Jacques GUILBAULT

GUILBAULT, Jacques, B.Sc.A.

Personal Data

Party
Liberal
Constituency
Saint-Jacques (Quebec)
Birth Date
October 29, 1936
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Guilbault
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=fb4105b0-5519-462a-b34e-ec608182fed5&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
professional engineer

Parliamentary Career

June 25, 1968 - September 1, 1972
LIB
  Saint-Jacques (Quebec)
October 30, 1972 - May 9, 1974
LIB
  Saint-Jacques (Quebec)
July 8, 1974 - March 26, 1979
LIB
  Saint-Jacques (Quebec)
  • Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State of Canada (October 1, 1976 - September 30, 1977)
  • Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence (October 1, 1977 - September 30, 1978)
May 22, 1979 - December 14, 1979
LIB
  Saint-Jacques (Quebec)
February 18, 1980 - July 9, 1984
LIB
  Saint-Jacques (Quebec)
  • Assistant Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole (January 16, 1984 - July 9, 1984)
September 4, 1984 - October 1, 1988
LIB
  Saint-Jacques (Quebec)
  • Liberal Party Deputy House Leader (October 11, 1984 - February 1, 1989)
  • Deputy House Leader of the Official Opposition (October 11, 1984 - February 1, 1989)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 3 of 380)


July 7, 1988

Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques) moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-124 be amended in Clause 1 in the French version by striking out lines 16 to 20 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor:

"c) permet qu'on procede, au nom des employes, a l'inspection et a la verification de la mine et des machines et appareils qui s'y trouvent, de la maniere et aux intervalles maximums reglementaires"

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADA LABOUR CODE
Full View Permalink

July 7, 1988

Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):

Madam Speaker, I would like to say a few words on motion No. 2. As the Minister indicated earlier, he kindly accepted to withdraw his motion No. 1 in order to accept motion No. 2. Essentially, the amendment merely improves the Bill's wording, not its meaning.

Clause 1 proposes many things, for example, in paragraph c): "permet qu'on procede, au nom des employes, a Tinspec-tion et a la verification de la mine et des machines et appareils qui s'y trouvent, de la maniere et aux intervalles maximums reglementaires." That is, in fact, the wording of the proposed amendment. It's about the same as in the Bill, except that it reads better in French.

If Moliere were amongst us, he would be happy to see such an improvement in the wording of the Bill, not for the purpose of changing the substance of Bill C-124, but of expressing it in a more elegant or natural French. That is the sole objective of this motion which is moved by my colleague from York-Centre (Mr. Kaplan) and which I was happy to present on his behalf.

July 7, 1988

Canada Labour Code

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADA LABOUR CODE
Full View Permalink

July 6, 1988

Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):

Yes, read the text of the committee hearings.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT
Full View Permalink

July 6, 1988

Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):

Madam Speaker, I would like to deal more specifically with motion No. 1A on the Order Paper, which is being put forward by my colleague for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). It aims at restoring the original wording of the Bill, that is to restore the concept that the purpose of the Government legislation now before the House is to extend the Official Languages Act.

Historically, what transpired is that the Bill included that extension concept, but before the House Committee to which the Bill was referred an amendment was introduced to take that concept out. If I understood correctly the committee proceedings, it is the Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin), who usually acts as a champion of official languages and the French language in particular who, interestingly enough-but since I did not attend the committee, I would like him to explain why he did that.

I read in the committee proceedings that he did so in a spirit of consensus in order I suppose to try and rally the most regressive Members of his party whith whom there was difficulty in committee in support of official languages. We are seeing the results. Unmoved, the dinosaurs came back with some 136 amendments they put on the Order Paper in order to

Official Languages Act

try not only to completely water down the Official Languages Act, but clearly to try and kill the legislation because as we know the session already is well-advanced. We know we have very little time left, and if each of those amendments were to have been discussed one by one, the legislation would have died on the Order Paper. This is why last week, in the Official Opposition, we challenged the Government to bring in time limitation on the Bill, in order to ensure that the Conservative dinosaurs would not succeed in killing the Official Languages Act.

But to come back to the relevant amendment, what happened in committee in my view is a serious change that significantly weakens the Official Languages Act. To answer the question put by an Hon. Member, let me repeat that it is the Hon. Member for Charlevoix who in committee, to everyone's surprise, put forward that amendment that significantly weakens the Official Languages Act since in fact it deletes from the Act, in clause 2, which is an interpretation clause, therefore a very important clause, a clause that will guide the court when it will interpret the Act, and render a legal decision. In the original wording put forward by the Government, the bill read: "The purpose of this Act is to extend the present laws of Canada relating to official languages to ensure respect.. . ". Those are the terms, "to extend the present laws of Canada relating to official languages" that were taken out by the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Charlevoix. Thus, the English version reads:

-the purpose of the Act is to extend the present laws of Canada relating to official languages, and so on, and to ensure the respect for both languages, blah, blah, blah. This concept, in French, "renforcer", and in English, "to extend", has been removed by the amendment, all in an attempt to try to appease the most regressive elements of the Conservative Party.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT
Full View Permalink

July 6, 1988

Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):

I have them here. I am being told it is wrong but I will quote it in French because the Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin) spoke in French. He said this:-

The Member from Charlevoix says: "You can well understand that I am proposing this amendment for reasons-and if I do so, it is via conciliatory spirit." His intentions were good and I am not questioning them. However, it didn't do much good. In fact, the amendment was agreed, and the Bill is now short a very important provision for the reinforcement of the Official Languages Act, but that didn't satisfy the dinosaurs who made new attempsts.

Official Languages Act

Madam Speaker, of all the things this amendment was proposed on June 22, on the very day when the new Secretary of State was elected in Lac-Saint-Jean and was still celebrating his victory! He did not object to this amendment although he knew full well he was to be responsible for the adminstra-tion of the Official Languages Act. He did absolutely nothing to stop the Conservative members from using their majority in committee to water down with their amendments, the basic concept of the Official Languages Act which is to reinforce not to weaken the Act.

Where is the Secretary of State at a time when we are trying to restore the Bill to its original version? Where is he? I'm not saying, Madam Speaker, that he is absent from these premises. I ask this question: Where is Lucien, the guy who is supposed to defend the people of Quebec and the French language? While we are trying to reinstate the concept that the Official Languages Act must be enhanced our man is sunbathing! That is what is going on!

Madam Speaker, allow me to propose an amendment which brings the English version of the amendment put forward by my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier more in line with the French version.

Motion No. 1A proposed by my colleague from Ottawa- Vanier reads as follows: That Bill C-72 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out line 40 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor, and I quote:

"2. The purpose of this Act is to reinforce the present laws of Canada relating to official languages to ... "

Unfortunately, the word "extend" does not appear in the English version of the amended bill, as it did in the original text introduced by the Government. Before the dinosaurs removed this clause in Committee, it was the word "extend" which appeared in the text.

In order to re-establish the original text, I suggest for the English version only, since my colleague's motion is right in French:

That Motion No. 1(a) be amended in the English text only by replacing the

word "reinforced" in the fourth line of the motion by the word "extend".

I made this suggestion, with the support of my colleague the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau).

Madam Speaker, I suppose that it is with the rather clear and acknowledged purpose to demonstrate that the Liberal Party of Canada has every intention to support the principle that all the amendments to this bill should essentially reinforce the Official Languages Act.

They are not there to make small ad hoc adjustments Bill C-72 is not there to weaken the Official Languages Act but to enhance it, give it more teeth and add in an interpretative clause which is extremely important for legal purposes guarantees, so that a magistrate will readily understand that

the purpose of Bill C-72 is to reinforce the current policy of the Federal Government in the area of official languages, a policy established several years ago.

Madam Speaker, such was the purpose of my intervention. [English]

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT
Full View Permalink