House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word was quebec.

Last in Parliament March 2011, as Bloc MP for Terrebonne—Blainville (Québec)

Lost her last election, in 2015, with 23% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Status of Women March 9th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, last year a United Nations committee gave the Canadian government 23 recommendations regarding compliance with the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

According to the Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action, the government is not implementing its international commitments on human rights, especially women's rights.

Women's organizations are not included in the political decision-making process. First nations women continue to face discriminatory legal provisions and barriers to their basic rights to education, employment, and physical and psychological well-being. Canada has not earmarked money in federal budgets for anti-poverty strategies for women.

The Bloc Quebecois denounces Canada's sorry performance with respect to improving living conditions for women and its lack of effort in implementing its international commitments.

Taxation March 8th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, last week in Montreal the Prime Minister acknowledged the quality of Quebec's daycare system. What he did not say, however, was that the federal tax deduction system, which does not take into account the low cost of the Quebec system, has meant a $1 billion loss for Quebec families over the past six years.

Will the Prime Minister admit that the taxation system he himself put in place is depriving Quebec families of billions of dollars because the Government of Quebec has set up a good daycare system?

Workplace Psychological Harassment Prevention Act February 26th, 2004

moved that Bill C-451, an act to prevent psychological harassment in the workplace and to amend the Canada Labour Code, be read the second time and referred to committee.

Mr. Speaker, first, I hope you will allow me to dedicate the second reading of this bill to the victims of harassment. I can name some of them: Robert, Christina, Roger, Paule, Jean-Paul, Diane who came close to suicide barely a month ago, and many others. I would also like to offer it to the people of my riding who support me in the work I do and who help me financially to provide assistance to people dealing with psychological harassment in the federal public service.

The bill I am introducing does, in fact, aim to prevent psychological harassment in the workplace and would amend the Canada Labour Code.

Psychological harassment is not new; it has been around since the world began. Since 1990, however, it has become more significant. Reorganization of work, job instability, and the fact that more and more is constantly being demanded of employees and employers, these are all elements that produce stress in the workplace. This opens the door to harassment, intimidation and the abuse of power.

Right now, Canada has a policy entitled Policy on the Prevention and Resolution of Harassment in the Workplace. It is a Treasury Board policy that came into effect in 1994 and was amended in June 2001. Nevertheless, we have seen that this policy has had no effect whatsoever on all the abuses of power and all the ongoing cases of harassment in the federal public service.

In the 15 minutes at my disposal, I would like to explain the difference between the bill and the policy, to show just how much the policy resembles Swiss cheese and how necessary it is to have a bill.

The hon. members will understand that I am basing my statement on facts, on all the people I have just named and many others who have sent me anonymous letters complaining of being victims of harassment. These people have told me their stories. They are also able to prove that the policy currently in effect in the federal public service provides no protection and does not guarantee the physical and psychological safety of our workers.

First, the policy is an empty promise. It contains words and expressions such as “employees can expect”, “employees can do such and such”. The policy in no way requires the administrator or the manager to do anything to stop the harassment. However, the bill, as he said, requires the federal public administration to provide public servants with a workplace free of psychological harassment.

Furthermore, Bill C-451, which I am introducing, establishes rights and responsibilities. Every public servant has a right to a workplace free of psychological harassment. Public servants therefore have a responsibility to inform the delegated manager, meaning their immediate supervisor, of any action that may cause them psychological harassment.

Why am I saying have a responsibility? Because, often, our employees dare not speak out. Psychological harassment is so insidious that the persons themselves doubt that it is happening. They are not sure that they or their work is not at fault.

When we are not sure of ourselves, we can endure harassment, intimidation and abuse of power for a very long time. However, the employer is required to ensure that no public servants are subject to psychological harassment. When I say that the bill puts the responsibility on the employer, it also sets out the process for registering a harassment complaint. I will explain what I mean.

Currently, employees subject to psychological harassment must realize that this is the case and disclose this to their immediate supervisor. This individual, who does not know what psychological harassment is, who is not aware of it, who is caught up in his problems as a section or unit manager, is not always aware that harassment exists.

Consequently, it can take one or two months, and sometimes as long as six months before the delegated manager takes action to put an end to the harassment.

The bill states that, as soon as a complaint of harassment is filed, managers have a responsibility to act. The manager has five days in which to act. Why? Because the person experiencing the harassment is living in an environment so negative and so harmful to their health, that it can lead to other problems for which there is no cure.

The bill also ensures the confidentiality of the complaint. Currently, the immediate manager who receives the complaint often ends up saying, “There is no problem. I will talk about it with my colleagues”. This should never happen. A harassment complaint is confidential because it is something that deeply affects the individual.

When an employee makes a complaint to the immediate manager, and the complaint is not well received, or not accepted as harassment, often the employee feels isolated. The employee will withdraw and continue to endure different types of harassment. At some point, the employee may decide to take the complaint to a higher level.

If that is the case, in our public service, the employee will go to the regional level. The regional manager will contact the immediate supervisor to ask what is going on, to find out whether harassment is occurring in his section. The immediate manager, who did not acknowledge the harassment complaint in the first place, will not acknowledge it now either.

This becomes a vicious circle in which the harassment complaint is never acknowledged. The intent of the bill is to ensure that within five working days of a harassment complaint being filed, something is done, someone steps in, measures are taken to separate the victim and the harasser, or some other approach is taken, such as mediation.

Again, under Treasury Board policy, mediation is practically mandatory. In the bill, mediation is not mandatory for the simple reason that it is very difficult for a victim of harassment to be in mediation in front of their harasser. The bill gives the victim the choice to face the harasser, to choose mediation or not.

The bill also provides for the appointment of a commissioner of the public service who would know about harassment, about how terrible it is, and about its physical and psychological impacts on the victim. The commissioner would have the authority to take action, not only through recommendations, but also through measures requiring the employer to act.

The commissioner would be assisted by a psychological harassment complaints committee. Why a complaints committee? Simply because, according to Treasury Board figures, 20% of the members of the federal public service are, or have been victims of harassment. According to our own figures, this proportion is more like 30%, if not more. This means one worker out of three. And we are talking about the public service, not about workers who are governed by the Canada Labour Code.

We can assume that, in the first few years following the implementation of the legislation, there would be a large number of requests to review files. Many public servants would ask to have their case examined because they are victims of harassment. A commissioner alone would not be able to do this and, also, it takes people to go and investigate on the premises. This is more or less what the commissioner at the ethics office—I am thinking of Mr. Keyserlingk—is currently doing by providing some help to victims of harassment, whenever he can.

So, the commissioner would have the authority to examine written complaints, investigate, report and submit a report. Consequently, he could report to the House once a year on the processing of the harassment complaints received by his office.

The commissioner and his committee could exercise recourses against public servants who do not effectively manage harassment complaints. The bill mentions recourses because currently, there are managers who, in all impunity, continue to be both employee and manager in the federal public service. They are currently the cause of harassment, physical problems and psychological problems experienced by employees, as well as former employees who have left their jobs and find themselves out on the street. The managers continue to work and to do well while their victims have lost everything.

The legislation sets out fines of up to $10,000 if managers do not do their jobs properly and do not effectively resolve a complaint. Additionally, there are recourses for victims of harassment who have lost everything. At present, there are some who are barely surviving and whose complaints have been yet to be dealt with after seven, five, three or two years.

This bill also amends the Canada Labour Code. The International Labour Organization just published a report saying that Canada is the number five country in the world for psychological harassment at the workplace. The rate here is 19% higher than in the United States. A recently published book indicates that psychological harassment in the federal public service is a federal crime in that the federal government knows it exists, but is not doing anything about it.

This is an extremely important bill. This is a non-partisan bill, even though it is put forward by the Bloc Quebecois.

This bill will put justice back in the hands of the victims of harassment. It would be terrible if any party in this House opposed this bill.

Ingrid Betancourt February 23rd, 2004

Mr. Speaker, two years ago, on February 23, 2002, Ingrid Betancourt was abducted and imprisoned by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia.

Ingrid Betancourt ran for the presidency of Colombia in order to put an end to the corruption, drug trafficking and violence that are rampant in her country. She showed exceptional courage.

Today is the First International Hostages Day. Thousands of people around the world are demonstrating to deliver the message that, whatever the reason, taking civilian hostages is unacceptable.

The Canadian government has given no solid support to Ingrid Betancourt. Because we in the Bloc Quebecois share the same values of respect for human rights, we call upon the Government of Canada—in collaboration with other countries such as France and Italy—to do everything in its power to convince Alvaro Uribe to agree to enter into negotiations.

Address in Reply February 2nd, 2004

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in the Speech from the Throne about the status of women. Perhaps the government has forgotten that women make up 50% of the population, that they are poorer than men, that they face a different reality than men and that it is because women are poor that we have child poverty.

First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act November 6th, 2003

Madam Speaker, there are people who are following the debate on television this evening. They have been warned. Many are going hungry right now because of the harassment taking place in the federal public service. There is a real life story in a book to be published on Monday entitled Le harcèlement psychologique: un crime d'État .

The minister is responsible for these employees. What will she do in cases of proven harassment, which she was aware of since I had personally made sure she was? I do not want to hear that the employees involved will be receiving training.

Moreover, while I have proof that there is harassment at Correctional Service Canada, I received yesterday a beautiful letter, saying, “There is no harassment taking place at Correctional Service Canada, Ms. Bourgeois”.

Wake up. What are we doing about these people going hungry because of those in authority, managers who have harassed their employees?

First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act November 6th, 2003

Madam Speaker, I have come back for the adjournment debate simply because I would like to have a real answer to my question.

Last Friday, I asked the Treasury Board president what she intended to do and what measures she would take to help victims of psychological harassment in the federal public service.

A victim is someone who suffers damages as a result of harmful actions committed by others. Everyone knows there is a policy against psychological harassment in the federal public service. This policy supposedly has mechanisms to help employees that have been harassed.

Last Friday, the minister was honest enough to tell us, and I quote:

In terms of enforcing this policy, there are some difficulties at the moment. We are discovering that there are still cases of harassment.

So, what does the minister intend to do to help the employees who relied on being heard and assisted through the policy, and used all the mechanisms it provides? These employees followed all the proper steps. What is the minister going to do for employees who have been harassed?

The existence of harassment has been ackowledged in many reports, by the CSST in Quebec and by professionals hired by departments where there is a problem. What will the minister do to help those employees who are not getting any support either from their employer or from their union and who have exhausted their sick leave and have lost or are about to lose their jobs? What will she do for those employees whose health and family life have been threatened because the government, their employer, did not act?

I have seen many such situations. They can be found at Correctional Service Canada, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Health Canada, Environment Canada, Canada Customs and Revenue and in crown corporation.

I would like to know what the minister, who is familiar with the situation, is going to do? Will she intervene personally? Will she let the situation deteriorate further or will she demand that justice be done?

Harassment October 31st, 2003

Mr. Speaker, according to the International Labour Office, Canada has the fifth highest incidence of workplace harassment in the world. Moreover, many psychological harassment cases are being reported within the public service itself.

Can the government tell us what steps it intends to take to help victims of psychological harassment in the federal public service?

ADISQ Gala October 27th, 2003

Mr. Speaker, last night, Guy A. Lepage drew on his wry humour in hosting at the Théâtre Saint-Denis the 25th ADISQ Gala to honour artists and pay tribute to talent from Quebec.

The big winners of the evening were the young artists from Star Académie, with three Félix awards.

Other winners include Cowboys Fringants, with Félix awards for Best Concert in the singer-songwriter category and Group of the Year. Ariane Moffatt won three Félix awards for her album, Aquanaute , the Félix for Album Production, Best Pop Rock Album and Best New Artist.

The highly coveted awards for Best Female and Best Male Performer went to Isabelle Boulay, who won her fifth consecutive Félix award, and Sylvain Cossette respectively. Finally, Natasha Saint-Pier walked away with the international achievement award.

The Bloc Quebecois congratulates all the winners and pays special tribute to all the artists for their strong performance.

Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain October 24th, 2003

Mr. Speaker, FRAPRU, a community organization for urban renewal, is celebrating its 25th anniversary this week. This organization has led many battles for housing rights, particularly the right to social housing.

According to a recent press release by FRAPRU, the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard co-signed a Liberal report in 1990 that accused the Conservative government of having slashed housing budgets and programs.

However, the former finance minister went even further by failing to provide a single penny for new social housing in Canada eight years in a row, which, in Quebec, deprived individuals living in inadequate housing and the homeless of 40,000 social housing units.

The Bloc Quebecois will continue to support FRAPRU's demands that the future prime minister reinvest substantially in social housing, once he emerges from behind the curtains.

On behalf of all my colleagues, I want to congratulate and thank FRAPRU and its coordinator, François Saillant, for many years devoted to defending the most vulnerable members of our society.