Monique Guay

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, March 13th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 239

That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:

“4. Section 1 shall come into force on the day that is seven years after the day on which this Act is assented to, and sections 2 and 3 shall come into force on the day that is two years after the day on which this Act is assented to.”

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, March 13th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 192

That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:

“4. Section 1 shall come into force on the day that is one year after the day on which this Act is assented to, and sections 2 and 3 shall come into force on the day that is four years after the date on which this Act is assented to.”

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, March 13th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 100

That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:

“4. (1) On the expiration of two years after the coming into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be referred to such committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.

(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act and shall, within ten months after the review is undertaken submit a report to the House of Commons thereon.”

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, March 13th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 91

That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:

“4.(1) On the expiration of 9 months after the coming into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be referred to such committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.

(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act and shall, within four years after the review is undertaken submit a report to the House of Commons thereon.”

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, March 13th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 81

That Bill C-20, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 8 on page 5.

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, March 13th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-20, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 35 on page 2 with the following:

“30 to 55 days after the government of a province”

[Westray Mine, March 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes to speak to the issue we are addressing today, the Westray mine disaster.

The federal government seems to forget such disasters quickly. This is something that should leave a mark, that we should not forget and, if possible, that should not happen again.

The inquiry into the Westray mine accident showed that there was negligence, that part II of the labour code was not complied with. A review of part II of the labour code has been tabled, but we sense that this is not part of the government's priorities at this time.

It has been almost 10 years that this part of the labour code has not been reviewed. This is something that should be reviewed regularly, not every 10 years. Ten years is much too long; there are too many adjustments and changes to be made.

In this part of the labour code, many things are written, but are not done. It says we should do this and that. Also, fines for non-compliance are ridiculously low. Employers take advantage of this, particularly big companies such as the ones operating the mine. They do not comply with the code and, in any case, do not care about these ridiculous fines. They can afford to pay them.

This is a crucial point and I think it should be entirely reviewed.

Powers should also be given to these industries' employees. They should be able to lodge complaints. Currently, under the labour code, in respect of occupational health and safety, officials are sent by the government to inspect sites and mines.

It is interesting to note that the new labour code provides for the establishment of committees made up of inspectors, employees and employer representatives, who will ensure compliance with the occupational health code.

How it will be done is another story because the way the bill is drafted, it seems very complicated. However, we will discuss this in committee and make amendments if necessary. We must correct what is wrong with respect to occupational health and safety.

I also noted other significant errors in this document. Fines are imposed, but nothing is said about the way they will be collected. Inspectors do not deal with that. Very often, the government does not do its job. It makes tough laws, but does not provide the people required to enforce those laws.

It is all fine and well to have a very tough and very clear piece of legislation. It looks good, but we need the human and financial resources to enforce it. It is not a job for the police, but for the experts in labour code issues who inspect these sites. We must never ever see such a tragedy again.

If I look at what is being done in Quebec, our labour code and our legislation are a lot tougher than those of the federal government. That is why our miners are much better protected. There are legal procedures for them to make formal complaints or take group action against the employer if he does not do his job and does not see to the safety and security of his workers.

We could take as an example what is being done in Quebec and elsewhere where there are laws protecting employees, people working in the mines, and their families. It is hard enough on these people's health to work in a mine. We know how they suffer from chronic diseases and other problems, how quickly these men and women age because they work underground in an environment that is not necessarily healthy. We must make sure they have what they need, all the necessary tools and equipment to protect them physically in the workplace.

If we cannot give this to miners, to people who work very hard all their life for these companies, we are not worth much.

We have some work to do in this area. The labour code is not the only solution. There are many other options. Legal proceedings for instance. I know that often, and this is another problem, when one tries to sue big companies, mine owners, the final outcome is far from certain. Obviously small miners, or the families affected by these events, cannot afford to take on big companies like that, to hire lawyers and pay court fees.

I believe justice must be done. Those who are really to blame, who were negligent, must pay for their mistakes. Such a tragedy should never ever be allowed to happen again, both for the sake of the families and the children involved, and for all those concerned.

[Privilege, March 1st, 2000]

That is our privilege.

[The Budget, February 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, in many respects, the government's last budget was a big disappointment.

Despite the desperate needs of hospitals, the crowding in emergency rooms, and the unanimity of the provinces, community groups and the public, the federal budget has announced a one-time increase of only $2.5 billion over four years, a one-shot payment that will resolve nothing and that represents only 14% of the real funding called for by the provinces.

The federal government has also dashed the hopes of 58% of unemployed workers, who do not quality for benefits, and of women and young people who are heavily penalized by a system that is too restrictive and that does not reflect reality.

With this budget, Quebecers and Canadians can see that surpluses will remain high and will sit in federal government coffers for the coming years.

The federal government's millennium budget is a missed opportunity to show compassion and caring. This is a fine way to mark the yeqr 2000.

[Parental Leave Policy, February 25th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, all those attending the Sommet de la Jeunesse in Quebec City, including the Quebec Liberals, reached consensus on the necessity for the Government of Quebec to repatriate the entire policy of parental leave.

In order to avoid distortions and waste, the Government of Quebec therefore asked the federal government to comply with the Emploment Insurance Act, which calls for the right to opt out with full compensation.

As is his usual habit, the Prime Minister said no. In so doing, he is saying no to the Government of Quebec, to the Liberal Party of Quebec, to the social and community organizations of Quebec, and the families of Quebec in particular.

Of course, keeping that program in Ottawa lends political visibility to the Liberal Party. They ought to have learned their lesson from the Human Resources Development Canada scandal: when visibility overrides public interest, it is a two-edged sword.

We are asking this government to put the interests of Quebec families before its partisan interests.