Business of Supply May 9th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her remarks, which I found very reasonable in view of what as been requested. I think her speech was just as reasonable as the motion by our colleague, the hon. member for Pontiac.

Really, we are not asking for the moon; we are simply asking to have everything we need in order to understand what happened to the $3.1 billion that has been lost in the files somewhere. That $3.1 billion is quite a large amount of money. I will talk about that in my speech later. Many families would be searching for that money and turning over the mattresses and shaking out the pillowcases to find it.

In view of the reasonable nature of the request and our experiences on different committees—my hon. colleague has seen more than I have, and it must have sometimes been hard to take—what does she think of the government's lack of transparency in this kind of situation? How far will the government go to hide questionable operations of this sort?

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1 May 3rd, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I must say that the member's speech was rather pitiful.

I disagree with him and would suggest that he read the delightful letter written by American multi-billionaire Warren Buffet that was published in The New York Times at the beginning of the year. That letter would show the member how the world really works. It is nothing like the caricature he presented in his speech.

I want to talk about what is really happening. At the beginning of the year, I went to a reception at the Port of Québec and met a local businessman. He told me that the business community needs recognition from government.

It is incredible that after seven years of Conservative government, the business community still feels neglected and ignored by this government.

By the way, I would like to say that things are going well in and around Quebec City. Unemployment sits at about 5%. It is a very vibrant region, much like the prairie provinces.

Billions of dollars are sitting idle in Canadian companies because of this government, which has made some terrible decisions. That is the equivalent of about $25,000 per family that is not circulating, not creating jobs and not increasing the competitiveness of Canadian companies here and abroad. Could he comment on that?

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1 May 3rd, 2013

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the Minister of Labour is all talk and no action.

The government is responsible for a number of failures. I could talk about the $600 billion accumulated by Canadian corporations.

Let us focus on the government's bragging rights that the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca desperately tried to have the Parliamentary Budget Officer's analysts validate. The 900,000 jobs created since the end of the recession are for the most part structural in nature, but let us not forget that the government could do more damage to the economy.

If the minister wants to take credit for creating 900,000 jobs, is she prepared to take the blame for the loss of 500,000 jobs during the recession while her government was dithering?

Canadian Heritage May 3rd, 2013

Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers want nothing to do with these history classes with a Conservative twist. They made that clear in 2011.

Once again, the Conservatives are stomping all over provincial jurisdictions. They can say what they want, but their irresponsible motion clearly talks about looking at how teachers teach in each province.

That has nothing to do with promoting Canadian history. That is interference, pure and simple. The former Reformers now want to control everything. What is the world coming to?

Does the government really think that this should be the priority of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage?

Fair Trade May 3rd, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House and congratulate my constituents for their efforts to support fair trade.

Wednesday marked the launch of Fair Trade Fortnight. This international event promotes fair trade, which in turn improves quality of life for millions of workers in the southern hemisphere.

I invite my colleagues to participate in Fair Trade Fortnight in Quebec City by going for after-work drinks tonight at the Auberge l'Autre Jardin to celebrate the 10th anniversary of their Équidurable boutique.

I will also be participating in a round table discussion on becoming a fair trade town, which aims to make Quebec City a city that supports fair trade principles. The round table will take place on May 15, from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. at La Korrigane brewery.

I would like to congratulate the organizing committee, which includes NAVTI Fondation Canada, L'AMIE, Children’s Care International and Équidurable, for all of their hard work and wonderful support.

Together, we will build a more united and just world.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1 May 3rd, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

If we are going to cherry-pick our quotes, then we are going to get the result we want, but the government's real record is the outright loss of 500,000 jobs in manufacturing alone.

I will ask my colleague the following question. We had the opportunity to examine this issue last Tuesday at the finance committee, together with the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the experts and analysts who accompanied her. Despite the desperate attempts by the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca, not one analyst from the Parliamentary Budget Officer's office was able to confirm for my colleague that the 900,000 jobs were created strictly by the actions of the Government of Canada. Obviously, a trained economist cannot state that in absolute terms.

In any event, my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques responded by saying that if the government wants to take credit for the 900,000 jobs created, then it should also accept responsibility for the 500,000 jobs lost during the 2008 recession. I believe that that is something the government would never do. If we want to take credit, then we should also take responsibility.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1 May 3rd, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He has an interesting perspective, and it brings us back to the question about Investment Canada that I had put earlier to a Conservative speaker.

By amending the Investment Canada Act, they are tilting the playing field. Workers will suffer because of Part 3, section 17, as will Canadian and foreign investors alike. In fact, the rules will be so lax and broad that scammers and thieves will be able to walk right in and hold our natural resources sectors hostage.

I have an excellent example to back that up. The White Birch Paper Stadacona plant in Beauport—Limoilou was owned by a private investor, and therefore was a private enterprise. We know that the government is trying to open unions' books, so why not force investors—who pay hundreds of millions of dollars and can work in complete secrecy—to open their books when negotiating? That way, we could provide some minimum protections for workers, business partners and retirees.

Retirees in my riding, who have had a lot of money stolen from them, do not expect to ever recover that money.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1 May 3rd, 2013

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to be able to speak to Bill C-60, the budget implementation bill, so that I can make some comments.

I will say right off the bat that I will focus on one specific part of the bill, which reads as follows:

Division 17 of Part 3 amends the Financial Administration Act to give the Governor in Council the authority to direct a Crown corporation to have its negotiating mandate approved by the Treasury Board for the purpose of the Crown corporation entering into a collective agreement with a bargaining agent.

As a result, other provisions and other legislation may also be amended, because the consequences are far-reaching.

I will not hide the fact that this is quite a concern. I will use my experience on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to speak to the principle of the appearance of justice, which is so important in our legal system. It lets Canadians trust that institution and be confident that, by using all the recourse available to them, they will be able to get a ruling that is consistent with the law and with justice.

There is also a balance to be achieved, and there are very important principles to uphold when it comes to negotiations. There really needs to be a clear balance, and real dialogue and discussion among the parties involved in the negotiations. There is no denying that this is a sensitive issue and something that is difficult to achieve. Division 17 of part 3 of Bill C-60 poses a direct threat to this process.

This is a very serious problem. I feel, and I am sure that all of my colleagues do as well, that this aspect alone is reason enough to oppose this bill.

I will now talk about my personal experience. After all, my Conservative colleagues love to share their life experiences about much bigger issues. I will talk about the experience my late father had as a member of Local 9 of FTQ Construction's Fraternité nationale des charpentiers-menuisiers.

My father worked for 12 years as a union activist, trying to convince the guys to come to the union's general meetings. At the time, most construction workers were men. He told them every time that it was important for them to participate. Indeed, their participation was very important because it made the decisions taken at those meetings much more credible.

During the second half of his career as a carpenter-joiner, my father spent most of his time as a foreman or superintendent responsible for job sites. He was around in the 1960s, a difficult period for the construction industry when there was much less protection and safety was a major issue. As a manager, he was very concerned about the safety of the people he supervised.

This week, there have been some very hot days where people could easily go without a jacket. That is understandable, but imagine how unpleasant it must be to have to wear a hard hat on a work site on a hot summer's day. Unfortunately, hard hats hold in a lot of heat.

My father's approach was very simple. He asked the worker to put on his hard hat because it was important. If the worker protested because it was too hot out, my father insisted. He would walk away once the worker had put on his hard hat. However, if my father came back that same day to find that the same worker had once again taken off his hard hat and left it on a wall or somewhere else, my father would get in that worker's face. He would get really angry because he was responsible for the job site and the physical safety of the worker who, unfortunately, was unintentionally putting his life and health at risk.

That is one of the union movement's greatest achievements. Recently, we have again been hearing about how workplace safety is still a major problem even though there has been significant progress. A single worker has very little power to stand up for his rights against a huge organization, particularly if the management or the owner is firmly opposed to that. There must be a balance of power to deal with these issues.

Also quite recently, there have been many examples of people getting together to achieve a common goal. I am thinking of chambers of commerce and groups created in response to our campaign against excessive credit card fees. There are groups of restaurant owners and corner store owners. National groups bring thousands of small businesspeople together. Getting together for these reasons is a very noble thing. There are also seniors' groups.

I am a Knight of Columbus, a member of the La Nativité council in Beauport. The K of C is yet another excellent association dedicated to reaching out to others and helping the less fortunate. Churches of all faiths bring people together for spiritual and community reasons. That, too, is noble.

In the business community, people get together to form corporations to launch for-profit and non-profit businesses, companies with share capital or investors who may decide to risk their capital on a reasonably safe venture that could return a lot. That is yet another example of a noble reason for people to get together.

Why is the government, why are Conservative elected representatives, so intent on stigmatizing perfectly legitimate groups, such as the union movement? That makes absolutely no sense. They have provided no justification here in the House or elsewhere for their visceral hatred of the union movement and their desire to work against it. The government is certainly right to address problems. There have been very disappointing examples of obvious wrongdoing in some unions. However, does that merit such an over-the-top, unreasonable attempt to crush the union movement? Absolutely not.

While the government is at it, it needs to do something about the flagrant abuses by mining companies, for example. Canada is a haven and refuge for mining companies, which is a disgrace. After what has happened elsewhere in the world—in Latin America and Africa, for example—the government could choose to shut down numerous large companies. It could put them under guardianship to set them back on the right path. Obviously, the managers and shareholders are not able to do the right thing.

The other reason, the compelling argument that keeps us from supporting the government on part 3, division 17, is that it gives the Treasury Board president the means to intervene in bargaining.

How can we trust a man who kept a slush fund to look after friends in his riding and who protected the millionaires, with their teak decks and fancy houses, who live on certain lakes?

It all happened in the context of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, when the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities tried to convince us that only commercially used waterways would be affected. It is quite possible that a number of agreements were worked out on those teak decks. Nevertheless, the government is talking out of both sides of its mouth, and this opens the door to terrible abuse. It is an absolute disgrace to trust this man with such privileges.

I would like to conclude by talking about scripture. It is important to me, and I try to follow in Christ's footsteps. During the Sermon on the Mount, Christ called forth the children and comforted them. He spoke about people who take advantage of others, but he did not hesitate to drive merchants out of the temple with a whip. I will follow his example.

I am completely, 100% opposed to this bill. The government will find me, along with my colleagues, blocking its way, because of this one point.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1 May 3rd, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

I would like to speak to part 3, division 6 of Bill C-60, specifically clauses 136 and 137, which provide some definitions relating to state-owned enterprises. The definitions are set out there, and that is of some interest.

Unfortunately, during the information session on Monday night, officials seemed to be telling us that, despite the definition, all purchases of Canadian businesses by state-owned enterprises would be subject to the definitions in clause 137, meaning that in a few years, the value of transactions will be $1 billion or more.

How does the hon. member think this could protect us from interference from foreign governments, considering that we have had some specific cases of concern that had to do with control of our natural resources?