Monique Guay

[Liberal Party of Canada, April 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Quebec Liberal caucus is expressing concerns about the lack of arguments to use against the Bloc Quebecois in the upcoming election campaign.

What is more, at last Tuesday evening's Liberal Party meeting, the documents submitted for discussion purposes were available in English only. So much for any pretensions of Canadian bilingualism and the distinct character of Quebec. Quebec Liberal MPs are once again being played for fools.

It is, moreover, somewhat curious that the Quebec Liberal caucus leader, having been asked question after question by the Bloc Quebecois for more than three years, is now admitting that the ministers' reactions are unsatisfactory and that a response to the concerns of Quebec is now needed.

The Liberal strategists are busy concocting ways to justify to the public the use of tax havens by the present Prime Minister, his refusal to pay his fair share of taxes to the country he is in charge of, and his amnesia about the sponsorship scandal. They also need to find excuses for fiscal imbalance and the raids on the EI fund orchestrated by the former finance minister.

In short, they will have to explain their decision to serve their friends rather than the public.

[Workplace Psychological Harassment Prevention Act, April 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville for proposing this bill. As we know, it takes courage to approach subjects that may seem, to some people in this House, unimportant or less important than some others.

We in the Bloc Quebecois have always worked closely with the working people. The House knows that as well as I do, and I am my party's critic for labour. We have always presented bills to improve the happiness of workers in their workplaces, to see that they have more respect, and to give them the opportunity to balance work, children and family life.

All the bills the Bloc has presented here have aimed to improve the lot of workers. By improving their lives, we can ensure that they are more productive. Of course, that is more valuable to business.

Once again, I congratulate my colleague. I am very pleased to speak on this bill.

I want to mention too that my colleague also helped write a book on psychological harassment in the workplace. She did quite extensive research. Doing research in this field is not easy. Many people keep quiet or are afraid of talking for fear of losing their job. They do not have this protection. A great deal of work has to be done to try to get some statistics. So, I want to congratulate her on that as well.

That said, I will try to summarize what work has been done and give some information to the public and explain why we are introducing legislation on this.

Are members aware that 21% of federal public servants are victims of psychological harassment? In actual fact, more than 30% are. That is a lot of people. Furthermore, 52% of victims experience psychosomatic problems. After several months of psychological harassment, stress causes the victim to experience serious psychosomatic problems.

Are members aware that Canada has the fifth highest rate in the world of individuals experiencing workplace harassment, according to the International Labour Organization? We are not the ones saying this, international surveys were conducted.

Again according to the International Labour Organization, in comparison with the United States, the rate of physical and psychological abuse of women at work is 19% higher in Canada. It is high time that we think about adopting legislation to protect workers and ensure that victims of psychological harassment in the workplace have access to resources and legislation to fully protect them.

In the past and present, harassment has been extremely subtle, and even insidious. It starts with a word, with something slightly out of place, when no one is looking so that the victim feels truly awful. Later, other people in the same environment are targeted. The victim is subject to this harassment for months, perhaps even years.

Quite often, these people do not even dare speak out about what is being done. When they reach the end of their rope and finally decide to try to take action, they feel guilty. They think that since they took it for years, people will ask them why they did not do something sooner. It is a vicious circle. That is what it is called.

With a bill like the one my colleague has introduced in this House, people experiencing this problem would have something to refer to. They would be protected and not necessarily lose their jobs. They could ask to be transferred elsewhere. They would be protected by federal legislation.

It is high time we had such legislation. Here in Ottawa it does not exist. We have tried to amend the Canada Labour Code or introduce legislation on precautionary cessation of work for pregnant and nursing women. I am referring to one of my own initiatives. We have such legislation in Quebec and have been asking the federal government for it for 10 years. We have been trying to get anti-scab legislation, while in Quebec this has existed for 25 years.

The other side of the House always refuses, always says no. This is becoming unacceptable.

As for this bill, other colleagues in this House, other political parties will say that they do not agree with one thing or another in the bill. A bill is sent to committee where amendments can be introduced and things changed. We are open to that, we are ready to see what our colleagues have to propose.

What we are not prepared for is not to have the debate, not to have this discussion, not to be able to take this bill and send it to committee. Sending it to committee will allow us to hear from witnesses, people or unions, entrepreneurs and people who have been victims of harassment. These victims could share their experiences with us and tell us what we could do to help them.

This problem exists and we have to open our eyes. I get the feeling in this House that until now, we have had our eyes closed. It is high time that a solution be found.

I hope that when we vote in the House—probably next week—we will allow this bill to be referred to a committee, before saying that it is not good and rejecting it. If we succeed in agreeing on some amendments, so much the better. We will have taken a step forward. More importantly, we will have had the opportunity to hear the testimonies of victims, union leaders, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, all the unions, the FTQ, the CSN, and legal experts. Perhaps the latter will tell us that something must be changed to make the legislation truly effective.

We must be given the opportunity to discuss it in committee. If we refuse to allow this bill to be referred to a committee, it will mean that this issue is a taboo subject in the House, that we do not want to discuss it and that we do not want people to work in a better environment.

The absenteeism rate due to psychological harassment is unbelievably high. It is no fun to get up in the morning and go to work knowing that we will be subjected to harassment. The culprit may be the boss or a colleague; it is not necessarily the immediate supervisor. Imagine getting up in the morning and thinking, “Today, I will once again be subjected to harassment all day long and there is nothing I can do about it”. This is experienced on a daily basis.

Women experience it very frequently. They often hold less senior jobs than men and there are a lot of power games being played. In order not to promote a woman, people in positions of authority will very often try to subject the woman to psychological harassment. They will tell her that she is not good, that she cannot do the job and that she will fail. This undermines the person's morale and people get sick. So, the rate of absenteeism due to psychological harassment in the workplace is extremely high.

If we could have a law to protect those who are experiencing this problem, I am convinced that people would think twice before engaging in harassment. They would know that there are recourses for those who are subjected to such harassment. Currently, there is no recourse, which means that these individuals are free to do what they want.

I would have liked to elaborate further, but we will have the opportunity to do so if all parliamentarians in this House see that the bill is referred to a committee. At last, we will be able to truly hear those who are affected by this problem. Allow us to take a step forward for the cause of workers who are victims of psychological harassment.

[Day of Mourning, April 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, today the flags are at half-mast to acknowledge the International Day of Mourning for Persons Killed or Injured in the Workplace. According to CSST data, 175 people died in Quebec in 2003, half of them in workplace accidents or from occupational diseases.

Over this same period, the CSST received just over 135,700 claims for compensation for workplace injuries.

Behind all these statistics there are men and women who are suffering. The best way to address this problem is to promote prevention and education as they relate to health and safety in every workplace.

The Bloc Quebecois pays tribute to all those who lost their lives on the job. Our thoughts are with their families and those whose quality of life has been affected. Let us be smarter and step up our efforts to make the workplace safer.

[Canada Labour Code, April 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, pregnant and nursing women who work under Quebec legislation and stop working for preventive reasons, are paid 90% of their salary, while women who work under federal legislation receive only 55% through employment insurance, if they are eligible, which is not the case for two thirds of them. The Liberal way of doing things simply creates two classes of workers in Quebec and endangers the health of women and their children.

Why does the Minister of Labour insist on encouraging such an injustice against pregnant and nursing women in Quebec?

[Government Contracts, April 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, there is still more. What Charles Guité has said is confirmed in a letter from Warren Kinsella complaining about political interference by the then finance minister, who not only was funding the scandal but also wanted to see his friends benefit from it.

Is this not proof that this Prime Minister, who claims to be as pure as the driven snow, also sought to favour his friends?

[Government Contracts, April 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, not only is the government now refusing to condemn the actions of the politicians fingered in the sponsorship scandal, but at the time the office of the now Prime Minister, who knew very well how the whole thing worked, interfered politically to benefit his own friends at Earnscliffe.

Charles Guité confirmed yesterday that, in 1994-95, the chief of staff to the current Prime Minister indicated to him that “Paul would prefer”, “Paul would be happier” if Earnscliffe were chosen. Who is that Paul, if not the current Prime Minister?

[Employment Insurance, April 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the time for committees, studies and trial balloons is over. This government has a monumental surplus and must stop making campaign promises and start taking action before the election. It has the means to do so and there certainly are people who need it.

Does the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development realize that, if nothing is done before the election, the people of Quebec will remember?

[Employment Insurance, April 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, on the eve of the election, the government is waking up and realizing the extent of the problem it has caused in the employment insurance program. In two elections now, it has promised the people that it would change the program. It has not done so in four years. Worse yet, it did not announce anything in the recent budget and, what is more, the Prime Minister even voted against the motion put forward by my colleague from Charlevoix to recognize special status for seasonal work.

If the government is serious, why does it not take action now, before the election?

[Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, April 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly, I think there will be serious discussions in committee among the Conservatives, NDP and the government.

It is unfortunate that there had to be a sponsorship scandal for this legislation to be introduced in the House today. It is unfortunate, because if such legislation had existed, we would not have needed to do this. I want to say, nonetheless, that this is a good start by the President of the Privy Council, and we will support the principle of the bill. This does not mean that we are agreeing to it as is, on the contrary.

This is a nice gesture, and I hope that we will have the time to consider this bill. It is well known that, with an election looming, because there is one on the horizon, the government is making itself look good by introducing legislation on whistleblowers. Yet, we must ask, will there be time to go through the whole process and make all the necessary amendments?

Such legislation cannot be passed secretly, with a one, two, three, go and it is over. Many improvements need to be made. Witnesses must be heard. It is important that representatives of the public service be able to appear before the committee. It is also important to hear from people personally affected.

We have all already heard from employees both in and outside the public service who say that they were aware of illegal acts being committed or such and such a thing going on, but that they were powerless to say anything because they might have lost their job.

We must act. We agree with this bill. However, many amendments will be needed to satisfy the Bloc Quebecois.

First, the legislation should be retroactive to January 1, 2004. I will explain why. It goes without saying that all those who disclosed information about the sponsorship scandal should be protected under this legislation. The legislation should be retroactive, so that whistleblowers can benefit from the protection that it provides. Therefore, we hope that it will be retroactive to January 1, 2004. Of course, we will have to be able to consider the bill this year, before an election is called, but there is no guarantee this will happen.

The bill does not include any provision allowing a whistleblower to ask for a transfer, a deployment or a paid leave should his or her situation at work have become unbearable, particularly during the commissioner's investigation.

As we know, an investigation may take some time, it may take longer than expected. It may even take months to complete. If the whistleblower remains in the same work environment, he or she could be exposed to threats, blackmail or harassment. We must be able to relocate this person. If this cannot be done, that person must be protected as required. This is why this bill is being presented. This person must at least be entitled to paid leave and not be financially penalized because he or she reported some wrongdoings. This is not included in the bill, and I hope that we can bring in amendments to change that.

Who appoints the commissioner and to whom does the commissioner report? Based on our interpretation of the wording of this bill, and we will discuss it more thoroughly in committee, the status of the integrity commissioner will be similar to that of the ethics commissioner. We do not want a commissioner of this type, who reports to a minister, because Parliament will not necessarily be kept informed of everything the commissioner may have to say. We would prefer the commissioner to report directly to Parliament, that is to all political parties, so that we can draw our own conclusions.

However, a commissioner should not be appointed just to look good, and not have any real power akin to the Auditor General's.

When the Auditor General tables her report or conducts an investigation, she does so before all the political parties, unhindered in what she can say. The commissioner should be able to play this role and be entirely free to provide us with information without having to go through a department.

That is quite important to us because we think exceptional transparency is vital when it comes to this legislation, and we do not see it here.

The Public Service Alliance already has some concerns. I will read a small paragraph:

Potential whistleblowers do not have the unfettered right to go directly to the agency, but are instead obligated to first go to their supervisors. For example, before commencing an investigation, the commissioner must be satisfied that the employee has exhausted all other avenues prior to taking the matter to the commissioner.

The government is in the process of creating the very obstacles that it is trying to remove. If we really want someone to be able to disclose a wrongdoing, then we must try to avoid having numerous obstacles and allow this person to achieve their objective. Creating other obstacles will not help the cause and wrongdoings will not be disclosed.

In fact, people will not want to. They will still be afraid of taking this path. This may also take long. So, it is a serious decision. Therefore, if someone makes the decision to disclose bad practices, illegalities or mismanagement of public money, it is really a significant decision to make. This person must be protected in every possible way. In this respect, there are shortcomings in the bill.

This bill also says that the individual, the person making a disclosure, must make that disclosure to his or her senior officer. This senior officer, the boss, is very often the source of the problem. In such a case, the whistleblower would not go to the boss, if that person is the guilty party, and say, “Listen, I have a problem; I have seen some things and I am going to blow the whistle on you”.

The whistleblower must be able to turn to someone else, and that must be clarified. It is not clear in the bill, since it says that the individual must first go through the senior officer. But if the senior officer is guilty, what should be done?

Consequently, there are some things to clarify. I know that a bill is never perfect. Work must be done, however, and we will help make the necessary improvements, in order to make this bill acceptable.

There must also be provisions for protection from psychological harassment. We know that an employee may be told, “It is fine; you can stay on the job. You have made your disclosure. We will protect you”, but the whistleblower may be subject to psychological harassment. There is nothing, no law, no provisions in any law to protect people from psychological harassment. One of my colleagues has introduced a private members' bill on this subject. We know there are many cases here in the public service.

There are no provisions for this in the bill. Nor are there any in any other law nor in the labour code. This absolutely must be considered.

I could go on longer, but I only have 10 minutes, and I know that we will be able to examine this bill in committee. I sincerely hope that the basic work will be done. We will introduce interesting amendments and we will call witnesses. Our list of witnesses is ready. I hope that the minister is ready for some serious work and ready to bring in the amendments needed for this bill to become a law that truly respects those who make disclosures and enables them to be totally and completely protected when they do so.

[Health, March 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the report shows that safety inspections of medical devices are compromised because Health Canada has assigned only 58 inspectors to this task when it needs 97.

How can the federal government impose its way of doing things on Quebec and the provinces when it cannot even provide the right number of inspectors to allow Health Canada to do its work properly?