Yves Rocheleau

[Supply, February 10th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking our colleague from the New Democratic Party for his open-minded words with respect to Quebec. We recognize the New Democratic Party historically, but I would still like to ask him whether he, his fellow parliamentarians and his political party are aware of the gravity of the situation and the ramifications of a reference to the Supreme Court of everything having to do with the constitutional question, which has dragged on for 30 years.

First of all, are the members of the New Democratic Party and members in the House generally—and I address Quebeckers across the way—aware that this whole process denies the existence of the Quebec people and instead identifies Quebec as just another province?

Second, are they aware that the whole constitutional question, which has dragged on for 30 years, now rests in the hands of nine judges whose allegiance is to the Parliament of Canada and to Canadian institutions, which appoint them and pay their salaries without consulting the provinces, particularly Quebec, and that these judges will soon be asked to rule on the future of Quebec and its democratic institutions as they relate to a Constitution that the Parliament of Quebec has never recognized and that it in fact denounced in 1982?

What we are saying, and we would like to hear the New Democratic Party's frank view on this, is that the people of Quebec alone have the right to make this decision, because they are a people. What is happening here is that the existence of the people of Quebec is being denied. Do the people of Quebec alone have the right to decide their future?

[Ice Storm 1998, February 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud and very happy to rise in the House to take part in this debate on the ice storm that hit a large part of the eastern part of North America. Also, this is my first speech of the year in the House, and it is a privilege to make it in these remarkable circumstances.

The ice storm that hit the south shore of the St. Lawrence River had repercussions also in the riding of Trois-Rivières, on the north shore. Indeed 150 disaster victims answered the invitation made by the Sélect Hôtel Le Baron of Trois-Rivières which decided, on its own, to offer 50 rooms free of charge to South Shore disaster victims. One hundred and fifty people accepted the invitation. The hotel also put at the people's disposal an assembly room, as well as a room that was used as a volunteer centre. One hundred and fifty people coming from 19 municipalities located on the South Shore, including the most important that were the subject of many news reports, such as Granby, Saint-Hyacinthe, Drummondville, Saint-Jean d'Iberville, accepted the invitation, and this complicated things somewhat at times administration-wise. I will come back to that later.

One hundred and fifty people: families, couples, elderly people, teenagers full of the vim and vigour they are known to display at times, children, seven infants—one of whom was only four days old when he arrived at the Sélect Hôtel Le Baron, in Trois-Rivières.

These 150 people had to leave their home, afraid, at night apparently, in a scene straight from hell, we were told; 150 people isolated in trois-Rivières, but who eventually were able to rely on the arrival of volunteers who, over several days, came on their own, in a spontaneous gesture, and took it upon themselves to make their stay in Trois-Rivières as pleasant as possible, the least inconvenient, and tried to comfort them.

I am going to name these volunteers, knowing that I will probably forget some of them because I am not aware of absolutely everything that went on, and I was not able to meet all those who contributed to this splendid event. I apologize beforehand for any oversight. Moreover, there are some activities I did not witness from beginning to end.

First of all, I would like to congratulate and thank the Sélectôtel Le Baron and its manager, Mr. Gilles Blais, who did a remarkable job and displayed tact, calm and patience. I also want to congratulate Gisèle Caron, who co-ordinated all volunteer work and was there for 15 days, showing determination and persistence. There is also Soula Pelletier, already mentioned, who is of Greek descent and is very well integrated into Trois-Rivières community. She was kind enough to invite me personally to meet victims and volunteers.

Nicole Blanchette was there to give personal comfort to the victims. Carol Chiasson and Réjean Normandeau, from Collège Laflèche, put their experience and their professional expertise at the disposal of the volunteer centre. They were assisted by a small group of students from the Collège Laflèche, a private school. The victims benefited from their skills and their energy.

The Trois-Rivières CLSC, managed by Laurent Paré, who came in person to the volunteer centre, sent four employees to the centre. They were Martin Foisy and Denise Brouillette, who are nurses, and France Pouliot and André Plamondon, who are social workers.

I contacted the local emergency preparedness organization and it officially recognized the Sélectôtel Le Baron as a shelter despite the fact that this was a rather unusual situation. That allowed Trois-Rivières to get involved right from the start. The city paid the meals then sent the bill to the Quebec government, as is the normal procedure. Second, it was able to proceed with the registration of people, to communicate the information to emergency preparedness, to get the cheques of $10 a day, $70 a week to people who had no money.

Then, there was the availability of buses, which allowed people to travel to Trois-Rivières, to go to a ski resort in Mont-Carmel, which offered a free day of skiing and outdoor activities, to go to the Island of Saint-Quentin, to go to the pool at the university and the cegep, all this with CITF buses. There was also the emergency preparedness organization in Trois-Rivières that provided and ensured safety for disaster victims during their stay.

There were also the Chevaliers de Colomb, who gave a considerable amount of money, which was used as petty cash, to buy little things that disaster victims needed.

There was Claude Bolduc, a professional radio host on CHLN, in our area, who volunteered almost every evening, after work, to come and emcee the shows. In the evening, there were shows at the hotel to entertain the people. He came as a volunteer. The same goes for Steve Normandin, an accordionist who organized a dance party to entertain the victims.

I want to mention that Gervais Morissette, the chief executive officer of the chronic hospital Le Trifluvien came to tell the volunteers that if they ever had no other solution than to come to the hospital for meals, he was going to offer free meals to the victims until the end of their stay among us. That clinched all our efforts.

Claudine Alarie, the political assistant to our MNA and minister, Guy Julien, had many contacts and took frequent action so that the operation could go as smoothly as possible for everyone involved.

In particular, I would like to mention the co-operation, solidarity and friendship demonstrated by the Greek community in the Mauricie region, especially in Trois-Rivières. I told you earlier that it was Soula Pelletier, originally from Greece, who contacted me to invite me to come and meet these people.

It was explained to me that people had run out of money and may have had little to eat for several days. Sometimes we have good ideas in this kind of situation. I decided to contact my friend, Kostas Dimitropoulos, president of the Greek association of the Mauricie region and owner of the Bravo Pizzeria restaurants.

I called my friend Kostas at his home around 8:30 on that Friday night. I explained the situation to him, told him about these 150 victims of the storm who had run out of money and had had little to eat for several days and I asked him and his friends in the Greek community to feed these people—we know how powerful and competent they are in the restaurant business—until the public authorities took charge of the situation. Mr. Dimitropoulos immediately asked me how many meals and at what time. The next night, a Saturday, 150 meals were delivered, and they even had more than they needed. The day after that, Sunday, once again there were meals for everybody.

On Monday, the vice-president of the association, Ilias Soilis, owner of the restaurant Le Sieur de Laviolette, opened his doors to all the nearly 100 storm victims who had accepted the invitation. He not only served them his famous buffet, but also included little treats such as beer, wine, drinks for kids, etc., all free of charge. This gesture deserves to be mentioned and praised, because it reflects the solidarity, friendship and affection between the Greek community and Quebec society, as they themselves like to point out.

This reminded me of a comment made by René Lévesque on November 15, 1976, which made a big impression on Quebeckers like me. I hope that all those who came to Trois-Rivières will have fond memories of their visit and that they had a good trip back. But to use René Lévesque's line, in such circumstances, we may be something of a great nation.

[Cultural And Sporting Events In The Mauricie, December 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, once again the Mauricie region has to mobilize against this government.

Greater Trois-Rivières decries the inertia of the Liberals, who have forced the tobacco companies to withdraw their support for cultural and sporting events next fall, thus threatening the survival of the Trois-Rivières grand prix.

However, on the eve of the election, Mr. Dingwall, Minister of Health at the time, announced his intention to introduce amendments. In a letter to car race organizers, he wrote, and I quote “I want it to be clear that, before the end of 1997, we will have time to introduce amendments in Parliament”.

This government abused the trust of the people of Quebec and of the Mauricie region.

The Trois-Rivières grand prix means $10 million in economic benefits, but more importantly it is an opportunity for pride that unites our people behind an activity that gives them international recognition. We want to develop this event, not just to have it survive. This is why we demand the government honour the commitment it made before the last election.

[Division No. 49, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their understanding.

It is with pleasure and with a sense of duty that I rise today, as labour critic, to take part in this very important debate in the history of labour relations in Canada.

However, it is also a sad moment in the history of labour relations in Canada because of what we have seen today and in previous weeks about the way this matter has been handled. The government should be ashamed of what it has done, particularly through its public works and governmental affairs minister, nipping in the bud the negotiations that started a few months ago between both parties. Members will recall that the minister candidly admitted that the government would legislate in the event of a strike by postal workers, thereby making these negotiations meaningless.

Therefore, what we witnessed is a sad masquerade, made even worse by some disgraceful actions.

A brief review of recent events: a call for reduced use of the postal service as the strike deadline approaches, lay-offs because of the reduced activity, an announcement of Canada Post's desire to cut more than 4 000 positions, violent behaviour by one of the management team and an attack on a union negotiator, announcement of a lock-out, etc. A sad record indeed.

I shall now address the more specific question of the vicious overall character of this government's strategy and actions, the government of a sovereign country called Canada where we are witnessing what I would call orchestrated action against the unionized class, the entire middle class, everywhere on this planet, in order to diminish the role of the state, to dismantle to some extent all the mechanisms with which we have equipped ourselves in order to better share the wealth, and within which we give an obvious framework to the privatization of the principal services of the state. You will have understood that I am referring to clause 9, which I shall read:

1. The mediator-arbitrator shall be guided by the need for terms and conditions of employment that are consistent with those in comparable industries in the private and public sectors and that will provide the necessary degree of flexibility to ensure the short- and long-term economic viability and competitiveness of the Canada Post Corporation, taking into account

(a) that the Canada Post Corporation must, without recourse to undue increases in postal rates,

(i) perform financially in a commercially acceptable range,

(ii) operate efficiently,

(iii) improve productivity, and

(iv) meet acceptable standards of service; and

(b) the importance of good labour-management relations between the Canada Post Corporation and the union.

This is an orchestrated operation, in Canada as in France, as in Germany, as in Italy, and everywhere else in the West, to ensure that those who have done well for themselves, particularly by unionizing workers and salaried employees, are now seeing their powers, their advantages, systematically diminished.

I would like to share with you the remarks that appeared yesterday in Le Monde Diplomatique , written by a European of substance, Ignacio Ramonet. He wrote the following in this paper, and his remarks are very relevant to what is happening here, with everything orchestrated in my opinion. That must be said so that finally a debate may be held in the West, indeed worldwide, soon, to make economic progress synonymous with human progress.

I quote Mr. Ramonet:

Financial globalization has created its own government. A supranational government with its own machinery, influence networks and means of action. I am talking of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). These four institutions speak with one voice—echoed by almost all of the major media—in exalting “market virtues”.

This world government is a power without a society, that role belonging to the financial markets and giant corporations it represents. The effect of this is that real societies have no power. The situation continues to worsen. As the successor to the GATT, since 1995, the WTO has acquired supranational powers and is out of reach of the controls of parliamentary democracy.

And I said parliamentary democracy.

Once seized of an issue, it can declare national labour, environmental or public health legislation “contrary to free trade” and call for their repeal.

This is the scenario we are facing here in this House. Fortunately, the opposition parties have formed a fine coalition of the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Quebecois. This means we can bring an element of humanity to clause 9 by pointing out that Canada Post, for as long as it exists in Canada in this form, is a public service with a logic, a consistency and the expectations we might have of a public service with all its strengths and weaknesses and constraints and not a private enterprise with its own internal logic.

I want to emphasize here the role of my colleague from Champlain who has done such outstanding work today. He succeeded in uniting all our forces in making this government listen to reason because it was embarking with indifference and cynicism on the road to neo-liberalism which is making the poor poorer and the rich richer. So if there are people who are not doing too badly, it is not by the grace of God or the Virgin Mary, it is because they succeeded in unionizing. It is through a great struggle that they won the right to unionize; such a right was never given to them, they always had to fight for it.

We must condemn measures as cynical as those we are seeing today in order to protect what we have here in Canada, in Quebec, in America, in the West, where the union movement is concentrated, because we know that everywhere else, we cannot even speak in terms of unionization, because the situation is so bad.

It is essential that the people and organizations such as unions which ensure a better distribution of wealth always have their say and that the debate is increasingly public, open and vigorous.

Because wealth is not evenly distributed, we have to ensure through the unions, through the governments, including those in Quebec and in Canada who have received a mandate and assumed their responsibility to distribute the wealth, that this will continue and that we understand that it is not by keeping the wealth in the hands of multinationals, in the hands of supranational corporations that make sovereign states powerless that we can achieve human progress.

There has to be in fact a better distribution of wealth, and tax shelters should be questioned and tax havens eliminated. This is a shameful process that allows those among us who are more fortunate to literally laugh at low wage earners, at the people who dutifully pay their taxes, because of all sorts of manoeuvres that the auditor general has condemned here in Canada, even if attempts were made to prevent him from speaking out in the finance committee, as I saw with my own eyes.

So I am very proud of the role that the opposition played today and I hope that the government will change attitude in the future.

[Division No. 49, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I speak to this very important issue in the history of Canada, since we are dealing here with a special piece of legislation.

First of all, I wish to indicate to you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Mercier and my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville, that is 10 minutes each.

This being said, it is my duty and my responsibility to take part in the debate on this special back-to-work legislation—

[Atlantic Groundfish Strategy, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

With the Atlantic groundfish strategy soon coming to an end, a parliamentary committee is currently gathering information on ways to follow up on the program, which over 20,000 people depend on. Meanwhile, we learn that Department of Human Resources Development officials are preparing to handle a major social crisis in anticipation of the end of the program.

Would the minister tell us whether current consultations will lead to follow-up measures or whether this is a first class burial that will leave people with nothing come next spring?

[Supply, November 25th, 1997]

Give us details.

[Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park Act, November 4th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, once again I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-7, the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park Act.

As I have already said, this is one of the most beautiful regions of Quebec, and what is more, this bill is the result of a special collaborative effort by the community concerned. In other words, the people themselves decided to do something, and have very ably moved this bill along for several years, so that today we find ourselves considering it with a view to enabling the federal government to move into this fine project which, as I have said, encompasses both shores of the St. Lawrence.

We need to realize that this bill involves three regional municipalities, two on the north shore and the other on the south. It also concerns a very particular part of the St. Lawrence, as I have said, the point at the mouth of the Saguenay where the fresh water stops and the salt water starts. This project is even more valuable because its intent is to protect the ecosystem in place there, particularly the beluga, the focus of world wide attention, and the whales, which attract thousands upon thousands of tourists: Quebeckers, Canadians, Europeans, and increasing numbers of Asians.

It is a region set apart by its beauty, offering some very attractive places. There is, for example, the Manoir Richelieu, which has had a casino for a few years now. There is also the Manoir Tadoussac, in Tadoussac, which is really beautiful. In terms of nature itself, all along the Saguenay there are mountains, known as the Trois Soeurs, with La Trinité, L'Éternité and another whose name I forget.

It is worth a visit, and I invite those of our viewers who have yet to visit this beautiful part of Quebec to do so, whether they live in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada. It is, without bragging, an area of international calibre. For this reason, I was questioning the secretary of state earlier on the government's efforts to encourage international tourism, since its responsibility is to draw foreign visitors to Canada and hopefully to Quebec.

I do not consider the answer particularly clear, but we are counting on the past activities of Canada's embassies and consulates to promote the merits of Quebec abroad. Everyone knows that 80% of the diplomatic corps coming from Canada and not Quebec—as I heard it put recently by an industrial commissioner—does not speak French. I think we must insist that the Canadian government, with the money that comes from Quebec pockets, make a creditable and basic effort to promote this unique location as a site for international tourism.

As previously mentioned, one should point to the collective effort implied in such a project, which found its genesis locally, was the subject of public hearings, is already largely supported by the Quebec government and can now count on the co-operation of the federal government to go ahead even more efficiently.

This naturally beautiful area deserves to be encouraged. It marks the beginning of the St. Lawrence estuary. There is now a road along the North Shore, which goes all the way up to Natashquan, the birth place of Gilles Vigneault, who composed “Gens du pays”, the closest thing we have to a national anthem. From Tadoussac a very pleasant road leads to Chicoutimi along the Saguenay river, through very picturesque villages—I went there over 10 years ago—like the very nice village of Sacré-Coeur. The village of Tableau also comes to mind; you come to this place where the mountain looks like a blackboard and you almost feel like writing something on it.

This area is well worth a visit. I hope this will entice people who are listening today. It is one of the very beautiful areas in Quebec and, for the time being in Canada; it is aptly dubbed the Quebec Switzerland.

I would like to ask my colleague who spoke before me, if he is not gone yet—if he is not here, one must conclude he is gone—what his idea of the Canadian government's effort was.

We know how hard the Canadian government tries to promote the Rockies, and rightly so, it is one of the most spectacular areas in Canada, if not the world. I would have liked to ask my colleague what efforts if any, in his view, according to the information he has, if he has more than us, the Canadian government intends to make to promote internationally this gorgeous site called the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park.

[Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park Act, November 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today at second reading of Bill C-7, an act to establish the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park.

The Saguenay region, the Charlevoix region is undoubtedly the loveliest region of Quebec, but personally I would say the second loveliest region after the Mauricie region. A great number of Quebeckers are familiar with that region, which is known in Quebec as Little Switzerland, with its majestic landscapes, its remarkable vistas, and also as the area where salt water reaches up to the Saguenay, where the St. Lawrence's freshwater ends.

It is also a region that shares many characteristics with the Mauricie, because of its river, the Saguenay River, which is a bit bigger, a bit more imposing than the Saint-Maurice River. The Saint-Maurice River, which today is free from the logs that once cluttered it, has also become very majestic.

Recently, I heard the member from Saint-Maurice in the National Assembly, who is the Deputy Speaker there, speak proudly of the attributes of the Saint-Maurice River, which can be compared to a certain extent to the wonders of the Saguenay River.

I have a question for our colleague. We know that because of its beauty, the site that will be included in the marine park should attract numerous international visitors. I would like to know what the input from the federal government will be.

There is one small point I would like to make, however. All this may have been done in harmony, but the federal government's financial co-operation should not be referred to today as a gift. Quebeckers will be paying $30 billion in taxes to Ottawa, to be redistributed, and this is part of good management.

I would like to know what part the federal government will play in attracting international visitors to enjoy this lovely site that will be developed by the whole community.

[Fair Wages And Hours Of Labour Act, October 28th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of my party, the Bloc Quebecois, and as its labour critic, to comment on the motion by my Reform Party colleague from Wetaskiwin, Motion M-9, which reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should not reinstate the wage schedules under the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act, but allow the provincial wages and hours to prevail.

The purpose of the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act is to set standards for salaries and hours of work for people employed in federal construction projects. More specifically, it provides that all construction contracts concluded by the Government of Canada must contain provisions requiring contractors to pay fair wages and to comply with the standards on hours of work and on overtime defined in the act.

It is a clear and noble purpose. It also aims at removing the wage element from the tender process so that public funds are not used to exploit workers. This Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act, which came into effect in 1935, was vigorously enforced until 1982, with pay grids or wage schedules designed in co-operation with employer and employee associations across the country.

These grids were attached to contracts dealing with government works, and this was done by agreement between the parties. But in 1982, all this stopped because it was established that the federal government intended to stop conducting the investigations that served as a basis for establishing the grids used to set fair wages and hours of labour.

Starting in 1983, investigations were no longer conducted, which leaves us with a kind of vacuum that the Reform Party would fill by saying that such a grid should not be reinstated. Except that, as it happens, on April 24, just three days before the election was called, the then Minister of Labour announced in Hamilton that, if re-elected, the Liberal Party would reinstate the said grids.

After analyzing and holding consultations on the situation, we have come to the conclusion that it is in the public interest not to drop these grids, as suggested in the motion put forward by our colleague from the Reform Party, but to reinstate them at a future date, in the interest of the workers concerned.

Two points were of particular concern to us, the first one being that restoring these grids would work against the mechanisms that Quebec has set up in labour relations and on labour issues, namely Quebec's minimum wage act and everything to be found in collective agreements in Quebec in the area of construction.

We found the answer to our concerns in a 1979 court ruling in Quebec by Mr. Justice Beetz, in the case of Construction Montcalm Incorporé v la Commission du salaire minimum, where the judge comments on an argument put forward by the defendant to the effect that the area is regulated by the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act; the judge made a ruling, on which we base our position in relation to Quebec. The ruling states:

The purpose of these clauses is to ensure a minimum wage for all persons working for contractors who have been awarded a contract by the Government of Canada for the construction, restoration, repair or demolition of a structure. However, the act does not prevent the crown from signing a contract with a contractor who pays his employees an amount greater than the minimum wage. Furthermore, the act does not prevent enforcement of a provincial act providing for payment of a minimum wage or of an actual wage that is equal to or greater than the minimum wage provided under federal law.

You will understand that, consequently, the fears or concerns we might have had have been dispelled by this judgment, which clearly states that federal law does not contravene Quebec legislation or prerogatives.

Our second concern, and I will conclude with this, is to wonder what, in this situation, the fate of the workers concerned, the construction workers on federal projects, will be. Getting back to the bill, its intended purpose is to remove the wage aspect from the bidding process, so that cut-rate wages will not be paid in order to get a better chance at a federal contract. The intention in removing pay from the bidding process is to prevent public funds from being used to exploit workers.

Are we to understand that there is a sort of vacuum at this time, and that contractors can bid at cut rates for federal contracts? If so, we know that the government commitment dates back to April 24, and now it is October 28. The matter has dragged on for a good six months, with a federal commitment in place. There has been a loophole since 1984, a sort of laissez-faire approach, perhaps a dangerous laxity, bowing to the laws of the marketplace when the livelihoods of thousands upon thousands of workers in Canada are at stake.

I therefore consider that the government's commitment ought to be met, and met as soon as possible. I do not know if the foot dragging is at the Department of Labour or with the Department of Human Resources Development, but either the government was serious and must move on it, or the Minister of Labour of the time just said any old thing. That would perhaps not be surprising for this government, because it has changed its mind so often over the years.

Let us think back to Mr. Trudeau in 1978, with the 18 cents a gallon promise—back in the days when we had gallons. and Mr. Clark's promise at the time, probably responsibly made, for he was the Prime Minister. Mr. Trudeau made fun of him. I personally remember hearing the radio spots as they are called, telling farmers that they would have to stop ploughing halfway down the row because gas would cost too much under the Conservative government. Over the years, the Liberals perhaps increased the price from 18 cents to 35 cents a gallon, with never an apology, the same as with the promises about wage controls that the Liberals back then said they would never bring in. And the GST recently. Liberals would never bring in wage controls, Liberals would never change the GST. The Liberals would never renew the helicopter contract.

We know how these folks blow with the wind. We perhaps have a good example in Mr. Trudeau, who was the defender of social democracy, of the just society, who never kept a promise either. So I am worried.

I oppose the Reform Party motion, and I am in favour of the government's plans, but I am very worried about how serious and responsible they are, when they say things on April 24 and on October 28, there is still no news. Although I asked, I could find no up-to-date document regarding the restriction or the government's intentions. We received the press release on April 24. That shows how serious this government is.

We could wonder where it is headed, apart from operating on a day to day, ad hoc basis, without ever, it must be said, keeping its promises. We therefore oppose the motion by our Reform Party colleague and fervently hope that the government will assume its responsibilities and keep its promises.