Ms. Lavallée, you raise all kinds of issues in all kinds of different areas, but it would be nice if you could ask one question at a time. That way, I might actually have an opportunity to answer you, and people might be interested in hearing that answer.
But let's come back to Professor Arthurs. You know perfectly well that when the report is completed, it will be made available in both languages. What that means is that it has to be translated. It is incorrect to say that I will make the report public in English only; I want it to be translated into French and be available in both languages. When a report is extremely comprehensive, the process takes longer, and there is a need to ensure that the two versions of the report concur. That is why the report will be officially tabled on October 30, and everyone will have an opportunity to read it at that time.
I should also like to say that we were consulted in the House when the then Liberal government proposed Professor Harry Arthurs' candidacy. As a party, we agreed with that appointment. We see him as both competent and credible. Throughout the process, we have heard nothing but praise for his work. It remains to be seen what specific recommendations he will make.
I also want to say that I find it rather odd that you are insisting to such an extent that anti-scab legislation be passed. What you really want is for Canada not to work and for Quebec to separate from the rest of the country. You want to break up Canada. Perhaps that's the reason why you're trying to force us into a squabble with the other provinces. So, no, we will not force the provinces to pass anti-scab legislation if they don't want to.
I repeat: if this kind of legislation were in force in eight of the ten provinces, the debate would be quite different. But at the present time, only two provinces have such a law. Quebec has had one for 30 years. So, the other provinces have had a chance to see how things work there. Even though we believe that such a system has its advantages, the fact remains that the other provinces don't want it. Why should we force them? I think it's a matter of respecting their area of jurisdiction. I really do not believe that we're just playing with numbers here. This is serious: we're talking about Statistics Canada. Furthermore, these data have been collected for the last 20 years. So, the picture we are presenting is an accurate one.
Of course, I understand why people may have trouble following this, because you aren't using the same figures. In any case, legislation has been in place since 1999. It was passed by the House of Commons. It made it possible to strike a balance of sorts, by ensuring that when replacement workers are hired, they will not be there to undermine union representation. Furthermore, if a union believes it has suffered harm, it can file a complaint with the Canada Industrial Relations Board, which would immediately open an investigation. The fact is that the system works.