Monique Guay

[International Aid, November 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, recently, the Minister for International Cooperation told us that even before September 11, the Canadian government was helping Afghani women reintegrate their place into society.

Could the minister explain how that help was provided, considering that the Taliban were in charge at the time, and can she also tell us how, in Afghanistan's new political context, Canada intends to increase its efforts to rehabilitate Afghani women?

[Canada Labour Code, November 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec women who are pregnant or nursing and who come under the Canada Labour Code still do not enjoy the same benefits as women who come under the Quebec legislation.

Women whose work is covered by the Quebec law and who take advantage of preventive withdrawal are paid 90% of their salaries, while those covered by the Canadian legislation receive only 55%.

The federal government must cease to show its disdain for expectant or nursing mothers by refusing to treat them with all the dignity they deserve. No price can be put on the birth of a healthy baby.

The Minister of Labour finally made a commitment last week before the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development to listen to the voice of reason and has assured us that she will take this recommendation into account in the forthcoming review of part III of the Canada Labour Code.

At the same time, the minister boasted of Quebec's social policies. Now she must put her words into action. Women can count on the Bloc Quebecois to ensure that the minister fulfills her commitment.

[Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, November 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to pay tribute to all the delegates of the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, meeting this week in Quebec's national capital.

The FTQ's contribution to improving the working conditions and working life of workers and to advancing all of Quebec society is exceptional.

Once again, these people will deal head on with questions as basic as employment, giving globalization a human face or giving workers greater say over their collective savings in order to promote sustainable development.

I am satisfied that the delegates will show once again that a link may be forged between progressiveness and pragmatism, a well anchored tradition within Quebec's largest labour federation.

I wish them all a successful meeting and pass on the support and friendship of the Bloc Quebecois.

[Terrorism, November 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the number of accidents involving scatter bombs in Afghanistan is growing, and it is civilians, children, who are being killed or mutilated by unexploded munitions, which constitute an on-going threat to the population.

Will the Minister of National Defence make a commitment to include scatter bombs in the Treaty on Anti-Personnel Landmines and to pressure the American government to get their soldiers to recover unexploded ordnance from scatter bombs, in order to make the Afghan territory safe?

[Marcelle Ferron, November 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Marcelle Ferron is known as the artist of light. Her passing is a great sorrow to all those who admire her painting and glasswork. Fortunately for us, however, Marcelle Ferron, a woman who has left her mark on her century, leaves behind a body of work that will ensure her immortality.

A sovereignist and lover of freedom like so many other Quebec men and women, she joined with Paul-Émile Borduas in signing the Refus global manifesto in 1948. As a person living on the fringes of the society of that time, she chose to exile herself to Paris where the liberating atmosphere enabled her to create her luminous body of work, which has made her a leading artist of the 20th century, one known the world over.

Her commitment to public art resulted in the magnificent glass adorning various public spaces throughout Quebec.

Our most sincere condolences are extended to Madame Ferron's family and friends. Quebec will always remember this artist, who will continue to illuminate the world of art and painting for a long time to come.

[Canada Labour Code, November 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, since taking office, the Liberals have always refused to include legislative provisions that would allow pregnant or nursing female workers to get paid in cases of preventive withdrawal. Even the current Minister of Labour refused to include such a measure to protect women and their babies, when the Canada Labour Code was last reviewed.

Following the agreement reached by public service employees and the government, could the President of the Treasury Board tell us whether she has finally included in that collective agreement a clause providing for the preventive withdrawal of pregnant or nursing women?

[Canada Labour Code, November 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have just a few minutes left. It is a very short time and it is also sad because ultimately this debate will not take place.

However, I wish to thank the members of the other parties and of the Canadian Alliance, which showed an open-mindedness I was not expecting. I congratulate the members of this party. It was very important for me to have the opportunity to debate this bill. I congratulate the members of the New Democratic Party, and my Progressive Conservative colleagues, who showed themselves to be very open-minded as well.

Some of the things that have been said by the government in this House are incredible. When we are told that this concerns only 10% of Canadian women, that is already too many. It is unbelievable that we would be told something so ridiculous, that it is not serious because only 10% of the population is affected. It is time to wake up and smell the coffee.

The government approves legislation, and talks about progressive legislation and being open-minded. It is approving bills to legalize marijuana, but it cannot allow women to remain healthy through a pregnancy, to give birth to a healthy child and to ensure that that child will enter the world without harm to itself or its mother.

I even saw a female member opposite object to having this bill made a votable item. This is incredible. I cannot believe it. I cannot believe that the government would engage in petty politics, in cheap partisan politics when dealing with such an important bill.

The hon. member asked questions and I will reply to him in writing. I will not give up on this bill. I can assure members of this House that this issue will be brought back. Pressure will be put on the government, because there are young women who want healthy children. There are young women working in the prison system who are fed up with having to go to court to say that their work endangers their pregnancy.

It does not make sense for a pregnant woman working in the jail system to be followed by a family doctor from the beginning of her pregnancy only to be told by a doctor from Health Canada, a doctor who does not even know her and is not familiar with her file, “No you are not entitled to preventive withdrawal”. It is unacceptable that such a situation still exists in 2001.

I was asked if there were costs associated with this measure. Costs are not an issue when it comes to giving birth to a healthy child, to ensuring a normal birth. They are not an issue when it comes to the health of the mother who must raise her child for the rest of her life.

I can assure hon. members that we will bring this issue back in the House. The government will only have itself to blame. It was up to the Liberals to agree to make this bill a votable item and to accept the amendments that I proposed regarding Bill C-12. We worked really hard for days to amend the bill and also to follow up on the government's requests. We compromised on a lot of things, but we will never compromise when it comes to ensuring that women can give birth to healthy children. Costs are not an issue when it comes to that.

[Business of the House, November 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member during his speech. I have nothing against his speech.

I believe that you will find that, following consultations between the parties in the House, there is now unanimous consent to move the following motion.

I move:

That the hon. member for Joliette be recognized as the first speaker during today's emergency debate on softwood lumber, instead of the hon. member for Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup--Témiscouata--Les Basques, who moved the request for the emergency debate.

[Canada Labour Code, November 6th, 2001]

moved that Bill C-340, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with a lot of emotion today.

This bill, which is unfortunately non-votable, because it was decided otherwise—perhaps it is a little too forward looking for the government—deals with preventive withdrawal of pregnant or nursing women.

We must realize that more and more women enter the labour force every year. Women now account for 45% of employees in general. Consequently, the number of women involved in occupational accidents has also risen.

These new realities beg the question of not only reconciliating family and professional responsibilities, but also of adapting working conditions to the presence of mothers and pregnant employees.

The labour market is also facing other new realities. Indeed, pregnant women tend to stay at work longer than before, because of their often uncertain financial circumstances.

The statistics are eloquent: 82% of single parent families are headed by women; 83% of these families live under the poverty line; 91% are on welfare; and 61% of workers receiving minimum wage are women.

When it comes to preventive withdrawal, Canada has a two tier system and it is women in Quebec, whose jobs are governed by the Canada Labour Code, who are footing the bill. We in the Bloc Quebecois have made countless efforts to remedy the situation, including moving an amendment to Bill C-12.

In May 2000, during debate on Bill C-12, which amended part II of the Canada Labour Code, we proposed an amendment that would have entitled Quebec women who were pregnant or nursing and whose jobs were governed by the Canada Labour Code to benefits under the Loi sur la santé et la sécurité du travail du Québec.

I would note that, during the debate on this bill, we worked very hard and brought in an incredible number of witnesses to appear before the committee. And I do not think that the Bloc Quebecois was alone in its efforts.

We asked all the unions to appear, including the CSN, the FTQ and even a lawyer specializing in the area of preventive withdrawal for pregnant or nursing women. This lawyer has also written a book and teaches at the University of Montreal. She has worked on specific cases involving preventive withdrawal for pregnant or nursing women.

She appeared before the committee and told us horror stories about how women in federally regulated jobs, jobs governed by the Canada Labour Code, were not entitled to the benefit of preventive withdrawal. It is so complicated that it is ridiculous.

When one is expecting a baby is often the most important period in a woman's life. It is incomprehensible to me that, in this day and age, a woman is not allowed to go through her pregnancy with peace of mind, knowing that her child will be born healthy and that she will be able to raise it herself and give it everything it needs.

I feel obliged to give a historical overview of the repeated calls that have been made for changes since 1991, and not from my party or even this side of the House.

First, Joy Langan of the NDP introduced Motion M-147 on May 13, 1991, which read as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should pass a bill for the protection of pregnant or nursing employees from workplace hazards, guaranteeing them continuity of employment in a hazard-free environment.

Again that year, 1991, the same NDP member introduced a similar motion, Motion M-143.

On May 17, 1990, the hon. member for Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik, who is still sitting in this House, but at that time was a member of the Progressive Conservative Party, also introduced a motion, M-655, calling for the same thing.

The current leader of our party, the hon. member for Laurier--Sainte-Marie, also called for changes to Bill C-101, on June 1, 1993. My colleague the member for Québec also introduced a motion along the same lines once again, in March of 1995.

I could go on. For instance, during the revision of the Canada Labour Code, part II, I personally proposed major amendments to protect women workers

There are two points relating to that. I was told that when the Canada Labour Code, part II, was revised, as it was last year, amendments would be made to protect female workers, to ensure that women working under federal jurisdiction would have the same rights to preventive withdrawal as women under provincial jurisdiction.

When we came to carry out that revision of the CLC, part II, we presented some major amendments and these were rejected by the minister. Her response: “We will reach a decision when we revise part III of the Canada Labour Code”. This makes no sense any more. This has been going on for ten years.

I have proof of this. They did not want this bill to be votable. That is very disappointing. It is disappointing for women who decide to become pregnant and whose workplaces are not necessarily safe during pregnancy.

Yesterday, a woman named Annie Poirier came to my office. For a while now she has been fighting and working for precautionary cessation of work. I would like to congratulate her for what she does. Her task is certainly not an easy one, because she works in a detention center. Such a working environment is not friendly, especially at the federal level. The employees are not dealing with angels, they are constantly in direct contact with prisoners incarcerated for two years or more.

These women work with prisoners all day long. They occasionally face very problematic situations and, in some cases, situations that can be dangerous for their own health and their baby's health. They live under permanent and very heavy stress. I do not know if you ever visited a federal prison, but it is quite difficult for a woman to work in such conditions. Those who do are not allowed precautionary cessation of work, and that is incredible.

I asked the Quebec department of labour—the CSST in fact, because we are enforcing the legislation with the CSST—to conduct a study in order to see if the CSST could manage the precautionary cessation of work program at the federal level if ever the federal government made commitments in that regard. I was told that it was possible, that the only requirement was that we come to an agreement with the federal government and that the legislation could very well be enforced at both levels of government.

All we need now is some political will on the part of the present government, but it is not forthcoming. Do not tell me that something will be changed in part III of the Canada Labour Code. It is not true.

When part II of the labour code was revised, we invited non political witnesses to appear before the committee because we wanted the minister to understand that it is crucial that living conditions of women be improved. She did not do anything, and it is very disappointing, all the more so because the minister is a woman. She knows what it is like to be pregnant, and what the risks are.

I wanted some action, but nothing happened. I introduced this bill, but it cannot be put to a vote. What is going to happen? I know all my colleagues are going to speak on this issue.

I am deeply disappointed, but I swear I will not give up. Things will change. We will find a way to bring about some changes, because,this situation is unconscionable.

I would like to tell the House about what happened to a young woman who is a flight attendant. Flight attendants are under the Canada Labour Code. If they want, female attendants can withdraw from work, but they must have worked a total of 600 hours, and they will only get 55% of their wages, because they will be receiving employment insurance benefits.

If they could avail themselves of preventive withdrawal, they would get 90% of their salary without having to rely on employment insurance benefits. This is something altogether different.

This young woman, a flight attendant, was on an airplane and a problem occurred. At one point, she had to remain on board four extra hours because of a mechanical breakdown. She could not avail herself of preventive withdrawal, and she lost her baby in her seventh month of pregnancy.

It is unacceptable that such things still happen in our modern society. The employment insurance fund has a surplus of $37 billion and yet we are unable to use a small amount of money to allow women to avail themselves of preventive withdrawal. This is a ridiculous.

However, I believe it is wonderful to see young women like Annie Poirier out there creating coalitions so that women can benefit from what I call a natural basis, a normal basis to survive and give birth.

Giving birth is the most wonderful thing in the world. If one cannot do it in total security, in total health, I wonder in what kind of country we are living. We spend money for all kinds of useless things but we are unable to address particular circumstances to allow women to give birth to healthy babies.

This measure would not cost a fortune. Let us look of our birth rate. The problem is not there. The problem is the absence of will on the part of the government at this time. This is something I cannot understand.

I hope that members who are here will give serious consideration to this bill. I know that I will not be able to introduce it again under its present form. However, I do hope that we hold this debate, because it addresses a critical issue. It has been under discussion for ten years now.

The Bloc is not alone. As I said earlier, the New Democratic Party and the Progressive Conservative Party also took initiative in that regard. I am sure that there are many backbenchers who would like to see this happen one day, but they do not dare to speak out because of the party line. That is part of the political game.

I hope that the rules of the House will change because I find it unacceptable to introduce such an important bill—I consider it important, as important as any other bill introduced here—and then to be unable to vote on it.

However, I would like to see my colleagues, and all the women in this parliament, vote on this bill. There is a lack of will in this regard, because they made sure that we could not vote on Bill C-340.

We work here in the House and also at the committee. We work hard. We invite people to appear before the committee; there is a FTQ-CSN coalition—we can name them all—and they all agree that things have to change.

Do members know what excuse was given by the government the last time? I was told “This is all fine and well, Ms. Guay, it is done in Quebec; we admire you for that, but it is not done in other provinces”. My goodness, let us lead by example. Let us do it here at the federal level.

Let us take our responsibilities toward women, toward our children and toward our families. Let us support them. Let us pass a bill at the federal level. This will force the provinces to do the same in their jurisdictions eventually.

But no, here we never make the first move. We cannot do that; it would be dangerous. We must not speak out too much. There is a lack of political courage. The government has proven to me that it lacks political courage to an incredible extent.

And they had better not talk about the cost, because this will not cost much. In Quebec, we would even agree to have such legislation entrusted to the CSST.

I will listen very carefully to what my colleagues have to say about this bill and I will come back at the end of the debate to draw my conclusions.

[Children of Divorced Parents, November 2nd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I would like first of all to congratulate my colleague on his great concern for children.

Unfortunately, the Bloc Quebecois will oppose this motion, and I will take the time allotted me to explain why.

We oppose this motion because of the flagrant encroachment by the federal government in Quebec's jurisdiction over separation.

Under sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Acts of 1967 and 1982, marriage and divorce are matters of federal jurisdiction, whereas the celebration of marriage and civil rights are exclusively the jurisdiction of Quebec and the other provinces.

The result is potential friction and confusion. It is therefore vital that Quebec and the provinces be given jurisdiction to ensure consistency in marriage and its effects. We believe therefore that the Divorce Act must be repealed and the jurisdiction transferred to the provinces to put an end to the encroachment in matters of separation.

I cite in this regard Senator Gérald Beaudoin, who wrote, in 1990:

One may wonder why those who drafted the 1867 constitution granted to parliament exclusive jurisdiction over marriage and divorce. It would appear that it was for religious reasons.

Under section 185 of Lower Canada's civil code, marriage could only be dissolved by the natural death of one of the spouses. That principle was accepted by the overwhelming majority of Catholic Quebecers. Protestants wanted the opposite, namely to allow the Canadian parliament to legislate divorce. Hence section 91.26 of the Constitution Act of 1867, which gives exclusive jurisdiction to the Parliament of Canada over marriage and divorce.

The source of the distinction of constitutional jurisdiction is no longer at the core of today's issues, and laws must now reflect the multiple and extended realities of today's families.

This raises the issue as to which legislative body is in the better position to look after the child's interest and the resulting repercussions.

Quebec and the other provinces should have full jurisdiction over family law and should legislate in this area based on their own social reality. In this regard, I want to quote Senator Beaudoin once again:

The question begs to be asked: Should the jurisdiction over marriage and divorce be given to the provinces, so that Quebec could have more control over its family law, an important part of its private law which is different from that of other provinces?

Some experts see advantages in leaving this jurisdiction under section 91. Decentralization here would be a paradox, in their view, while our neighbours to the south appear to be moving toward centralization and standardization of divorce laws. They may be forgetting that we have to different legal systems in Canada, and the arguments supporting their position may be a little less convincing in Canada.

The terminology creates a problem between Quebec, the provinces and the federal government regarding parental responsibility. The closeness of the terms parental responsibility and parental authority generates confusion and allows the federal government to infringe upon the jurisdictions of Quebec and the other provinces.

The notion of parental authority is already applied in Quebec in that both parents are recognized as having parental authority, even if custody or access rights, whether exercised or not, are not involved. Parental authority has as its goal shared decision making by the parents with respect to the educational, social and health issues affecting the child.

Article 394 of the civil code of Quebec provides that the spouses together take in hand the moral and material direction of the family, exercise parental authority and assume the tasks resulting therefrom. The effects of divorce, including clearly defined parental responsibility, should flow from the same legislative source.

Parental authority is exercised both for married couples and for those living common law. The civil rights of the child and the responsibilities of his parents towards him are the same within and outside marriage. The notion of parental responsibility is applied only in cases of separation or divorce and solely to specify the right to custody and access rights, regardless of the child's interests.

There can be no agreement as long as the terminology is not standardized. Agreement is possible only if the Divorce Act is repealed in favour of Quebec and the provinces. The notions of parental authority and parental responsibility could thus be made concordant for enforcement purposes.

At this point, I am going to focus on various parts of the motion which we feel are very important. Quebec already has a third party, and a competent one at that, who can support and represent a child during legal proceedings. This third party is the attorney for the child. Article 394.1 of the code of civil procedure of Quebec provides that:

Where, in a proceeding, the court ascertains that the interest of a minor... is at stake, it may, even of its own motion, adjourn the hearing of the application until an attorney is appointed to represent him.

At this level--and I am speaking for Quebec--children already have a third party to help them through a crisis such as divorce.

There is the entire question of manipulation. There is a danger of manipulation by the children. If asked to voice an opinion on the decision relating to parental responsibility, they may give one that suits them but is not necessarily in their best interest.

Unjust situations can be created by manipulation of the court. Children might opt for living with the parent who always gives in to them.

Children can also cook up situations in order to tip the balance in their favour, manipulating not just the court, but the parents as well. Outside the court, the child could make demands of the parents in exchange for a favourable testimony for one or the other, trying to get each to up the ante. This is not unusual. It is very common to see a situation in divorcing families where the children try to manipulate both father and mother with tales of dad or mom is going to give me this or that, which often are untrue. One can well imagine what could happen if a situation were created which encouraged the risk of such manipulation. This can be avoided. Seeing it in the motion is extremely worrisome.

Parents can also be manipulative. As can be the case with children, parents may also have a tendency to try to manipulate the child to live with them. Parents could try to buy the child's favourable testimony. The result is that the child's testimony is biased. The court might then make a wrong decision in its custody ruling.

The role of the attorney for the child is to represent the best interests of the child, rather than representing the parents' or supporting their attempts to curry the favour of the child.

There is also the whole psychological aspect involved. Everyone knows that separation or divorce can have a severe impact on children and their emotional state. Children are upset when told by their parents that they are separating, and they often experience feelings of guilt. Many children feel that it is all their fault that their parents are divorcing.

These feelings can last a long time, even after the legal proceedings. Children often feel as though they are the target of parental confrontations, or as though they have caused them. Children should never be required to participate actively in such conflicts, which should remain between parents; children are only third parties.

The principle that children should not be made to testify is well known to the legal and psychological professions.

Indeed, a child cannot be required to testify on the parenting abilities of its parents, as this would require the child to have a thorough knowledge of each of its parents.

The child could not only end up feeling responsible for the separation, but for its finality as well.

All of this to say that, obviously, we are living in a time of change. Divorce and separation do occur. And yes, they cause children to suffer. Some of them suffer terribly, but I do not think this motion helps the present legal system in any way. It in fact complicates it. A legal system already exists in the provinces to look after all this.

And so we will oppose the motion.