Monique Guay

[Parental Leave, June 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, if there is one issue on which the federal government should avoid all confrontation with the Government of Quebec, it is that of young families and parental leave.

Could the federal government not drop its old habits, for once, and think only of the wellbeing of young families?

[Access To Information Act, June 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-206, an act to amend the Access to Information Act and to make amendments to other acts.

That bill faced many obstacles before reaching second reading stage. I will show you how this bumpy ride finally made the Bloc Quebecois withdraw its support for this legislation.

First, I want to reaffirm the importance of access to information in a democratic society. It can be said without exaggeration that the rules governing access to information are a pillar of our democratic system.

Indeed, without these rules, there can be no transparency in the public administration. If unable to count on concrete standards that would provide them with access to the documents being held by the government, the public would in fact be deprived of its power of review, which is essential to the democratic health of any society. This power of review arises out of a fundamental right that belongs to each of us: the right to know.

The scandal around HRDC funding is a clear example of just how important that right to know is. This scandalous episode reminds us that it is essential to have a clear picture of what government is doing, so that public funds do not serve any private interests.

Given the total absence of government co-operation in this area, the public has had to rely on the Access to Information Act to try to discover where the Transitional Jobs Fund money has gone.

Recently, the Bloc Quebecois was able to use access to information to discover some major flaws in the Canada Information Office tendering process. We discovered, in fact, that the CIO had awarded hundreds of thousands of dollars in contracts without any call for tenders since June 4, 1998.

It is, for example, questionable to say the least that this body, the principal mandate of which is to promote federal propaganda, has awarded a $25,000 contract to a former Liberal candidate without calling for tenders. Thanks to access to information, we were able to obtain, and provide to our fellow citizens, the disconcerting details on the Liberal government's administration.

It must, however, be recognized that the effectiveness of the Access to Information Act is not absolute. A formidable bureaucratic culture continues to thwart the desire of the public to discover more about the practices of their government.

The Information Commissioner of Canada, John Reid, spoke on this matter the last time he appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. He said:

The right of access, which I and many others view as one of the cornerstones of our democratic process and one of the best tools available to ensure responsible government, only has meaning in a regime where information is professionally managed. All too often, and in a growing percentage of cases, it is proving virtually impossible for departments to locate all records responsive to a specific subject matter.

In short, it is not enough to hope that passing the Access to Information Act will lead to transparency, properly implementing it is necessary as well. For this to happen, the public service must promptly and efficiently respond to requests for access to information.

In a special report tabled in this House on Tuesday, the information commissioner evaluated the performance of eight departments in terms of their response time to requests for access to information. Once again, the commissioner's examination revealed that a number of departments fall far short in terms of speed.

No fewer than six departments, in fact, got an “F” on their response time. These dubious results illustrate just how far our institutions are away from developing the effectiveness required in properly applying the Access to Information Act.

That being said, by tabling Bill C-206, the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington seemingly tried to correct certain flaws in the Access to Information Act. As we know, the hon. member had already alerted the members of this House to the need for substantially reviewing the content of that act.

On December 23, 1997, the hon. member had introduced another bill, Bill C-264, which received the support of a fair number of members. However, later on, the hon. member drastically changed the content of his bill.

On June 11, 1998, resorting to the politics of stealth, the original text of Bill C-264 was replaced with a different one. The bill was then reintroduced during the second session, on October 14, 1999, as it stood when the House prorogued.

The bill originally called C-264 and amended on June 11, 1998, thus became Bill C-206 when the House resumed sitting.

As I indicated in my introduction, that unusual process, to say the least, resulted in the Bloc Quebecois withdrawing its support. It must be understood that, while several Bloc Quebecois members initially supported the original version of Bill C-264, the situation is totally different in the case of the version now called Bill C-206.

There is a serious gap between these two versions. As evidence of that, one simply has to look at some of the new provisions that were quietly included in the June 11, 1998 version of the bill. The masterpiece of that sham is now found in clause 9 of Bill C-206.

First, these amendments have to do with the terminology used in clause 14 of the bill. Under this first amendment, the head of a government institution could refuse to disclose records containing information having to do with federal-provincial relations.

So it was that on a fine day in June, 1998, the expression “federal-provincial negotiations” used until then in Bill C-264 became “federal-provincial relations”. This change in terminology is not insignificant.

In fact, clause 14 of the bill provides for an important exception to the right of access to information. By substituting a term as generic as “relations” for a more specific term such as “negotiations”, the scope of the exception is broadened considerably. According to the Bloc Quebecois, this is a fundamental change, because it would have the effect of excluding an entire range of records to which the public is entitled to have access.

In addition, the new exception in clause 14.1, an exception not contained in the original version of Bill C-264, is quite simply unacceptable. For the benefit of members of the House, I will read this exception:

The head of a government institution may refuse to disclose any record requested under this Act that contains information on plans, strategies or tactics relating to the possible secession of a part of Canada, including information held or collected for the purpose of developing those plans, strategies or tactics.

Whatever the member for Wentworth—Burlington may say, this proposal is just plain antidemocratic. How can we keep citizens in the dark about information dealing with the possible exercise of democracy by a people? The supreme court has recognized that accession to sovereignty is a completely legitimate and highly democratic project.

Canadians have a right to know how the federal government intends to proceed regarding such a fundamental right.

On June 11, 1998, Bill C-206 lost all credibility. Access to information, which is the core element of democracy for citizens, cannot be used as a tool to stop the democratic will of a people. The hon. member should know that it is ill-advised to follow the Privy Council's recommendations when it comes to democracy. History tells us that this bastion of federal arrogance is not very inclined to promote the development of democratic values.

For these reasons, members will understand that the Bloc Quebecois does not support Bill C-206 and will strongly oppose its passing.

[Canada Labour Code, May 31st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, some speeches are uniquely important and meaningful. The speech I am making today in this House is in fact one such important speech.

Unfortunately, and clearly, the federal government does not see it that way. For the Minister of Labour and the government opposite, Bill C-12 is just one bill among many, period.

We will remember that Bill C-12 is the in-depth reform of part II of the Canada Labour Code and, more particularly, as it concerns occupational health and safety.

Members will no doubt recall that at first reading the Bloc Quebecois supported Bill C-12, since it is the practice of the Bloc Quebecois, in its great wisdom, to give the government the benefit of the doubt when it introduces bills that are constructive in spirit and intent. I nevertheless added, however, that it was vital the federal government be open-minded so that certain amendments to Bill C-12 to be proposed by the Bloc Quebecois could be made. Absolutely nothing happened. Utter nothingness.

The Bloc Quebecois introduced very reasonable amendments that substantially improved the bill. These changes took nothing away from the substance of Bill C-12, on the contrary.

The Bloc Quebecois introduced amendments so that the process for hiring health and safety officers and filling many other positions could be neutral under the Public Service Employment Act.

In addition, we also presented amendments to enable pregnant and nursing women to take preventive withdrawal worthy of such a name. We introduced many other amendments as well. But, as I said earlier, the minister sat idly and remained unmoved by our amendments. Yet, our goal was only to make Bill C-12 better suited to the new realities of the workplaces governed by the Canada Labour Code. But, as is its habit, the government turned a deaf ear. It just wanted to go it alone through the legislative process. This is what happened.

So, for all these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois will, at third reading, have no choice but to oppose Bill C-12. I will get back to these reasons and provide more in depth explanations later on in my speech. But first, I would like to paint a picture of the situation regarding occupational health and safety for workers subject to part II of the Canada Labour Code.

I will begin this gloomy account by quoting from the brief submitted by the Canadian Labour Congress, the CLC, to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations, when it reviewed Bill C-12. Here is what it says on page 5 of the French version:

Canada is the only jurisdiction where the rate of injury has in fact increased during most of the last decade.

The ratio of federal inspectors to the number of workers being inspected is among the worst in Canada.

The federal government waited over 15 years before reforming part II of the Canada Labour Code. Meanwhile, however, every year in Canada some 800,000 people experience a work-related accident or illness. Of that number, more than 750 die, which represents an average of three deaths per day.

In 1997, an average of one in sixteen employees was hurt on the job, the equivalent of one every 9.1 seconds of working hours. One in thirty-one was injured seriously enough to be off work at least one day, which means that there is one accident with lost time every eighteen seconds in the workplace.

In 1996, 38 deaths from occupational illness or accident were reported in industries under federal jurisdiction. The figure was the same in 1995. One death from an on-the-job accident occurs every seven days on average, or approximately one worker in 20,000.

The rate of accidents resulting in disability rose from 15 per million hours worked in 1995 to 15.24 in 1996. The 1996 level was not as high as the 15.44 recorded in 1994, and is markedly lower than the 1993 level of 16.99.

The economic cost of these accidents is very high. Compensation payments to victims or their families total some $5 billion per year.

If we add on the indirect costs of accidents, the figure doubles to close to $10 billion. We are very much aware that these figures do not take into account the incalculable pain and suffering experienced by victims and their families.

In the light of these statistics, it is high time the Minister of Labour did something. I do not know how the present government feels to have so many deaths on its conscience. It would appear that this reality does not overly disturb the Minister of Labour.

In fact, since the beginning of the legislative process for Bill C-12, the minister has shown very little interest in the reform of Part II of the Canada Labour Code. We know that the minister, for personal reasons, was unable to appear before the committee to explain her bill. We understand that perfectly.

However, what explanation is there for the fact that the minister did not take advantage of report stage in the House to come and explain her bill in order to make up for her absence before the parliamentary committee? Instead, it was her parliamentary secretary, who is in the House now, who spoke at report stage.

To top it all, and this really shows how interested the Minister of Labour and the government are in this whole reform of Part II of the Canada Labour Code, the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles had to make a point of calling the Minister of Labour to order here in the House because she was not listening and was showing no interest at all in the remarks of my colleague, who was in the process of offering some very enlightening explanations about Bill C-12, specifically with respect to pregnant and nursing women and the bill's serious deficiencies in that regard.

With this federal government, one more bad move will not make any difference. Taking Bill C-12 as an example, I am going to show just how illogical the federal government is.

During one of the committee's meetings on Bill C-12, the Bloc Quebecois presented an amendment to improve the definition of the word “danger”. We took absolutely nothing away from the definition. On the contrary, we improved it and made it more precise by setting out in it that the sources of danger should not affect pregnant or nursing women.

To our great surprise, the Bloc Quebecois amendment was passed at the stage of clause by clause examination in committee. The Liberal member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik even supported the Bloc Quebecois amendment with great pride.

However, imagine my surprise at learning that the minister also introduced an amendment at report stage thereby destroying the Bloc Quebecois amendment in order to reinstate the original definition of “danger” in Bill C-12. Does that make sense to you?

One day the Liberals say yes and a few days later, on the same issue, they say no.

In response to a question by my colleague, the member for Longueuil, the Minister of Labour said—and note the insipid, meaningless and uninterested explanation the Minister of Labour gave to my colleague—and I quote:

The Bloc Quebecois amendment concerning the definition of “danger” is addressed by part III of the Labour Code, and this will be discussed by employees and employers.

First, how can the minister claim that the definition of “danger” is covered in part III of the Canada Labour Code, when she said later on in her answer that employees and employers will discuss it? That is in the future. Are we going to have to wait another 15 years to discuss it, as was the case with the reform of part II?

This response proves just how little the Minister of Labour knows her Canada Labour Code, since part III contains absolutely no reference to danger for pregnant and nursing women.

The minister is totally disinterested and uninformed about the reform of part II of the Canada Labour Code, and of the Canada Labour Code as a whole. I would advise the minister to do her homework as quickly as possible, because she is misleading the House, and this is totally unacceptable.

The Bloc Quebecois also proposed amendments to clause 132 so that pregnant or nursing women would be eligible for a true preventative withdrawal. Again, the minister misled the House in a reply to my colleague, the hon. member for Longueuil. The minister said, and I quote:

—this is available to pregnant and nursing women under section 132 of the Canada Labour Code (Part II). It was negotiated for seven years with employees and employers.

One thing is clear and the minister knows it full well: there is a consensus on clause 132 of Bill C-12, which deals with pregnant and nursing employees, but that consensus is clearly to the effect that clause 132 is largely inadequate, and I will demonstrate it.

During the hearings of the committee, various interest groups invited not only by the Bloc Quebecois but also by the government came to express their views. Here is what these groups had to say about clause 132 of Bill C-12, entitled “Pregnant and Nursing Employees”.

In its brief, the CAW, one of the major unions representing workers at the federal level, described clause 132 as “not going far enough, however, and lacking clarity”.

According to the Public Service Alliance of Canada's brief, the amendments to clause 132 “do not go far enough to provide the necessary health and safety protection for these workers”.

The CSN, which represents more than 235,000 workers in Quebec, said the following about clause 132 “This text is incongruous and renders the entire provision meaningless”. Further on in its brief it adds “This text does not create a right but rather a problem for pregnant workers”.

The Association des médecins du réseau public en santé au travail du Québec submitted a brief over the signatures of 13 occupational health and safety specialist physicians in which the following comment was made about preventive withdrawal under the federal legislation “In our opinion, clause 132 of Bill C-12 is much too timid and will not protect the workers who need protection most”.

Katherine Lippel, a law professor at the Université du Québec à Montréal, and one of the leading Canadian specialists in preventive withdrawal from the workplace, commented “Bill C-12 as it now stands does not provide for protective reassignment that includes the right to benefits when reassignment is not available. In failing to do so, it proposes a right that is really an empty shell”.

This same consensus was present at a symposium on the health of women in the workplace held from March 26 to 28, 1998 at the Université du Québec à Montréal. Health Canada was one of the sponsors of that event, which was attended by experts and organizations from Quebec and from Canada. The following is a partial list.

For Quebec: Gisèle Bourret, head of the women's affairs service of the CEQ; Maria DeKoninck, professor, department of social and preventive medicine, Laval University; Jocelyne Everell, union adviser with the health-safety-environment service at the CSN; Carole Gingras, director of women's affairs at the FTQ; Danielle Hébert, co-ordinator of women's affairs service at the CSN; Nicole Lepage, occupational health and safety adviser at the CEQ; Katherine Lippel, professor of legal sciences at UQAM; Donna Mergler, professor of biological sciences at the University of Montreal; Jean-Pierre Néron, union adviser, occupational health and safety, at the FTQ.

For Canada: Kathleen Connors, president, National Federation of Nurses' Unions; Diane Ponée, director, policy and planning analysis, Women's Health Bureau, Health Canada; Michelle Simms, policy and program advisor, Women's Bureau, Strategy and Coordination Unit, Human Resources Development Canada, and Cathy Walker, national health and safety director, CAW.

For British Columbia: Ellen Balka, associate professor, department of communications, Simon Fraser University; Micke Koehoorn, researcher, department of health care and epidemiology of the University of British Columbia.

Equally credible experts and organizations came from Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Newfoundland and even Sweden.

At the conclusion of the conference, the participants agreed on a plan of action entitled “Improving the Health of Women in the Workplace”. Everyone supported this action plan and reached the same conclusion. It warrants attention. I quote the document:

Legislation in all jurisdictions, federal and provincial, should provide for the protective reassignment of pregnant or nursing women, if their working conditions are hazardous to their health or that of their fetus or nursing infant.

Such programs should draw on Quebec legislation, which provides for reassignment to a job presenting no hazard...They should include, when worker reassignment is not possible, the right to compensation equivalent to that related to incapacity as the result of an accident on the job.

Once again, Quebec is at the forefront in social policy. Unfortunately, this cannot be said of the Minister of Labour and her government. However, with Bill C-12, the minister could show her open-mindedness and her concern for the health of women and more particularly those who are pregnant or nursing. But this is not the case.

The Bloc Quebecois is asking the minister to follow the example of the Health Canada officials and the various women and agencies present at this conference and to allow pregnant or nursing women covered by the Canada Labour Code the same benefits as pregnant women covered by Quebec's occupational health and safety legislation.

This request comes not just from the Bloc Quebecois, but from the vast majority of occupational health and safety agencies and experts in Quebec and in Canada. The consensus is there: now the minister must take action.

We can safely say that the real consensus around clause 132 has to do with the fact that it falls short, requiring the minister and her senior officials to go back to the drawing board.

Through its proposed amendment to clause 132, the Bloc Quebecois seeks to end this two-tier regime, which leaves women in Quebec who work under federal legislation less well protected than those who work under Quebec's legislation.

Women working under Quebec's legislation who withdraw for preventive reasons are paid during the first week by their employer, and thereafter by the CSST at 90% of their net salary. All workers are thus not treated equally in Quebec. This is a good example of the problems encountered by Quebec when it tries to establish a comprehensive occupational or family strategy, or when it tries to reconcile occupational and family considerations.

How can the Minister of Labour say that pregnant or nursing women have the right to preventive withdrawal with financial compensation? This is just smoke and mirrors.

Clause 132 of Bill C-12 gives a woman the right to refuse to work if she believes that this may constitute a risk for herself or the unborn child. She will continue to be paid and to retain all benefits until such time as she obtains a medical opinion as to whether or not there is a risk.

As soon as this is obtained, she can no longer make use of clause 132(1). That is it. From that point on, the expectant mother has two unacceptable choices: shorten her maternity leave, or work in conditions that are a danger to her health or her baby's health.

Finally, the only real financial compensation to which pregnant or nursing workers are entitled under federal legislation is the maternity leave given under employment insurance. Comparing this to the CSST program, this is a pittance.

This employment insurance program discriminates against pregnant women as far as maternity leave is concerned. Employment insurance provides protection for maternity leave but access to the program is tied to hours worked. The requirement is a minimum of 600 hours worked over the past year; as well, the amount will be between 55% and 50% of her earnings, as opposed to Quebec's 90%.

As well, it must be kept in mind that, if a pregnant woman has to take several weeks of maternity leave prior to delivery because her workplace is dangerous for her and her fetus, those weeks will be deducted after the birth, which means that the new mother will not only have to face a substantial loss of income, but she will also have a shorter time to be at home with her beloved new-born.

When the Minister of Labour states in this House that clause 132 of Bill C-12 provides withdrawal from the work place for preventive purposes with financial compensation equal to that available in Quebec, this is quite simply misleading the House. Nothing more.

I am not the only one who thinks so. All unions and all experts who appeared before the committee said the same: the preventive withdrawal allowed at the federal level is far from sufficient.

It is impossible to understand the position of this government on the treatment of pregnant and nursing women when we realize that 800,000 people annually are injured or become sick in the exercise of their duties. Of this number, over 750 die as a result, a figure that represents an average of three deaths a day.

Why then make a point of swelling the statistics? According to Statistics Canada, in 1993, women represented 43% of paid employees, compared to 35% in 1971. From this fact alone, the number of women who are victims of accidents on the job has also increased.

At the moment, pregnant women tend to stay at work longer before they give birth, because their financial situation is more often than not precarious. In addition, they return to work earlier after the birth of their child.

Another consequence of this new reality is that women today tend to have fewer children and at an older age. The government is well aware of this fact. So why is it insisting on pushing future mothers governed by the Canada Labour Code into totally unacceptable misery?

When will this government assume its responsibilities and do what the interest groups have been asking, namely, provide pregnant and nursing women covered by the Canada Labour Code working in Quebec with the possibility of protective reassignment as Quebec has?

The Bloc Quebecois was not yet even in the House of Commons when our leader, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, tabled, on June 1, 1993, an amendment to Bill C-101 introduced by the Progressive Conservative government then in power. This bill was also a reform of the Canada Labour Code. The purpose of the amendment was to ensure that federally employed pregnant or nursing workers would have the right to preventive withdrawal under the legislation of the province in which they work. This is exactly what the Bloc Quebecois is seeking in this amendment in the year 2000.

Through the irony of fate, or power, the Liberal Party of Canada, which was then in opposition, supported the amendment brought forward by the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, the future leader of the Bloc Quebecois. When I say that this government is basically dishonest, and I would even say acting in bad faith, here is the proof today.

Now that the Liberal Party is in power and the idea of actually giving pregnant or nursing employees the right to preventive withdrawal—a right they have in Quebec—does not come from within the Liberal Party, the federal Liberals have voted against. This is unjustified and unjustifiable.

The Bloc Quebecois amendment is a completely reasonable motion, which imposes nothing, because it is clearly stated in our amendment that there should—this is an obligation—be negotiations between the federal and provincial governments.

All that the Bloc Quebecois wanted was for pregnant or nursing employees governed by the Canada Labour Code to be able with complete dignity and safety, not just physical but financial, to experience one of the most extraordinary events imaginable, that being pregnancy and the birth of a new being. Unfortunately, for the federal government, pregnancy is something that is completely trivialized, not to say neglected.

This bad faith and lack of conscience is all the more evident because what the Bloc Quebecois is asking for in its amendment to clause 132 is nothing extraordinary or unusual, nor any special privilege for pregnant workers. No, what the Bloc Quebecois is calling for is fairness and equity.

I would, moreover, like to remind hon. members that, between 1981 and 1988, employers under federal jurisdiction were paying the portion that corresponded to the CSST preventive withdrawal allowance, since the courts had not yet reached a decision on the constitutionality of that program. Some women who came under federal jurisdiction even received CSST benefits for preventive withdrawal. The system does work. It has proven itself several times in the past.

Another proof that there can indeed be agreements between the federal and the provincial levels as far as financial compensation is concerned: in Quebec, people employed by the federal government who have an occupational illness or injury are referred to the CSST for compensation purposes. I would invite the Minister of Labour and all of the hon. members across the way to look at section 4 of Quebec's government employees compensation legislation.

In Bill C-12, clause 140(2) reads as follows:

140.(2) The Minister may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, enter into an agreement with any province or any provincial body specifying the terms and conditions under which a person employed by that province or provincial body may act as a health and safety officer—

I could cite a lot of other examples where agreements have been signed between the federal government and the government of a province on a given provision of law. Well, then, with the government talking about its flexible federalism, why is there no flexibility on the preventive withdrawal of pregnant or nursing workers under federal jurisdiction? What is the federal government afraid of?

There is a consensus among interest groups clearly advocating substantial improvement in federal preventive withdrawal conditions. As I have just shown, the system works. The Bloc Quebecois amendment now permits the federal government and the provinces to negotiate in good faith an administrative and financial agreement giving female workers under federal jurisdiction recourse to the legislation on preventive withdrawal of the province they work in.

All of the elements are in place to permit Quebec women working for in federal jurisdiction to be on the same footing as their colleagues covered by Quebec legislation on occupational health and safety. The federal government no longer has an excuse. So why this inaction on the part of the Minister of Labour and the federal government?

This government's attitude is not only shameful, it may turn out to be criminal, since this government is threatening the life of certain women and their unborn children. And this is unacceptable. Count on me and the Bloc Quebecois to remind the people of Quebec and my riding of the Laurentides of this.

The Bloc Quebecois has now been fighting seven years on behalf of pregnant and nursing women. This issue is important to us. I can assure you that the Bloc Quebecois will continue determinedly to fight for just and equality. Women of Quebec and Canada, the Bloc Quebecois is behind you.

The fight continues, and I invite you to join us in getting this Liberal government and its Minister of Labour to understand that pregnant and nursing women under federal jurisdiction are also entitled to work in an environment free of all danger. This is a matter of humanity, health, respect, fairness and justice.

[Petitions, May 31st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of rural route mail carriers, who often earn less than minimum wage, I am pleased to table a petition containing approximately 150 signatures.

This petition asks that rural route mail carriers be given the same treatment as people already covered by the Canada Post Corporation Act, for the riding of Laurentides.

[The Late Maurice Richard, May 31st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, today in Montreal, final tributes were paid to Maurice Richard at the funeral for this man, sportsman, hero and legend.

The sportsman had long retired, but his exploits remained engraved on our memories and passed on from one generation to the next.

The exploits of the hero, not only in sports but expressed in daily life through his qualities of determination, passion and courage, excited crowds and inspired determination and passion in a people. The hero has gone.

The man has left us. And now we pay a final great and sober tribute to his image. The sportsman and the hero depart with the man. But, Maurice Richard today is more with us than ever.

The man made way for the legend. May this legend be handed on from one generation to the next and continue to inspire a desire for excellence and determination in the people.

Farewell Maurice Richard the man. Long live Maurice Richard the legend.

[Occupational Health And Safety Week, May 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, this week is North American Occupational Health and Safety Week and this year's theme is “Work Safely for a Healthy Future”. But what is the current situation like?

Each year, in Canada, about 800,000 people are injured or contract a disease at work. Out of that number, over 750 die, an average of three deaths for every working day.

It is disturbing to note that, over the last decade, the rate of injuries has increased in federally regulated industries. In 1996, 38 deaths resulting from work related diseases or accidents were reported by these industries.

Bill C-12, which seeks to reform part II of the Canada Labour Code, is currently before a committee. The Bloc Quebecois is proposing progressive and essential amendments to this legislation, to ensure greater health and safety for pregnant and breastfeeding workers, and also a more professional public service.

This is how the Bloc Quebecois wanted to acknowledge—

[National Composting Week, May 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is the end of National Composting Week, for which the theme this year is “The Future Starts Here”.

Composting, a natural means of recycling, decomposes and transforms organic matter into humus, a product that can be used to improve soil texture and fertility.

Food, agricultural and gardening waste, and paper, wood, manure and leaves are excellent organic matter for composting.

The Government of Quebec is a leader in this field, having adopted, in 1998, an action plan on the management of residual fertilizers so that by the year 2008 up to 60% of recoverable putrescible matter will be recovered annually.

What explanation can there be for the absence of any reference to composting on Agriculture Canada's website except this government's deplorable lack of sensitivity with respect to the environment, which is clearly demonstrated by its stand on organic farming.

[Canada Labour Code, May 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the day before yesterday, the Minister of Labour said she was prepared to sit down with her Quebec counterpart and discuss the issue of preventive withdrawal from the workplace for pregnant workers.

In 1993, the Bloc Quebecois introduced a motion to correct a situation arising from the provisions of the Canada Labour Code that was unfair to pregnant workers and the Liberal Party, then in opposition, unanimously supported the motion.

Is the minister prepared to take up this motion herself, move it and have it agreed to as soon as possible, so that this unfair situation becomes a thing of the past?

[Genetically Modified Organisms, April 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, as regards the GMO issue, the Minister of Agriculture is either burying his head in the sand or he is not properly informed.

Europe has the technology to detect GMOs and is threatening to ban Canadian agricultural products. Here in Canada, the Laboratoire d'environnement SM, in Quebec, and Genserve Laboratories, in Saskatchewan, can detect GMOs.

Since the technology to detect GMOs exists in Europe and in Canada, what is the minister waiting for to order the mandatory labelling of GMOs, for the benefit of consumers and farmers?

[Prime Minister Of Canada, April 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, “You may see problems, I do not see any”. Those are the words of our Prime Minister in his travels in the Middle East. “I have not seen a word in the press here, and there has been no negative comment on TV”, he added.

The Prime Minister has certainly not seen the middle eastern press, which is echoing his remarks, and he should not phone home, like the words in the song, to find out what the press reviews are saying here. The headlines are saying “A blunder a day”; “Chaos reigns”; “Prime Minister's gaffes embarrass Ottawa”. Never have we seen the cartoonists having such a heyday.

All is well.

We would laugh, if it were not so pathetic. Quebecers have known for a long time that the Prime Minister has no sense of the delicacy of relations between peoples. The rest of the world can now bear witness to the fact.