Gilles-A. Perron

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. As you said, I get carried away by my enthusiasm and how I feel when I think about our children and our grandchildren, who will have to pay the price for this. I am sorry, but let my say that the Hon. Marc Lalonde is well known by the people opposite, since he was finance minister at one time. He should know a bit about public finances. He wrote a letter to the minister, the current front runner, and told him, “Mr. Minister, you are missing the boat here”. My speech summarizes what he had to say in his letter.

Last, since I only have one minute left, I would ask everyone to urge the runner-up, meaning the current finance minister, to remove clause 64 from Bill C-68. There is still time to do so. Throughout my speech, I have kept referring to some of the Liberal leadership candidates as the front runner and the runner-up, and I almost feel that I should apologize to the horses for having compared these people to them.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this is the second time I have spoken on Bill C-28. In my previous remarks, I objected vigorously to clause 64 of the bill before us.

Even though my hon. friend from Trois-Rivières has stolen some of my thunder, I want to give the history of this from A to Z.

Clause 64 is going to punish your grandchildren and mine, and all students in Canada. The problem is that money is being taken from the pockets of the 415 school boards in Canada, including 72 in Quebec, and a serious shortfall is being created.

I will go on with my historical analysis. This shortfall will result in fewer services or higher school taxes in order to provide the same service to our students who use school buses. The majority of these are elementary students, not high school or university students. I think of my granddaughter and this situation upsets me.

I will remind the House of the problem of input tax credits as they apply to school transportation. In 1991, when the GST was introduced, the federal government, through the Minister of Finance, gave a 100% tax credit on school transportation. In 1996, a unilateral change was made by the Minister of Finance at the time—now the front runner in the Liberal Party's leadership race.

I will just explain how we use the word front runner in Quebec. It means the horse that leads the race, that is running at the front of the pack, the one that has a good chance of winning. That is the member for LaSalle—Émard. The runner-up, of course, is the one in second position. In this case, it is the current Minister of Finance. In his budget and in Bill C-28, he has clung to an invention of the Liberal Party's current front runner.

So, as I was saying, in 1996, the front runner in the leadership race reduced the input tax credits from 100% to 68%. Naturally, there was an outcry from the school boards. They stood up and fought the current front runner in the Liberal Party's leadership race. Nothing changed. The former finance minister was deaf, possibly blind, and possibly mute, but he never gave an answer. Nothing changed.

Finally, a school board in Quebec—the Commission scolaire des Chênes—filed suit and took the Minister of Finance to court. On September 12, 2001, at hearings in Montreal, Justices Alice Desjardins, Robert Décary and Marc Noël, heard the case with lawyers representing the school boards and Her Majesty the Queen.

On October 17, 2002, the three Federal Court of Appeal judges ruled unanimously in favour of the Commission scolaire des Chênes. What an insult to our front-runner. How did our-front runner resolve the problem?

He issued a press release dated December 31, 2001 which said, “No problem. What we will do is change the legislation retroactively to 1991 to get around or tie the hands of the three Appeal Court justices who handed down this judgment”.

We are talking about a judgment. This is truly an exceptional move. This is the first time in history that legislation has been passed in order to circumvent a judgment. This leaves the door open for any minister who has been taken to court and lost to decide simply to change legislation. This is precedent setting.

Perhaps unwittingly or without realizing it, the runner-up, the current Minister of Finance, just included clause 64 in Bill C-28. The last time I spoke on clause 64, I had a discussion with my Liberal colleague from Laval East—a nice lady with an open mind—who told me she was not aware this was going on. I said I had a huge file which I could show her, because as the revenue critic, I had the opportunity to meet people involved in this issue. She said, “I did not know; this is terrible. We are penalizing our children”. She was horrified, adding, “I will take this up with the caucus”. What happened? When the time came to vote on the bill following the clause by clause study, she stood up and voted against the motion by the hon. member for Drummond to delete clause 64.

This is an insult to all parents. I am begging you, Mr. Speaker, today. This concerns the school boards in the Cornwall region. They are experiencing a shortfall. I urge the hon. members across the way, members from every part of Canada, to push for this clause 64 to be deleted because it is penalizing their school boards and their children or, if they have grey hair like mine, their grandchildren. This is an important issue.

Now people are going to say, “There goes the evil separatist. This nasty Bloc member, this damn sovereignist is getting all worked up”. The fact is that I am not alone. I have here a three-page letter from former finance minister Marc Lalonde. I think that you know him, Mr. Speaker. He is one of your friends who used to be a minister—

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate the speech of my hon. colleague opposite. However, I would like to remind him that, since 1993, the Bloc Quebecois has been speaking out against the current government's policies that led to drastic cuts in health care, not only in Quebec, but in all the provinces.

Since 1993, the Bloc Quebecois has been critical of this federal government's total control of the employment insurance system. It is unfortunate to witness today the situation in Toronto; this is cause for concern in Quebec also. In fact, many Quebeckers are worried about this illness.

They are also concerned about mad cow disease. Although Quebec cattle producers have not detected a single case, they are suffering the same penalty as the rest of Canada. They can no longer export their beef; it can no longer cross any borders, whether it is for the United States, Australia or Japan.

It is time for the members, such as my hon. colleague opposite, to stand up, thump the desk and tell their colleagues, “Enough is enough. It is time to help our provinces instead of stealing from them. It is time to help our provinces instead of using the funds stolen from them to inflate our expenditures, which are not necessarily always good ones”.

I would like the hon. member's comments on this.

[Journée nationale des Patriotes, May 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, May 19 will mark the Journée nationale des Patriotes. As Patriote of the year 2003 for the Jean-Olivier Chénier chapter, I am proud to remind Quebeckers of the courage of those who sacrificed themselves for their rights, in the early 19th century.

The Patriotes fought for justice, freedom and democracy, the very foundations of our institutions.

Quebec has its own identity, its own culture, and its own institutions. It owes them to people like the Patriotes, were not afraid to stick up for their convictions, even if it meant putting their lives on the line.

On behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I pay tribute to the exceptional courage of the Patriotes and their families, and in particular to Dr. Jean-Olivier Chénier and his comrades from Saint-Eustache.

[Canada-U.S. Border, May 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, softwood manufacturers are asking the Minister of National Revenue to harmonize Canadian customs services with those of their American counterparts, so as to obtain the same services on both sides of the border.

Can the minister assure us that she will provide the money needed and establish additional customs officers at the border crossings in Estcourt, Saint-Pamphile, Saint-Just, Sainte-Aurélie and Saint-Zacharie in order to provide the same services on the Canadian side of the border as are offered on the American side?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, May 13th, 2003]

Unfortunately, the member, should have continued.

Mr. Speaker, this morning, I will not necessarily be talking about the budget, which we are debating. Instead, I am going to talk about an amendment brought forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Drummond, which seeks to delete clause 64 on page 56 of the bill. This amendment reads as follows:

That Bill C-28 be amended by deleting Clause 64.

Everyone wants to know why clause 64 should be deleted.

It is due to a long-standing problem between school boards across the country and the Department of Finance. The school boards are entitled to claim 100% of input tax credits for student transportation under the Excise Tax Act, with respect to the goods and services tax and the harmonized sales tax, as they apply to school boards and the student transportation services they provide. This credit has existed for years.

The former Minister of Finance—now the frontrunner in the Liberal leadership race, I am talking about the member for LaSalle—Émard—decided to take this 100% credit and unilaterally cut it to 68%. Finally, the school boards protested by going to court.

On October 17, 2001, the Commission scolaire des Chênes won, unanimously, a ruling entitling Canadian school boards to 100% deductions. This deduction was authorized for all 415 school boards in the country, including the 72 in Quebec, 88 in Saskatchewan, 72 in Ontario, 7 in Nova Scotia, 60 in British Columbia and so on. So, all Canadian school boards were affected.

In a newspaper article on March 20, 2002, Gary Shaddock, president of the Canadian School Boards' Association, stated that this decision would cost approximately $150 million. This means that Canada would try to find a $150 million surplus within the school boards' budgets. This would have created a $150 million shortfall across the country.

Mr. Shaddock said:

The total financial impact for the federal government is not huge...but the impact for boards is significant.

In this same article, Mr. Shaddock states that the former Minister of Finance—and the new one, because this is in the new Minister of Finance's budget—was trying to sidestep a legal decision requiring that the federal government provide a 100% credit and that stated that government policy must not set aside court decisions.

That is exactly what clause 64 tries to do. The budget tells judges, “You did your job more or less well, and we do not like it. That is that”.

I would like to talk briefly about school boards in Quebec. André Caron, president of the Fédération des commissions scolaires du Québec, said recently that this was an abuse of the law and power.

By acting this way, the federal government will deprive Quebec school boards of significant financial resources used to organize busing for 650 students daily.

The fédération estimates the cost of the problem to be under $30 million. What kind of effect will this $30 million shortfall for Quebec's school boards have? They will have to increase school taxes for all parents of students in Quebec if they want to continue to provide an adequate busing system.

This is another method used by the federal government. It is pilfering millions of dollars from school boards, the EI fund, and everywhere. To do what? Perhaps to help out their friends and cronies. I do not know.

In closing, I have a letter from a large Montreal law firm, Stikeman Elliott. It is signed by a person whom I believe is a friend of yours, or someone you know quite well, the hon. Marc Lalonde, former Minister of Finance under the Trudeau government. He, too, is opposed to clause 64 in the budget, saying that it is unacceptable. I will read a few lines from Mr. Lalonde's letter. The former Minister of Finance, the member for LaSalle—Émard, said this:

However, the proposed amendment will not affect any case that has already been decided by the Federal Court.

That is what the then Minister of Finance, the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, said in a release dated December 31, 2001, during the holiday break, so that nobody would notice. That is what he said, and it caused an uproar.

Mr. Lalonde had anticipated that reaction. Here is what he wrote the former Minister of Finance:

A man with your political experience can imagine the reaction of those school boards alienated in this matter.

I realize I have only two minutes remaining, and I think I will be able to complete my remarks. Here is another excerpt from Marc Lalonde's letter.

Once a final judgment had been handed down by the courts, every case thereafter should have been settled on the same basis. However, your department's legislative proposal would retroactively reverse such an arrangement. Needless to say that our clients feel that the Department of Finance is taking the attitude, “Heads, I win; tails, you lose”.

This is what Marc Lalonde wrote. I did not write these words. Marc Lalonde, a former Minister of Finance, did. I think that both the current Minister of Finance and his predecessor, the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, should have paid attention.

Members can see why I am asking that the amendment put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Drummondville, be accepted and that clause 64 be deleted.

I thank the House for this opportunity to speak on an issue dear to my heart, which concerns students throughout Canada.

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 9th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I beg your indulgence to wish, in the remaining 35 seconds, on my behalf and on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois MPs, a happy Mother's Day to all the mothers in this House, in Canada, most particularly to the ones in my constituency, and, especially to my own mother.

[Canada Labour Code, May 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, after a lockout that lasted more than 38 months, everyone thought the labour unrest was over at last at Cargill, in Baie-Comeau, but the employer has refused to sign the collective agreement.

This is a situation that illustrates more than ever the urgency of changing the Canada Labour Code to include anti-scab measures, like those which have been in place in Quebec for 25 years.

What we want, and what the workers continue to demand as well, is for the Canada Labour Code to make it possible to hold civilized negotiations that foster industrial peace and establish a fair balance of power.

The Prime Minister must assume his responsibilities and make it known to the Minister of Labour that he will be supporting the anti-scab bill introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for Laurentides, so that this unfair situation may be remedied.

[Supply, May 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the motion introduced in the House by my charming colleague the member for Laurentides, who is asking that we recognize the urgency of amending the Canada Labour Code to ban the use of strike breakers whom I will call scabs during my speech since I believe that this word is much more telling than strike breakers.

I am doubly pleased to speak today since it is May 1, International Workers Day. Mr. Speaker, I know that you are tolerant and that you will allow me on this day to pay tribute to workers in my riding, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, in Quebec and in the other provinces of this country as well as to workers around the globe.

Today we are debating a bill that concerns them directly. Before I start making a list of all its benefits or debating why the use of scabs should be banned by the Canada Labour Code, I would like to briefly review the history of the work done in Quebec.

This history starts before a major turning point that occurred in Quebec in 1977. Let us remember the disputes that took place in Asbestos where the likes of Trudeau, Marchand, Hébert, Michel Chartrand and others sided up with workers who were fighting against scabs who were doing their jobs in the Asbestos mine.

I remember very little of this event because I was very young. My colleague, the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, does not really believe how old I was then, but yes I was quite young. But having seen reports of the dispute on television, I remember how it divided even the clergy. Half of them were in favour of businesses and the other half in favour of workers. This dispute divided families. Even today, there are still scars from this dispute involving scabs and illegal workers from one company.

Remember the dispute at Wabasso in Trois-Rivières in the late 1940s and early 1950s. The same thing happened there. The provincial police got involved; there was some arm twisting; strong harm tactics were used against workers; scabs were brought in to replace employees who were fighting for their way of thinking, for their jobs.

Let us remember the dispute at the Noranda mine, in my hometown, in the early 1950s. Things got really rough there. Strikers threw stones, and scabs threw nails and pellets. Scabs even splashed strikers with gasoline and set them ablaze. One of my uncles, Joseph-Albert Perron, suffered third-degree burns in that dispute.

Before 1977, labour disputes in Quebec were just horrible. I could mention the disputes at Radio-Canada and at Ogilvie Mills Limited. Do you remember the Ogilvie dispute in Montreal? I could add to that the Murray Hill dispute, and the United Aircraft Corporation dispute, in Longueuil, the company that is now known as Pratt & Whitney. I think that the move to ban the use of scabs in the latter was the last straw for Quebeckers and for the premier of the day, René Lévesque. This happened in 1976, the year before the passing of the anti-scab legislation in Quebec.

What did this anti-scab legislation do in Quebec? What kind of result did it produce? Why is the government opposite so afraid of such legislation?

Anti-scab legislation is indispensable to ensure that bargaining in labour disputes will be civilized. It balances the relationship between employers and employees, so that employers do not have all the power, and employees none. Anti-scab legislation promotes industrial peace. Later on, I will use statistics to prove this. It has changed the labour environment in Quebec.

Anti-scab legislation is the cornerstone of balanced bargaining power between employers and employees. Including such provisions in the Canada Labour Code would create one type of worker in Quebec instead of two, namely those who are governed by the Canada Labour Code and those who are governed by the Quebec labour code.

There are many benefits. Earlier, I heard members opposite who are against such legislation say that it would cost money, that it would affect productivity, and so on. This is absolutely false.

Quebec has had its anti-scab legislation since 1977. I could give statistics. I will just give a few because I do not want to overwhelm people with figures.

Between 1992 and 2002, all the disputes under the Quebec Labour Code lasted an average of 15.9 days, compared to 31.1 days for disputes under the Canada Labour Code. That is a difference of 95.6%.

In terms of days lost per employee, for the same period, that is between 1992 and 2002, for disputes falling under the Quebec Labour Code, there were 121.3 days for 1,000 employees, compared to 266.3 days for disputes under the Canada Labour Code. For the benefit of my colleague from Champlain, that is a difference of 119.5%.

You do not need to be a rocket scientist to realize that those who talk about all the time, money and efficiency lost are sticking their heads deep in the sand. It is completely false.

I want to add one more thing. Nobody can criticize the Bloc Quebecois for not believing in the need for anti-scab legislation. Since the Bloc Quebecois has been represented here, in Ottawa, so for the last 12 years, a number of its members have tried to have this legislation passed. The first was my hon. colleague from Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour who introduced Bill C-201 in 1989 or 1990. That is how long we have been working on this issue. We do not give up easily.

Lastly, I want to remind the House once again that we in the Bloc Quebecois are not the only ones who would like to see anti-scab legislation. I have here a list of unionists not only from Quebec, but from all over Canada, who support this motion from the Bloc Quebecois. I hope that everyone in the House will vote in support of the bill introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for Laurentides.

[Supply, May 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand how the member over there can make such outrageous remarks, claiming that the anti-scab bill hurts production, creates anarchy, and gives extraordinary powers to union workers, and that the latter run the show.

Since 1977, Quebec has had anti-scab legislation. Between 1992 and 2002, there have been labour disputes in Quebec. The average length of disputes governed by the Quebec Labour Code, which includes anti-scab provisions, was 15.9 days, compared to 31.1 days for companies governed by the Canada Labour Code.

In 1993, British Columbia passed a labour code with anti-scab provisions. In 1993, the year the code came into effect, the number of days of work lost because of labour disputes was reduced by 50%. So where is the loss of productivity?