Monique Guay

[Supply, September 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in my name and on behalf of men, women and children of Laurentides, I wish to address my first words to the families who lost a loved one, a friend, a colleague, a boss. To all those who survived these tragic events, I express my sincere condolences and I assure them that my thoughts and prayers are with them.

Having said that, as representatives of the people in our respective ridings, we rise in the House on behalf of our constituents. This has never been truer.

I always considered myself as a woman who speaks and lives with words like “peace”, “tolerance”, and “openness to others”. However, since September 11, I discovered that I could use a language tinged with anger and fury. Within a moment, I had thoughts that I normally would never have had.

One must not be distracted by acts of extremists such as those we witnessed. We must push to the limits our will to build a peaceful world. There we will find all the signification of this motion proposed by my colleague from Roberval. I will read it to the benefit of my constituents:

That this House urge the government, in any reprisals taken in reaction to the terrorist strikes in New York City on September 11, not to commit Canadian armed forces in any offensive action until the House of Commons has been consulted and has voted on the matter.

Why should parliament vote on this issue? We have the government's reaction and I hope that, at the end of the day, we will have been able to convince it to support our motion. Democracy itself is at stake here.

When a political party is forced to use its opposition day to convince the government that a vote should be held before Canadian armed forces are committed in any action, it means that something is very wrong in parliament. When the government is incapable of making the commitment we are asking it to make because it is afraid that it may not have enough time, it means that something is wrong.

Over the last eight years, the House of Commons has been recalled to deal with issues far less important than this one. I remember sitting during a weekend to deal with issues such as jobs, salaries, labour negotiations and back to work legislation. To say now that there would be hesitation to recall the House to deal with an issue as important as sending Canadian troops to war is absolutely ridiculous. I cannot believe it, and neither can my fellow citizens.

I will tell the House what happened in my riding last weekend. Like all members, I must attend certain events in my riding on weekends. Last weekend I attended a function in a residence for the elderly, which was celebrating 25 years of operation. The residence provides social housing to senior citizens. I sat at the same table as the director of the residence, a woman, who told me that I had to do something, that I could not let our soldiers be sent to war like that.

Another woman sitting at our table said “My son is in the army and I do not want to see him go to war without us knowing exactly what is going to happen. You are my representative and it is your responsibility to decide and to vote”.

What am I supposed to say to her? That the government will make its decisions unilaterally without consulting us? It makes no sense, especially on a policy issue. We must not let that happen. As elected representatives, we have to face the situation.

This is a fundamental issue. If we have to raise the question of a vote in the House on the commitment of armed forces in a war against Afghanistan or some other country and I think opposition parties agree on this then I am at a loss.

Let me remind the House a few facts. In the 1993 red book, we could read this:

We will continue to support democracy and respect for human rights worldwide and will provide for a more open foreign policy-making process.

A Liberal government will also expand the rights of Parliament to debate major Canadian foreign policy initiatives—

I think this is quite clear and it is not precisely what is happening right now. Here is another quotation, this time from the 1997 red book:

An independent, effective Canadian foreign policy cannot be achieved without the active participation of Canadians, through public and non-governmental organizations.

It speaks for itself.

I would not like to see our troops sent over without knowing what their specific role will be. We know very well that our military do not have numbers that compare with American, French, or British troops. We should be realistic about this and do what we can with what we have.

Right now, I would not like and I would not accept that Canadian troops be sent over there as cannon fodder. We must not allow this to happen. We must absolutely know how they will be used and what their role will be. As we know, our armed forces have been evolving more to take on a preventative role, acting as peacekeepers, and involved in foreign aid. Our armed forces are not offensive. They could very well be but they have not evolved that way. We have not been involved in a war for I do not know how many years.

We must know exactly what role is expected of our Canadian forces and we must reach a decision together with the people we represent. They want to be consulted. If people elect representatives to parliament, it is so that they can speak on their behalf.

Up to now I have seen myself as the voice of the riding of Laurentides and I want to continue being the voice of voters in my area. This holds true for all of us here in this Chamber, no matter which party we belong to.

In spite of our differences of opinion on some issues, on an issue as important as a war, it is imperative that we be the true voice of our fellow citizens.

As I said earlier, people in Laurentides are extremely concerned, and rightly so. Certainly, if the government were to agree to our motion and vote for it, it would act in a true democratic spirit and with great open mindedness. It would show all of us here in this Chamber, who represent five different parties, that democracy is alive and well in this parliament as it is in other parliaments.

I would like our position to be taken into account. I want the debate to be peaceful and for everyone to have a say when the time comes for us to make a decision as important as sending Canadian troops, our young men and women, to the front. We will have to make this decision together, based on what our fellow citizens have told us.

[Violence Against Women, September 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, throughout Quebec, as well as Canada and the rest of the world, thousands of women and men will be marching today to mark the Day of Action Against Violence Against Women.

Any form of violence, whether against women, men or children, and whether verbal, physical or psychological, must be condemned and opposed with the utmost vigour.

According to the Regroupement québécois des centres d'aide et de lutte contre les agressions à caractère sexuel, 85% of reported violence is against women, and 34% of women aged 16 or over have experienced a sexual assault at some time in their life.

I salute community organizations in my riding as well as those everywhere else in the world, for their unflagging efforts which make it possible for women to come together and to provide each other with support.

Let us hold on to the dream that in the very near future, such organizations will no longer be needed as hate and violence gives way to peace and serenity.

[Criminal Code, September 20th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I hope more colleagues will be interested in this very important matter.

Before I get into the gist of my speech, I take this opportunity to tell men, women and children who lost loved ones in New York or Washington that our thoughts are with them, and that the thoughts and the prayers of people in my riding of Laurentides are with them.

To start with, we agree with the principle of the bill I said to my friend from Churchill it is time we brought major changes.

In the context of Bill C-284, it bears repeating because we need some background, we know that other members introduced bills that did not make it to third reading and were dropped from the order paper.

I hope that this one will make it, that we will be able to discuss it fully and to amend it as needed, and also that we will get unanimous support to bring about major changes.

As everyone knows, or will know, on May 9, 1992, an explosion at the Westray mine, in Nova Scotia, killed 26 miners.

Then, on May 15, Mr. Justice Peter Richard was appointed by the Nova Scotia government, under the Public Inquiry Act of Nova Scotia, to head a public inquiry into the circumstances of this tragedy.

In November 1997, Commissioner Richard released a 650 page report and this is no short story, which includes, among other things, findings on the criminal responsibility of Curragh Resources Inc., the company responsible for the operation of the Westray mine, and of its management. This very important report confirmed that the company was guilty, but it came out of this pretty well unscathed.

There is a problem with our legislation. I will talk about the Canada Labour Code, because I worked with it and I am sure the hon. member knows about this.

I had proposed major amendments to part II of the Canada Labour Code, which deals with health and safety in the workplace, to impose stiffer penalties on companies when negligence was involved, or when a company was charged. We had also proposed to increase fines and jail terms rather significantly. This was under clause 14 of Bill C-12, and I can provide a copy to the hon. member for Churchill so she can take a look at it.

We had put so much hope in all this, we had worked relentlessly to significantly improve the part on health and safety in the workplace. It had already been ten years since that part of the legislation had last been reviewed. We had proposed major amendments, including amendments to protect women in the workplace. None of our amendments were accepted. At the time, during the last parliament, the political will was not there. I hope the government will be more serious and positive regarding the bill introduced by the hon. member for Churchill.

A great deal of work was done and this should be pointed out, because it was not negligible, by the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough. He tabled a motion that also died on the order paper when the House prorogued. His was a very important motion, which also sought to review the criminal code. It would have been reviewed by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and it sought to allow the amendment of a recommendation to ensure the protection of people and make sure that such a tragedy never happened again.

I believe the hon. member had almost managed to get unanimity, but we never knew the government's position, because consideration of the motion was never completed.

As I said earlier, we on this side are obviously in agreement with the bill's principle, but there is the whole issue of amendments we might wish to make—I do not know which yet, I will be talking with my colleague—because there are provinces, including Nova Scotia, for example, which at the time was not particularly well protected by provincial legislation for mine employees.

In some provinces, work is already being done. It is serious work. In Quebec, with the CSST, we protect our employees. It is not perfect, but we in Quebec already have a very good system, which is working very well. Care must be taken not to penalize people who are already doing their job well, not to penalize a government that already has plans and is doing an extraordinary job with its employees and its employers. We already have a tribunal that can hand down rulings against companies that are not doing their job well. We can also fine them.

We have all this in Quebec and I am a bit worried. Will this bill interfere in our jurisdiction? If so, we will have to make the necessary amendments. If not, so much the better.

I would like to point out, and this is not just to mention the fine work we are doing in Quebec, but when one does something well, one should say so, that lately the CSST has been running a wonderful prevention campaign on television. Of course, when we watch these images and ads,paid for by the government and the CSST, showing a woman falling and injuring herself, or a man who, through carelessness, seriously injures his arm, it makes for some hard viewing, but it is what happens.

As my colleague pointed out, there is a work accident every nine seconds. It is therefore essential that people be made aware, and work remains to be done. I know that we are doing that work now. So far, I have seen a few ads. I hope that this will continue in Quebec and that it will serve as an example to other levels of government, to other provinces, that they will use this form of prevention because it is wonderful, and that we can use it to bring the message home to the public and to businesses. Businesses have responsibilities and they must not shirk them.

We obviously need to tighten certain rules. As I was saying earlier, we have tried and I have personally tried, through Bill C-12 dealing with health and safety, to include preventive withdrawal for pregnant or nursing women. This is an issue that I feel very strongly about. I introduced a bill on the subject, but it did not go all the way. I have another one coming and I hope the government will take it into account.

Quebec has been protecting pregnant or nursing women for a very long time. They have access to preventive withdrawal without being penalized financially, something that does not exist under the federal system. Women who cannot afford to live on employment insurance benefits that would cut their income in half will keep on working in conditions that may be hazardous to their unborn child or to the child they are nursing.

The federal government must change its mentality with regard to this issue. It is so sad to see, in the same building, two female employees, one working under federal jurisdiction and the other working under provincial jurisdiction, who do not have the same rights. We need to modernize our federal legislation and we must be able to make amendments that are not costly. We are not talking about huge costs here. I will even be able to give specific figures when we study the bill.

My heart goes out to all those who lost a loved one among these 26 miners who had to work in difficult conditions. Need I remind members that working in a mine is working in the dark. Their quality of life is just as bad as the quality of the air they breathe. My heart goes out to those families.

I hope that, in the end, those responsible for this tragedy will be made to pay. As legislators, we will bring in legislation to ensure that these people, as well as their families, are protected.

[Terrorism, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, last week's carnage on American soil represents an unacceptable attack on humankind and on life itself.

Our pain and our suffering are profound, but they do not blind us to our primary purpose, which is to build a better, fairer and more humane world.

We will not allow a group of terrorists to determine our future. It is the duty of elected representatives to build a world of peace, and we will continue to work towards that end.

The perpetrators of these crimes must be hunted down and brought before the courts, but we must never confuse these criminals with certain communities which have already suffered too much.

On behalf of all Quebecers, I say to the families who have been affected and to the American people that their pain is ours. We pay tribute to the courage of those who put their own lives on the line and did everything they could to help their felllow citizens.

May all these acts of fraternity ease our sorrow and open our hearts to generosity, tolerance and life.

[Quebec, June 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the session ending today has allowed us to see once again that Quebec is boxed in in a system hostile to it. Ottawa is consistently rejecting Quebec's legitimate aspirations.

Quebec was denied access to the international discussions held within its own borders at the summit of the Americas.

Ottawa arrogantly refused to act on Quebec's desire to set up a parental leave plan, thus penalizing Quebec parents.

Ottawa refused to recognize Quebec's jurisdiction, imposing the social union agreement on it against its will.

Ottawa's strongest rejection came in the case of young offenders, in which it imposed a wall to wall law that will penalize young Quebecers.

This latest session illustrates the urgency of Quebec's deciding its own future alone to put an end to the federal government's underhanded measures opposing our deepest aspirations.

In other words: vive le Québec libre very soon.

[Public Service Employees, June 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, public service employees want the government to stop treating them like second class citizens. MPs, senior managers, judges, members of the RCMP and military personnel have received large salary increases.

Why does the minister not send a clear message to her employees by promising in this House not to apply a double standard?

[Canada Labour Code, June 8th, 2001]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-375, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Public Service Staff Relations Act (prohibited provision in a collective agreement).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to introduce once again a bill aimed at banning orphan clauses from any collective agreement which might be covered by one of the following three pieces of legislation: the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, and the Public Service Staff Relations Act.

The purpose of the bill is to eliminate any discriminatory provision affecting new labour market entrants and to ensure that they receive the same wages as their elders.

Let me conclude with a quote that should give all my colleagues in the House some food for thought “Collective problems do not vanish because we have talked too much about them: they persist because we did not solve them”.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Orphan Clauses, June 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, orphan clauses affect the quality of life of new employees, this on a daily basis. These employees live in uncertainty, which makes it more difficult to plan life projects or even day to day activities.

In the public, parapublic and private sectors, various collective agreements that come under federal jurisdiction use orphan clauses as if this was the obvious thing to do.

Through its stubbornness in refusing to end discriminatory practices, the federal government is telling society that intergenerational solidarity is not important.

The hard won gains made by workers must also benefit the young. This is why I will be introducing in the House today a bill to end discriminatory practices toward young workers.

The Liberal government must stop being cold hearted and admit that it is inconceivable to prevent employees in one age group from enjoying the same salaries and benefits as other employees.

[Employment Insurance, June 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that we could work together to improve the employment insurance program and help the public. We can do it immediately. I am telling the minister in all good faith that we should work together to pass the necessary amendments before the end of the session.

Will the minister agree, for the benefit of the unemployed and their families, to set aside party politics and to legislate immediately?

[Employment Insurance, June 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development tells us that we must review the committee report before passing the act and that it is complicated. In the case of family trusts, the issue was settled on a December 24, shortly before midnight. The issue was just as complex and $2 billion were at stake.

Could the minister tell us why she is unable to act quickly to help seasonal workers, since the government was able to do so at the time for a family of billionaires?