Monique Guay

[Fisheries, May 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the situation on the Lower North Shore is a really exceptional one, because fishery zone 13 is closed completely, thus doing away with all employment in that sector.

Will the government admit that this exceptional situation demands an exceptional solution, and that the EI fund with its $45 billion surplus must be used to save these people from abject poverty?

[Fisheries, May 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government has been accumulating enormous surpluses in the employment insurance fund for eight years now. The fund now stands at $45 billion, all ready for a rainy day it would seem.

When the North Shore fishery workers find themselves with nothing, with no more cod or crab to catch or process, and no hope of any other means of livelihood, that is a rainy day.

Will the government admit that the time has come to use the surplus in the employment insurance fund to provide special assistance to the people of that region?

[Labour Dispute at Cargill, May 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, after three long years of lock-out, the workers of Cargill Grain in Baie-Comeau will be able to return to work this week at last.

I salute the courage and determination of these workers and their family members, who have been the victims of the federal government's laissez-faire attitude as far as labour relations are concerned. The Liberal government ought to be ashamed of encouraging the use of strikebreakers, and ought to be prompted by the Cargill dispute to amend the Canada Labour Code so no similar situations ever occur again.

The best way to prove its good faith will be to vote in favour of the anti-scab legislation I have introduced in the House, the intent of which is to encourage civilized negotiations, industrial peace and an equitable employer-employee relationship.

The bill I introduced does not belong to me, nor to the government, nor to the members of this House. This anti-strikebreaker bill belongs to the workers of Quebec and of Canada.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 2nd, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to announce from the outset that we support the principle of Bill C-406, which is to relax the employment insurance eligibility rules and to enhance both the benefits and the benefit period. A number of clarifications and changes will, however, need to be considered more closely and made in committee.

I will elaborate on a few points where we feel minor changes would be beneficial. I have touched on this earlier, in speaking with my hon. colleague from Acadie—Bathurst, who has looked at the Bloc's recommendations with an open mind.

First, I wish to say that the fact that 800,000 workers are not eligible for employment insurance is totally unacceptable. These are workers, all 800,000 of them, who contribute to the EI program and yet cannot benefit from it. When I take out an insurance policy, I do so to make sure that, should something happen to me, I have something to fall back on. With EI, workers pay into the fund but they end up being told that they are not eligible because they did not work enough hours to qualify, or they are penalized because the work they do is seasonal, or for some other reason.

This should not still be happening, especially when we see the billion dollar surpluses in the employment insurance fund. This is totally unacceptable. I would have liked to see, in this House, a more unified front from the opposition on an issue as important as this one. We have been fighting for years to ensure that everyone is treated fairly and equitably, and that is not how they are being treated.

A case in point is something very close to my heart, which I have been pushing for in this place for years now: preventative withdrawal from work for women who are pregnant or breastfeeding. The government has yet to do something, anything, on this issue. The amounts involved are not huge; all it would take is political will, but there is none here.

The point we are wondering about is the arm's length relationship. The Employment Insurance Act states that employment is not insurable if the employer and employee are related and do not have an arm's length relationship with each other. The Minister of HRDC, however, has discretionary power that enables him to consider employment of a relative as insurable employment if the claimant can demonstrate, given all the circumstances, that they would have entered into a substantially similar contract of employment if they had been dealing with each other at arm's length. Despite this discretionary power, the law's practical application remains harsh. The burden of proof is always on the claimant. My hon. friend's Bill C-406 puts the burden of proof regarding the arm's length relationship between employer and employee on the Employment Insurance Commission.

In its report, the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development recommended that the government amend the Employment Insurance Act to eliminate the presumption of guilt in cases of non-arm's length relationships between employers and employees.

My party's position is this: the Bloc Quebecois, like the Law Commission of Canada—since the commission made the same recommendation—proposes that the act be amended so that employment by a related person is not presumed to be uninsurable. Bill C-406 will not go that far and an amendment would be required to cover this.

In regions such as mine or that of my hon. colleague, there are often small family businesses. Particularly in Quebec, many small businesses are run by families. Both spouses may work for the same company, often alongside their sons, daughters or cousins. When one of them needs employment insurance for a period of time, or for any reason, this person is instantly refused; the onus of proof is on the person. This should not be. Just because two people are related does not mean that they are trying to beat the employment insurance system. Having to prove one's case can be very difficult.

I know people who have had to wait two years before their case was settled. Not too long ago, I learned of a very good strong case. But these people are being harassed, and this is unacceptable. Their case has been pending for three years. This does nothing to help the family or a situation where employment insurance is at issue, and this certainly does not help a company survive. These people paid into employment insurance like everyone else. This kind of thing must be addressed and changed.

Bill C-406 talks about creating a separate fund. The bill creates an unemployment insurance trust fund to replace the employment insurance account, which comes under the Treasury Board. Obviously, the goal is to increase the transparency of the employment insurance fund.

Furthermore, an independent commission would replace the current commission and serve as trustee of the fund. The members of this independent commission would be appointed by the governor in council from lists of persons nominated by labourorganizations and employer organizations selected by the minister.

A bill introduced in the past by the Bloc Quebecois called for the creation of an employment insurance fund separate from the current consolidated revenue fund.

Four objectives were pursued: contributors must control the fund and play a part in determining the premium rate; any surplus in excess of the $10 billion to $15 billion reserve must be returned to contributors in the form of greater flexibility in the act, or lower premiums; the money paid into the fund by contributors must not be used to finance other government programs, and thus not to pay down the debt; finally, the surplus accumulated since 1995 belongs to the contributors and must be credited to the new independent fund.

In this connection, Bill C-406 is a bit unclear as far as the creation of this fund is concerned. Few details are given on the trust aspect of the fund. What will the real implications of this be? What will be done with the surplus? How will it be credited?

Moreover, the mechanisms for appointment of the independent commission suggest that it will not be all that independent. The reference to labour and employer organizations selected by the minister makes us wonder whether there might not be a way to make the process even more democratic.

As for the rate of weekly benefits payable to a claimant, Bill C-406 says that it is 66% of their weekly insurable earnings, based on the average of the 10 weeks during the 12 months period preceding the week in which the interruption in earnings occurred. The 10 weeks taken into account must be the ones in which the claimant received the highest earnings.

The Standing Committee on Human Resources Development recommended in its report to only take into account the weeks with the highest earnings. It did not say anything about the rate of benefits. In the report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, the Bloc Quebecois also specified it wanted the average rate of benefits to be increased from 55% to 60%.

Bill C-406 goes a little bit further than the report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Bloc Quebecois, but the principle of more generous benefits remains the same. Therefore, I do believe that on this issue we are on the same wavelength. Adjustments are always possible.

Bill C-406 makes the maximum benefit period 52 weeks. We had asked for 45 to 50, so we are on the same page there.

I do not have time to go into them all, but I think we will certainly have the time in committee to find some areas of agreement. What is important is that we came back with an independent fund with the possibility of creating one that will belong to all working men and women. There are 800,000 Canadian workers who do not have access to EI at the present time, but who pay in to it and must be able to draw from it. That will be our goal in supporting the bill of my colleague for Acadie—Bathurst.

[Employment Insurance, May 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, does the government realize that viewing the surplus in the fund as a tax results in money being diverted from its intended purpose, thereby making it impossible to find a sustainable solution to the problems faced by the victims of the softwood lumber crisis, the fishers affected by the moratorium on fishing and seasonal workers, to name but a few?

[Employment Insurance, May 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the reason the government obstinately refuses to recognize the existence of surpluses in the EI fund is that it is using the money collected from employers and employees like a tax it can spend as it pleases, and has indeed used it to pay down the debt.

Will the government deny that using the EI surpluses as it is doing shows that it views these surpluses not as money belonging to the contributors but as a tax on employment?

[Canada Labour Code, May 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, a number of labour disputes under the Canada Labour Code are dragging on and poisoning the atmosphere for employers and employees, because there are no anti-strikebreaking provisions in Canada.

Are disputes such as the one at Cargill, which lasted three years, Vidéotron, which lasted a year and Radio Nord, going on for six months now, not enough for the Liberal government to act on what it supported when in opposition—an anti-scab law—without delay?

That is what the workers are asking for.

[Canada Labour Code, May 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, when they were in opposition, the Liberals voted for an anti-scab bill, a bill introduced and defended by the Bloc Quebecois.

Now that they have the opportunity to do something because they are the governing party, why do they refuse to adopt anti-strikebreaking legislation that would make labour relations more civilized, as they have been in Quebec since similar legislation was passed in 1977?

[Supply, May 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Jonquière for her eloquent speech. She is right. We are here to represent our workers.

I was saying earlier that there is not one member in this House who does not have voters working in federally regulated jobs. We all have them and we are all responsible for the position that we adopt regarding these people.

These people are all in favour of the anti-scab bill. There is not one worker in a federally regulated job who is against anti-scab legislation. This kind of legislation is designed to protect them, to ensure proper bargaining between employers and employees, and to ensure that nobody will be brought in to do their work.

I was talking about small communities. Just imagine a community where people on strike, out on the picket line, see scabs coming in to do their work. Very often these scabs are neighbours, friends or even relatives. Just imagine the problems this can create in a community.

And when it lasts for 10 months, it is even worse. When workers finally go back to their jobs, they do so in a totally negative atmosphere. None of them feel like going back to work. In the end, they have had to give up things that were probably essential to them, but they have no more money, they can no longer walk the picket line. They have to back down. Nobody should have to back down in 2003.

There is one thing I would like to ask my colleague. I remember going to her riding last summer during the Vidéotron strike. We met with the unions. I would like her to tell us about some of the things she saw happen to the Vidéotron workers in her riding. What were the consequences of this 10-month strike in the community?

[Supply, May 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his speech. It shows how much the Bloc Quebecois cares about this bill, how interested it is in this legislation.

I would love to see other political parties in the House show as much interest in anti-scab legislation.

I met earlier with some employees of Radio-Nord. They described all the hardship they are going through in the absence of anti-scab legislation. Their employer is shamelessly using strikebreakers to broadcast its radio and television shows in that region, while its striking employees are picketing outside. Not an easy thing to do at -52

o

C, as my Liberal colleague pointed out.

Think also about the impact it is having on a place like Témiscamingue, where a whole group of workers and in fact the whole community is hurting. They live in a very small region. At the economic level, when these workers can no longer afford to buy food, pay their taxes, their mortgages, their hydro and phone bills, it is the whole community which has to pay the price. That should no longer be happening in 2003.

In 2003, the government is making billions of dollars in profits and surpluses in the EI fund, but we cannot pass anti-strikebreaking legislation that will cost the government nothing, nothing except political courage, something I have been hard-pressed to find in this House.

We are giving the government an opportunity to pass legislation to protect workers. Nobody in this House can tell me there is not one single federally regulated employee in his or her riding. There are some in all of our ridings. We are all affected by this legislation and all of us must represent our voters.

It is unacceptable to vote as we are told to by a minister. I for one feel I have a responsibility to vote according to the needs of my fellow citizens. If they tell me they need this kind of legislation, I will vote for it. Sitting across the way would not change how I vote, because my primary duty is to represent my voters.

I would like my hon. colleague to elaborate on this and tell me if they had similar disputes in his riding and what he thinks about it.