Monique Guay

[National Day Of Mourning, April 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, every year in Canada there are more than 800,000 work related accidents. More than 750 of these will be fatal. That is the sad record of the working conditions of Quebecers and Canadians.

Tomorrow, April 28, will be the tenth anniversary of the National Day of Mourning. This is a very significant event, for it affords us an opportunity to stop for a moment and reflect on the importance of occupational health and safety.

Unfortunately, the Canadian government is not much concerned about the misfortunes of those who have suffered work related accidents and their families. Take, for example, the matter of pregnant or breast-feeding workers. Despite the Bloc Quebecois demands for these women to be afforded true protection in the workplace, the federal government has turned its back on them.

Speaking for myself and for my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, I would like to send a word of encouragement to the victims of work related accidents, and their family members. Our thoughts are with you all.

[Lumber, April 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the softwood lumber agreement ended on April 1, and producers in Quebec and Canada are concerned by the turn of events and the attitude of the Americans, who are calling for the imposition of countervailing duties.

Could the Minister for International Trade not show a little more initiative and be a little less professorial with American producers by forming a delegation to explain just what goes on in the lumber industry in Canada?

[Pay Equity, April 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the special report tabled in the House by the Canadian Human Rights Commission in February strongly criticized the federal government for its inaction regarding pay equity.

The approach based on the filing of complaints does not at all promote pay equity within reasonable timeframes and it generates multiple legal proceedings, which are complex and sometimes are stalling tactics.

Bell Canada telephone operators are a good example of this. Nothing has been solved since the initial complaints were filed, back in 1988.

The Bloc Quebecois is asking the government to implement the five guiding principles mentioned in the report of the Canadian Human Rights Commission to truly target the social injustice created by not recognizing the true value of the work done primarily by women.

They can rest assured that the Bloc Quebecois will continue to fight against this social injustice and to ensure that the House adopts a truly proactive policy on pay equity.

[Kyoto Protocol, March 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, that is not the question.

Yesterday, the minister said “We are going to ask them what can work for them, if this does not”. The minister appears to be giving up on the Kyoto protocol, while because of our geography the American decision will inevitably impact upon Quebec and Canada.

If the government was serious about wanting to deal with real problems ought it not to be fighting for the Kyoto protocol instead of just throwing up its hands?

[Kyoto Protocol, March 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, while Quebec has made considerable efforts to meet its objectives for decreased greenhouse gas emissions, Canada is dragging its feet, and this affects Quebec as well. Yesterday, the United States decided not to ratify the Kyoto protocol, and this too is likely to affect Quebec and Canada.

Since the beginning of this week, the government keeps on telling us it wants to get back to real business. If this is so, can the Minister of the Environment explain his lack of reaction to the American decision?

[Prime Minister, March 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear about this.

In 1999, the Prime Minister signed an agreement stating that he would pay any compensation arising out of any proceedings. If he agreed to such a clause, it is because he was still the owner of the shares. He was not just acting out of the goodness of his heart.

Do we not have here one more proof that the Prime Minister was still an owner in 1999?

[Prime Minister, March 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that the lawyers put everything necessary into the 1999 agreement. This is true, even a clause to compensate purchaser Michaud in the event of legal proceedings. This guarantee of compensation was given by the Prime Minister himself.

Since when does someone who claims to no longer have an interest in a business intervene in a transaction offer to pay the costs of any potential lawsuit?

[Employment Insurance Act, March 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise to speak to Bill C-2.

First I want to tell members how deeply moving I found the 60 statements or so that we heard during the committee's hearings. They disturbed me because they were a cold and profound reflection of the needs of the Canadian and Quebec societies.

To briefly resume the situation, we now have before us Bill C-2, the former Bill C-40 introduced in 1996. This bill does not bring about the radical changes requested by Canadians as a whole, unions, women's groups, young people, boards of trade, employers and all the representatives of the Canadian and Quebec populations.

I would like to quote parts of some briefs tabled by people who appeared before the committee. I think it is important to read them into the record and to remember what those people had to say.

As the House knows, and I would like to congratulate my Bloc colleague who introduced this motion, in committee we succeeded, with the assistance of the government, in asking for a report from the committee which will be able to examine all the briefs and report back to the House before June 1.

We hope that it will advance the cause of unemployed workers and not just ease the government's conscience. This report has to lead to something concrete, to major changes in the EI plan.

I want to come back to certain labour unions, including the CSN, which represents a good 250,000 workers in Quebec. The following is a short passage from its brief:

As for the amendments in Bill C-2, the CSN feels that these are half measures which will not result in access for those workers who have lost their job because of changes in the work place.

I will now read a few lines from the FTQ brief.

FTQ members would have hoped for much more from EI reform. We feel that the legislator does not go far enough to right the wrongs of past reforms.

That was what the FTQ had to say. Another labour confederation in Quebec, the CSD, put it this way:

A decent reform would not give the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of Finance the authority to set premium rates, when it was the employment insurance commission that used to have this authority.

This is an unacceptable ploy that will give the government unfettered access to surpluses in the EI fund, because premium rates will no longer hinge on self-funding but on the government's financial needs.

We are not the ones saying so; the CSD is.

My last quotations will be from the auditor general, in whom we have the utmost confidence.

Bill C-2, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, and Chapter 34 of the December 2000 Report, lack clarity on the basis used in setting employment insurance rates.

A little later on in his statement the auditor general adds:

The introduction of Bill C-2 has not alleviated our concern. There is no requirement for the interim rate-setting process to be more transparent.

Furthermore, unlike the introduction of Bill C-44, there is no information on, or commitment to review, the rate-setting process while section 66 is suspended. In other words, the scope and nature of the review, if any, are unclear.

When the committee met with the various witnesses our awareness of a number of areas was greatly improved. Perhaps I do not have enough time in my 10 minutes to give them all, but I shall try to touch on them briefly.

There was discussion of the seasonal industries, for the truth is that it is the work that is seasonal and not the workers. I can speak with authority on this because my riding depends on tourism, which is a seasonal industry.

When the snow is gone, so are the jobs. People have to wait until the summer tourist season comes along to work in golf clubs and the like.

Between those two seasons, however, they have no work. They go off to apply for employment insurance. They are faced with a two week penalty because every time a person applies he or she has to wait two weeks before drawing maybe a month of benefits. These people return to the labour market for the summer, and with the arrival of fall they are again penalized for two weeks because they apply for employment insurance for three or four weeks while looking for work for the winter.

Is this what these people want? Do we think they go out of their way to get half their salary twice a year for two months? They lose a month's salary, a month of income in their budget. They have to live with that. They have to plan their lives around it. These people depend on this industry. Why are they penalized? This is totally unacceptable.

Do we think that the women working in seasonal industry are happy at losing their spots in day care? Not at all. They have to continue sending their children to day care while they are not working to make sure they do not lose their place. They pay for that.

It is not true that people are encouraged to go on employment insurance. It is totally false. If these people could do without it, they would do a lot better.

There is also the whole issue of self-employed workers. In Quebec there are a lot of small businesses. Elsewhere in Canada too, but primarily in Quebec, a lot of small and medium size businesses have been established.

Self-employed workers have become a fact of life. There were perhaps fewer of them in the past than there are now, but it is a fact of life in Quebec and Canada.

These people often work very hard for long hours and they are not protected by any system. They represent perhaps 18% of the population. That is a lot of people. They would like to be included in the employment insurance plan if possible or in something like it. They want to be part of a plan that would allow them to have employment insurance. They are prepared to pay the money necessary for the protection. They need it just as much as the person working for a business.

This will increasingly be the case in Quebec and in the rest of Canada. These people cannot be excluded. Yet there is absolutely nothing in the bill for them.

Another very important issue for me is the case of young workers. It almost makes no sense to require young workers to work 910 hours. It is absurd. They are penalized because they are part of the labour market. Does the government realize the result of this? It leads some employers to abuse, to tell a young person “You better work and do your job, otherwise you will not get employment insurance benefits”.

I could have elaborated on other issues such as the case of pregnant women. Why are pregnant women penalized when a newborn child should be the most wonderful thing that can happen to a family? Pregnant women are being penalized. From now on, women may decide to have children or not based on whether they qualify for employment insurance benefits. Otherwise they will not be able to afford it. This does not make sense.

There is $35 billion in a fund that belongs to people who have contributed to it throughout their lives but who will not qualify. This is totally absurd.

I would like to end with clause 9. We asked that this clause be deleted. It is the most important one in the bill. It reads:

Notwithstanding section 66, the premium rate for each of the years 2002 and 2003 is the rate set for the year by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister and the Minister of Finance.

We want that clause deleted. We do not want it. We do not want these people to set the premium rate and to decide who will be entitled to employment insurance benefits.

[Summit Of The Americas, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I find nearly insolent what I have just been told by a member of the Liberal Party, the party that voted against free trade, that was against any possibility of free trade, that had no free trade vision, whereas we in Quebec pushed for free trade and ended up winning.

Free trade cannot be achieved at just any cost. Agreements like the FTAA cannot be reached in a sneaky, secretive fashion.

There is a malaise all around right now, especially in parliament, which is made up of people representing all the regions. The Bloc Quebecois are not the only unhappy ones. There are other parties and other members here in the House that are unhappy. I am sure that there are even Liberals who are unhappy because they do not have access to the documents.

This is not the way to negotiate an agreement as important as the FTAA, which may bring enormous progress throughout the Americas. It has to be done properly. It requires a concerted approach. And the provinces, which are included in this agreement, need to be consulted.

Quebec, like some other places, has clean drinking water. We have large quantities of clean water. The Government of Canada must not make decisions that go against our environmental positions in Quebec. It does not have the right to do that. It does not have the right to make decisions and then tell us: “The decision has been made and you are going to have to live with it.” That is out of the question, and we will fight it.

That is why Quebec must become a country, because Quebec is capable of taking care of its interests. Quebec should have a seat at the FTAA. What is more, the summit is happening in the very heart of Quebec. How very brazen of the federal government to come and do this here, and not even show us the documents. It is shameful.

Do not worry, we are used to that in Quebec. We can fight back and we will continue to do so. I can guarantee that, if the decisions contained in this agreement go against the laws of Quebec, things will heat up. The government will have to be much more democratic than it is at the present time, it will have to sit with all levels of government, it will have to be able to negotiate, and these decisions must not be detrimental to the environment and the social programs that we have and that we all hold dear, both in Canada and in Quebec.

I think that what is needed here is clarity; there must be a vision of the future and there must also be a lot of democracy. That is not the case at present. I hope that tonight's debate will be of use to the government, that it will listen to all of us, and that the Minister for International Trade will use the ideas we will have proposed to make a decision and open the door to democracy by tabling his documents if they contain nothing that will put anything at risk. Let him put them on the table, let us sit down, let us look at them, and let us do this with all the wisdom and knowledge we possess.

[Summit Of The Americas, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that I will split the time I have been allocated with the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

In less than a month, from April 20 to 22 next, 34 heads of states and democratically elected governments from North America, South America, Central America, and the Caribbean, with the exception of Cuba, will meet in Quebec City for the third summit of the Americas.

In short, the themes addressed during this meeting will include, among others, the strengthening of democracy, where it will be a question of promoting peace and the protection of societies. Another theme that will be discussed is the realization of human potential. This topic will include the alleviation of poverty and the promotion of education and training; social rights will also be discussed. Another theme will be community connectivity. These discussions will involve the Internet and new technologies. Lastly, the theme that will undoubtedly be discussed at greatest length is the theme referred to as creating prosperity. This is where we will find the negotiations on the free trade area of the Americas, the FTAA.

The FTAA represents an extraordinary challenge. This free trade zone will, of course, provide us with new economic opportunities; it will also provide opportunities for people. It represents an openness toward the Americas, toward new cultures; it means becoming acquainted with new peoples and new economic, social and political practices. It is a pool of 800 million people with a combined gross domestic product of some ten trillion, ten thousand billion, American dollars.

This said, the economic practice of free trade is by no means a panacea, a cure for all that ails us. Let us look back. Let us go back to the time of the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, which covered an economic zone including the nation of Quebec, Canada, the United States and Mexico.

Although the agreement has had some positive impact, the creation of this free trade area has not prevented certain calamities, such as the collapse of the Mexican peso, a decline in living standards, the growth of social disparities, an increase in human misery, and an increase in the number of workers earning minimum wage with few if any benefits or favourable conditions. Yet NAFTA was supposed to bring about the opposite of what we are witnessing today.

Are we going to follow NAFTA's example? Do we want to expand and increase human misery? Of course not. We have to do everything we can to avoid such an outcome. If this were the case, it would be out of the question for the Bloc Quebecois to support the establishment of such a free trade area.

The other question we must ask ourselves is this: is the Liberal government really and sincerely prepared to do absolutely everything—even it means leaving the negotiating table—to avoid the impoverishment brought about by NAFTA? It is highly doubtful.

It is doubtful because the federal government is concealing far too many things, in particular the working documents used to negotiate the FTAA. Let there be no mistake about it: these documents represent Canada's main negotiating position.

These texts may well change our lives, and the only thing the minister can say to us is, “Trust me, no questions asked”, as if members of parliament and civil society were incapable of judging the validity and content of these texts.

How do you expect parliamentarians and civil society to trust a government that negotiates an agreement, on our behalf and in secret, that may very well change our lives? How can we determine whether these negotiations were justified or properly carried out? The answer is simple: by being handed a done deal. That is absolutely unacceptable in a democracy. The people in the Laurentides riding have a right to know what is happening behind the curtains.

It is now fair to say that the Liberal government does not want to take the initiative and show leadership, as the United States has done, by making public the FTAA negotiating texts.

On the social front, there is reason to doubt the Minister for International Trade's willingness to give priority to social issues in these negotiations. When I see the position and views of the minister on these issues, the situation is far from clear.

I want to refer to the testimony of the Minister for International Trade when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade on June 14, 2000. The minister stated, and I quote:

I think it's very important to separate the progress on trade matters and not link it inextricably to all environmental and labour standard issues.

The minister's thinking is becoming clearer and clearer. Not only does he not want to take any action regarding social and environmental rights, but he goes even further and affirms that trade does not necessarily have any connection to workers' rights and environmental issues.

This is an absolutely irresponsible statement and it reveals, beyond a doubt, the minister's intentions. I say to the people of Quebec and Canada, as well as to workers: This is the man who will be negotiating on your behalf. He is the one who will be defending your rights, who will be putting them on the negotiating table. Does this inspire confidence? Personally, I do not feel confident and my point of view is shared by all members of the general public except, obviously, the members opposite.

Not the slightest leadership is being shown by the government and its international trade minister on social and environmental issues. What he is really saying is that they will go with the crowd. The government is not demonstrating any initiative.

Here is one last quote from the same committee hearing. This one provides very clear information to the House and to the people of Quebec and Canada as to the intentions of the government and its minister in charge of negotiating the FTAA.

My colleague, the member for Charlesbourg, was asking the Minister for International Trade if he was prepared to include the basic rights recognized by the International Labour Organization in the FTAA. Here are the contents of those seven conventions. It is important that I mention them to the members.

Conventions number 29 and 105 concern the abolition of forced labour. Conventions number 87 and 98 deal with union rights, collective bargaining and labour organization, including the right to elect union representatives without the interference of employers or of government authorities, as well as the right to strike. Conventions number 100 and 111 deal with equal pay for work of equal value and the elimination of discrimination in the workplace. Convention number 138 concerns the minimum age for admission to employment, that is the complete elimination of child labour.

This was the minister's response to my colleague, and I quote:

I believe that trade must remain as open as possible, and that for some countries to reach the point of being able to comply with some of the conventions you have mentioned, what they need is precisely more open economies than those they now have.

We believe that through involvement in a given society, particularly though trade, we ultimately have a greater influence because we allow them to become aware of our values and to experience the economic development that will allow them to achieve this. That is what we are advocating. We do not want to close the door on a country that is not following a particular course of action. We believe that by practising isolation or adopting exclusionary policies toward a particular nation, we are merely encouraging it to harden its position on the social values which we hold dear, values which we would like to see this country embrace.

It is now crystal clear, in light of the response given by the Minister for International Trade, that the federal government does not intend to defend with vigour and leadership fundamental social rights in the FTAA agreement. This is unacceptable, and even a blatant step backward.

In the opinion of the Bloc Quebecois, this position is inconceivable. I would like the minister to demonstrate some good faith and leadership in this matter and to put on the table for all to see those documents which will serve as a basis for negotiating the FTAA. Without these documents, how is it possible for parliamentarians like us and for members of civil society to form a real opinion and to bring some added value to this debate?

Will the Minister for International Trade undertake to defend fully and without any reservations the fundamental social rights which Quebecers and Canadians hold so dear? The start of the summit of the Americas is only a few days away and we are still awaiting an answer to this question. The public is right to be concerned.