Maria Mourani

[Justice, October 18th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec taxpayers and children are the first innocent victims of the Conservatives' omnibus bill. They are being forced to accept measures that conflict with the approach that has made Quebec a model in the fight against crime—its pride and joy. Plus, they will have to put up millions of dollars to pay for these Conservative measures.

The Minister of Public Safety even said that Quebeckers will have to cut $500 million from health and education to focus on the government's priorities, such as criminalizing teenagers.

The Minister of Justice has made a point of ignoring the repeated demands of Quebec's justice minister, who said, and I quote, “I am disappointed that, despite much correspondence and one meeting, the concerns I raised with you have not been addressed in Bill C-10.”

It is clearly going to be harder and harder to ensure that Quebec is heard. May we soon see Quebec's own criminal code.

[The Environment, October 4th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the report by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development is crystal clear: the Conservatives' so-called environmental plan will not enable Canada to meet its targets. And this situation is unlikely to change considering the mediocre data, which are insufficient to even assess the government's expenditures and efforts, combined with the elimination of environmental programs and the cuts to Environment Canada.

Why is the Minister of the Environment still trying to convince people how serious his government is, when we know that the only thing the Conservatives have reduced is their own greenhouse gas reduction targets—by 90%?

[Official Languages Act, October 4th, 2011]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-320, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act (Charter of the French Language) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Mr. Speaker, as you certainly know, Quebec is a francophone nation, not a bilingual one. This nation has enacted legislation called Bill 101, the Charter of the French Language, which obviously applies to all the institutions under its jurisdiction as well as to most spheres of life.

This bill, an Act to amend the Official Languages Act (Charter of the French Language) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, would require the federal government to undertake not to obstruct the application of the Charter of the French Language in Quebec. In other words, it means that that Bill 101 would apply to all federal institutions in Quebec.

I encourage all my colleagues from Quebec to support this important bill to protect our language, be it in provincial, municipal, educational or federal institutions.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Justice, September 20th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, with the omnibus bill they introduced today, the Conservatives are clearly trying to impose their regressive and ideological vision of justice. They want to put more young people in prison, deny offenders who have redeemed themselves the pardon they deserve, prevent the justice system from imposing conditional sentences that would allow for rehabilitation, and fill Quebec's prisons.

How can the minister justify not only imposing values on Quebeckers that are not their own, but also sticking them with the bill to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 19th, 2011]

With regard to the Integrated Relocation Program (IRP), the contract for which was awarded to Brookfield Relocation Services in 2009, and for the period from April 1, 2010, to March 31, 2011: (a) how many relocation files were opened during this period; (b) what is the number of relocation files for each of the various departments and agencies, as well as the tenant-owner breakdown; and (c) for employee transfers involving the sale of property, what are the names of the “listing” real estate agents or brokers and their agencies?

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. That is also what the unionized workers were telling me. They are acting in good faith and they are willing to return to the bargaining table. They would like to see the old collective agreement prevail until negotiations on a new one are complete. Unfortunately—and I want to say so in their presence—the government has taken advantage of the lockout by Canada Post to table this special statute. The workers feel insulted by all of this, because they were acting in good faith. Deciding to hold rotating strikes is a right; it is legitimate. People have the right to go on strike. They have the right to organize rotating strikes. However, the Conservatives waited for Canada Post to impose a lockout to do precisely what they are doing today.

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to remind my colleague that I am still a Bloc Québécois MP; that has not changed. Second, I would like to remind my colleague that, for many years, the Bloc Québécois always fought against federal government involvement in provincial jurisdictions. When he says that we rose more than once to ask the federal government to intervene, I swear that I do not know what he is talking about.

We are asking that the federal government give Quebec what it is owed, whether it is the $2.2 billion we asked for and received—and hurrah, it was a victory—or the right to also work in French in federal institutions in Quebec. We will continue to put forward demands.

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the word “disguise”. I would not say it this is a disguise, but perhaps the translation was inaccurate.

In the House, several other members also have headgear. The workers talked to me and gave me this cap and this tee-shirt which says “The struggle continues”. These people are outraged because they do not feel respected given today's events. This is not going to help things in future nor improve labour relations. That is what they told me.

In its 2009 annual report, Canada Post confirmed that for a fifteenth consecutive year it had a consolidated profit and net benefit of $281 million, out of $7.3 billion in revenues. Moreover, Canada Post is still not releasing—in case people do not know this—its financial statement for 2010. A bare minimum of transparency would require that it release its accounts for the past year. We don't know how many million or billion dollars it made.

I would like to remind parliamentarians and those at home watching us today that the Canada Post Corporation Act establishes that this public service must be financially self-sustaining, not that it must seek profit at any price, such as no longer offering equitable service throughout the country, particularly in smaller communities. Subsection 5(2) of the Canada Post Corporation Act states the following:

While maintaining basic customary postal service, the Corporation...shall have regard to

(b) the need to conduct its operations on a self-sustaining financial basis while providing a standard of service that will meet the needs of the people of Canada and that is similar with respect to communities of the same size;

The Canada Post Corporation Act mentions self-sustaining finances in a global sense; it does not target specific operations. It makes sense that certain aspects of Canada Post are profitable, even very profitable. Those services should finance the necessary operations that run at a deficit in order to develop and maintain services in communities. We know full well that it is difficult to maintain service in some small towns.

From the beginning of this labour dispute, the federal government should have clearly instructed Canada Post management to make an offer to the postal workers that would respect the spirit of the act.

I asked a question in the House and requested that the government allow us to resolve this dispute not with special legislation, as it is doing now, but with a clear message to Canada Post management that they need to sit down and resolve this dispute in a respectful manner.

Instead, the government introduced a bill stating—at least this is how we interpreted it—that if the employer's overall offer is not accepted, the workers will be given a salary that is lower than the employer's last offer. That is unfair, shameful and unacceptable. This bill will take $875.50 from full-time workers during the four-year agreement. In total, the government would deprive these people and their families of $35 million. That is truly unacceptable. And this is all in a context where Canada Post itself decided to declare a lockout and deprive people of their mail.

The union represents men and women who enrich our society. These people responsibly decided to hold a rotating strike rather than a general strike. That is called being responsible. However, Canada Post decided to close the doors and prevent everyone from coming in. We are seeing the purpose of this action today: a special bill to force people back to work in unacceptable conditions.

When I asked the question, the Conservative ministers said what they are still saying and that is that Canada Post is an independent entity and that they are not getting involved. However, in actual fact, this government was a full, silent partner in Canada Post's actions. The government is now the key player in this labour dispute and calling all the shots. The government got involved, not as a mediator of justice and equality, but as the organization's true employer, and not even a good employer but a dictatorial one that imposes its rules by force. It is a shame and the government is bringing shame to Canada. It is a bit difficult for me, as a sovereignist, to say this, but I am going to say it anyway: this is a shameful thing for Canada.

One of the most important issues in this dispute, and what the workers have been telling me, is that Canada Post wants to impose orphan clauses. As a result, the salaries and benefits of new employees, in particular their pension and vacation plans would be subject to clauses providing for different treatment, known as orphan clauses. That means that, once these clauses come into force, any new people who are hired will not receive the same starting salaries and benefits as those who were hired previously. This creates two classes of workers within the same institution, which is unacceptable. In Quebec, significant measures have been taken to ensure that these infamous orphan clauses cannot be applied systematically.

This is quite a dark day as a result of this bill. In my opinion, the government decided to leave its mark of inequity, lack of respect, discrimination and injustice on the labour relations that will prevail at Canada Post. That is too bad because, according to Brand Finance Canada in 2009, Canada Post employees made this organization the most iconic brand in Canada. In addition, Corporate Knights Magazine considers Canada Post to be one of the best 50 corporate citizens in Canada, and all that—

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it is 5 a.m. on June 24, and it is Quebec's national holiday. This is a great day. I am very sorry that we could not get unanimity to adjourn so that we could go and celebrate with Quebeckers. That being said, I nevertheless want to rise in order to wish all of Quebec a happy national holiday, and I extend the same wishes to the members from that province who are in the House.

Last Monday I was on a picket line in Montreal and I met a number of workers. They were very angry, disappointed and indignant. In fact they gave me this handsome cap because they wanted me to show it off in the House of Commons.

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member.

Two days ago, I was in Montreal with union members on the picket line. A number of people were there, and they told me that Canada Post management wanted to impose orphan clauses. Could the hon. member tell us what an orphan clause is and what she thinks about such a clause being imposed?