Monique Guay

[Literacy Day, October 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, October 23 is International Literacy Day. For ten years, delegates have been meeting with us to discuss rationalization projects, and literacy services and expertise.

In Canada, more than 10 million people have a moderate or limited level of literacy. This creates a loss of productivity and a major obstacle to social integration. We know to what extent the ability to read and write is a daily necessity.

In a report by the Standing Committee on Human Resource Development, we have acknowledged the importance of emphasizing the effectiveness of literacy. I would like to think that the minister responsible would firmly support the committee's recommendations for better suited action.

I applaud and thank the stakeholders who came here today to discuss the values and significance of literacy outreach.

[Canada Labour Code, October 21st, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I will take the five minutes available to me because I still have a lot of things to say about this bill.

First, I must thank all those who will be supporting this bill and have said so in the House today. I want to thank them and tell them how happy I am that they have understood the need and usefulness of anti-scab legislation.

I heard comments tonight that made my ears turn red, as we would say in Quebec. I heard people say that it is an emotional debate. Of course it is an emotional debate, but there is more to it than that. When people lose their jobs for ten months and are without income, it certainly becomes an emotional debate. But it is also a debate about fairness and logic.

What my bill is trying to achieve is to give employees an opportunity to negotiate fairly with their employers. There must be a balance between the two sides, one that currently does not exist. Everyone knows that there are no real anti-scab provisions in the Canada Labour Code.

It is not strictly an emotional debate, therefore, but a debate on fairness and economics. Imagine being one of 1,000 employees at a major company to lose your job. Most companies under federal jurisdiction are large companies. These people do not help the economy, because they are unable to spend. They end up in poverty and, at the end of the day, the government has to support them when they are penniless. They go on welfare, end up in poverty and their health declines. These are immeasurable social costs and that is important. There are economic problems and problems of fairness.

I would like to point out that I have been the labour critic for my party since 1999. This is the third time I have opened this debate. This time, we will vote on the bill and we will do so tomorrow. Tomorrow we will see who has compassion and respect for workers. Tomorrow we will see which members have the courage to vote in favour of anti-scab legislation.

We are not talking about the economic costs. I know the labour minister has written to all Liberal members asking them not to support this anti-scab bill. She said that part I of the Canada Labour Code has already been reviewed in 1999 and that the unions were pleased with the outcome.

The President of the FTQ wrote personally to the minister to ask her to withdraw her remarks and apologize. It is not true that we do not want an anti-scab legislation, on the contrary.

It is not because part I of the Canada Labour Code was reviewed in 1999 that we should say the matter is closed, and we should not talk about it any more. Come on. We are here to change things. Our role as parliamentarians is to improve legislation, improve the Canada Labour Code, improve the lot of Canadians, Quebeckers, and workers. They are the ones who support the government, and they should benefit from their government. I feel the current situation is unfair.

Earlier, my Liberal colleague said something that upset me again. He said this is not that important, because not too many people are under the Canada Labour Code. He should be ashamed to say such a thing.

The issue is much bigger than this. It is a matter of respect, and the time has come for that. In Quebec, the issue was settled 25 years ago. We respect our workers. What I am striving to do, as a Quebecker, is to allow people in Quebec and the rest of Canada who work for businesses under federal jurisdiction to get this respect and to negotiate fairly with their employers. It is that simple. The government will not have to spend a single penny. All that is needed from it is a strong political desire to do this.

I hope that when we vote tomorrow, we will find out that the hon. members do have the political desire to do so and support this bill.

[Food Banks, October 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, a report made public last week by the Canadian Association of Food Banks confirms that the number of men, women and children turning to food banks to put food on the table has doubled since 1989.

The numbers are staggering. According to this report, at least 750,000 people use food banks each month.

Increasing numbers of people are living in poverty and must beg for their bread and butter. Meanwhile, the Auditor General will soon tell us that, during the sponsorship scandal, the current Prime Minister chose to scandalously waste public funds on propaganda, rather than invest in a real strategy to fight poverty.

This sad saga in Canadian politics was written by the current Prime Minister, along with the former finance minister, who still prefers to use tax havens rather than contribute to the taxes of the country he dreams of leading. This is a sad legacy for one, and a sorry start for the other.

[Petitions, October 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege this morning to present to the House a petition bearing 46,000 signatures in support of my bill, Bill C-328, which will be considered this afternoon for a second hour.

I hope that the 46,000 petitioners will be heard and that, when members vote on this anti-scab legislation tomorrow, they will remember that over 46,000 people from Quebec and the rest of Canada have signed a petition supporting the bill. Without further ado, I present this petition to the House.

[Employment Insurance, October 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, there is no lack of reports and studies on the EI program; in fact, there are too many. First the standing committee, and now the Canadian Labour Congress and Statistics Canada are criticizing all the EI program failures.

Instead of wasting time with another committee, the minister has everything she needs to implement the necessary reforms. What will it take for the government to act?

[Employment Insurance, October 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development is announcing the creation of yet another committee that will consider the effects of EI policies on seasonal workers. I want to remind the minister that the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities tabled a unanimous report containing 17 recommendations, not one of which the minister retained.

Rather than create yet another partisan committee, if the minister really wants to help seasonal workers, why does she not simply implement the 17 recommendations of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities? The solutions are there; the government needs to act.

[Bankruptcy Legislation, October 9th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure for me to try to find solutions to improve the situation of workers, and I congratulate my colleague from Churchill on her motion.

For some years now, ever since they started to cut employment insurance, it has become increasingly inaccessible. We know that only four people out of ten are now eligible. Things are also getting difficult for workers whose employer goes bankrupt.

When there is a bankruptcy—and I know what I am talking about, because I worked in this field in the past—the workers are lowest on the list of creditors who might benefit in some way from the proceeds of the sale of the company or its assets.

Very often suppliers are first to be paid, and the employees are pushed aside. We also know that the two-week EI waiting period still in effect also penalizes these people.

When workers lose their jobs suddenly because of a bankruptcy, they are penalized and at risk of losing a lot of money and having to give up possessions,. Their well-being suffers greatly as well.

It would therefore be very important for us to pass the motion of my colleague in order to stop employees from being penalized and to allow them to at least be the first to benefit from these two weeks, to be paid from the proceeds of the sale of the company or its assets. The first thing that should be done with those proceeds is to pay the employees their two weeks and then let them apply for EI.

Workers are not in any way responsible for what happened to the company. Bankruptcies are often the result of bad administration, and workers in a plant do not necessarily have anything to do with administration. Very often they have no idea of how the company is run.

We must be clear and we must be honest. I believe this motion readjusts the situation in favour of the workers. If there is no money left after the company or anything else is sold, then let them at least give as much help as possible to each employee to get them through this period in no man's land. They must be compensated as much as possible during those two weeks of the waiting period.

Private members' motions in support of workers do not seem to be very popular these days in this Canadian Parliament. I would like special attention to be paid to this one, as well as to all others relating to workers that will be coming before this House.

We have been trying for a long time to make things better through parts I, II and III of the Canada Labour Code. As my hon. colleague knows full well, we have often worked together to look for ways to improve the situation, on the basis of what is already in place in the provinces.

Some provinces like Quebec are well ahead of their time. In Quebec, the legislation and opportunities are much more rewarding, as well as fair and equitable to workers.

TheCanada Labour Code needs to be modernized. This would promote fairness for all workers. When people who have given 20 years of their lives to a company find themselves without work following a bankruptcy, this is not funny. When you are laid off temporarily while the company tries to get back on its feet, at least there is hope of being called back to work.

But once the company has gone bankrupt, that is it. It is the end. This often means having to find work elsewhere, and getting special training. Those affected really do not need to be further penalized by not giving them their two weeks, which, when you think of it, should be mandatory.

I think that turning to the EI program is not necessarily the answer either. It may not be the one that should pay the two weeks following a bankruptcy. Employers always get some money for the equipment or from the last contracts or what not. I think that an analysis could reveal some possibilities there.

Bear in mind also that it is increasingly difficult to qualify for employment insurance. These people are doubly penalized, and unnecessarily so. We must ensure that they can regain their dignity and re-enter the labour market without losing what they had because their employers were unable to run their businesses properly.

These are often not very well paid workers. Most of them are plant workers earning between $15,000 and $25,000. And $25,000 a year is often considered good money in some plants.

These are not people who can afford to put money aside in case the company goes bankrupt. It is just not possible. They have to live, they have children, it costs money. Often they do put money aside in a pension fund, but they do not want to use it before the time has come. However, sometimes they have to because they cannot get those two weeks, and quite often it hurts a lot.

I strongly support the bill put forward by my colleague from Churchill. I hope she will find enough support in the House to allow for this modernization. The laws and the Canada Labour Code must be modernized. The legislation dealing with workers must be modernized. We must strive for fairness and also for a balance between employers and employees.

Several years ago I introduced an anti-scab bill at the federal level that will soon come back to the House. We must restore some balance in employer-employee relations, so that negotiations are more peaceful and healthy. My colleague's bill would help lessen employees' stress. Should the company go bankrupt, they would no longer have to worry about what is going to happen to them. They would have some reassurance. I believe that if there is money, they should be the first ones to get it. That way, they would have enough money to survive until their employment insurance benefits kick in. One hopes they would have accumulated enough hours to be eligible.

I will support this motion. I hope other members in this House will do the same. As we know, it would not cost the government anything. It would be the responsibility of the company using the money left after a bankruptcy, the proceeds from the sale of the company.

When motions or bills in favour of workers come to the House, I would like to see my colleagues support them, so that workers in Quebec and Canada are dealt with fairly and appropriately.

I will support the motion, therefore.

[Employment Insurance, October 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, insistent and repeated interventions by the Bloc Quebecois have finally made the Liberal government realize that employment insurance, in its current form, does not meet the needs of outlying regions, where seasonal work is an economic reality for those men and women who experience it daily.

By agreeing to extend the transitional measures until October 9, 2004, to lessen the effects on the unemployed in the Madawaska-Charlotte region of New Brunswick, and the Lower St. Lawrence and North Shore regions of Quebec, the Liberal government is merely confirming the mess it has made of the employment insurance program.

The announcement is a step in the right direction, but it does not go nearly far enough. The government needs to understand that it must do more than provide transitional measures and agree to an indepth review of employment insurance.

The government must promise to never again spend the money of the unemployed by raiding the employment insurance fund.

[Canadian Grand Prix, October 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, while Mr. Legault is in London to save the Montreal Grand Prix, why does the government not provide him with one more trump card in negotiating with the private sector by promising to do its part to save the Montreal Grand Prix?

[Canadian Grand Prix, October 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, on September 29, the Secretary of State responsible for Canada Economic Development said that there was no question at this time of the government investing in the Montreal Grand Prix unless the private sector did the same.

Given that the private sector is prepared to get on board, and solutions are coming from all sides, except from the federal government, can we at least get a commitment today that the government will do its part to make up for the shortfall?