Monique Guay

[Canada Labour Code, February 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, while the labour disputes at Cargill, Vidéotron and Radio-Nord are reducing hundreds of families to poverty, the federal government continues to support the use of scabs. But there is worse still. The Minister of Labour claims that employees do not want antiscab provisions included in the Canada Labour Code, which is totally false.

How can the Minister of Labour make such comments when, in a brief tabled on November 20, 1995, during the review of part I of the Canada Labour Code, the FTQ used four full pages to demonstrate that it is absolutely necessary to have antiscab provisions?

[Community Television, February 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, community television makes an indispensable social, economic and cultural contribution to our regions.

Giving a local flair to information strengthens the sense of belonging in our communities. The quality of community broadcasting in Quebec is made possible thanks to the dedication and commitment by thousands of people who do their best to provide information.

Among these builders and pioneers, who eagerly put their talents to work for their community, I have the privilege of welcoming Nicole Culis to Parliament Hill today. I would like to underscore her remarkable contribution to the development of our community television in the Laurentians.

I applaud your dedication, your diligence and your enthusiasm for quality information.

In congratulating you Mrs. Culis, I applaud all the men and women in Quebec who, like you, have a true gift for developing our regions.

[Human Resources Deelopment, February 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in order to prevent a shortage of specialized workers, Quebec has developed important labour training tools. However, it is still short $200 million that the federal government refuses to provide under the Canada-Quebec agreement.

Given the considerable flexibility in the Employment Insurance Act for reinvestment in labour training, does the Minister of Human Resources Development intend to begin negotiations with the Government of Quebec to transfer all of the money set aside for labour training?

[Semaine des Enseignantes et des Enseignants au Québec, February 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the week of February 2 to 8 is the Semaine des enseignantes et des enseignants in Quebec.

I want to praise the extraordinary job that these women and men do for our youth. Who among us does not have unforgettable memories of a teacher who, at some point in our life, made our eyes sparkle with the joy of learning?

In the fall, these women and men reach out to the upcoming generation by awakening in them a passion for life and for knowledge as well as a desire to work together to find new ways of building a better world.

At a time when the problem of dropouts has become acute, we know that we can count on the creativity and imagination of our teachers to better prepare our youth for the future.

Recognizing the uniqueness of each young person and working steadfastly to fully develop each one's potential are the challenges facing our teachers who, day in and day out, shape the future of our youth and of Quebec as well.

[Canada Labour Code, February 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, can we have clear and accurate answers? When they were in opposition, the Liberals supported an anti-scab bill introduced by the Bloc Quebecois. I myself introduced a similar bill recently.

Does the government intend to come back to the only defensible position and vote in favour of legislation that would ban the use of scabs?

[Canada Labour Code, February 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, strikes are dragging on in industries regulated by the Canada Labour Code. Along with employees at Cargill and Vidéotron, Radio-Nord workers on strike now have to cope with the presence of scabs.

The Quebec Labour Code prohibits the use of scabs so that disputes do not drag on.

What is the government waiting for? When will it enter the modern age and change the Labour Code to prohibit the use of scabs in labour disputes?

[Auto Industry, January 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we learned that DaimlerChrysler was negotiating with the federal government and the Government of Ontario to obtain potential assistance of more than $300 million for an assembly plant in Ontario. Yet, not so long ago, the GM plant in Boisbriand made a request for assistance from the federal government that was denied.

Is the federal government not in the process of considering using the taxes paid by Quebec workers to come to the assistance of another auto plant in Ontario?

[Winter Festivals, January 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, winter does not just bring cold weather, it brings a flurry of activities all in white.

Festivals, winterludes and ice carnivals are being held in cities and towns throughout Quebec.

One of the best known internationally is, without a doubt, Quebec's Winter Carnival, the 49th edition of which opens tonight.

In the riding of Laurentides, people will also pay tribute to Quebec's winter traditions by presenting various wonderful carnival activities aimed at pleasing both young and old.

Let us take the time to admire our talented sculptors and encourage our athletes whose performances will take our breath away. Let us also take this opportunity to have fun outdoors with family and friends.

Bravo to the thousands of volunteers throughout Quebec whose extraordinary creativity and daring will wow visitors.

I invite you all to come and participate in the winter festivals in the beautiful riding of Laurentides, which I represent.

[Canada Pension Plan, January 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I shall read the motion of my colleague from Churchill for the benefit of Quebecers. It reads:

That, in the opinion of this House the government should amend the definition of “pensionable employment” in the Canada Pension Plan to include workers' compensation payments.

I would like to congratulate my colleague for her initiative on behalf of those receiving workers' compensation. We are very well aware that they have not chosen to join the minority of those who cannot work. They are not necessarily going to be off work long; it could be weeks or months. Sometimes, it may be a year or two, and all that time they will not have the possibility a worker has to contribute to the Canada pension plan.

I agree with my colleague's motion and find it innovative. I see this as doing justice to workers who have had an accident on the job.

I would like to see some statistics, and I am sure that my colleague could probably provide the committee with them when her motion comes before the committee, but there are certainly figures that show that very few workers who suffer workplace injuries are affected by them for five or ten years. Only a minority of workers' compensation claimants suffer for five or ten years. So, why punish them and prevent them from receiving a pension equal to what they would have received when it comes time to collect it? I fully support with this motion.

I heard the members who spoke to this motion. The government is quite nervous about this issue; it has a very mixed feeling about this. It boasted about the CPP, which is celebrating its 75th year.

Every time an innovative bill or motion is proposed in the House, something that would help the average person, people who pay taxes their whole lives long, something to help them through a rough patch, the government looks away. It says it is afraid that it could be dangerous and cost too much.

I am not prepared to forgive this attitude. I believe that when someone suffers a workplace injury, it is often the result of the negligence of employers. I do not see why workers should be penalized for this.

I would like to talk about what happens in Quebec. We solved this problem several years ago. When people suffer a workplace injury and cannot work for a certain amount of time, they are referred to the Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail, known as the CSST in Quebec. The CSST then takes over. Workers are not penalized. They receive the financial assistance they need through the commission. They also continue to contribute to the Quebec pension plan. As a result, they do not lose any weeks, months or years. When it comes time to retire, they can lead a normal life.

If we do not offer this to people, when it comes time to collect their pension, they wind up on social assistance. What does the federal government do? Once again, it passes the problem on to the provinces.

Why not be fair? Quebec looks after people under Quebec's jurisdiction, who fall under the Quebec labour code. We are pulling our weight. Why is it that the federal government cannot do the same for those who come under the federal system? I can already hear the Liberals saying, “Yes, but not all the provinces do that”.

Let us teach by example, once again. Let us try to be innovative. We tried this so many times here in the House.

As you are aware, I introduced a bill, among others, on scab labour that my colleagues supported. This bill will come back before the House and we will discuss it again. This is an innovative bill. There is one in Quebec, but not all the provinces have one. That is okay. Let us be innovative. It does not cost the government anything. We can also talk about precautionary cessation of work for women who are pregnant or breastfeeding. All these initiatives aim to help workers in this country. What is being done? Nothing.

I think that this is a very good motion. I also think—we will see what the Conservatives have to say—that our colleague from Churchill is open-minded enough to make certain amendments aimed at reassuring certain parties. We could do it, we could amend it and specify certain things, and I think she would be open to that.

Really, I would have liked people to have kept an open mind, especially the government members. But I do not think they did. We were even told that this could infringe on provincial jurisdiction. Not at all. It is clear and specific; we are talking about the Canada pension plan.

Exactly which jobs are affected is set out; they include employment in Canada by a foreign government, employment of aboriginals, employment by Her Majesty in right of a province. These individuals are clearly identified.

I do not want to hear that this will affect the provinces because that is entirely untrue. This is a way, once again, of avoiding the issue and saying that it is no good and that it will cost money. Yes, it will cost money. How much? It is difficult to say.

There are not 1,000 injured workers a year receiving disability benefits specifically and exactly for three weeks each. It is impossible to give exacts. We can give an estimate, but we cannot give exact numbers; that is impossible.

Is it important to know? In any event, we will still have to pick up these people and provide benefits to them elsewhere. We will still have to support them. Why not give them the dignity of living off something they earned? They worked for that their whole life; they ran into a rough patch, they had an accident. It is true that some will remain unwell for the rest of their life and some will remain disabled, but they will not abuse the system. They simply need help.

Why not give them a decent pension plan, rather than abandoning them to social assistance when they are at an age when they should be enjoying life. Is there anything more demeaning for a person who has already had a difficult life than to be 65 and on social assistance because they are not entitled to a decent pension? This should not even happen any more, especially not with the government surplus.

Somewhere I think we are able, as I said, to reassure certain colleagues, to maybe make some amendments so that there are very clear guidelines to prevent abuse. I understand there were some concerns about insurance and so on. Perhaps there could be stricter guidelines.

The fact remains that we should be able to compensate these people. We are not giving them a gift. They are considered workers. Premiums should therefore be calculated for the time they are off work. When they go back to work, they will begin paying premiums again, but they will not be penalized.

In conclusion, the hon. member is very lucky because her motion is votable. I hope she will have the government's support. I did not get the sense that there was very strong support so we should try to convince the government to get on board and move the necessary amendments to satisfy this House.

I wish her great success and I hope this motion will pass.

[Canada Labour Code, January 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, by refusing to amend the Canada Labour Code to ban the use of scabs, the federal government continues to say no to civilized negotiations during labour disputes.

The Prime Minister says he is using the legislation in Quebec as a model to correct the weaknesses in the political party financing legislation; he should apply the same approach to the Canada Labour Code and include anti-scab measures, which have existed in Quebec for more than 25 years.

I would like to remind the Prime Minister that in 1990, when his party was in the opposition, he had supported the Bloc Quebecois initiative calling for the implementation of such a measure.

Anti-scab measures in the current labour market are not a luxury; they are a necessity that would encourage greater openness during labour disputes like the ones going on at Cargill, Vidéotron and Radio-Nord.

It is high time for this government to put words into action. Workers can count on my determination and the determination of the Bloc Quebecois to remind the government of this.