Carole Lavallée

[Employment Insurance, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, is International Women's Day not the right time to challenge all discriminatory practices against women? Through its stubbornness, the federal government contributes to keeping women working under its jurisdiction at a disadvantage.

Why does the federal government refuse to give its female workers the same benefits granted to other women in Quebec in terms of preventive withdrawal?

[Employment Insurance, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, pregnant women in Quebec have access to a preventive withdrawal regime when their working conditions put their health and the health of their baby at risk. Unfortunately, women employed in federally regulated companies do not have the same benefits.

How can the federal government contribute to perpetuating such inequality when a simple agreement with the Government of Quebec could resolve this situation?

[Saint-Hubert Pee-wee Hockey Tournament, February 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, February 6, the 25th Saint-Hubert provincial pee-wee hockey tournament got underway. By the time the final game is played on February 20th, more than 800 players on 52 teams from all over Quebec will have faced each other on the rinks of Saint-Hubert.

The theme of the tournament is winning fair and square. Over the next few weeks the tournament will welcome many sports and media personalities. In addition to supporting the development of minor hockey in Saint-Hubert, the various tournament activities will also be raising money for cystic fibrosis.

Credit for many successful years of this event goes to the organizing committee and the 250 volunteers who contribute to making this a memorable experience for these young athletes.

The Bloc Québécois wants to pay special tribute to the exceptional work of the 13th president, Mario Beaudoin.

[Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, December 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Winnipeg Centre for having introduced Bill C-281. As I have already said elsewhere, if he had not introduced it, I would have been happy to do so in my capacity as Bloc Québécois labour critic.

There is no point in repeating that the Bloc Québécois supports the bill in principle. Obviously, employees normally have no way to protect themselves when their employer experiences financial difficulties. Unlike financial institutions, which have more than one source of income, employees do not have the same ability to absorb a loss of income for hours they have already worked.

Obviously, it is difficult for employees to assess the risks of working for a particular company. When an employer has financial problems, its best resources may decide to leave to avoid losing any income, which would further decrease the employer's chances of resolving his problems.

I want to reiterate the commitments the Bloc Québécois made during the last election campaign. The BQ committed to proposing amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act so that the wages and pension funds of employees would be the first debts paid if a company went bankrupt.

The current situation, as we know, is inadequate. Under the current legislation, an employee who has worked all his or her life for the same firm can end up without any income if that company goes bankrupt. The employee loses not only future salary income, but also all contributions to the company pension plan.

For example, in 2003, the workers and retirees of the Canadian Steel Foundries in Montreal found themselves with an unfunded pension fund when the foundry closed. In that case, the guaranteed creditors were owed $5 million, which left nothing to pay for the system's unfunded liabilities, such as the pension fund, amounting to $260,000. The employees' pension benefits were reduced but the bank was able to recover its $5 million.

The Bloc Québécois voted in favour of a motion brought before the House by the NDP in October 2003, asking the government to amend the Bankruptcy Act to ensure that the wages and pensions of employees would be the first debts paid in case of bankruptcy. Unfortunately, the Liberal Party voted against that motion and the bill was not passed.

Today, as I said, the Bloc will vote in favour of this bill but during the adoption process, it will propose certain amendments. For example, the Bloc will propose the creation of a fund to guarantee pension benefits, which could provide protection to participants in pension plans that are unfunded when the business closes. Such a fund exists in Ontario.

The wage guarantee has not been changed since 1975. The $2,000 amount would be equal to around $7,300 in 2004 dollars, according to the Bank of Canada's conversion as of December 3, 2004. It should be increased and indexed.

The fact is that the rights of creditors and the rights of workers are seriously out of balance. Secured creditors are usually the ones who can forgo that guarantee, that is, they can survive financially without a guarantee.

Creditors at the top of the list, financial institutions and large suppliers, have the expertise not only to assess a company's risks, but also to create a guarantee in a legal context. In contrast, employees do not have the opportunity nor very often the information they would need to obtain any guarantee that their hours of work will really be rewarded.

Employees cannot easily absorb a loss of income, unlike financial institutions that have several sources of income.

Even though the proceeds of their activities might be higher than wages, financial institutions diversify their risk, which a regular employee cannot do.

Thus, by giving first priority to unpaid wages, Bill C-281 would reduce the burden on an employee who has just lost his job and, need I remind you, would be a better social measure.

It is important to note that there is no guarantee employees would receive the full value of their unpaid wages, since the amount paid would depend on the value of assets being liquidated. Nonetheless, the money paid back would be even less if we kept the current system.

Some have said that making unpaid wages a first priority might inhibit the borrowing capacity of the companies, particularly those with a very large payroll. Some also say that the rules for borrowing could become stricter and that interest rates could increase if lenders no longer had priority status.

In response to these arguments, let us remember that financial institutions broadly diversify their risks and that wages are often much lower than capital costs.

These days, pay day is usually every two weeks, which greatly limits the risk of having huge amounts to pay in wages.

Passing this bill would shake up the bankruptcy and insolvency rules and standards, which have for too long gone undisturbed.

However, this restructuring is more than necessary, since the business world is constantly changing and workers can no longer be so sure about the future of the companies that employ them.

It is wrong not to ensure a minimum of protection for workers' wages and certain benefits, such as the pension funds they contribute to their entire lives while their employer has enjoyed profits.

To those who claim that amending the act will cause major problems for companies in terms of financing, they should never forget that the operation and success of a company depend in large part on its workers.

It is unthinkable that in the quest for profits and the lowest possible operating costs, we are failing to show due respect for workers.

[Canada Labour Code, December 2nd, 2004]

Madam Speaker, what a good idea it is to review part III of the Canada Labour Code. All the changes made will have a direct impact on 10% of Canadian workers and 7% of Quebec workers in industries governed by the Canada Labour Code. They will also have a domino effect on all collective agreements and on labour standards in Quebec and each of the provinces.

We may perhaps all have preconceived ideas about what is contained in this part of the Canada Labour Code: annual leave, statutory holidays, salary deductions. It is, however, fair and justified to mandate an independent commission to carry out research, consult the public and make recommendations on each of these elements. But would it not be better to aim at modernizing all working conditions, whether covered by part III or not, to mandate the commission and its new head to study and analyze labour conditions in today's economy and to see how labour relations in Canada and Quebec can be changed?

This examination ought not to be only through the lens of part III of the Canada Labour Code, but rather with a view to adapting to the new requirements of life today and a changing world.

There is of course the matter of balancing work and family, reconciling work life and personal life, as the minister has said. Ought we not to also look into the possibility of allowing parents with children under the age of 12 to work a four-day week if they want to? As well, ought we not to look at the possibility of having as many workplace child care facilities as possible? What about specific working conditions for natural caregivers? Then there is psychological harassment, not in itself anything new, although our intolerance of it is and it also warrants looking at.

Another manifestation of our changing times are contract workers. In some companies, it used to be that 70% of workers were permanent and 30% on contract, but now the opposite is true.

Then there is the new phenomenon of the workers approaching retirement age, those who are 50-plus and want to retire gradually. Could this new phenomenon not be combined with preparing the next generation of workers? Are the two unrelated, or could these two new problems solve each other?

Should antiscab legislation not also be considered by the Arthurs commission? Replacement workers are responsible for the unnecessary length of labour disputes. In Quebec, where the statistics are easy to analyze, workers under federal jurisdiction represent only 6.6% of the workforce but are responsible for 48% of the work days lost as a result of labour disputes. This is a telling statistic.

To reassure the minister, I must also add that Quebec employers have no complaints about this legislation, which has been in effect in Quebec for the last 25 years. On the contrary, it suits them.

Precautionary cessation of work also straddles Parts II and III of the Canada Labour Code. Here too, humane solutions must be found, and the current commission would have difficulty justifying any failure to address this issue.

With regard to globalization, a specialty of Professor Arthurs, protection must be given to workers who might be victimized by the demands of employers who introduce new requirements in order to meet the international competition.

In Quebec in particular, the disparities between the Canada Labour Code and Quebec's labour standards have lead to the creation of two categories of workers: those subject to the Canada Labour Code and those working under Quebec's labour standards.

Finally, we should take advantage of this opportunity to resolve certain issues that still remain in regard to federal infringement on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. Regarding parental leave in particular, the federal government signed an agreement in principle with Quebec a few days prior to the election call last June and continues to refuse, despite signing that agreement, to withdraw its reference to the Supreme Court. Compassionate leave also constitutes an infringement on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.

Such negotiations are extremely important for the Bloc Quebecois, which defends the interests of workers and defends the Quebec consensus on—

[Citizenship and Immigration, November 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, while thousands of immigration applications have been waiting for months, even years, the minister gives preference to exotic dancers under the pretext that there is a shortage of workers in this field.

How can the minister justify her haste to satisfy the demand of this industry and refuse to give priority to much more urgent matters?

[Citizenship and Immigration, November 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we were quite surprised to say the least to learn of the existence of an immigration program that gives exotic dancers priority entry into Canada.

How does the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration justify the existence of such a program, which provides workers to an industry that blatantly exploits women?

[Correctional Service of Canada, November 25th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, this has been going on for 30 months.

Why is the Treasury Board refusing to recognize the valuable and important role of correctional officers, who do difficult and essential work under extremely unpleasant conditions?

[Correctional Service of Canada, November 25th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, times are tough for correctional officers, who having been working without a contract since June 2002.

After more than 80 bargaining sessions no agreement has been reached despite intervention by a conciliator. Management's negotiator presented a 40-page proposal, which addresses only things that have already been settled or rejected.

Is this not a clear indication that the President of the Treasury Board is dragging his feet because he does not intend to negotiate an agreement with correctional officers quickly?

[Child Care, November 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, on June 3, 2004, during the election campaign, the Prime Minister said that Quebec would receive its share of the $5 billion without having to open its books to the federal government.

Will the Minister of Social Development confirm that this promise made by the Prime Minister while campaigning in Quebec still holds, especially as he prepares to meet the ministers responsible for this sector?