Carole Lavallée

[Supply, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, obviously I believe that the work done by the Gomery commission is extremely important. I believe the allegations that have been made have been well documented. They have been very serious and made under oath.

That is why we must take the money that was diverted to the Liberal Party, put it in trust and wait for the conclusion of the Gomery commission before deciding what the Liberal Party should do with that money, depending on the outcome of the trials or the findings in the Gomery report.

[Supply, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have such faith in the Gomery commission and in all the other legal proceedings under way that I think it is important to deposit the money in a trust right away and to at least wait for the commission to complete its work before deciding what to do with that money placed in trust.

[Supply, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the motion brought forward by the Bloc Quebecois simply asks that the Liberal Party deposit the money into a trust account. It is not complicated and it makes a lot of sense.

When one realizes that a sum of money belongs to someone else, based on what people have said under oath, the least one can do is to part with that money, to put it aside for some time and then decide what to do with it once the work of the Gomery commission is completed. However, that money must first be deposited into a trust account because some people said under oath that it does not belong to the Liberal Party. This is why I have a hard time figuring out why the Minister of Transport keeps saying the contrary at the top of his lungs.

I would like to remind members that the Liberal Party ran three campaigns with tainted money. Let us not forget that it was the member for Outremont who first used that term. We must prevent that party to run a fourth campaign with that tainted money.

The current Prime Minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard, did nothing until he was pushed to the wall by the opposition, the media and the ire of the public. If the current Prime Minister is still refusing to give back that dirty money, the House must force him to do so.

The Prime Minister does not have to wait for the end of the Gomery commission. For example, Bernard Landry, the president of the Parti Québécois, has a very strict code of ethics, that is, one that is healthy and normal. So as soon as allegations were made at the Gomery commission that money had been paid to the Parti Québécois, he immediately put it in a trust. He is awaiting the next phase, that is, the end of the Gomery commission. That is the way things usually work. That is how people act when they have a good code of ethics.

It is true that these are allegations, but remember, they are very serious, documented and made under oath. Let us not forget that.

How can anyone oppose the motion by the Bloc Québécois? I had a lot of trouble finding reasons, but I found three of them. Naturally, I will now elaborate on them.

Spontaneously, the first reason that came to me is that the Liberals are in denial. They deny the facts, do not see reality and are not aware of what is going on. Yet, as I said just now, the allegations at the Gomery commission are documented, serious and made under oath.

I have drawn up a little list so that, together, we can remember all of this. First, let's talk about the sources of the money. There is the money officially paid to the Liberal Party by the companies of Jean Brault and Groupaction: $166,000. There are the salaries and “other payments” made to Alain Renaud, who was working for the Liberal Party: $1 million. There are the payments to PluriDesign “for the cause”: $530,000, broken down into $430,000 and $100,000 according to Jean Brault's estimates. Phoney invoices from Commando: $70,000, including $50,000 for certain organizers and $20,000 for eastern Quebec. There are payments of various invoices: $44,000, including a Liberal Party video by Nathalie Tremblay, $24,000; Verchères golf club, $14,100; and Georges Farrah's canvassing at the Summit of the Americas, $6,000. And there is more.

There is the assistance sought by Mr. Corbeil after the 2000 election: $60,000. The hiring of “Liberal friends”: $230,000. Who are these Liberal friends? They are Daniel-Yves Durand: $500 a week for two months; Serge Gosselin: $80,000; John Welch: $97,000; Marie-Lyne Chrétien: 8 months at Groupaction; Wiseman: $20,000 or $25,000. There is also the payment by Richard Boudrault: $40,000 for three election workers, and a loan from Richard Boudrault for the 1997 election. There are cash payments in 1997: $50,000. There are cash payments to put off the call for tenders on the “firearms registry” account: $50,000. There is a phoney invoice issued by Gaby Chrétien for Liberal Party funding: $4,000. The total comes to $2.2 million.

As you can see, these facts are so specific that one cannot just shrug them off and say they are not serious allegations. I remind you that they are very serious, and documented, and made under oath. So it is not very likely that the Liberals are going to deny the facts.

The second reason why one might perhaps not vote in favour of the motion is that one might deny that there was a system. For there was indeed a system in that party.

One would have to be very naive to think that no system existed for organizing all this misappropriation of funds from the Liberal government. According to my colleague from Nepean—Carleton, it was theft.

We have learned from the commission that there was indeed a system. According to sworn testimony—I remind you—the system consisted of networks, in the plural, or cliques, still in the plural, where some very highly placed public officials, owners and employees of greedy communications agencies, and senior Liberal Party officials met, but most of all and most importantly, as the crowning touch, with political direction. The obvious pretext was to plaster Quebec with red flags and use flagpoles to drive Canadian unity down the throats of Quebeckers—a failing proposition, obviously. In fact, 54 members of the Bloc Québécois are here in the House and they are the living proof that it failed.

The results of the next election campaign will show again that they achieved the opposite effect, and I do not dare yet to predict the results of another referendum.

I want to tell you a bit about the system that was discussed at the Gomery commission. First there was Jacques Corriveau, the main Liberal Party financier and bagman, who took 10% of the agency commissions collected by Groupaction on sponsorship contracts awarded to Polygone. Through this scheme alone, Jacques Corriveau was able to collect half a million dollars for the Liberal Party of Canada.

Jean Brault was highly sought after financially by the Liberal Party of Canada between 1995 and 2002. He and his companies provided more than $2.2 million, either in cash or through the payment of fictitious professional fees, the payment of phony invoices, the settlement of bills incurred by the Liberal Party, such as for golf tournaments, restaurants, videos, etc., the payment of contributions to funding activities, and Groupaction hiring various people who never worked there. This dirty money is only a start. Further testimony will make it possible to add to it.

While the member for Outremont blames these acts on a parallel group or clique, as he just said, in order to minimize the situation, the witnesses at the Gomery commission tell us that the highest levels of the Liberal Party were involved.

The office of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, Jean Pelletier, Jean Carle approved the budgets and projects. Every year, the Department of Finance replenished the Canadian unity fund, which was financing the Sponsorship Program. The Treasury Board and its president, the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie and its vice-president, the current Prime Minister, closed their eyes to certain dubious practices. The bagmen and agencies doing partisan work for the Liberal Party filled their pockets.

The system worked extremely well. Funds were merrily taken from the Department of Public Works to fill the Liberal Party's coffers, while greasing the palms of agency friends. The latter tried, by the way, to reproduce in Quebec the model that they had learned on the federal level, but it did not work. The Liberals must put the dirty money into a trust fund.

[Replacement Workers Bill, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Quebec Liberal members who voted against the replacement workers bill yesterday voted against Quebec workers. Only 12 additional votes were necessary, and these Liberal members could easily have provided them.

An election campaign is approaching and the Liberals will have to provide explanations and justify their position to Quebec workers who were asking for such legislation.

As for the Minister of Labour and Housing, he missed a prime opportunity to shorten the length of labour disputes, avert violence on the picket lines, restore the balance of power between employers and employees, and also put an end to the discrimination suffered by those Quebec workers who come under the Canada Labour Code.

[Canada Labour Code, April 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, workers in Quebec have benefited from anti-scab legislation for 28 years, since 1977. There is a consensus in Quebec in support of this anti-scab legislation.

Employer associations and employers are satisfied with it. In fact, I met some of them last fall and I was told that they were quite pleased with the legislation, this for four good reasons.

First, this legislation reduces the duration of labour disputes. It reduces violence and vandalism on the picket lines. It helps maintain a good atmosphere after the disputes, because there is less resentment. Finally, it creates only one category of workers.

This is what we are talking about here. In Quebec, there are currently two categories of workers. On the one hand, 90% of the manpower in Quebec is covered by the Quebec labour code and enjoys the benefits of this anti-scab legislation. On the other hand, currently, in 2005, 8% of all workers come under federal jurisdiction and the Canada Labour Code. This means that 326,000 workers do not benefit from anti-scab legislation. These people work in banks, telecommunications, radio, television, ports, airports, grain companies and even telegraph companies.

As hon. members know, a labour dispute is first and foremost an economic power relationship. During a labour dispute, we have on one side an employer who usually does without his production revenues and services and, on the other, union members who are so convinced of the merits of their claims that they are prepared to do without their only source of income, that is, their salaries.

When the employer involved in a labour dispute hires strikebreakers, it is as if, during a hockey game, when the teams are playing five against five, one team—namely the employer—decided to hire five more players and play the game with ten players against five. As we can see, strikebreakers are intruders in a dispute.

Strikebreakers are allies of the employers in a dispute in which they have no business, usually. By hiring them, an employer can thus maintain services, production and revenues. Their role is essentially to help an employer by relieving him from some economic pressure and allowing him to let the dispute go on as long as is necessary to “break” the union, because this is indeed what it is all about. Strikebreakers are union breakers.

Union members truly have the feeling that someone has stolen their jobs, and they are right. Their jobs have been stolen by people who are paid less, who—as I mentioned earlier—make the dispute last longer, who take their places, their work stations, their lockers, who pass by them every morning while they are on the picket lines and whose mere presence is an insult to them.

It creates a feeling of injustice leading to frustration and, most unfortunately, violent acts. In fact, frustration does not improve one's judgment, nor moderate one's behaviour. Such incidents often go unseen by union officials. Violence in a labour dispute situation causes resentment that lingers for many years.

As for the replacement workers—or strikebreakers—they are not in an easy position either. They are in a very difficult position because they are being exploited by an employer who is paying them much less than the regular employees. Even though they nurture a secret wish to keep their employment, they know very well that they will lose their jobs when the strike is over.

Moreover, they do not have the same rights as any other worker in Quebec or Canada. They know very well that they will never be able to form a union, which is a right guaranteed in part I of the Canada Labour Code. They do not have that right.

In 1982, for example, radio station CHNC in Bonaventure hired 12 replacement workers. Two years later, in 1984, these 12 replacement workers requested union accreditation. That was the height of absurdity, and a situation that had never been seen before.

Obviously their request was denied. However, the fact remains that at that moment in time these 12 replacement workers felt they were a sub-category of workers.

There are four major advantages. It reduces the duration of labour disputes. That is true. In 2002, when federal workers made up 6.6% of the workforce in Quebec, they were responsible for 48% of the days lost because of labour disputes. It reduces violence and vandalism. We know this, we feel it, we do not need statistics to prove it. It fuels a positive environment, in the small communities especially. In Baie-Comeau, among other places, after the three-year strike at Cargill, I could go on at length about the families that no longer speak to one another and how that came to be. Finally, it creates a single category of workers.

This is the eleventh time an anti-scab bill has been introduced in this House. This is the ninth one introduced by the Bloc. This will be the fourth time such a bill will be voted on. In 2003, the hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord almost managed to get her bill passed. She was only 18 votes short. The Progressive Conservatives, the then Alliance MPs and the Liberals had voted largely in favour of the bill. Even the current Minister of Labour and Housing had voted in favour of it. What has happened in the meantime?

In conclusion, I ask that all members of this House vote in favour of this bill, a symbol of one of the best laws we could pass, as it does not give an unfair advantage to any party involved in a labour dispute. That is one good reason to pass legislation.

[Canada Labour Code, April 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous consent to amend the bill as follows:

That Bill C-263, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 12 on page 3 the following:

(2.9) The prohibitions set out in subsection 2.1 do not apply to

(a) a person employed as a manager, superintendent or foreman or as a representative of the employer in employer-employee relations; or

(b) a person serving as a director or officer of a corporation, unless the person has been designated to serve in that capacity for the person's employer by the employees or by a certified association.

[Petitions, April 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition from Canada Post employees in Quebec signed by 9,000 people.

This petition calls on all parliamentarians to pass a Canadian anti-scab law similar to the one in effect in Quebec for the past 28 years.

As hon. members know, this bill will be coming to a vote on second reading next Wednesday.

[Gérard Filion, April 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on March 26, Quebec lost one of the forerunners and fathers of the Quiet Revolution. Born in Isle Verte, Gérard Filion died in Saint-Bruno at the age of 95.

He was forever breaking new ground, whether it was at the Le Devoir newspaper, the Terre de chez nous , the Union catholique des cultivateurs—now known as the Union des producteurs agricoles—or the Société générale de financement, Marine Industries, the provincial commission of inquiry on education, the Conseil de presse du Québec, the Saint-Bruno city hall or in the numerous social causes he championed.

He was a tireless defender of accessible education for all; he used his great talent to ensure justice and honesty. He was a busy and committed man, who will go down in Quebec history as a true champion of free thought. Quebec remembers and salutes his unwavering commitment to Quebec society.

The Bloc Québécois extends its deepest condolences to the family of Gérard Filion, the people of Saint-Bruno and all his friends.

[Student Strike in Quebec, March 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec students are demanding the Quebec government cancel the conversion of $103 million in grants to loans, which penalizes the poorest students.

The Bloc Québécois supports this protest, because we believe in a quality education system accessible to all.

Education is obviously under Quebec jurisdiction. However, the decisions made in Ottawa have a clear influence on education as well as on Quebec's other priorities.

The Bloc Québécois condemns the fiscal imbalance, which is affecting Quebec's ability to respond to the demands of Quebeckers. The federal government must accept the consensus of the National Assembly and Quebec society and resolve this issue.

The educational system in Quebec is different from that in the Canadian provinces, and Quebec fully intends to preserve it. Ottawa's refusal to recognize the fiscal imbalance demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of Quebec's priorities.

[Air Transportation, March 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we have just learned that Jetsgo has ceased operations. This means 1,200 jobs are threatened, and thousands of ticket holders may lose their money.

What does the government intend to do to help these ticket holders faced with losing their money and the employees faced with losing their jobs?