François Lapointe

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, September 27th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague.

In all of the research she has done, is there a single modern state, in North America or Europe, that has a tough on crime policy and that has seen crime rates decrease more quickly than in a neighbouring state? Or, on the contrary, are there not examples where the tough on crime policy slowed a decrease in the crime rate or even caused an increase?

[Asbestos Industry, September 27th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, let us try again and see if we get anything new.

This government claims to want to create jobs by supporting the asbestos industry. In reality, it is exporting disease and death to countries that have inadequate labour health and safety standards. This position does not help the communities that are relying on a dying industry. The workers have suffered enough.

What is this government waiting for to show real respect for these people and to develop with them a transition plan to stimulate the economy in that region?

[Mystery Novel Awards, September 27th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, for 10 years a yearly gala for the Prix du roman policier has been held in the municipality of Saint-Pacôme, in Kamouraska. Well-known mystery novelists have passed through Saint-Pacôme, including Patrick Sénécal and Chrystine Brouillet. The 2011 awards were presented on Saturday, September 24.

I would like to quote this year's recipient, Martin Michaud, who won for his novel La chorale du diable. He said, “The Prix Saint-Pacôme du roman policier plays a huge role in promoting...Quebec culture...a vital part of the Canadian identity.”

I would like to pay tribute to the volunteers and bibliophiles who have succeeded in making this a worthy national event while still maintaining its local roots. I would also like to pay tribute to the elected municipal officials who promote this gala.

In conclusion, I congratulate the winners in the category for junior short story: Flavie Gauthier-Chamard from l'Islet, Catherine Girard from Saint-Prime, and Ève Gaumond from Cacouna.

The people of Saint-Pacôme can be very proud of this event.

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, September 22nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has touched on an important problem and I would like to hear more from him on this subject.

I am referring to the tendency to establish foolish and specific laws. I have been reading quite a bit about this. This tendency has a significant impact on the legal system and the very discretion of judges who, faced with a crime, must consider why it was committed, whether it was a stupid mistake or whether the offender was compelled to commit it. They must be aware of the context before arriving at a decision. How will it end if we simply apply foolish solutions such as “one plus one equals two” without ever giving judges the freedom they require to analyze cases? I would like to hear more from my colleague on this aspect of the problem.

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, September 22nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely nothing mediocre about wanting to help people before they become criminals, instead of developing a repressive society.

I have a very specific question for my hon. colleague on the other side. We have a hodgepodge of legislation here that talks about child sexual predators, pardons for serious crimes and drug dealers. These are all very socially complex elements. Each of them requires discussion and reflection regarding the legal, social, ethical, philosophical and even religious aspects.

How can the government justify putting all of that in one big package and preventing Canadians from having a healthy debate on each of these important issues? That is unacceptable. How does my colleague explain that?

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, we are everywhere in Canada and in Quebec for people have suffered terrible losses as a result of floods. This is what is happening. On the other hand, the union is ready to go back to the bargaining table and is offering solutions.

Unlock the lockout.

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, that would be a job for another committee or another bill. I do not want to mix things up, definitely not.

The mail is very important. So important that I think that they should unlock the lockout today.

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it was right in my riding. There is not one big centre but rather several centres: Montmagny, La Pocatière and Rivière-du-Loup. It was in Montmagny that I met about 20 employees, including a union leader. It is not my field so I do not know what his rank was, but he was an extremely nice union leader who seemed to be very well liked by his members, and not a monster that they had forced to come under some mysterious threat.

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, if this can reassure my colleague across the way, personally I have not even seen a letterhead from the union in question; therefore, I could not have repeated the content of such letters. I would like to clarify one thing: I have spoken to unionized workers on the street, not to union leaders. I have heard the views of these people, my fellow citizens, consumers, and my brothers-in-law. So, I could not comment on hotline.

That said, one comment comes back repeatedly: under suitable conditions, the parties could simply agree to resume negotiations while the former collective agreement would continue to apply. They are totally open to that.

The solution is not complicated. Unlock the lock-out! That is simple enough. Solutions are right here in front of us and the situation could be resolved within three hours.

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say hello to my constituents. I would have liked to have been with them yesterday. I would especially like to salute shift workers. We have come to a better understanding of their reality over the past few days. I think of them every time I get up in the middle of the night. I have a great deal of respect for them.

I would like to come back to what I consider to be the main problem with the current government's attitude. This government systematically manipulates and, in particular, polarizes the debates that are important to our society. I will present three arguments because I do not wish to make such an assertion without providing valid reasons.

The day before yesterday, the hon. Prime Minister did something that had not been done since 1964. He took the liberty of exploiting a national holiday. He rose in the House to say that the opposition needed only to vote on what was on the table if it wanted to be with friends and family on the national holiday. We have not seen this kind of contempt for such an important symbol of one of the founding nations of this country since 1964.

Did the hon. Prime Minister subsequently tour Quebec to explain his point of view? I still would not have approved, but I could have respected his actions. Did he stay in the House to support his troops? I still would not have approved, but I could have respected his actions. No, the right hon. Prime Minister went to Thetford Mines— where asbestos is a hot topic, as we all know—to throw some oil on the fire. Once again, event after event, they throw oil on the fire and polarize the debate. That is no way to govern Canadians.

Before getting back to the bill being examined, I would like to speak about the gun registry. I am fortunate to come from a rural riding that also has some cities. There are organized women's groups. There are also organized hunters' groups, which include outstanding citizens who hunt duck. They help maintain a balance for farmers by ensuring that there are not too many ducks eating their crops.

For the past three or fours years, those two groups have not needed a government that polarizes the debate. Women's groups have told me they want the gun registry maintained. The police have also told me they want to keep the registry. When two neighbours start threatening to kill each other, I am not the one who has to step into the line of fire and break it up; it is the police. The police themselves have told us they need this tool.

The hunters I often meet in the mountains tell me they do not want us to get rid of the gun registry. All they want is a few changes that would show them more respect. They do not want to feel as though they are looked upon as potentially dishonest people. That is all they have asked me for. None of the groups has told me they want to see the gun registry eliminated. Once again, polarization.

Now back to the bill before us. Yet again, the government is using this bill to manipulate and polarize the debate. The union was acting responsibly, taking reasonable job action: rotating strikes. There were workers who committed, regardless of the events, to volunteer their services to deliver important cheques such as employment insurance payments.

The union had more than 90% support for its actions. Barely a week ago, the minister herself admitted that the rotating strikes were not really creating much disruption. Then all of a sudden, a lockout. What for? When something that was not called for by anyone happens in the public domain, there is a reason behind it, a desired outcome in mind. Unfortunately, this lockout made it possible for the members of the current government to assert a falsehood: that this was a strike.

We are starting to get the correct message out to the national media that this is a lockout, because they have not had the decency to call it by its rightful name. This is a lockout, not a strike. It has taken us three days to get the truth out to the public.

What are they trying to accomplish? To their way of thinking, they are siding with Canadians who work hard and who are fed up with capricious unions. Thirty-three per cent of Canadians are unionized. They have brothers, they have relatives. When their wages increase, what do they do with the extra money in their pockets? Well, they buy another beer, or another item of clothing from an establishment in their community.

Finally, I was floored to see the union itself being vilified. I have an advantage that the Conservatives do not have. When I join workers on a picket line, they talk to me. I am still looking for the bad guy in the union who threatened these workers and forced them on to the picket line. I still have not found him.

It is time to stop manipulating the debate. Quite simply, what we are dealing with is a postal workers union that, backed by over 90% of its members, resorted to reasonable pressure tactics. The right-leaning Conservative government, in the meantime, orders a lockout to achieve its objectives.

Before we get around to discussing the unfairness of many of the provisions in the bill now before the House, there is something very basic that needs to be explained to Canadians. Given its unreasonable attitude and approach to this debate, is it possible that the government will soon no longer grant parties the right to resort to reasonable pressure tactics? Are we about to see a motion tabled in this House calling for pressure tactics to be limited to no more than three or four days? I have an idea: perhaps pressure tactics should be approved by the Minister of Labour three days in advance. There is a good idea.

I am tempted to continue in English because I see that many of my colleagues on the other side are not wearing their earpiece. I want to be very sure that everyone understands what I am saying.

If they respect seniors waiting for drugs, they will unlock the lockout. If they respect rural and native communities living far away from services, they will unlock the lockout. If they respect small business, and do not want to cut salaries of thousands of young workers who will then still be consumers and bring good business to small businesses, they will unlock the lockout. Workers should be allowed to come back to the table to negotiate. Doing that will fix it all. They should unlock the lockout.

Since I have one minute left, I would like to conclude with three or four suggestions I disagreed with, which would at least present a consistent picture.

I am willing to support a bill that would decrease the salary of all new Conservative members by 18%. Let us put that motion on the table. That would make me happy. I would vote for that.

I would like to see another motion, one to change the title of the Minister of Labour to the Minister of Lowering Working Conditions. At least that would be honest.

I would also like to see legislation put forward to prohibit reasonable job action without prior consent from the Minister of Labour. This would clearly show the true intentions of this government.