Monique Guay

[Bill C-20, December 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in another supreme court decision, we find the following “A system which dilutes one citizen's vote unduly as compared with another citizen's vote runs the risk of providing inadequate representation to the citizen whose vote is diluted. The result will be uneven and unfair representation”.

Does the minister want to reverse his position and defend with democrats the rule that all votes are equal?

[Bill C-20, December 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in 1991, the supreme court ruled as follows:

There is a further, equally important aspect of the right, namely that each vote must be relatively equal to every other vote. To water down the importance and significance of an individual's vote is to weaken the democratic process.

My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Since supreme court decisions seem to be very important for the government, how can the minister defend a bill that promotes the inequality of votes, in flagrant contradiction of a supreme court ruling?

[Bill C-20, December 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, according to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the anti-democratic intentions in Bill C-20 are based on the 1998 supreme court advisory opinion.

Yet, in 1991, in the reference on Saskatchewan's electoral boundaries, the supreme court concluded “There is a further, equally important aspect of the right, namely that each vote must be relatively equal to every other vote. To water down the importance and significance of an individual's vote is to weaken the democratic process”.

We remind anyone getting ready to question the rule of 50% plus one that in 1991 the supreme court ruled, and I quote “A system which dilutes one citizen's vote unduly as compared with another citizen's vote runs the risk of providing inadequate representation to the citizen whose vote is diluted. The result will be uneven and unfair representation”.

One thing is clear: with Bill C-20, democracy hangs in the balance.

[Points Of Order, December 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have here a story from the December 11, 1999 issue of Le Droit , which clearly indicates how the government intends to stop Quebecers from deciding freely their own future.

I am asking for the unanimous consent of the House to table this document.

[Canada Labour Code, December 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, after having heard all the speakers, I would like to summarize the situation and say a few more words about Bill C-212.

The Liberals, the governing party, have once again buried their heads in the sand. Once again, they have ignored the problem caused by orphan clauses. It is a if it did not exist as far as they are concerned. Instead they indulged in petty politics, answering me almost rudely.

They said that all Quebec talked about was separation and that we should not get involved in the orphan clause issue. I have been sitting as an elected member of this place for six years already. I deal with federal issues, not with Quebec issues at the National Assembly; I do sit in the Parliament of Canada. The orphan clause issue is related to the Canada Labour Code.

First, I find it unfortunate that this bill got so little attention. Then, what really distressed me was the fact that the Minister of Labour, present in this House, did not even respond. She did not even dare to rise and say what she really thought or at the very least give her opinions, even if they differed. We could accept that.

What we cannot accept is having people say nothing because they are afraid, or for whatever reason, perhaps because they do not consider the matter important enough.

Tabling a bill involves a whole procedure. It takes a lot of time to move it from A to B or to C. It is a long and difficult process, worthy of the importance due it. What I saw today was a shrug of the government shoulders meaning forget that.

I was not surprised by the reaction of my colleague in the Reform Party. I know that, nothing to do with unions and employee and employer relations, excites them—and I choose my words to be kind. So, I am not surprised by their reaction.

On the other hand, I am very happy that my colleague from the NDP and my colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party understood the importance of reacting at this point. A reaction is vital, because there has long been discussion of discriminatory clauses. The government has long had its head in the sand and done absolutely nothing in this matter. It is time to move.

There are a lot of young people in the labour market who want to join big companies or the public service and who will not enjoy the same rights as their elders. Their education alone has put them in debt over their head. Nowadays, they are given jobs in areas where they will be penalized by discriminatory clauses that will prevent them from progressing as fast as their elders.

Today, one out of four children lives below the poverty line. I believe it is time to open our eyes. We have huge budget surpluses, a projected $25.3 billion, but we are unable to provide fair working conditions for our young people. The minister could act immediately, but of course, she will not. As a matter of fact, she did not even dare to speak on the bill although she was here.

It is time we give our young people working conditions equal to their elders by giving them as good a career start as others enjoyed in their youth.

Have we ever thought how rotten the atmosphere must be in a firm, a big company where there are dissimilar pay levels and working conditions?

This is utterly unacceptable nowadays. If the minister really wanted to make a difference, first she would have risen in the House today to at least face the music, and second, the Liberals would not have played politics with such an important piece of legislation as this bill on discriminatory clauses.

[Canada Labour Code, December 3rd, 1999]

moved that Bill C-212, 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), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today in the House to speak to Bill C-212, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Public Service Staff Relations Act.

What this long title means in fact is that Bill C-212 would render any provision in a collective agreement concluded under these acts, excluding a provision based on the seniority principle, of no force or effect where employees hired after a specific date do not receive the same employee benefits, wages or conditions of employment as those received by other employees covered by the collective agreement.

Thus, if such a provision is contained in a collective agreement signed on or after the coming into force of the act, it will be declared of no force or effect.

Also, if such a provision is contained in a collective agreement signed before the coming into force of this enactment, it will be of no force or effect on a day that is two years after the day on which this enactment comes into force.

In short, as a responsible political party, the Bloc Quebecois would like to do away with orphan clauses, or discriminatory clauses if you prefer, in all collective agreements under federal jurisdiction.

Let us be clear. The labour minister and the federal government absolutely refuse to admit there are orphan clauses in a number of collective agreements under their jurisdiction. But, later on in my remarks, I will prove that there are some.

Before going any further, we should agree on a definition of orphan clauses. These are clauses in collective agreements under which employees hired after a specified date do not receive the same employee benefits, wages, or conditions of employment as those received by other employees who have been hired before that date.

Let us examine the direct and indirect impact of such clauses on our society.

In Ottawa, the Bloc Quebecois has always been the only party to care about this issue. But just in Quebec, we have over 100,000 workers who come under federal labour legislation, and are not covered under the Quebec labour code. This is true not only for Quebec workers, but for all workers in the rest of Canada.

Discriminatory clauses are the source of a lot of frustration and create a rift between older and younger employees, generating tensions within businesses where they are in use.

They greatly contribute to social inequality. Several studies have shown that income inequalities in Canada are linked to salary inequalities between young workers and more experienced ones.

Between 1981 and 1993, the salaries of men aged 18 to 24 dropped by 20%, while the salaries of men in the 45 to 54 age group increased by 20%.

The orphan clauses are a problem that must be fixed. They prevent young couples from providing their children with decent living conditions from a very early age. The Canadian Institute of Child Health explains the financial difficulties young families are facing, and I quote:

Economically, today's young families with children are worse off than were those of their parents' generation. In 1976, a single parent with one child needed to work 41 hours a week at minimum wage to bring the family up to the poverty line; in 1993, this had increased to 73 hours per week.

The federal government, especially the Minister of Labour, must recognize the long term effects of this kind of short term solution, which badly penalizes young people.

What is even more absurd, is that the labour minister and the federal government do not recognize that these provisions are discriminatory. A hundred thousand workers from Quebec who are subject to the Canada Labour Code are not protected against these discriminatory provisions.

When will the government understand that the opposition to these orphan clauses has nothing to do with a generation gap, but rather that these discriminatory provisions are what divide the generations?

Discriminatory provisions hurt the younger workers and that has significant social consequences on our society. The goal here is not to make victims out of our youth, but to take the time to consider the facts that seem to go against the values of solidarity and fairness which are necessary to social cohesion.

Orphan clauses in collective agreements can make members of some generations feel they are being treated unfairly. Unfairness at a time when people are not as wealthy as they used to be is totally unacceptable. In this period of austerity, we have to stick together.

In order to decry and fight against the unfair treatment handed out to the poor, the young, the elderly and so on, generations absolutely have to stand united.

Why does the federal government not do as the province of Quebec did and create a parliamentary committee to consider the issue of discriminatory provisions in federal collective agreements?

Are the labour minister and the federal government scared of facing the truth? Why not give the various stakeholders and parliamentarians the opportunity to go before a parliamentary committee and discuss this issue? Holding a social debate throughout Canada, would that not be a healthy and democratic way to address such an important issue as the orphan clauses?

The federal government would rather stay mute, turn a deaf ear and not take responsibility for a social problem that is all too real.

In Quebec there is a strong consensus among a number of different stakeholders against the so-called orphan clauses. Opponents include the Bloc Quebecois, the national executive of the Forum Jeunesse du Bloc Quebecois, the Conseil national du Parti Quebecois, the Conseil des jeunes du PQ, the Jeunes libéraux du Québec, the CSN, the FTQ, the CERQ, to name but a few.

Moreover, a Sondagem survey carried out from March 20 to 24 found that 59.6% of the population of Quebec was opposed to unions signing collective agreements which imposed working conditions and salaries on new employees that were less advantageous than those of existing employees, and 41.7% of respondents reported that they would accept a cut in salary in order to make it easier for young people to enter the work force.

Given these survey findings, it is inconceivable that the federal government continues to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear. If it really intends to put an end to these orphan clauses, let it pass legislation along the lines of my Bill C-212.

When will the federal government finally have the courage to speak out against orphan clauses as the people of Quebec have?

I can assure hon. members that the Bloc Quebecois will keep on the federal government's case until it abolishes these clauses.

As I have said, certain federal collective agreements do indeed contain discriminatory clauses. I will give some examples.

Let me start with the CBC. The Syndicat des techniciens et artisans du réseau français de Radio-Canada has negotiated an agreement with an orphan clause. Article 31.1 of that agreement reads as follows, and I quote:

Job guarantees, employees hired prior to December 1983.

When the Corporation makes a decision to significantly reduce operations at a given location, there will be no layoffs, terminations or salary reductions for STRF and NABET employees who were on strength as of December 31, 1983 and who are still employed on the date of signature of this collective agreement, provided they have completed their probationary period.

And article 31.2 reads as follows, and I quote:

Unprotected employee (hired after December 1983).

An employee who has completed a probationary period but is not personally protected under article 30.1.1 above or article 31.1 below, may be laid off, have his employment terminated or have his salary reduced if the workforce reduction is for reasons other than those set out in article 29 (section 9), pursuant to article 33 (section 9).

Obviously, a worker who joined the CBC after December 1, 1983 may be laid off, have his employment terminated or have his salary reduced.

But workers who joined before December 1 have job and pay guarantees.

Here is concrete proof that there are indeed orphan clauses in federal government agreements. So the minister should stop telling us otherwise, because it is not true.

Orphan clauses are not restricted to collective agreements. They are probably one of the most discriminatory clauses in Canada and can be found in the EI legislation.

The EI clause, introduced in 1993, goes a long way towards explaining why the rate of coverage for young people between the ages of 20 and 24 has dropped from 49.1% in 1993 to 26.6% in 1998.

This provision affects approximately 56,000 young people annually. The clause that discriminates against young people can be found in section 7, Part 1, of the Act.

The eligibility criteria for new entrants and re-entrants to the labour force are different. This is a clause similar in every respect to the one found in certain collective agreements. But, in this case, we are talking about the federal government's most important social safety net. This clause potentially affects every young person in Canada. Not only does it create two classes of workers, but it also creates two classes of citizens.

Bill C-212 seeks to put a stop, by eliminating any legal loophole, to any form of discrimination based on the use of orphan clauses, and should thus punish any violation of the principle governing intergenerational solidarity, without which a just and fair society cannot exist.

The fight of the Bloc Quebecois against discriminatory clauses is a quest for equity. All workers in Quebec and in Canada are entitled to the protection that will be provided by Bill C-212. This fight is about ensuring a more just and fair society.

On February 9, the hon. member for Charlesbourg introduced Bill C-470 which, like Bill C-212, sought to prohibit discriminatory clauses.

At the time, the federal government refused to debate the proposed measure. Today, I am coming back with Bill C-212. I do hope that the government will finally open its eyes and recognize that the use of orphan clauses creates social inequalities, something which must be condemned.

I hope the other opposition parties will support the Bloc Quebecois legislation. We should not engage in petty politics, as the Liberals really enjoy doing, when we are dealing with such an issue.

I also ask those Liberal members who have a social conscience to break ranks with their party and to support my bill.

The evolution of society must not be viewed strictly with the present generation in mind. We must look further ahead and think about the future generations that will ensure our social, economic, political and cultural development.

Bill C-212 seeks to give hope to young workers in Quebec and in Canada who work in a federally legislated business, and who are entitled to the same benefits as their elders.

With its Bill C-212, the Bloc Quebecois wants to send to the rest of Canada a clear message that young workers, and those who are trying to join the workforce or are preparing to do so, must be considered full-fledged citizens, like all the other citizens of Canada.

[Orphan Clauses, December 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today, the Bloc Quebecois will debate its Bill C-212.

The purpose of this bill is to eliminate any provision in a collective agreement that discriminates against newcomers on the labour market, and to ensure that employees hired after a specified date enjoy the same benefits, wages or conditions of employment as the other employees.

My question is for the Minister of Labour. What concrete measures does she intend to take to prohibit discriminatory orphan clauses, and when will she do it?

[Genetically Modified Foods, November 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, following the lead of Japan and Europe, last week 19 representatives in the U.S. congress tabled a bill to make it mandatory in the United States to label genetically modified foods or foods containing genetically modified organisms.

My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Does he realize that Canada may soon be one of the few countries where it is not mandatory to label genetically modified food and that our farm products may well be rejected just about everywhere, including in the United States?

[Independent Truckers, November 25th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is supposed to be a federal issue, but the member is talking only about Quebec. If he wants to debate it in the national assembly, I have no problem with that, but we are here—

[Independent Truckers, November 25th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Motion M-130 moved by the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik.

First I must say that, in some respects, I was very disappointed on first reading this motion. I will read it again now so that members will understand why I have a problem with it. It goes as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should explore the questions surrounding federal-provincial jurisdiction in the areas of labour law and transportation law as regards independent truckers in the province of Quebec.

Why would it be left only to the government to explore the questions surrounding federal-provincial jurisdiction in the areas of labour law and transportation law as regards independent truckers in the province of Quebec? Why is there always this desire to exclude the opposition parties with respect to such important issues? Why does this government always have this condescending attitude to parliament? Why does it want to exclude parliament?

If the member had given two minutes' thought to the wording of his motion, he would have realized that it was unacceptable. Parliament and the opposition members, particularly the Bloc Quebecois members, have a say on matters as vital as federal-provincial relations and transportation law as regards independent truckers in Quebec.

Through his motion, the member is automatically excluding the opinions and ideas of 44 members who were duly elected by the people of Quebec, and this is all the worse because the motion is directly concerned with Quebec.

Of course, the Bloc Quebecois is in total agreement with the spirit of Motion M-130, but it is out of the question that it be excluded from the study of the problems mentioned in the motion.

Why not favour a review by a committee? Why not take the opportunity to explore the issues raised by the motion, with the help of experts in the field, who would testify before the committee? The member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik seems to make light of the all important issues of Quebec's transportation industry and of transportation law as regards independent truckers in Quebec.

Let us have a closer look at the transportation industry in Quebec and Canada. In Quebec alone, trucking is a $6.25 billion industry. Therefore, members will understand why the issue is far too important to be left to the federal government.

First, it is important to mention that under section 92(3) of the Constitution Act, 1867, transportation comes mainly under the legislative authority of the provinces. This being said, in certain regards, the jurisdiction can be shared between the federal government and the provinces.

Since my time is limited, I will focus on federal powers. Briefly, the authority of the federal government in the area of labour comes from its power to regulate certain matters, which are expressly assigned to it under section 91 of the Constitutional Act, 1867, or which are expressly excluded from the authority of the provinces under section 92. These matters are national, international or provincial in nature.

Contrary to the government, the Bloc Quebecois is not making light of the trucking industry in Canada. In Canada, trucking is an industry worth close to $30 billion, that employs 400,000 people. Every year, over 20 million trucks cross the border between Canada and the United States, and over 70,000 truckers are involved in cross-border transportation. Trucks move over 70% of the value of the total exports to the United States.

Since 1991, the number of trucking companies whose revenues come for more than 40% from cross-border transportation has increased by 70%.

Considering the importance of the trucking industry both in Quebec and in Canada, it is totally justifiable for governments to want to assume their responsibilities. Quebec has assumed its responsibilities by initiating a vast reform of its labour code, including the status of independent workers.

However, the federal government, in its reform of part I of its code, preferred to stay away from clarifying the status of independent workers. Even though the problems with the trucking industry were dealt with at the provincial level in Quebec, let us not forget, and I mentioned it earlier in my speech, that a great number of truckers are governed by the Canada Labour Code.

This is why the Bloc Quebecois is asking that a parliamentary committee be set up to conduct a comprehensive study of the trucking industry, the never ending jurisdictional problems and the status of independent truckers in the province of Quebec. The member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik cannot be opposed to such an idea.

A consensus already exists among labour unions with regard to the fact that legislating at the provincial level only would not solve the problem, because trucking businesses and their clients would defy such legislation, claiming they are governed by the Canada Labour Code.

Theoretically, the federal definition of a dependent worker would allow truckers who qualify under this definition to unionize and to negotiate their working conditions through the collective bargaining process. But they would have to prove they are economically dependent on a business, which is almost impossible.

In that regard, I would like to read an excerpt from the report of the committee of experts on the status of trucker-owners, which was commissioned by the Quebec ministry of transport, and I quote:

Indeed, the jurisprudence states that for a trucker to qualify as a dependent contractor, the board would have to see economic dependence of the trucker on the client. Because truckers can work for many different clients, own several trucks and have their own employees do the work, the concept of dependent contractor does not apply in many cases.

So, the federal government will also have to assume its responsibilities and set up a parliamentary committee to consider these issues. In fact, we know that the labour minister has been approached by the executive of the Quebec union, the CSD. Unfortunately, as is often the case, the representations of the CSD were not all that successful.

It is always the same thing with the government across the way. One need only think about our bill on orphan clauses which, by the way, was introduced twice in this House. The Government of Quebec did live up to its responsibilities and is about to legislate on this crucial issue for our young people.

Quebec has created a parliamentary commission to hear everyone and anyone who has something to say about the orphan clauses. Quebec is developing a blueprint for our society by legislating on these discriminatory clauses. Here, in Ottawa, the Liberals refused to even debate our bill on orphan clauses. The federal government is much more anxious to pass legislation concerning young offenders.

There are many positive elements in the spirit of Motion M-130. The Bloc Quebecois totally agrees that the House of Commons, I repeat the House of Commons and not, as the hon. member suggests in his motion, the government, should explore in committee the questions surrounding federal-provincial jurisdiction in the areas of labour law and transportation law as regards independent truckers in Quebec.

This study is particularly crucial since, as of January 1, 2000, trucking in Canada will be deregulated, allowing competition among truckers from each and every province.

Under the circumstances, it is important that the trucking industry find a way to promote discussion among the various stakeholders and determine the conditions that would help truckers do their jobs, while considering the new climate that would be created following the upcoming deregulation and the increase in competition.