Monique Guay

[Taxation, April 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Finance truly wants to set himself apart from his predecessor and be clear and transparent, he must acknowledge the existence of a fiscal imbalance. Should he refuse to do so, we will be forced to conclude that he is just like his predecessor and that he is prepared to feed us the same lines, hide the surplus, ignore Quebec's needs and interfere yet again in areas of jurisdiction belonging to Quebec.

[Taxation, April 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, as the Bloc Quebecois had expected, the federal government has once again underestimated the surplus, which is now $14.8 billion this year, although last October the Minister of Finance had forecast a surplus of only $4 billion, a difference of $10 billion.

Is the Minister of Finance not using this difference as a reason to deny the existence of a fiscal imbalance and an excuse to infringe upon areas of Quebec's jurisdiction, particularly education, as he stated yesterday evening?

[Canada Labour Code, April 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, one of the features of labour disputes that arise in businesses governed by the Canada Labour Code is how long they last. First Vidéotron and Cargill hired scabs, and now Radio-Nord is doing the same thing.

When will the Minister of Labour admit that, far from being an effective tool to settle disputes, the Canada Labour Code, which allows strike breakers, has become a surefire way to make matters worse and prolong these disputes?

[Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, April 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thought the Canadian Alliance would be speaking on this bill.

I would like to begin by congratulating the hon. member for Halifax for this initiative. I think that the reason this is being debated at this time is that the situation is a debatable one. We must see whether any improvements can be made. At any rate, it must be discussed.

If I am reading correctly, however, we are dealing with employees who do not have the right to strike yet could be locked out. We agree with that part of the bill, where the hon. member has changed the wording to the effect that those who do not have the right to strike may not be locked out. This, we feel is fair and just.

This bill:

—amends the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act to ensure that staff of members of the Senate and the House of Commons, who serve them in the capacity of member, leader, house leader or whip, will not be prevented from being included in a bargaining unit.

Or in another words, a union.

More specifically, the bill addresses:

caucus staff, parliamentary committee staff, and staff in a minister's office who are hired under the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act.

Staff in ministers' offices who are hired under the Public Service Employment Act are excluded from this bill.

Moreover, the bill forbids lockouts by employers of their employees and provides fines of up to $5,000 for those causing lockouts. That is nothing to be sneezed at.

The reason we are discussing this today is that the situation does exist. There are those who are dissatisfied, and the hon. member is right in pointing this out. On the other hand, judging from discussions with members of my party, there are many of us who do not support the bill as currently drafted. Some would, but most would not.

I will give their reasons, and will speak on their behalf as well as my own.

When there is an election, a party can end up with 54 MPs and so we hire staff. Things go along well for four years and then there is another election. We end up with only 20 MPs in the House, so what happens to those staff? Are we obliged to hire the ones with the most seniority? Are we obliged to take them for our offices?

That is of concern to me, because that is not how it should work. We have no control over these things. I know that in my party, at present, each member is the critic for an issue. I am the critic for labour, and if a staff person whose specialty is the environment was assigned to me, that would not work. I must be able to gather around me people who are knowledgeable on the issue I am responsible for and who are prepared to develop their knowledge and skills in that area.

Another concern that was raised was that the staff in our constituency and Ottawa offices do not necessarily perform the same duties. How can a job description be developed? It is impossible to list the duties of a political employee, because they vary. Say an election is called. An employee, if unionized, could tell me, “Elections are not part of my duties. I am not working past 5 p.m.”

There is this whole issue. In politics, we are politically involved, and our staff along with us. There is no doubt that all duties could never be identified. It is simply impossible because they vary. In the summer, these people are not as busy and work on other things. Come an election, there is an entirely different set of duties. This is true for everyone.

The third concern that my colleagues raised was about which union we would be involved with. Will there be a single union for all House of Commons employees? That cannot work. There is also the whole issue of confidentiality and political parties.

We are discussing it here in the House, and we will come back to it in the second hour, but for now, I think we have to seriously consider going through the Board of Internal Economy, as the hon. member suggested earlier. We must sit down and try to establish some parameters.

There is the issue of salary ceilings; for example, you will be able to go up to a certain amount, but there is no base salary for our employees. Perhaps it would be possible, through a committee, to decide that there would be a base, so that we would be providing at least a minimum income to employees.

There is also the question of working conditions. We could try to find a way for our employees to be happy and have decent working conditions. I think it would also be appropriate for employees, if they were really poorly treated, to have the possibility of lodging a complaint with some body other than a union. It is important that we be able to help them, that we help people get ahead. I know that happens on Parliament Hill. So we must find a formula, other than a union, that makes it possible to make such changes.

There is one other point that I see as potentially controversial, and that is the whole question of the budget. I have a budget assigned to me by the House of Commons. I can tell you that 75% to 80% of my budget is used for employee salaries. But if a union were to decide at some point to force my hand and say, “You are going to raise the salaries of your staff by such and such an amount,” I would not have enough money to do that. I do not control my own budget: the House allocates it.

There is a problem of logic in all this. If we want all staff members to be very well paid, there must be a specific budget for employee salaries, that budget must be used for no other purpose, and employees must be well paid. But I do not see a union coming to tell me, “Your budget is no longer good enough: you have to raise employee salaries,” forcing me to spend 90% of my budget on salaries. I will not be able to cope; it will not work. It could lead to layoffs and long-lasting disputes.

I think that other resources, other ways of helping our employees, must be found. It is important to respect politics, since we are politicians. I think that it is essential to show respect here. We must ensure proper working conditions. I do, for my employees. They are well paid and work normal hours. If they work overtime, they get time off. We agree on this. I think that we are mature enough to do this.

I am unable to manage my riding office as I do my office in Ottawa. It is impossible. I do not see how these people could be unionized in the same way. I think that other solutions must be found.

I congratulate my colleague on her initiative. I think this is a very broad bill, and it opens the door to many possibilities. I think it must be debated. I invite her, in the future, to better inform us of her real intentions, because things are not clear. We are looking at a broad picture and things are very unclear. I would like to have more information.

At the same time, I would like her to consider the possibility, given all the instruments and tools of the House of Commons, of perhaps taking a different approach. But it is essential to ensure, through the Board of Internal Economy or by another committee, that our employees are well paid and well treated on the Hill.

[Youth and Peace, April 8th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, while bombs continue to spread terror, calls for peace continue unabated.

I met with young people from the Horizon Soleil elementary school in my riding of Laurentides; they asked me to give the Prime Minister their letters and drawings for him.

In one of these letters, a boy in grade three wrote, “I might have a small suggestion for ending the war: shake hands, make up and share”.

Another young person spoke from the heart, “End the war because the children are afraid; we want everyone to get along”.

Then, there is this poem:

It is important to us If we want to be happy To live in harmony Because for peace War must cease.

To all the Ariels, Kevins, Justines, Samuels, Marie-Èves, Melissas, Jean-Sébastiens and all the others too, you are children of the earth, you are children of peace. May your spontaneous wisdom light our way.

[Iraq, March 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, will the government acknowledge that its reluctance to answer this question is because it is aware that it is creating a dangerous precedent by having soldiers in combat units when Canada claims it is not participating in the war in Iraq?

[Iraq, March 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of National Defence said he was looking into whether Canadian soldiers seconded to foreign units had participated in armed conflicts in the past, while Canada was not at war.

Is the government able to provide an answer to this question today?

[Marie-Josée Aubé, March 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to pay tribute to a member of my riding of Laurentides, Marie-Josée Aubé, who has written a new chapter for women with a passion for cars.

Six years ago, she and an associate acquired the Laurentides Ford dealership located in Saint-Jérôme. What makes her stand out is that she is one of a very few women car dealers. In fact, out of 851 members, there are only 43 women.

Ms. Aubé's passion for cars did not come about overnight. As a young girl, she spent much of her time playing with her Fisher Price garage. She was constantly organizing parking lots and moving her little cars around. Later she set herself the goal of owning a car dealership by the time she was 30.

She achieved that goal and now she is striving to become an exemplary dealer who will be known for quality. Congratulations Marie-Josée Aubé. Your determination does businesspeople and the women of Laurentides proud.

[Statistics Canada, March 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, can the minister assure us that the authorities at Statistics Canada are going to show some understanding and treat these workers fairly?

[Statistics Canada, March 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the interviewers at Statistics Canada are misunderstood by their employer, which is denying them a fair and equitable contract. Their working conditions are unacceptable and the minister must intervene.

Will the Minister of Industry break his silence and ask the authorities at Statistics Canada to negotiate in good faith so that these employees can have decent working conditions?