In answer to your comment, and to that of Mr. Coderre, I would inform you that a study carried out by the Montreal Economic Institute stated that investment in provinces with anti-scab legislation was 25 per cent lower than in other provinces. I tell this because I want you to know where I got these figures.
Furthermore, I would remind you that other studies have also been done and we will be able to discuss them this evening, in the House, during our first debate on this matter. Other studies reveal that labour disputes last 32 days more in jurisdictions that have anti-scab legislation than in those which do not. That is another interesting statistic that is worth keeping in mind.
Ms. Lavallée, I would remind you that this is the fourth time that this question has been brought before the House of Commons; it was also discussed in 1990, 1995, 2000 and 2004. On each occasion, the majority of parliamentarians voted against the implementation of anti-scab legislation.
In 1999, the Sims taskforce studied whether the government should introduce anti-scab legislation and concluded that it should not. There is no consensus amongst employers, employee, and unions as to whether such legislation should be introduced. The majority of stakeholders recommended the current legislation, which we have implemented, and which provides for the use of substitute workers, but only in circumstances that I mentioned earlier, and provided that their presence does not undermine the role of the union.
As members of Parliament, you have to live up to certain responsibilities. As Minister of Labour, I need to have a national perspective. It is not for me to impose legislation upon provinces. The provinces have had 29 years to introduce such legislation, but have not seem fit to do so.
I would also remind you that, even if the Bloc québécois does hold a number of seats in Quebec, Quebeckers seem to be changing their minds at an ever increasing rate.