Sébastien Gagnon

[Highway Infrastructure, October 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, today we are celebrating the 431st day since the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premier of Quebec made their joint announcement in our region that the four-lane highway in the Parc des Laurentides was going ahead and that the two levels of government would share the costs.

But now, after all this time, we learn that the federal-provincial cost-sharing agreement for this project still has not been signed. We are still watching the ping-pong game between the federal member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord and the Liberal member of the provincial legislature for Jonquière, Françoise Gauthier, as the governments volley the responsibility for these interminable delays back and forth.

Is it possible to show some respect for the people of Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay and tell them, once and for all, exactly where they stand in this matter on which the Prime Minister has made a firm commitment?

[Supply, October 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my hon. colleague for her speech and the issues she raised. She shares the same administrative region as the member opposite.

Since he mentioned employment, can my hon. colleague describe to the House the impact the softwood lumber crisis has had on employment? What negative impact has it had on her region? That is my question to my hon. colleague.

[Supply, October 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I will be briefer than during the previous period.

At home, we now feel the effects of this whole mess. The question I would like to ask my colleague is this: in his riding, at various events, does he really feel this internal crisis in the Liberal Party? Could he tell the House about it?

[Supply, October 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, here is my question. I would urge the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord to think about this whole mess. I would like him to comment on the fact—

[Supply, October 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, there are a great many questions that could be asked of my colleague, but I will limit myself to a couple of ideas.

My colleague spoke of the fear of losing the next election. I would like to pick him up on two flip-flops on his part since yesterday. In connection with the anti-scab legislation, he spoke out against it over the past few months, but now, realizing how many unionized workers there are in Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, he has been forced to admit that he must support the workers. Yet the Bloc Quebecois has introduced such a bill on more than one occasion.

As for moving up the effective date for the electoral map, at first reading my colleague sided with the government. Now, in response to the pressure from the people of Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, who understand our demands—there is a problem, we have just lost a riding—my colleague has been forced to face the fact that he ought to side with the Bloc.

At any rate, I would invite the hon. member to reflect about all these positions, which in some ways are closer to those of the Bloc Quebecois than to those of the Liberals. He is, however, constrained by the party line and its potential advantages. He is always torn between the values of the people of Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay and those of the Liberal Party, and in some ways there is a huge gap between the two.

My colleague spoke about employment insurance. Employment insurance is something of huge importance. Yes, indeed, and just how important for the region? It has one of the highest levels of unemployment in Quebec.

If the federal government he defends had a record as good as all that, there would not be high unemployment. How then does he explain that the CEGEPs in Chicoutimi and Jonquière are training tourism students who will not be able to work in their own regions? Why not? Because of the EI criteria.

Eligibility for benefits requires 900 hours. A student could very easily be involved during the tourist season, develop the tourist season over a year or two, benefit from the EI program to create a self-sufficient tourist industry. But no, the Liberal government sets a requirement of 900 hours, thus doing away with all opportunities.

Now for the softwood lumber crisis. My colleague could have pressured for the elimination of the two-week waiting period. What happened here? When it came to SARS in Toronto, the two weeks were done away with—

[Agriculture, October 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Quebec minister of agriculture was a guest speaker at the annual general meeting of the UPA of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. In her speech, she again solicited the support of the region's dairy producers to convince the Canadian government to take part in another compensation program for farmers affected by the mad cow crisis.

Will the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food listen to reason and come to the rescue of the Quebec farmers hit by the mad cow crisis?

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, October 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few points to show that today's initiative lacks objectivity and is intended not only to advance the implementation date of the new electoral map but also to promote the political agenda of the future prime minister.

Some disturbing elements led me to that conclusion, and I will explain them to the House.

I presented my objection to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The committee, which heard the four members from my region, told us that there was a problem with the municipality of Chibougamau-Chapais. Apparently, that community had asked to leave the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay and be transferred to the riding of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik.

Considering that there was limited leeway—they wanted to take a riding away because there were 7,000 fewer residents—they decided, according to the resolution introduced by the mayor of Chibougamau-Chapais, to take that part of the region and include it in the riding of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik. Therefore, we did not lose 7,000 residents, but 20,000.

That said, given that this was the issue that might cause a hitch or be unfavourable for Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, which was losing its riding, we did our homework. We met with all the city councillors. We realized that the document issued by the mayor was not valid. It was simply a letter of intent on the city's letterhead with the mayor's signature.

All of the municipal representatives were against this proposal and wanted to stay in the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay. A resolution was then signed by five of the seven municipal representatives.

We went back to the committee with this procedure, but now, it is no longer the primary reason. We are back to the numerical issue. We have lost 7,000 inhabitants over the past few years and therefore the riding of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean is being eliminated.

A vast majority of the members agreed that eliminating the riding of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean could have a dramatic effect on this community. Yet, government representatives on this committee rejected a unanimous report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. That is my first objection.

My second objection is that we find ourselves here today in a situation where, in order to help the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard in his ascent to the position of prime minister and to fill in his agenda, the coming into force of the new electoral boundaries is being speeded up.

Our community would benefit from a pause and perhaps from the next election in order to improve its demographics. We could then say to the people that here is a clear signal that we have to take charge of our destiny and that the young people must come back to the region. The population has to be informed; jobs have to be created. Instead, the opposite is being done; we have had one riding taken away and they tell us, “That is the way it is.”

That is not surprising coming from the government, when we are struggling every day for the most basic things. We must not forget that all citizens send 50% of their tax dollars to Ottawa. That is $560 million in income taxes, not counting other kinds of taxes.

Looking at employment insurance, we see there is little or no flexibility. If we look at the softwood lumber crisis, we see that the government is able to duck the issue because this is a bilateral dispute between Canada and the United States. People find it is impossible to respect the two-week waiting period and they are unable to get loan guarantees to help, for example.

And that is how it is. There is one thing I would like to say to all the members of the House. This is very bad for a community. The government is sending a very bad signal when it introduces bills like this that put communities at a disadvantage.

That said, I once again invite the House to think about the disaster this will be for our community.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, October 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you about my region.

The Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay region is a beautiful region of which I am so proud that I am ready to continue this debate in the House to try to convince all my colleagues of the need to defeat this bill.

Why? Because I am lucky enough to represent that region. I must mention that the region is in mourning today. Indeed, the redistribution has eliminated one riding from the region. This is something that is hard to accept for the people in the region. The decision was based on the demographic deficit. All those who appeared before the commission had warned it of the danger of basing such a decision solely on the number of voters.

There is a deficit of about 7,000 people since the last review by the commission, and it is on that basis that the decision was made to eliminate one riding, one elected representative, from the Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay region. That region pays 50% of its taxes to Ottawa, but it is still being deprived of 25% of its power of representation.

However, hard as it may be, we have to realize the lack of sensitivity of the federal government. The opposition to the elimination of one riding was unanimous. The fact that it was unanimous is important. All private citizens, all sociopolitical stakeholders, all four members of Parliament for this region were opposed to the elimination of one riding. But the electoral boundaries commission turned a deaf ear to their recommendations.

We took part in the whole process democratically and somewhat naively. We took part in the public hearings with some naiveté. We appeared before the commission. We read its report and brought up objections. We also made representations to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. We took part in the process, we applied pressure, and we tried to get some support from colleagues.

But we have to come to the conclusion that the objectivity of this approach is questionable. Again today, with this bill which will make it possible to have an earlier effective date for the electoral map, we have every reason to doubt the impartiality of the government in this issue.

This insensitivity can be seen in various issues, like employment insurance. How come the same policies apply throughout this country, when some regions struggle with high unemployment?

Here is a tangible example. A tourism student at the CEGEP in Jonquière, for example, cannot work in his region because he needs to accumulate 900 hours to be eligible for employment insurance benefits. What will he do if, after working during the summer period, he finds himself out of work? What will he do? He will move out of his region.

In the case of softwood lumber, the government can duck the problem by pointing to the dispute between Canada and the United States. Yet, there are solutions. The Bloc Quebecois suggested some, namely loan guarantees; direct support to workers by increasing the number of weeks of work; and eliminating the two-week waiting period. It is not as if these measures are beyond the government. Indeed, it implemented them in Toronto during the SARS crisis. These are tangible examples.

I could give others. We have motion M-393 introduced by my colleague, the member for Saint-Jean, to help the community. Again, the government has shown a total lack of sensitivity. What answer did the government give community organizations? It refused to help them.

Because of our demographic deficit but also because of the lack of sensitivity of the federal government, I have my doubts about this approach and vigorously oppose the bill, which could give us more time to swallow the pill.

Therefore, I invite all hon. members to oppose the bill. Electors from the Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay riding will remember this in the next election.

[Canada Labour Code, October 21st, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I will resume. Talking about these exercises, it is important to note that a tour of Quebec was organized. There was also a demonstration on May 1 and another one on October 17. Today, my colleague, the member for Laurentides, presented a petition containing some 46,000 signatures that demonstrates the will of Canadians and Quebeckers.

As I was saying, it was an extraordinary tour during which we felt a general sense of unanimity. At the end of this all, there will be a vote tomorrow in the House. All members should be aware of the problem and should participate in this vote.

Allow me to provide some background. The Canada Labour Code has to be amended to be more in line with the Quebec Labour Code. Since 1977, there is such a procedure in the Quebec Labour Code, which allows for harmonization, or standardization of relations between workers and organizations, but above all which makes the relationships between the different parties more human.

Why do we need anti-scab measures? Because they foster and maintain civilized negotiations during labour disputes and promote industrial peace between the two parties. They are the cornerstone that ensures a level playing field for employers and employees. These provisions will also put an end to the existence of two separate categories of workers in Quebec, those who are covered by the Canada Labour Code and those who are covered by the Quebec Labour Code.

To resume briefly, similar legislation exists in Quebec since 1977. It was passed by René Levesque's government. Labour relations have been modernized in Quebec and the members of this House are asked to harmonize labour relations for all Canadians. Other provinces have also passed similar legislation.

Members on the government side will tell us that the Canada Labour Code does contain a prohibition relating to replacement workers, but only if an employer uses them for the purpose of undermining a trade union's representational capacity. In other words, if an employer refuses to negotiate and then uses scabs, the Canada Industrial Relations Board can forbid their use. All that is necessary, however, is for an employer to negotiate, or pretend to negotiate, with the union for it to get around this prohibition and continue to use scabs. It can be seen, therefore, that this measure is ridiculous and opens the door to the use of scabs.

When I talk about a consensus, it comes from unions and workers. Again, employers in Quebec do not think about using scabs because their use is legislated.

What are the negative consequences of the use of scabs? It causes a decrease in local or global economic productivity. It also lowers the revenues of businesses and governments. There is a drop in earnings, and, consequently, a drop in the purchasing power of workers directly or indirectly affected. In some cases, this can even lead to social problems, force affected households into debt and cause stress-related psychological problems.

Beyond the procedures and the disputes, we have to look at the human side of this issue. We had the opportunity to go to Baie-Comeau, among other places, where Cargill workers went through a three-year labour dispute. For three years, they were without any income, spending their time on the picket line watching friends, neighbours and other employees go to work instead of them. It has far-reaching consequences.

I learned a lot about these labour disputes. For example, frustrated workers pointed the finger at persons identified as grandchildren of scabs, people in the community, neighbours. It was a source of conflict in the community.

Later, I was made aware of the existence of a silent majority. I value this majority greatly. I think of the worker who proudly performs his work every day for 20 or 30 years. When he goes out with friends or colleagues, he is proud of belonging to this industry. But suddenly, after 20 or 25 years of service, he is told that his friend was hired because of a labour dispute.

Respect and dignity must be preserved. It is difficult to predict the impact this will have on these individuals. Even after the dispute is resolved, deep scars remain. The sense of belonging this worker may have had in the beginning is compromised, and it will remain so until he retires. Why? Because he lost his dignity and his trust in his employer, who failed to negotiate with him on an equal footing.

Here are some figures to think about concerning this bill. As I indicated, there has been anti-scab legislation in Quebec since 1977. There are statistics and figures, and these are tangible figures. In 1976, the average number of working days lost was 39.4. In 1979, it fell to 32.8 and, in 2001, it was 27.4 days. One can see the difference such legislation makes.

British Columbia has had anti-scab legislation since 1993. Since 1993, the amount of time lost to strikes dropped by 50%. I have more figures that speak for themselves. From 1992 to 2002, the average number of days of work lost under the Quebec Labour Code was 15.9. Under the Canada Labour Code, the figure is 31.1 days. That is twice as many.

The dispute at Vidéotron alone, which lasted 10 months, resulted in 355,340 days of work lost in Quebec in 2002. That is one third of all days of work lost because of a strike or lock-out in Quebec in 2002. Productivity is tangible stuff.

At Sécur, 43,400 days of work were lost. These figures do not tell the whole story, but they are troubling enough to force the government to seriously consider this important issue.

Coming back to Vidéotron, we have heard testimony from workers who were affected by the dispute. Once the dispute was over, workers went back to work and told me it was not over in their hearts; they told me they would never be able to regain their former productivity because they had lost this feeling of pride.

There was another dispute at Secur. As I said earlier, the dispute at Cargill lasted three years. Workers at Radio-Nord Communications also went on strike. All of these disputes lasted a long time and had a negative impact on Quebec society, but also on the personal lives of the workers.

Members will remember that the minister tried to find arguments to demonstrate that the employers did not want anti-scab legislation. She even said that the unions were also against such legislation.

We met with the president of the FTQ, Mr. Massé, and told him what the minister had said. He sent a letter to the minister in which he asked for an apology, but I guess she forgot all about that.

As we can tell by all the work that was done, the tour and the 46,000 signatures that were gathered, people in Quebec really want anti-scab legislation. We also have the support of the Canadian Labour Congress and all of the unions in Canada. They are all unanimous.

Lastly, I want to say that the people in my riding of Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay are hard workers. Solidarity is a big issue for them.

I also want to remind everyone that the member opposite voted against the proposal and the workers will not soon forget it.

[Canada Labour Code, October 21st, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise today in the House, because of the great work that was done by my colleague, the member for Laurentides. Indeed, I accompanied her on a tour throughout Quebec. This tour proved to be a very important democratic exercise; we met workers and thus received some input throughout this exercise.

At the end of my speech, I will bring some arguments that will speak to the experience of these workers, those who are mainly concerned, not only in Quebec, but also throughout Canada. I remind—