Lost his last election, in 2006, with 39% of the vote.
Softwood Lumber May 28th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, we would like to be able to continue to earn our living from softwood lumber. In Toronto, they did away with the two week waiting period for employment insurance in order to help with the impact of SARS, and we agree with that.
If the Minister of Human Resources was able to change the eligibility conditions for Toronto, why does she not do the same for the people of Laterrière, Chibougamau or Béarn?
Softwood Lumber May 28th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, for months now we have been asking the Minister of Natural Resources questions about the softwood lumber crisis, and all we hear is that things are fine. The Tembec sawmill in Béarn, Témiscamingue, will be closing for five weeks, thereby putting 300 people out of work. Yet the government continues to think things are fine.
How can the government explain its great optimism, when 450 jobs have been affected at the Laterrière forestry cooperative, another 450 at Chibougamau and then this temporary loss of 300 more at Béarn in Témiscamingue? What will it take to wake the minister up?
International Workers Day May 1st, 2003
Mr. Speaker, International Workers Day is a time to salute those men and women who have made a special contribution to the Quebec society we hold so dear.
Our thoughts are also with the unemployed, who have been deprived, as a result, of such a fundamental right as the right to work.
Men and women from Radio Nord Communications in Abitibi and from Cargill in Baie-Comeau have come to the Hill today to tell us that they have been deprived of this right to work due to a lax Canada Labour Code.
The federal government must stop encouraging the use of scabs and right this wrong oppressing tens of thousands of honest workers.
The best way for the government to pay tribute to these men and women will be to vote in favour of the anti-scab bill.
Supply May 1st, 2003
Mr. Speaker, in reply to my colleague, yes, there is indeed a difference. I believe this difference has negative repercussions.
As I mentioned before, since 1977 Quebec has had effective legislation in place. This legislation was passed in December of 1977. Earlier, I mentioned the positive results of this legislation, pointing out that, when it comes to economic productivity and benefits, Quebec had an average of 15.9 workdays lost to labour disputes between 1992 and 2002. This is different from the rate for industries that are governed by the Canada Labour Code, where the average was 31.9 workdays lost. This is a substantial difference.
It is also important to understand that Quebec workers are penalized when compared to workers who are governed by a different system.
Supply May 1st, 2003
Mr. Speaker, it is indeed important to have such measures. We have to do everything necessary to get this bill passed. Thus, we encourage all our parliamentary colleagues to support this bill. It would enable us to resolve many of the current labour disputes facing businesses.
It is also important to think about all the workers who are affected. We talked about statistics and cited specific cases. However, we should not forget the dignity of the people who are used to going to work every day and who are being denied the pride of contributing to the development of our society. This is why this bill must be supported, as is already the case.
We are aware that there are dedicated people. We must think about and strongly support all those who participate in the development of our society.
Supply May 1st, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise in this House today. I would like to congratulate my colleague from Laurentides for her initiative and commitment to workers.
This day is also a unique opportunity to salute the exceptional contribution of all those who, day after day, are helping build our society. It is worth mentioning. We must also pay tribute to all those workers who, through the years, have fought an epic struggle to have their rights recognized and respected.
For parliamentarians, this special day is a special opportunity to take stock of our contribution as legislators to the working world and more specifically to the important issue of labour relations. In this regard one of our major responsibilities is to facilitate the exercise of healthy and fair labour relations in our businesses and public agencies in order to optimize economic development and minimize the chances of labour disputes, strikes or lockouts, as well as their negative impacts on society especially for those involved in such disputes.
I would like to mention some of those negative impacts: a drop in productivity both locally and globally, especially in small ridings or in smaller areas such as Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, for instance, in my riding; a drop in revenue for businesses and public agencies; a drop in income resulting in lower buying power for workers involved in the dispute; the possibility of major social unrest as a result of the dispute, and a higher debt load for the families concerned. I could keep on going, with even greater eloquence, but I would run out of time.
The list of negative impacts could be a lot longer, but these few examples are enough to illustrate the harm caused by these disputes and show the importance of doing everything possible to keep them to a minimum.
Among the major factors that can contribute to the prevention of disputes, or at least greatly limit their negative impacts, for a number of years the Bloc Quebecois has been pushing a bill that has been consistently blocked by the Liberal government. I am talking about Bill C-328, which is aimed at eliminating the regressive use of scabs during strikes or lockouts in businesses governed by the Canada Labour Code.
The Bloc Quebecois' first attempt to get the Canadian government to introduce this legislation prohibiting the use of scabs was in 1989 and targeted only Crown corporations. This bill was debated at second reading, but it is important to note that the Liberal Party, which was then in the opposition, voted in favour.
All of the Bloc Quebecois' subsequent attempts were flatly rejected by the Liberal Party, which has since been in power in the House of Commons. This was the case in 1995, 1996, 1998 and 2001, as well as five times in 2002. Today, we are debating Bill C-328 at second reading.
It is also important to note that meanwhile, the Liberal government introduced, in 1988, Bill C-19 amending Part I of the Canadian Labour Code governing staff relations, but this legislation contained no provision prohibiting the use of strikebreakers. It met with strong opposition from several Quebec unions and the Bloc Quebecois categorically refused to support the bill.
Why is the government so set against the introduction of such measures, when we know that similar legislation has existed in Quebec since December 1977 and that it has had very conclusive positive effects? One need only mention a few of these positive effects. For instance, the number of working days lost from 1992 to 2002 averaged 15.9 under the Quebec Labour Code, compared to 31.1 under the Canada Labour Code. This is a difference of 95.6%.
Here is another example: the number of days lost for every 1,000 employees between 1992 and 2002 was 121.3 under the Quebec Labour Code compared to 266.3 under the Canada Labour Code, a difference of 119.5%.
Of course, figures do not tell the whole story, but they are revealing enough to require the government to do a serious study of the issue, a course I urge it to take. If these data are not persuasive enough, allow me to mention a few more examples of major disputes in Quebec companies governed by the Canada Labour Code, some of which are still dragging on. There is reason for concern.
Among others, there was the Vidéotron case. That dispute lasted 10 months and caused the loss of 355,340 workdays in Quebec. More than one third of all workdays lost in Quebec in 2002 were lost because of labour disputes.
There was the case of Secur, a dispute that caused the loss of 43,400 workdays. There is Cargill, where the lockout has been going on for over three years, affecting 43 employees in Baie-Comeau. There is also the case of Radio-Nord Communications, on strike since October 25, 2002, involving the employees of three television stations and two radio stations in northwestern Quebec.
In my view, these cases illustrate the urgent need for the Liberal government to amend the federal legislation and put an end to the use of strikebreakers, and thus encourage the fair and civilized settlement of labour disputes in Quebec. Amending the legislation would also make it possible to put an end to the absurd situation by which there are two classes of worker in Quebec—those governed by the Quebec Labour Code and the unlucky ones governed by the Canada Labour Code.
It is a question of equity, justice and social harmony. I also hope that this May 1, Workers' Day in most of the world, will be an opportunity for the federal Liberal government to think seriously about the damaging effects of its inaction with respect to the use of strikebreakers, and that it will make a positive gesture toward the working men and women of Quebec and Canada by supporting Bill C-328 introduced by my hon. friend from Laurentides.
Workers' Day is a fine occasion for the Liberal government to send a clear signal about its intentions with respect to this bill.
This is an issue about which I care deeply. I spoke earlier about my riding. We are all concerned about everyday problems and the fact that businesses and organizations are going through such disputes.
I am pleased to know that we have the support of three Bloc members in the Saguenay—Lac Saint Jean area. I invite my hon. friend, the Liberal member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, to join with us as well.
I am happy to have had the opportunity to express myself on this matter in this House, and I wish the hon. member for Laurentides great success with her bill.
Family Supplement April 30th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Motion No. 395 moved by my colleague from Ahuntsic, which reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should index the family supplement to the cost of living in the next Federal Budget.
Let me say first of all that I am the proud young father of a beautiful 8 month old girl named Léa-Pascale. I have always believed that the family unit was a place where a child had to be able to receive all the attention and the love that he or she needed to get off to a good start in life and to build a solid foundation for his or her future. I am therefore all in favour of the family.
However, for the family to be able to fulfill those fundamental functions, the parents must have the necessary resolve. I still believe that they have this resolve, but they also need the means. Unfortunately, we know very well that for various reasons, there are many difficulties and a number of well-meaning parents cannot provide their children with the upbringing they would like.
You will therefore understand that to me, the family supplement, which increases benefits for low income families with children, is absolutely essential.
However, if this welcome supplement is to be effective, it must clearly be indexed to the cost of living; otherwise families will be no better off. This is important, all the more so as low income families are the hardest hit by the increase in the cost of living. Indexing the supplement to the cost of living should go without saying.
In fact, in order to maximize this measure, as many programs as possible should be indexed, among them the Canadian child tax benefit, which includes the national child disability benefit scheduled to take effect in July 2003. There is also the early childhood development initiative, based on the September 2000 agreement, which Quebec was promised it could opt out of with financial compensation. That is something we will certainly be reminding the new government in Quebec about. There is also the child-centred family justice strategy, which comes under the responsibility of the Minister of Justice and which is a program entirely under federal jurisdiction.
Therefore I will support Motion No. 395, but not without some reservations, which are far from being trivial.
Since several aspects of the federal family supplement infringe on the jurisdiction of Quebec and since Quebec has the right to opt out of certain programs with financial compensation, it would make sense for the amounts transferred to Quebec to be indexed to the cost of living as well. To do otherwise would be blatantly and absurdly unfair.
Finally, like my party I would have preferred that the motion not put off indexing until the next federal budget but that this clause be included in legislation governing the family supplement. This would enhance this social clause, which would benefit the numerous families who really need it.
Employment Insurance April 28th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, in reality, the federal government took $44 billion from the EI fund; this money belongs to businesses, workers and the unemployed.
Why is the federal government refusing to use some of the funds it stole from the EI fund to help victims of the softwood lumber crisis or the fisheries crisis? After all, it is their money.
Employment Insurance April 28th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, the courts are getting ready to hear a class action suit filed by the FTQ and the CSN to recover the money taken from the employment insurance fund by the federal government.
Will the government admit that this confirms what the Bloc Quebecois has been saying about the government stealing from the EI fund and using money that does not belong to it?
Vimy Ridge Day April 9th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois is strongly opposed to Canada's participation in the war that is currently being waged against Iraq by the United States and Great Britain, because a military intervention was totally unjustified.
However, we do recognize that the participation of the Canadian Forces in an armed conflict has been, at certain times in our history, perfectly legitimate.
Such was the case with World War I, in which Canadian troops played a key role. Today we want to mark the 86th anniversary of the battle of Vimy Ridge. In capturing Vimy Ridge, the Canadian Forces won an important victory that changed the course of the war.
On April 9, Vimy Ridge Day, let us all remember these acts of bravery, and the dedication and courage of our officers and troops, almost 3,600 of whom gave their lives on the battlefield.