Monique Guay

[Committee Business and Reinstatement of Government Bills, October 4th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, first, I want to congratulate you on your appointment and I wish you an excellent session.

As regards Bill C-5, I was the Bloc Quebecois critic on the environment for several years, and already back then the endangered species legislation was controversial. We could not support the bill, because we felt that it had not been drafted properly. There were huge complications regarding the implementation of the act. Already back then, we felt that, from a legal point of view, there would be constant disputes between Quebec, which has its own act to protect endangered species, and the federal government.

I remember that we asked that Quebec be allowed to opt out of this act, because it already had an act to protect its endangered species, but the federal government refused.

As we know, when bills are drafted, they are not always perfect. We currently have two bills that are very flawed—as was pointed out by the Canadian Alliance, and we agree with it on that—and this would give us an opportunity to re-examine them, to reorganize them and perhaps to even rewrite them.

Let us take a look at Bill C-15B dealing with animal protection. This bill was originally Bill C-15, but it had to be split in two, because it had become a catch-all bill that included all sorts of provisions, and it just did not work. So, the government split it in two. However, at the time, the government did not take into account the fact that the act might no longer work, like that. This is an opportunity for us to go back to the drawing board. These two bills are among the most complex ones currently before the House.

We have an opportunity to re-examine them and I would ask the hon. member to elaborate on Bill C-15.

[Strikebreakers, October 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec has outlawed the use of scabs for 25 years now, and we do not want anything to do with them.

Quebec's legislation is producing very positive results. Why is the Prime Minister continuing to block the progressive measure I am proposing, preferring instead to encourage businesses to use scabs with complete impunity?

[Strikebreakers, October 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne, in what has become known as his political legacy, the Prime Minister did not have a single thing to say about the weakness of the federal legislation which allows the use of scabs. He is thus sending a very clear message to the public: the Liberal government agrees with the use of scabs.

Why is the Prime Minister so dead set against civilized negotiations during labour disputes, and unwilling to include anti-scab provisions in the Canada Labour Code, which would finally enable Ottawa to catch up with the Government of Quebec in this regard.

[Official Languages, June 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in announcing his action plan, does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs also intend to provide francophone communities with the financial means necessary to achieve the goals he set?

[Official Languages, June 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs says that almost everything his official languages action plan will contain comes under provincial jurisdiction.

That being the case, does the minister intend to take any steps to ensure that other Canadian provinces provide their minorities with services similar to those which Quebec is providing for its anglophone minority?

[Employment Equity, June 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, last week, a report was tabled in this House, entitled “Promoting Equality in the Federal Jurisdiction: A Review of the Employment Equity Act”.

In this report, the committee members express regrets that the Treasury Board and the Public Service Commission of Canada have ended the employment equity positive measures program and closed down the enabling resource centre, right in the midst of the review of the employment equity legislation.

Given that the representation of disabled employees has dropped in 19 of the 40 federal departments, the committee has recommended that the government reverse its decision and restore these programs.

While the Liberal government has been handing out goodies to its cronies to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, in connection with its propaganda campaign, we can only hope it will not be so cynical as to refuse to assist the disabled in integrating or reintegrating the work force. It is a matter of social justice, equity and respect.

[Canada Labour Code, June 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the labour dispute which began at Vidéotron on May 8 has reached a complete stalemate. Worse yet, the employer is not hesitating to take advantage of shortcomings in the Canada Labour Code to use replacement workers, also known as scabs, a situation which threatens to cause tensions and aggravate the situation.

Does the minister realize that the lack of any real anti-strikebreaking legislation is what is chiefly responsible for prolonging labour disputes, particularly in the case of Vidéotron, and that by refusing to amend the Canada Labour Code, she is condoning and encouraging the use of strikebreakers during disputes?

[Aboriginal Children, June 17th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, last week a unanimous report on the welfare of aboriginal children aged 0 to six years living on reserves was tabled in the House.

The federal government has repeatedly made commitments with respect to aboriginal peoples, and more particularly their children. The government now has an opportunity to put its money where its mouth is by acting on the committee's unanimous recommendations.

The government must end the lack of co-ordination between existing programs and ensure a comprehensive plan of action for young aboriginal children. The introduction of multi-service community based pilot projects, along the lines of Quebec's CLSC model, will pay off if the government involves aboriginal communities themselves, as Quebec is so successfully doing.

The government has in its hands a tool which cannot fail to work. Now it must prove to aboriginal children and their families that it has the political will by coming up with the necessary funding. Its coffers are certainly full enough.

[Canada Labour Code, June 17th, 2002]

Yes, it must be votable, and I will do my utmost to see that it is.

I support my colleague, because this is an appropriate and proactive measure. It is a measure that costs the government nothing; it is wrong to say that it does. It costs them nothing, and would give them a fine image with the public, if they were to make the decision to tell workers “Yes, we will defend you. Yes, we will enact regulations that show you some respect. Yes, we will move on drafting such regulations”.

In closing, I wish to congratulate my colleague. Once again, I hope that other members of all parties will be introducing positive measures for workers. They can rest assured that I will support such measures and will speak in favour of them.

[Canada Labour Code, June 17th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by asking my colleagues to hear me through until the end, rather than interrupting. I sense that the female members of the Liberal caucus are hesitant today. Given that I have been the Bloc Quebecois labour critic for many years, I am quite sure they will be interested in hearing all that I have to say.

Allow me to read Motion No. 23. The motion states, and I quote:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should increase by one week the basic employee vacation entitlement granted by Section 184 of the Canada Labour Code, to at least three weeks with vacation pay and, after six consecutive years of employment with the same employer, at least four weeks with vacation pay.

I remind the House that this is not a votable motion, however I believe that it should be votable. The Bloc Quebecois supports this motion. I think that it is an innovative measure, one which should be incorporated into the Canada Labour Code. This exists in Quebec. My colleague mentioned earlier that they have it in his province as well. It in incomprehensible that this has not yet been added to the Canada Labour Code.

The government seems very reticent about this. I have a great deal of respect for my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, and for my colleague who chairs the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development. I know that the latter is bound by her government and must act on behalf of the government. I know that this must be difficult at times, particularly in the case of a measure such as this.

She mentioned earlier that there were costs associated with moving from two to three or four weeks, but these costs are not borne by the government. It is business and business owners who will pay. When employees have done exceptional work, when they have been a member of a team for ten years, they deserve paid vacation, or vacations that make sense, that are worthwhile. These people have the right to rest. We all take vacations during the summer.

In Quebec, after five years of employment, workers are entitled to three weeks of vacation, and to sick leave. Why are things always more complicated at the federal level? Why can we not modernize the legislation and say that, after five years of employment, three weeks of vacation is a good thing? Again, the jurisdictions are such that a Quebec woman who has been working for a company for five years will get three weeks of vacation if she comes under Quebec's jurisdiction, but will not enjoy the same benefits if she comes under federal jurisdiction. This is unacceptable.

I will discuss other issues and I hope I will not be interrupted. I want to make a comparison. I want to talk about preventive withdrawal for pregnant and nursing women. Everyone will say that it is my pet peeve. Indeed, I really care about this issue. We have been trying for 10 years to settle this issue in the Canada Labour Code, but the government has always rejected the idea.

When we reviewed part II of the Canada Labour Code, I tried to move a major amendment in committee to protect women who are under federal jurisdiction. The amendment was rejected.

In the House, amendments or changes to the Canada Labour Code are often rejected under the pretext that we are not reviewing that specific part of the code. This is no excuse. It is a matter of making a simple amendment to a section. There is no need to review the whole part, we just have to amend to the Canada Labour Code. It is not very complicated, in fact, it is very simple and it would not cost the government anything. It is not the government that would foot the bill. It is the companies, which, in any case, benefit from the fact that they have employees who do a great job for them. It would not be a big deal but, again, the government says no.

I want to go back to the issue of preventive withdrawal. I was promised that, perhaps, part III would be reviewed. However, I have no idea when this will be done. I have been pressuring the government for months and years. I was told that they are considering this possibility. Those were the words that were used. They are “considering the possibility” of reviewing part III of the Canada Labour Code.

I was told that they would perhaps get to it during the next parliamentary session and that, at that time, preventive withdrawal for pregnant women would perhaps be taken into consideration in part III of the Canada Labour Code.

In the meantime, there are young women who are not benefiting from this right now. There are women who are working in prisons and whose physicians feel they should be allowed preventive withdrawal because they are working in an environment which is not easy, with prisoners who are no angels; anything could happen to them.

When these women are pregnant, they should be able to exercise preventive withdrawal in order to be able to have a normal pregnancy and not to have to worry about the baby. This is still not the case and it is 2002. I wonder when the government is going to wake up and bring in major changes.

We have just reviewed the Employment Equity Act. We tried to make recommendations. I hope that the minister, who will receive our report, will take this into account, because I for one agreed with the government. We tabled a report which found the Bloc Quebecois and the Liberal government on common ground. We successfully tabled a report. In any event, we supported the government. I hope that the Minister of Labour will take this into account and that she will take our recommendations seriously.

The problem here is that when we put forward amendments and make suggestions for changing things and improving the situation for workers because it is a priority, the government says “no”. It gives excuses. “It is expensive; we cannot do this now. We are not reviewing parts I, II or III of the Canada Labour Code right now, so we cannot make this change”.

Hold on now, nothing is graven in stone. We are here precisely for the purpose of making improvements, making changes, to ensure workers of better protection and a greater enjoyment of life. We all have lives outside work. These people need time for their families. It is important to have three weeks. Having more time for family and other activities when a person has been some time with the same employer is very attractive. It is normal to have that time.

However, it seems that to the people here it does not seem normal. It seems that it is all being left up to the employer. If we, as legislators, cannot manage to set some limits, to say “This is the minimum you must give your employees”, employers will not respect any rules. We have a duty as legislators to set limits, to tell them “This is the minimum. As employers, you must comply with this minimum requirement”.

I introduced an anti-scab bill in this House precisely so as to speed up negotiations between employers and employees. It is inconceivable that, in 2002, there can be a company like Cargill, a company where workers have been out on the street for 26 months—that is two years plus two months—and unable to negotiate. They have no negotiating power whatsoever. Families and lives are being destroyed.

Now, in 2002, the federal government is incapable of passing anti-scab legislation. I trust that this bill will make it through the draw and will be debated, because it is of vital importance.