Maria Minna

[Afghanistan, April 20th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, last week, Afghan women demonstrated against the oppressive law passed by the Afghan parliament legalizing marital rape. In response to this show of solidarity, these women were stoned. This follows the assassination of a prominent Afghan woman politician. Conditions for women in Afghanistan are worsening.

Where was the government when the legislation passed, when exactly did the government first learn of this odious law and what exactly has it done to get it repealed?

[Employment Insurance, April 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, a recently laid-off auto worker in my riding is not eligible for EI because in Toronto the government requires 700 qualifying hours. Because this individual only had 699 hours, he was denied EI.

Would the minister explain why an unemployed worker with the exact same number of hours living in one of 26 other regions qualifies for EI, while my constituent does not? How can she justify this discrimination?

[Italian-Canadian Recognition and Restitution Act, March 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that over the years Mr. Caccia and some of us tried but it did not happen because the government at the time agreed with the legal advice that this would cause problems. However, on November 12, 2005, under Mr. Martin's government, there was an agreement with all of the communities, not just one but all of them, for retribution, acknowledgement and an apology.

That is not what the Conservative government has done. It has chosen one group over another. When it decided to apologize to the Chinese Canadian community, I was pleased but also very hurt and disheartened that the Italian community was left out. When it apologized to the people who had been on the Komagata Maru ship that was moored off the shores of Vancouver, I was pleased but again, the Italian community was left out.

This is not a new issue. The CBC has done a major documentary on this. As the president of the National Congress of Italian Canadians, I held this file for quite some time. Everyone knows some of the facts. Men lost businesses. I know an individual whose business was taken away from him. He was arrested and the business was sold for $1 to someone else, obviously not of Italian background, and he was never ever convicted of anything. People were never charged for anything. In fact, men were brought in front of a judge who eventually resigned. He thought the whole thing was a sham because there was never any evidence of any kind against any of these people.

Canadian citizens, people who were born here, were held. One whom I knew personally was a professor at the University of Toronto. People were fingerprinted. The women and children who were left in the city and declared enemy aliens were fingerprinted, treated like enemies of the state. They were spat on. They were treated horribly. They could not get jobs. Think of the shame and humiliation they felt. When I came to this country in 1957, Italians who were here before me would not talk about themselves or their past.

Canadian-born children were held because they had parents of Italian origin. I remember one child in the documentary who was maybe 15 years old when he was taken to Petawawa. Illiterate people were accused of being spies. Imagine that. Families would receive mail stamped “POW“, prisoners of war. The stories continued even after the war was over. The charade continued for a long time. The names of these people were kept in archives as if they were criminals.

I worked on this file for a very long time. For the information of hon. members across the way, I worked with the German community, the Ukrainian community, and the Chinese Canadian community. After the Japanese Canadian community received its apology, we decided that we would work together to try to get the Mulroney government to do the same for the rest of the communities as he had done with the Japanese Canadian community. That was not done.

As a member of the Italian Canadian community, I spent 20 years working as a volunteer for immigrant rights in the city of Toronto. A large part of that work was with Italian Canadians. There was extreme shame felt by those people. Most Italian Canadian kids did not know their heritage. Their parents would not tell them because of the shame they felt. I did not know about that until I became the president of the congress. I was in my thirties.

This is not about money. It is about apologies. It is about taking away the shame and acknowledging the people who were born here. They were all Canadian citizens. They were not foreigners. They were citizens of this country. This is about Canadians apologizing to Canadians. What happened should never have happened and it is high time we did that.

[Italian-Canadian Recognition and Restitution Act, March 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying that the major issue is not about money but it is about recognition, acknowledging what has happened and apologizing to the community.

Some members on the government side earlier pointed out the fact that there was nothing done when the Liberals were in government.That is true.

[Italian-Canadian Recognition and Restitution Act, March 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to split my time with the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

[Italian-Canadian Recognition and Restitution Act, March 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, while I was the president of the National Congress of Italian-Canadians, I spent a great deal of time trying to get the Government of Canada, at the time and subsequently, to address these issues.

I must say that when the previous government decided to apologize to the Japanese community, and then the current government to the Chinese-Canadian community, I was angry and hurt. When I asked a member why, on the day when the government chose to apologize to the people on the ship, Komagata Maru, and others, that it did not include the Italian Canadians and the member looked blank.

I want to ask my colleague a question. Last week the government announced that it would be setting up an advisory committee with members of the Italian community for historical recognition and to set up some projects. It has chosen three members of the community and so on but none of it has to do with apologies. Is this belated action on the part of the government as a result of his private member's bill, which I think it is? Also, what good does it do when—

[Replacement Workers, March 11th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to this motion.

The issue of replacement workers is a contentious one. It is something that has been going on for quite some time. I did a bit of checking and there have been 12 private members' bills on this subject since 2000. Obviously it is not going to go away very easily. It is something that we need to take seriously.

In 1999 there was a review of part I of the Canada Labour Code and the Sims report was issued. There were some negotiations that took place at the time.

I looked at Quebec and B.C. which have bans on replacement workers and take into account essential services. I specifically wanted to focus on Quebec because this motion is from a Quebec member. I specifically wanted to focus on the Quebec structure.

I looked at the legislation, and basically it prohibits the use of outside workers, contractors, other employees, for example those not on strike, employees who cross the picket line, and managers from another establishment, unless employees of that establishment belong to the unit involved in the work stoppage. These are some of the prohibitions.

Another section deals with what we are discussing tonight to some degree, and that is the exceptions to the prohibition, employees performing designated essential services. This definition is always very difficult to arrive at. It is critical because depending on how one defines it, it has different connotations. Striking workers must be reinstated at the end of the work stoppage, which if I am not mistaken is part of the current Canada Labour Code, as well. These are not all aspects but are certainly the major points of the Quebec legislation.

The Canada Labour Code was revamped in 1999 as a result of the Sims report on part I of the labour code. At that time, most things were agreed on. The replacement worker provisions were a contentious issue between labour and management, and no agreement was reached. To this day it continues to be a contentious issue. I know that labour and unions would like this to be changed, and of course the employer side has a different opinion.

Under the current labour code, there is no general ban on the use of replacement workers, as I understand it, but it is an unfair labour practice for employers to use replacement workers to attempt to undermine the union's representational capacity, for example, to attempt to break the union. There is some aspect of protection. Obviously there is protection of the workers and protection of the union in not trying to undermine the unions.

At the end of a work stoppage, striking employees must be reinstated in preference to any replacement workers. I mentioned this earlier with respect to the Quebec model. Under the labour code, retaliation upon an employee who participates in a legal strike or who refuses to perform the duties of another employee who is on a legal strike is prohibited. Services essential to protect public health and safety must be maintained.

These are key parts of the labour code.

As I said earlier, there has been absolutely no agreement with respect to the replacement worker side. This issue continues to be debated, as we are doing yet again tonight.

I also wanted to take a comparative look at the Quebec experience and the Canada Labour Code experience in the last little while. In Quebec the average duration of work stoppage from 2005 to 2007 was about 43.8 days. Under the labour code, the average duration was 41 days. They are not that far apart in terms of work stoppage.

Again in Quebec, there was a total of 25 complaints to the labour relations board regarding the unfair use of replacement workers of which 10 were upheld. Again, it seems that replacement workers are still being used despite the amendments. I know that is causing some problems. Still under the Canada Labour Code there have been a total of 23 complaints since 1999, none of which have been upheld and one decision is pending.

I compared these two models, and listened to some of the arguments that we have been receiving on both sides. One that I get quite frequently from the business side is that if there was no replacement worker legislation, there would be more strikes, that is, the unions would feel more comfortable about having strikes and would hold more power over their workers and the employer. This seems not to have happened in Quebec.

When I looked at the two models, there is no comparable difference in the average duration of work stoppage under the current Canada Labour Code and in Quebec. There is no appreciable difference in the wage settlements and replacement workers are still used notwithstanding the legislative ban. It remains to be a contentious issue between the unions and management. It continues to be a contentious issue.

The issue of strikes being a way out for unions does not seem to be the experience in Quebec. That does not seem to be a contentious area or a concern. However, I suspect that this issue will never be resolved 100% one way or the other. There will continue to be discussions. Nonetheless, consultation on both sides is critical.

It is clear that the union's right to strike versus the employer's right to run a business is the discussion that we continuously have in the House. There is a need to clearly define essential services. If legislation were introduced, we would need to define essential services very clearly. That is where there are some differences of opinion. There is some discussion that even if we defined essential services, it would not necessarily solve the problem and it would still continue to create difficulties in some businesses.

One example that was given to me recently by an employer who was concerned about the essential services was if CN were to strike, the delivery of grain would be considered an essential service, that the movement of grain would have to be maintained across the country. We could order the trains to run across the country, but they would not be able to carry anything but grain and that would affect other businesses. I am not sure I buy that. I just put it out as an argument that is being made. Other concerns have to do with airports. We are not talking about government regulated bodies. It is a very broad area, ports, airports, transportation and so on, so it does have a major impact on employees.

With respect to a union's right to strike toward achieving a fair settlement, many unions feel that their power to negotiate is undermined by not having the replacement worker legislation in place. I understand their arguments very well. As I said, at the same time employers have had their issues as well.

It is important to keep in mind that the government can always legislate people back to work if that replacement legislation is introduced at some point in the future. The importance is that it is a balance of power and it is essential to make that balance as fair as possible. That is the crux of it.

We must ensure that whatever happens in the workplace there is a balance, that it is fair for both sides. Making sure that we have a fair system in place is what is important.

We need to ensure in any legislation that is brought forward that it is clear, that there is proper consultation and that there is proper designation of essential services.

[Points of Order, March 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, during question period, while I was objecting to something that he was saying, the minister for the Treasury Board shouted across that I should be put on medication.

I do not expect the minister to withdraw anything he said today. If he can say that the day after International Women's Day, when someone is objecting to the kind of things that the government has done and is challenging what he is saying, then I do not expect anything from that member, but I do want to put on the record his behaviour today.

[Status of Women, March 9th, 2009]

It has nothing to do with the Liberals. You cannot compare them. How dare you?

[Status of Women, March 9th, 2009]

No, they are not. Give me a break.