Robert Vincent

[Canada Labour Code, November 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank my NDP and Conservative colleagues, who are supporting my bill on preventive withdrawal for working women. I want to respond to the government members. They are saying that people should trust this government because part III of the Canada Labour Code is going to be amended. Right now, I have zero confidence in this government.

We know where trust has led us with this government. It has led to the Gomery commission. How are we supposed to trust it when it talks about amending part III of the Canada Labour Code? Such amendments would ensure that pregnant workers could go on preventive withdrawal just like such workers in Quebec, instead of being in a different category.

With regard to preventive withdrawal, I heard earlier that part III of the Canada Labour Code states that, if there is a risk to a worker, supported by a medical certificate, she must be paid. They are talking here about a few days or a week. Let us not forget: a pregnancy lasts for nine months. As for modifying job functions, there is no cause for concern. An employer will not wait six months before acting because he has to pay the worker in the meantime. So he will find her a job that she can do right away, if he can, within the plant or place of work.

We must not forget, either, that we are not just talking about women working in banks. Some women are workers regulated by the Canada Labour Code, working with heavy trucks or all kinds of trucks for all kinds of transportation, be it canned food, lumber or whatever. Truck vibrations may mean that pregnant workers need to stop working right from the first day of pregnancy. So, in this particular case, there is a problem because reassignment is not possible.

Let us be clear on what preventive withdrawal means for a pregnant worker. If the employer cannot assign that worker to another position, she goes home without pay. The only pay she can get is the 25 weeks of salary that do not kick in until 15 weeks before her due date. From the first day the worker knows she is pregnant until she has her baby, she has no salary except for two or three months just before she delivers.

Do you think it is right that a worker has to take leave at her own expense to have children? This government says that we should be having a few more children and that it will help families have children. I do not think this is the right approach. I do not believe in having two people working in the same province or in the same region with two different systems. There should be one equal system for all women working in Quebec.

Let us look at the 600-hour requirement to qualify for EI. Have you ever thought that it takes half a year of work to become entitled to receive benefits for a certain period of time? We are not talking about 52 weeks nor any specific number. If a person has worked only half a year, she is entitled to just what EI allows, which is next to nothing. The government has cut back on EI so much that, today, only 46% of workers are able to qualify. It has slashed employment insurance and no one qualifies any more.

If this government were at all interested in the middle class—the people who are working—I think there would be social legislation to clearly demonstrate the government's desire to help them. I have been here a year and a half without hearing anything about that. The only thing I have heard anything about is cuts, and about giving nothing to the workers, although they are the economic motor of all business.

Yet there is nothing complicated about this. In order to regularize the situation between the two categories of women workers in Quebec, the only thing needed is political will, which would translate into the signing of an agreement with Quebec.

There is already an agreement with Quebec for all workers coming under the Canada Labour Code as far as work-related accidents are concerned. Anyone who has a work-related accident benefits from the agreement the federal government has entered into with the provincial government, and it pays for the work-related accident.

It would be just as easy to have a new agreement for pregnant workers. This would just require a bit of political courage, but that is not something to be found on the other side of this House.

[Spirit Drinks Trade Act, November 3rd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, in his speech, the hon. member said a few things that stand out regarding the international marketing and export of our Canadian wines to make them known internationally. That is a good idea. I believe that we have excellent wines in Canada, and particularly in Quebec. We would be well advised to promote them internationally. It would therefore be desirable to move the bill forward. The Bloc Québécois would be in favour of that.

Reference was also made to labelling. It is important to know what we are drinking. Why could we not label wines and spirits like we do everything else?

In addition, my hon. colleague noted that the government had once again failed to consult the members of this House, to see whether or not we were in favour. We always come last. It would seem that the government has forgotten us. In fact, it is forgetting everyone.

Since I am getting the signal to wrap it up, I shall be brief.

Why not serve only Canadian wines, wines from every province of Canada, on Parliament Hill? These wines would be available here, on Parliament Hill. I think that would be a good idea. This wine list could include a “parliamentary” vintage like Cuvée des patriotes, in a “sneaky red” or a “pure as snow” white.

What does my hon. colleague think of that idea? Would it be desirable that only Canadian wines, domestic wines, be served on Parliament Hill?

[Pacific Gateway Act, October 31st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the parliamentary secretary's speech. On the form, we are in agreement. On the substance, I have not picked up anything concrete in what he said.

Earlier, he mentioned that the government would be investing in four programs. We have heard nothing about any program or any investment. He also talked about improving productivity. Basically, he rambled on for ten minutes and, when he was done, we had not learned a thing.

The same is true for questions put in the House during question period. My friend from Brome—Missisquoi says any odd thing to elicit any odd answer. We are used to it. Essentially, he goes on and on saying nothing.

We are used to not hearing or getting anything concrete. We will keep raising issues. He talked about improving productivity. How does he intend to do that in concrete terms? He said nothing about that.

I could help him in that regard. Consultations were held in Montreal concerning part III of the Canada Labour Code. Perhaps the representatives of SMEs held the solution. Perhaps the Liberals should try it out, because they get along very well with enterprises. They are very found of them. These people suggested that the minimum wages in each province should be added up, the average calculated and a new minimum wage established accordingly. With the savings, they would be able to buy machinery and have more productive machines. Thus, their own productivity would be improved and they would be able to accomplish something.

There is, however, one thing that we must bear in mind. We are taking about industry, but we overlooked bicycle manufacturing. We touched on it earlier. This is one of the industries in my riding. Legislation was passed in Canada concerning the allowable percentage of bicycle imports. We are talking about 30%, 25% and 20%. These are protectionist measures for bicycles.

This decision has been known for six weeks already, but we have yet to hear about what the government intends to do to save these jobs in my region, which would be taken away from us and given to people in Asian countries.

What will the government do? What can it do? How will it go about saving Quebec's bicycle manufacturing industry?

[Asian Bicycle Imports, October 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is now more than six weeks since the Canadian International Trade Tribunal recommended imposing 20% to 30% duties on Asian bicycle imports in order to protect local manufacturers of similar products. Yet, the government still has not made a decision.

On Saturday, some 250 workers from the Raleigh bicycle factory in Waterloo called on the federal government to take action in this matter. The government, unmoved, continues to turn a deaf ear.

Even the Minister of Transport and former member for Shefford has shown a lack of interest in the plight of the 1,500 workers in Quebec in danger of losing their jobs. When asked to comment, he wondered about the relevance of these jobs to the Canadian economy. Where is the man who boasts that he is attuned to the people of Waterloo?

How many plants like Roxton Furniture have to disappear because of Asian competition before the federal Liberal government takes action and protects the economy of Montérégie?

[Canada Labour Code, October 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, obviously, if there is already provincial legislation and the province already has the expertise on the precautionary cessation of work, why not take advantage of that? For the past 15 years, the government opposite has been thinking about implementing measures and been studying the context of precautionary cessations in Quebec. However, this measure already exists in Quebec. So why are employees subject to the federal code not able to benefit from legislation in Quebec, where there is already an occupational health and safety commission?

On the other hand, if the government wants to make all present and future pregnant and nursing employees equal, it need only amend part III of the Canada Labour Code. I fully support this.

In reality, the bill that I am introducing today seeks to eliminate any differences in the rights of employees living in the same province, perhaps in the same neighbourhood or even the same building. Why are these employees being treated differently?

As for the rest of Canada, as I already said, part III of the Canada Labour Code is currently being considered. We need only review and amend it in order to ensure that all employees covered by this code share the same rights.

[Canada Labour Code, October 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Why have we been waiting 15 years for this bill? Quite simply, the government claims it does not want two categories of women workers, one in Quebec and the other in Canada.

My answer will be in two parts. We want the working women of Quebec, whether they come under the federal or the provincial labour code, to have the same rights. On the one hand, they can collect 90% of their salary as soon as they cease working under CSST provisions; on the other hand, workers anywhere else in Canada are covered by the Canada Labour Code, part III of which has not been changed since 1965. This Tuesday and Wednesday, discussions will be held in Montreal concerning amendments to part III of the Canada Labour Code. It would be important for that code to allow pregnant workers to withdraw from the workplace and receive compensation. Provisions for this must be included in part III of the Canada Labour Code once it is amended.

[Canada Labour Code, October 17th, 2005]

moved that Bill C-380, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (pregnant or nursing employees), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to speak to the hon. members in this House about the value of Bill C-380 on preventive withdrawal for pregnant or nursing employees.

This is the fifth time the Bloc Québécois is championing this important matter. This issue has been going nowhere for over 15 years now. The Public Service Alliance of Canada issued a pamphlet on preventive withdrawal over 10 years ago to pressure the government into making sure that working conditions for pregnant or nursing women were healthy and safe.

Studies show that chemical, biological, physical and even ergonomic risks can seriously affect both mother and fetus by causing premature birth, birth defects, miscarriage, stillbirth, etc.

Let us look at what the federal government has to offer to Canadians and Quebeckers in terms of maternity protection:

Section 132 of the Canada Labour Code stipulates that an employee who is pregnant or nursing may cease to perform her job if she believes that, by reason of the pregnancy or nursing, continuing any of her current job functions may pose a risk to her health or to that of the fetus or child. The employee must consult with a qualified medical practitioner to establish whether such a risk exists. While waiting for the medical report, the employee shall continue to receive the wages and benefits that are attached to that job.

Under section 205, the employee can request to be reassigned, if the medical practitioner determines that a risk exists. If reassignment is not possible, the employee can take a leave of absence for the duration of the risk, although there are no financial measures associated with this in the Canada Labour Code. Section 205, Paragraph 6, reads as follows:

An employee referred to in subsection (4) is entitled to and shall be granted a leave of absence for the duration of the risk as indicated in the medical certificate.

There is no question here of ensuring financial compensation for such workers. Furthermore, studies show that, overwhelmingly, employers prefer to take the woman out of the workplace rather than invest money to remove the source of the danger.

What financial recourse will the employee have? Sickness benefits under the EI program.

Here is a typical scenario: let us imagine a woman who drives heavy-duty trucks. This industry falls under the Canada Labour Code. The driver is pregnant and her work poses a real risk to her fetus. On her doctor's instructions, she gives her employer her medical report confirming the risks her duties pose to her pregnancy. I am thinking particularly of the truck's vibrations or the employee having to stay seated for long periods of time.

Since the employer is unable to reassign her to another position, she is sent home.

The employee then has to qualify for sickness benefits under the EI program. First, she has to have accumulated 600 working hours within the last 52 weeks, otherwise she has to take leave without pay. If she has the hours, she must present her doctor's report indicating the risks to which she is exposed. The problem is that pregnancy is not an illness. So, in order to get sickness benefits, the employee must be sick as a result of her work, not her pregnancy. If she meets all the requirements, she is entitled to a maximum of 15 weeks; the program makes no allowance for certain categories of professionals who must totally cease work because their job poses a risk throughout pregnancy.

The only way she can receive any financial compensation under the current legislation is to apply a maximum of 8 of her 15 weeks maternity leave to her preventive withdrawal, that is prior to delivery. She is therefore penalized by that amount of weeks post-delivery.

Note that the rate for all EI benefits is 55% of the employee's net income, to a maximum of $413 weekly, and then there is the two week mandatory waiting period on top of that .

Federal preventive withdrawal measures are therefore incomplete and inconsistent.

In Quebec, on the other hand, the Occupational Health and Safety Act clearly pays occupational health and safety commission benefits for preventive withdrawal. These are equal to 90% of the income of the worker who has taken preventive withdrawal and are for the duration of the period of withdrawal stipulated by her physician. This financial compensation is paid to the employee as soon as she withdraws from her job, with no waiting period.

This creates two categories of workers in Quebec: those covered by the Quebec labour code and thus entitled to real occupational health and safety measures, and those covered by the Canada Labour Code who are, in practice, entitled to either reassignment to a less hazardous position or to leave without pay.

The bill I am proposing corrects that injustice. It offers women workers covered by the Canada Labour Code the same rights as those available under the legislation in the province in which they work, if the latter legislation is more to their advantage, as is the case in Quebec at the present time.

Some will say that this creates two categories of workers under the federal code. Harmonizing services to the public is done according to the best services available: leveling up. This being a jurisdiction that for the most part belongs to Quebec, since 90% of workers are covered by provincial legislation , practices must be made uniform throughout Quebec.

Enabling working women in Quebec who come under the federal code to benefit from Quebec legislation relating to preventive withdrawal does not deprive Canadian working women of anything. On the other hand, not doing so is unfair to working women in Quebec.

The fact of the matter is that there is no denying that both categories of workers already exist in the federal public service. Just think of an employee entitled to preventive withdrawal, who is defined as “an employee working in an institution where she is in direct and regular contact with offenders, if the employer concludes that a modification of job functions... is not reasonably practicable”, which applies to fewer than 2,000 of the 165,000 members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. Need I remind hon. members that correctional officers are currently challenging a unilateral decision by the Treasury Board of Canada to take away from some 2,000 employees of Correctional Service Canada the penological factor allowance used to provide compensation for the hazards involved?

Occupational health and safety represent a challenge the community as a whole must take on. Balancing our ability to increase the birth rate against that of providing our fellow citizens with better work conditions is a matter of political will. We must decide what we want as a society. An increasing number of women on the labour market are confronted with globalization and casualization; we have a duty to ensure that they have healthy and safe work environments, especially when they are pregnant or nursing.

In the steps it has taken with respect to both work family balance and occupational health and safety, Quebec has made a choice: to recognize the essential social function of women in having children and working.

The federal government does not seem to view the evolution of social life the same way. While these issues fall more within the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces than that of the central government, the latter is nonetheless the one responsible for entering into international treaties or agreements and, in spite of promises made last year, it no longer recognizes the Gérin-Lajoie doctrine.

Concern for adequately protecting the health of pregnant employees and their unborn children is nothing new. In 1952, the first Maternity Protection Convention was ratified by more than a dozen member states of the International Labour Organization, or ILO. This convention provided not only for the preventive withdrawal of pregnant or breastfeeding workers, but also for cash benefits to be paid out to these workers.

Canada did not ratify the convention. It never even signed the agreement in principle. Yet, the Canadian government tried to look good in 1999, by taking part in a consultation process conducted by the ILO among its member countries to determine whether a review of the 1952 convention would be in order. The government not only supported such a review, but also said it was in favour of including other specific guidelines regarding the protection of maternity. However, it remained rather vague on its willingness to financially compensate a woman on preventive withdrawal from work.

This is probably one of the main reasons why Canada has yet to ratify the revised Maternity Protection Convention, adopted in 2000.

This tends to confirm the federal government's blatant lack of political will regarding the rights of female workers. Not only is this the fifth time that our party has presented this important legislation, but the government continues to block any measure that would benefit workers. I am thinking, for example, of the bill on replacement workers, which was defeated last spring, and of the legislation to prohibit psychological harassment in the workplace, which was also defeated on October 5. Then there is the federal government's laxness regarding the reintroduction of the Program for Older Worker Adjustment, or POWA, and regarding the changes and improvements that were requested for the employment insurance program.

In fact, the most blatant example of the government's lack of will is unquestionably that of the pilot project on preventive withdrawal. This project, which was introduced in 2002 and which ended on October 1, was not renewed, even though it corrected another injustice done to female workers. Indeed, it made it possible for Quebec women on preventive withdrawal from work not to have to rely on partial employment insurance benefits to supplement the benefits paid by the CSST. This allowed women to use all the weeks of the maternity leave to which they were entitled after giving birth to a child.

As of two weeks ago this is no longer so, which means the employee on leave from her work has one month to declare her stoppage of work for employment insurance purposes. After the prescribed two-week penalty period, she will be forced to receive partial benefits, which will amount to very little, if anything at all, because of the calculation method. This benefit, although partial, is considered in number of weeks as full benefits. Thus, workers in Quebec on preventive withdrawal paid by the CSST, are penalized several weeks' maternity leave after delivery. The unfairness has resumed.

In 1991, when my colleague from the Bloc Québécois, the member for Laurentides, introduced a similar bill, this is what the then parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour said, and I quote:

In the case of pregnant or nursing mothers, perhaps there are some useful lessons to be learned from Quebec's experience in the area of social policy but we need to look at that experience much more carefully before we can vote for the kind of fundamental change proposed in Bill C-340.

Is 15 years enough time for the government to look carefully at Quebec's experience? The argument no longer holds water today, since the government has missed too many opportunities to provide all workers with healthier and safer working conditions. Nothing has changed in 15 years.

The case for providing our workers with effective health and safety measures in the workplace has been made perfectly clear. Now it is time to take action.

According to 2003 data, 252,000 of all the Quebec workers governed by the federal code, men and women alike, do not have the same employment rights as their colleagues governed by Quebec legislation.

Bill C-380 is the first step to providing an important balance for Quebec workers. They deserve our recognition. Let us show it to them by supporting Bill C-380.

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, October 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we were relieved to hear the announcement of the agreement in principle, pending member ratification, between the Canadian Media Guild and the CBC, after seven weeks of lockout.

Nevertheless, it is not normal for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to have experienced five labour disputes, three of them involving lockouts, since 1999. Given this lacklustre performance, one might well question CBC management methods.

The Corporation's management needs to learn a lesson from these numerous labour disputes, and to demonstrate the necessary openness this coming spring, when the time comes for the 1,400 or so union members in Quebec and Moncton to renew their collective agreement.

It is to be hoped that the 9.5% limit on temporary and contract workers negotiated this past weekend will serve as a guideline during the upcoming negotiations with the employees in Quebec and Moncton.

[Wage Earner Protection Program Act, September 29th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech of my dear colleague. I am a little concerned about something. I would like to have her thoughts on that.

We were talking about students going bankrupt. On reading Bill C-55, I see that it allows a court to discharge bankrupt people from their student debts if they have been out of school for five years and if they are suffering excessive financial hardship. Moreover, for the court to authorize the foregoing of the student debt because of excessive difficulties, it must be certain that the debtor acted in good faith and will still have financial difficulties in the near future.

A student who is going bankrupt must have financial difficulties before and also after. How far can we go?

I would like to get the member's thoughts on this. It seems that the person must continue to have financial difficulties in the near future. This means that, being bankrupt, before getting the protection of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the person must prove that, in the years to come, he or she will still have difficulties and his or her life will be difficult, despite the provisions in the bill.

I would like the member to comment.

[Wage Earner Protection Program Act, September 29th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I will expand on my remarks. I say that all wages and all other sums owed to workers must be protected in case of a bankruptcy for which they are not responsible. Managing the business is the employer's job, and the workers are dependent on the way that job is done. When bankruptcy comes, there is nothing they can do about it. However, they should not have to pay for it.

As I mentioned earlier, many collective agreements provide for severance pay, which is one week's pay for each year of service. Why would workers, who paid directly for that, give that money back to the employer? I do not think that this is what we are trying to achieve here. The government wants to protect workers and their money. The employer's role is to manage the business. If the business is poorly managed, workers should not have to pay because the employer did not do a good job. That is why, in committee, we should take a close look at all the financial aspects and all the money that the workers stand to lose. They should not lose any money at all.