparent in our daily lives.

The coalition is composed of well known individuals. They are very representative of our society, and speak knowledgeably about this issue. I will name the 16 groups who are in favour of the same position, the position supported by the Bloc Quebecois, and who all criticize the position of the Government of Canada and support that of the Bloc Quebecois.

First, there is the Commission des services juridiques du Québec, which represents the defence. This includes prosecutors and defence staff involved in legal proceedings. As if by chance, it therefore includes both those who prosecute and those who defend, which is the best proof of all of how representative this coalition is of those who work daily in this very difficult area.

This is the list of 16 groups: the Commission des services juridiques du Québec, which is on defence side; the Conseil permanent de la jeunesse; Jean Trépanier, of the School of Criminology of the University of Montreal, who is an eminent criminologist; the Aide communautaire juridique de Montréal, which also works for the defence; the Fondation québécoise pour les jeunes contrevenants, the Institut Pinel which is represented by Cécile Toutant, also prominent in that area; the Association des chefs de police et pompiers du Québec; the Conférence des régies régionales du ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux du Québec; the Association des centres jeunesse du Québec; the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse; the Bureau des substituts du procureur général, which works on the prosecutor side; the Association des CLSC et des CHSLD du Québec; Marc Leblanc, of the Psycho-education School of the University of Montreal, who also is a well-known authority in that area; the Regroupement des organismes de justice alternative du Québec; the Canadian Criminal Justice Association; and finally the League for the well-being of young children of Canada.

These are Canadian organisations which have made Quebec's position their own and whose Quebec section completely endorses the position of the coalition and the position of the Bloc Quebecois.

I believe this shows there is serious unrest on two levels; first on the socio-economic level and second on the Canadian political level.

On the socio-economic level, when we talk about young offenders and youth crime, fortunately this type of criminality is decreasing. Indeed, it has decreased by 23% between 1991 to 1997. As a matter of fact, youth crime is linked to serious unrest in our communities leading young men or women, to commit such serious acts. We should not only treat the effects of crime but also deal with its causes.

As can be seen in the quote from the report, this makes young people alone bear the responsibility for delinquent behaviour, as though society and the community had nothing to do with it. I am deeply troubled by this kind of thinking.

When we talk about young offenders, we are talking about the failings of our economic system. We are talking about the failings of neo-liberalism, which is promoted by right wing parties like the Reform Party, to which the Liberal government is much too eager to cater.

The same applies to the problem of the homeless, to the unacceptably high unemployment rate in Canada and Quebec, to precarious employment, to family violence, to food banks, to over consumption of drugs, to mental illnesses, to the unacceptably high suicide rate for a civilized society like ours, to family tragedies with murder and suicide or murder of the wife and children, tragedies that are becoming far too frequent.

All those things are inter-related, and it is not coincidence. We must go to the roots of the problems. We must examine not only the effects, but also the causes of these excesses and failings in our societies. This is when we have to look at the socio-economic causes, something we do not do often enough in this parliament, where we like to deal with issues on a superficial level, on a case by case basis, without ever getting to the bottom of things.

We must talk about the causes and stop talking about the effects and quickly go on to some other topic.

I believe there is something very political in this bill within the larger context of the constitutional debate. What we have here is two historically different approaches: Canada's and Quebec's. In Quebec the approach focuses less on guilt and puts less of a burden on the individual, whereas in Canada it is more punitive.

The fact that the government is ignoring the success of Quebec's approach is indicative of the new Canada envisioned in the spirit and the letter of the social union, whereby Quebec is not recognized as a distinct society, does not have a say, and is a province like all the others. It is important for those who are listening to understand this.

In this area, Quebec is a province like all the others. Its track record and success story are being trivialized. This is the future of Quebec within a Canada where everything is trivialized. From now on, Quebec will be a province like all the others, and its government will become a regional government. This gives us a lot of food for thought.

[Bill C-77, May 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, with Bill C-77, travel by bus will cost a lot more or disappear in the regions and cost less between major cities.

Does the minister not see that, by going ahead with his bill, the federal government is not only attacking the regions yet again, but is also scuttling the revival of train service between major centres?