Carole Lavallée

[Petitions, June 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present a petition signed by dozens of individuals, in addition to the hundreds of other signatories of the petition I presented last week.

This petition is asking the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to use his discretionary power to give permanent resident status to Mr. Sergio Orestes Loreto Garcia on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

This would allow Mr. Loreto to leave his sanctuary in Toronto and return to his family in Saint-Hubert.

[Citizenship and Immigration, June 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Sergio Loreto first came to Quebec in 1987, and has worked as a machinist at Pratt & Whitney for 16 years. Last September, he was living in Saint Hubert with his wife and three children, who are all Canadian citizens, when he received a deportation order for allegedly being an accomplice to war crimes in Guatemala.

Sergio Loreto says he did not commit any war crime or even take part in the civil war.

His CAW friends will tell you that he is a model employee who lives an exemplary life and that he has settled well into Canadian society.

Recently, leaders of the Saint Hubert community asked the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to use section 25 of the Immigration Act to lift the deportation order and grant Mr. Loreto permanent resident status on humanitarian grounds. This would allow him to leave his sanctuary in Toronto and return to live freely in Saint Hubert with his family, who need him very much.

[Supply, June 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the government colleague who has just spoken about the motion introduced by the Bloc Québécois on this, an opposition day.

The hon. member said that his government had a well thought out strategy and that he could talk about it for a long time. Indeed, I would like him to talk about it, maybe not for as long as he would like, but to flesh out his discourse regarding this strategy he wanted to tell us about.

He also said that our motion should not be limited to only one category of workers. It would be interesting to hear him on this issue as well. Is he referring to all categories or is it limited to certain categories and, if so, which ones?

[Petitions, June 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by over 250 leaders from the Saint-Hubert district who are asking the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to use his discretionary power to give permanent resident status to Mr. Sergio Orestes Loreto Garcia on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

[Workplace Psychological Harassment Prevention Act, June 2nd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, first I want to congratulate my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville for the excellent work she has done on this bill. The work put into drafting this bill and seeing it through required good analysis of the subject matter, judicious consultations, determination, a lot of energy and resources, but mostly a lot of heart. When a bill has all these ingredients, it is a good bill and can only be successful. The hon. member's presentation was also very judicious and very enlightening. I thank my colleague for all those reasons.

Psychological harassment is a difficult subject that we have been talking about for far too long. It is not unlike sexual harassment. We talked about that for a very long time before creating legislation to put an end to it, and it worked. The same will be true for psychological harassment. It is a concern in our society.

The Government of Quebec introduced a bill on this exactly one year ago. This bill became law. I will talk about it later. Psychological harassment does not necessarily need to be punished. It needs to be banished and eliminated. That is the direction any bill should take. Any bill on this issue should have a more convincing effect than a simple policy or the goodwill of managers or other colleagues. There absolutely needs to be legislation.

Marie-France Hirigoyen, psychoanalyst and psychiatrist, defined psychological harassment very well. I will read her definition:

Moral harassment at work is defined as any abusive conduct (action, word, behaviour, attitude, etc.) that adversely affects, through its repetition or systematization, the psychic or physical dignity or integrity of a person, compromising that person's employment or the work environment.

Bill C-360 really meets the objective to prevent psychological harassment, under this definition. This bill seeks to prevent psychological harassment, as I said earlier. It is applicable not only to the entire public service, but also to all employees subject to the Canada Labour Code, such as radio and television, bank, grain company, port and airport employees.

This has created two categories of workers in Quebec, which has excellent legislation, as we know, to prevent psychological harassment. This legislation came into force exactly one year ago June 1. A symposium is being held on June 10 to evaluate the results. However, some results are already clear.

In short, there are two categories of workers in Quebec. There are those, approximately 3 million in total, who are subject to the Canada Labour Code. They are entitled, for example, to a precautionary cessation of work. They benefit from anti-scab legislation and also legislation against psychological harassment. Furthermore, 10% of workers—8% of whom come under the Canada Labour Code—are not covered by such protections.

Two sisters or brothers living under the same roof might have very different working conditions. People whose jobs fall under the Canada Labour Code are at a clear disadvantage. In Quebec, there must no longer be two categories of workers.

We in the Bloc Québécois have a good solution for this. That solution is sovereignty. We will get back to that later.

Until Quebec achieves sovereignty, the Canada Labour Code must contain the same provisions as the Quebec code. One of the ways this uniformity can be achieved would be to pass this bill on psychological harassment.

The Quebec legislation came into effect on June 1, 2004. It is an innovative piece of legislation, a first in North America. Everyone agrees on that. Its first performance report has just been released. At the time it came out, that is May 28, there had been close to 2,300 complaints of psychological harassment, 2,266 to be exact. Most of these were justified, and very few were frivolous. Today, 45% of them have been settled, and the complainants have been able to enjoy a healthier working environment. It is important to point that out, because it is the reason for having a bill such as this.

Obviously, this means 27% of complainants did not proceed. When there is a new bill in place, some people do not really understand how it works.

Do they fit within the definition of psychological harassment? Indeed, 27% of files ended up not proceeding, and that is fine.

As I said earlier, a symposium will be held on June 10 and the legislation will be examined there. It will also be a good time to discuss it here.

I would mention in passing that two thirds of the SMEs in Quebec with 50 employees or more have adopted measures to prevent psychological harassment. While it was feared that more and more labour disputes would involve legal action, the effect has been the opposite, one of promoting improved labour relations.

In January, labour ministers from the provinces, including Quebec, met in Toronto. They discussed problems of health, safety, workplace well-being, work-life balance and psychological harassment. They recognized the uniqueness and merit of the Quebec legislation. They met unions, management and people from government. They looked at Quebec legislation. The minister from Ontario stated there was clearly a close link between occupational health and safety and the success of a business, because physically and mentally healthy individuals working in safe surroundings increase the productivity of companies and keep them competitive.

I will conclude on this point. It was mentioned earlier that the Arthurs commission was studying part 3 of the Canada Labour Code. However, we can chew gum and walk at the same time. We can examine this bill in committee and let Harry Arthurs do his work.

[Centre d'action bénévole Les p'tits bonheurs, May 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, recently in Saint-Bruno, some 200 people attended a benefit concert by the Montérégie youth symphony orchestra at the Centre Marcel-Dulude, to raise money for the Centre d'action bénévole Les p'tits bonheurs.

It was an enjoyable way to do something useful. The useful or essential part was raising funds for this volunteer centre in downtown Saint-Bruno, which desperately needs to expand its facilities in order to meet a growing need for all sorts of community services: a used clothing store, meals on wheels, assistance for seniors and young families, to name just a few.

The enjoyable part was listening to the concert put on by the hundred or so members of the Montérégie youth symphony orchestra. Their beautiful music made our hearts soar and helped us leave our cares behind.

Congratulations to the two “conductors”: Gaby Bouvrette, director of the Centre d'action bénévole Les p'tits bonheurs; and Luc Chaput, conductor of the Montérégie symphony orchestra, for this delightful evening.

[Petitions, May 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition signed by more than 1,000 members of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers-CSN, who have been working without a collective agreement for three years. They are calling on the Treasury Board to negotiate a suitable pension plan.

[Criminal Code, May 17th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I was very disappointed by the response of the member for Yukon. The response was exactly the same as the one I received on October 27, 2004, from the mouth of another parliamentary secretary, the one for the President of the Treasury Board. The history of negotiations with the union of correctional officers, he provided corresponds exactly to the document she read me on October 27, 2004. It is hugely disappointing.

The second reason for my great disappointment is the fact that the member for Yukon used his Liberal tape in speaking to me about the budget, but he forgot to mention that there is a special provision in annex 8 for correctional officers with respect to their pension plan. He did not answer any of my questions. Furthermore, in his litany of provisions and so-called interesting special measures in this budget, he made no mention of this measure for correctional officers. He never answered my questions about correctional officers.

I find that hugely disappointing. The questions remain unanswered. I would be happy to ask them at another time.

[Criminal Code, May 17th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, the reason for this adjournment debate is that in annex B of the budget tabled in February, there is a particular measure that concerns correctional officers. The government proposes some changes to the income tax regulations that would make it possible to increase from 2% to 2.33% the maximum pension accrual rate for people in public safety occupations, including correctional officers. In addition, the budget makes this retroactive to January 1, 2005.

Here is my question from April 20, 2005, which brought about this debate. I asked why this promise had been made in the budget and why the president of the Treasury Board was refusing to negotiate with the correctional officers union, because that is what is happening now.

We have said on this side of the House that this is a very bad budget. In addition to doing nothing to correct the fiscal imbalance, in addition to doing nothing, or almost nothing, to improve the employment insurance program, not even an independent employment insurance fund was created. They propose an additional $12 billion for National Defence, although they do not even have a national defence policy. We do not even know what the priorities are, that is to say, how this $12 billion will be spent.

To top it off, there is a measure in Annex 8 that is very incidental, but so very important for the 8,000 correctional officers. It is a new measure that the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers-CSN had not specifically asked for, but was very much appreciated.

However, when correctional officers phone the Treasury Board, when they try to find officials to talk to, to negotiate with, to discuss the matter with, to debate it and see how they could apply this new measure, they get no answer. Their calls are not returned. They are directed elsewhere. They get the message “the number you have reached is not in service”. It makes no sense.

I must say, once again, this way of operating proves the Bloc Québécois right. This attitude does not give us any desire to vote in support of this budget. In any event, no matter what the Liberals say, it will not happen. They are travelling throughout Canada these days telling everyone, “If you do not vote in support of this budget, Canadians will get nothing”. They should also be telling correctional officers, “Even if you vote for this budget, you will get nothing”. That is how it appears to them right now.

It is a mystery to see this measure in Annex 8, but no one to see it through and make it a reality.

I want to uncover this mystery and find out how this measure ended up in the budget if there is no one willing to negotiate it.

Correctional officers work under very special conditions and do very difficult work. Among 2,600 inmates in maximum security, there were 5 murders. That is a murder rate 100 times greater than the Canadian average. Proportionately speaking, the incidence of violence is greater in Canadian prisons than in the general population. We know this, having discussed it at length. My colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin provided some reasons earlier.

Correctional officers have been demanding special measures for a long time now. Their main demand is a pension plan where 25 years of service at age 50 would entitle them to 70% of salary. In addition, the 6,000 correctional officers have been working without an agreement for three years.

I wonder what it would take for this measure to be implemented.

[The Liberal Government, May 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker:

Like a crazed ocean liner, this Liberal shipSpins, retreats and starts to flipAdrift in a storm of motions, corruption and judgeshipThis vessel is about to tipHas Titanic hit the iceberg of democracyThis monstrous boat that perverted bureaucracy?Or is this Rimbaud's drunken boat, minus the poetryThis red ship capsizing from patronage and hypocrisy?

The captain, whose name we will not mentionDeserves neither the title nor the positionThis time, the islands will not save his commissionEven if tax havens were once his mission.But this ship, which is trying hard to stay afloatAnd is counting on a favourable wind and voteShould accept the now inevitable demoteBecause, win or lose, that's all she wroteThe Liberal ship has run aground, take note.