Diane Bourgeois

[Convention Against Torture, June 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the UN has introduced a convention against torture and other forms of cruelty, which Canada has ratified. However, it still has not ratified the optional protocol associated with the convention, unlike other countries such as the United Kingdom, Mexico and Spain.

Given the tumult over the Maher Arar affair and the difficulties facing Canadian soldiers in the treatment of Afghan prisoners, when will the government ratify this protocol?

[Poverty, June 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, June 6 is National Hunger Awareness Day. According to the Canadian Association of Food Banks, more than 820,000 Canadians, 40% of them children, visit food banks every month. In a document released in 2005, the Conference Board of Canada said: “Canada's high rate of child poverty is shocking for a country ranked among the wealthiest in the world”.

In Canada, one child in six lives in poverty. These are frightening figures, especially since we know that poverty is the main barrier to social inclusion and full citizen involvement. By refusing to adequately fund Quebec and the provinces for social transfers and social housing, the federal government is choosing to attack the poor rather than attack poverty.

We can eliminate hunger in Canada. All it takes is the political will to do so.

[Gaétan Lord, May 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, last month in my riding, Gaétan Lord won the jury prize at the Allostars Gala for his contribution as founding president of Canada's first centre for “allosexual” or queer youth, which offers support to gays, lesbians and young people who are unsure about their sexual orientation.

He began working to understand these young people, who often suffer and hide themselves, when his own son told him he was gay. He immediately accepted his son's sexual orientation and has supported him through every stage of his life.

Mr. Lord was aware of this problem in society, so he dedicated himself to this humanitarian cause and really put his heart into it, volunteering over 1,000 hours to get the house up and running in Terrebonne.

The members of the Bloc Québécois join me in congratulating Mr. Lord for the openness and acceptance he has shown homosexual youth.

[Francophonie, May 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, not only did the Minister for La Francophonie not see fit to apologize to the secretary general, but the Prime Minister, who was to have met with him, skipped that meeting. What a fine mark of respect for La Francophonie.

Does the government intend to apologize to the secretary general of La Francophonie, because an apology is urgently needed?

[Francophonie, May 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the government did nothing to enhance its reputation yesterday in the way it received the secretary general of La Francophonie, Abdou Diouf. One would have expected a dignitary of Mr. Diouf's stature to be received by someone other than a customs officer and spared a body search.

Will the government admit that welcoming a foreign dignitary in this way gives a very poor impression of Canada and calls for an inquiry into Canada's diplomatic services before another such blunder is made?

[Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi des Moulins, May 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi des Moulins youth employment centre, in my riding of Terrebonne—Blainville, is celebrating this year its 10th anniversary. The youth policy and support concept it represents was a great initiative of the Parti Québécois.

In addition to the 10 years of operation of this organization, we want to acknowledge the outstanding work of its founding president and chief executive officer, Diane Hamelin.

Over the years, this kind-hearted, tenacious, enthusiastic and dynamic woman has shown leadership, surrounding herself with the professional team she needed to meet the objectives of this organization, which is an important player in our community when it comes to ensuring the social and professional integration of young adults.

Diane, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, myself and the people of Terrebonne—Blainville, I say, “Well done!”. The 16-35 generation in our area thanks you.

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, April 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have a problem understanding. Why has Bill C-3 been introduced since it is less than Bill C-44 could let us hope for? That bill seemed satisfactory enough.

[Federal Accountability Act, April 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for this very pertinent question.

In my speech, I wanted to demonstrate that, in the end, the burden of proof always rests upon the public servants and the employees.

However, in its report, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada raised an extremely important point, namely, that the code of ethics that currently applies to public service employees is unfortunately never discussed.

Enforcing the code is not a priority for managers and deputy ministers. There is no transparency in the management of the code in terms of ethical values. So, how can we expect an employee who receives an order from their manager or deputy minister, who in turn received an order from the minister to enforce a particular standard even if it is unlawful, to say anything?

In my opinion, the committee that studies this bill must go even further. The Ethics Commissioner will address the question of disclosures. Perhaps we could ask a high-level public administrator or the Clerk of the Privy Council to establish a policy for ministers, deputy ministers and managers alike.

As my colleague knows, for the past five years, I have been working very hard on the issue of psychological harassment. Every such case that I have looked at--the institute highlights this fact in the case of whistleblowers--involves a lower-level boss, a manager or a deputy minister who asked that a job be done.

I believe that greater attention must be paid to the integrity of managers.

[Federal Accountability Act, April 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to congratulate you on your appointment as Deputy Speaker of the House. I had not yet had the opportunity to do so. This is an honour bestowed by your colleagues.

Second, I would like to thank the voters of the riding of Terrebonne—Blainville for the affection and recognition they expressed when they re-elected me on January 23.

I am proud of this very positive result in my riding. Almost 60% of voters put their faith in the sovereignty of Quebec and showed that they were vigilant in the face of the charm offensive carried out by the current Prime Minister in Quebec. The voters in my riding quickly realized that the sole purpose of this public and political offensive was to hide the Conservative Prime Minister's true intention of imposing on Quebeckers his vision of, I quote, “a strong Canada”. Judging by the early months of his administration, Canada will soon be governed by laws and measures inspired by the Canadian and American right.

I have read the accountability bill—we will continue to use the word “responsabilité” in the French title. That choice of terminology was confirmed to the Prime Minister by Public Works and Government Services Canada's Translation Bureau. With the parliamentary experience he has acquired in recent years, the Prime Minister should, in my opinion, recognize the Bureau’s expertise. In the past, the Conservatives have always shown themselves to be timid when it came to the status of the official languages, in the House and in committee. They are still demonstrating their lukewarm feelings about that subject.

It is understandable that the use of the French language is a difficult subject for an anglophone, but the Prime Minister’s Office simply cannot, given the resources at its disposal, take this kind of dismissive attitude when it comes to using the correct French terminology.

And so Bill C-2 is the first to be debated in the House of Commons since the Conservatives came to power. It is time to act. This government was elected on January 23 of this year, and not until four months later did it introduce an omnibus bill. It is asking the opposition to cooperate, to facilitate passage of the bill sometime in June. Based on what has happened this morning, I have the impression that it is even wanting to speed things up.

The content of this bill is in contrast with the little throne speech that was read on April 4. The bill that has been submitted to us is a complex law that will amend a number of existing acts. It will therefore take a lot of time, probably months, to analyze it, study it and amend it.

Although the Conservative government says that it wants to pass this bill before the parliamentary summer recess at all costs, the Bloc Québécois and the other opposition parties, and the actors who are affected by the bill, must get to have their say. We must ensure that the members of this House vote on Bill C-2 only when the committee assigned the task of studying it has done its job and all stages in the consultation with the organizations and individuals affected have been completed and they have had time to be heard.

Today, I want to address just one part of this bill. That is the part relating to whistleblowers. I will then leave it to other colleagues to speak to the other aspects of Bill C-2.

Laudable efforts were made by the previous government, in Bill C-11. Unfortunately, that act was never proclaimed, because of the election call in November. This aspect is a major concern of the Professional Institute of the Public Service which, as we know, represents more than 50,000 federal employees.

It may take a lot of time to get a federal accountability act in place, and this will significantly delay the protection for which the Institute has been fighting for more than 15 years.

According to this institute, the government's argument to justify its strategy is that it does not want to implement the machinery of Bill C-11 so that a major review does not have to be carried out after Bill C-2 is passed. The fact of the matter is, however, that public service employees urgently need the disclosure and protection mechanisms provided in Bill C-11.

Hon. members might recall that, at various times during the Gomery hearings, the public witnessed numerous attempts by managers and deputy ministers to shift the blame for illegal actions committed as part of the famous sponsorship scandal to public service employees. Instead, the deputy ministers and managers should have admitted they were the ones who meddled and put pressure to circumvent existing administrative rules.

I jumped when I read, in section 53.1, that the Conservative government was considering paying financial awards to employees who make disclosures. What lack of respect for these men and women who devote themselves, with professionalism and integrity, to the daily operations of the federal government.

A major player we heard in December 2004, namely the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, told the Standing Committee on Governmental Operations and Estimates that it did not advocate such rewards. In a survey on values and ethics conducted by the institute, respondents said they wanted a work environment where these values would be an integral part of the organizational structure. Instead of rewards, and I quote the report:

Leadership that visibly demonstrates and supports values and ethics beyond words, and holds people to account for unethical actions and behaviours was identified as the key to creating a trusting environment where employees can express their ethical concerns.

I want to congratulate the Professional Institute of the Public Service on this fine piece of work, a serious report, entitled PIPSC Membership Consultation on Workplace Values and Ethics. This final report was presented on February 28. Professionally done, it has shown us that ethics is a top concern among public service employees.

The report states that “organizational ethics is not a status or a state, but a sense of what is right and wrong embedded in organizational policies, practices and activities.” According to the Institute, which cites a report published by the OECD,

encouraging ethical behaviour is not just about establishing a list of rules, a code or a level of certification to be attained. It is an ongoing management process that underpins the work of government; it is crucial to the functioning and the evolution of governance.

When asked to rate the ethical environment of their workplace, just over half, 51%, of responding members felt it was high, or very high and 16% felt the ethics in their workplace were either low or very low. These statistics reveal a lot about the importance of ethics.

Allow me to draw to your attention the issue of management. In its report, the Professional Institute of the Public Service says it is the managers who are not acting ethically. However, today we are considering a bill that asks federal public servants to become informers, to denounce others. Who should they denounce? Their managers? The deputy ministers? Deputy ministers who are incapable of enforcing the code of ethics?

In my opinion, the problem is neither the informers nor the thousand dollar reward that undermines the integrity of these public servants. The problem is systemic. It starts with deputy ministers and managers. The government must enforce the existing code of ethics for the federal public service because public servants themselves do.

[Francophone and Acadian Communities, April 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, on January 16, 2006, the Prime Minister said that he intended to continue the federal government's support for francophone and Acadian communities. Yet, such communities have long been asking for an increase in the funding they receive through the Canada-communities agreement.

When will the Conservative government put its words into action? Will it increase the budget of the Canada-communities agreement from $24 million to $42 million, as the francophone and Acadian communities have repeatedly requested?