Marcel Gagnon

[Supply, May 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. Indeed, there is something drastically wrong with democracy if we cannot debate this kind of issue. It is not only about putting our views on the record but also about voting on the issue. If ever there was a topic worthy not only of being looked at in depth by all of us together, but also of being voted on, it is this one.

I would like to know how many members across the way support this plan? Why is the government not willing to let us vote on it? Because it knows full well there is a lot of dissension.

Apart from the members whom I met at a conference last week and whom I identified, I personally know several others who are in total disagreement with the decision the government is about to make. They are totally opposed to decisions of this kind being made behind closed doors, at the prime ministerial level, without any consultation. Is this a democratic country, supposedly the best country in the world?

Why could we not have a debate and make a decision, that is at least vote on the issue to know exactly what the elected representatives of the people think about it? As someone said earlier, nobody was elected for saying, “Do not worry, the major decisions will be made by the Prime Minister and I will not have a say on it”. This is not true. When we are out there on the campaign trail, we say, “I will be there to defend your interests, represent you and inform you”. If we were in a true democracy, an issue as important as this one would be brought forward for debate by the Prime Minister himself, and voted on.

[Supply, May 15th, 2003]

That is right, we must act like a country, and not like a branch office, as we are doing right now.

Recently, in an interview with young people from my riding, I said, “At my age, I for one have polluted enough. I am from the generation that got rich destroying our resources. It is time we realized this kind of thing no longer makes sense”.

What will it take? Since September 11, 2001, we keep hearing that things have changed. What has changed? I recall a message from the so-called world leaders following September 11. In this message, Tony Blair said, “We are going to have to give thought to a better distribution. We are going to have to really think about poverty. We are going to have to think hard, or else we will be planting the seeds of terrorism”. Weapons will not rid us of terrorism, but rather a change in attitude; we must seek a more balanced distribution of wealth. Talk is cheap unless it is backed up by action. And we could take action nationally. For example, we could help the poorest in society by giving them the money that is owed to them. I am thinking of those seniors who are deprived of the guaranteed income supplement. That is one action that could be taken.

Since I am getting the signal that my time is up, I will just add that I will keep repeating in every forum that this situation does not make sense. Indeed, it does not make sense that we, in Canada, are encouraging the Americans and taking our lead from them when unpardonable mistakes are being made.

[Supply, May 15th, 2003]

That is a fact. Until further notice, it is still a country, at least I hope so. We are quite capable of taking our responsibilities. Why be followers? Why buy their pitch? Why not tell them they need to take a different approach?

[Supply, May 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, like others before me, I want to thank the member for Saint-Jean for bringing forward this motion that deals with a most important issue.

If we are elected to this House to speak on behalf of our constituents, we should have the right to speak to these kinds of issues. I am always outraged to see the government make decisions without giving us the opportunity to debate the issues, as is the case today since it is not the government party that brought this issue forward, even though it should have done so.

I was a provincial MP in Quebec and I remember that, when there were fundamental issues to be discussed, René Lévesque always told us, “We will discuss it on the floor of the National Assembly; that is where the representatives of the people are and that is where we should have the right to express our views on behalf of our constituents”. Mr. Lévesque was a person who truly believed in democracy.

Personally, I think that the last question asked by the member for Saint-Jean is fundamental. What kind of world do we want to live in? We are globalizing poverty and imbalance. We have to protect ourselves more and more because there are people in other countries who will live in poverty because of our wealth, and we are letting it happen.

This morning, I think someone raised the matter of the U.S. president's discussion paper. The document says that the number of poor people will increase and that there will be fewer and fewer rich people, but that they will be increasingly rich, and that they will need to protect themselves against the poor. It is quite alarming to hear such comments and to know—on top of that—that it is true. That is where we are headed.

Last week I had the opportunity to attend the 9th Conférence de Montréal, which brings together all of the countries of the Americas to discuss various themes and subjects. I went along with two ministers from the House and there were also other members there. There are always experts who speak at these conferences. This time, there were experts from the World Bank who told us that unless we woke up, we would basically put an end to this world as we know it.

They showed us, for example, that 20% of the world's population, 20% of the world's countries, do not have electricity. This figure will surprise many people. As population increases, more and more hard energy is used, such as coal and wood, because it is cheap energy. We are in the process of polluting the planet in certain areas.

I am not making this up, this comes from an expert from the World Bank who gave a presentation. In some parts of the world right now there is a cloud of pollution that filters out between 10% and 15% of the sun's rays. This expert told us how to make you aware of this problem and to tell you that now is the time to act.

He told us that with approximately $600 billion, we could provide clean energy for the whole world. Six hundred billion dollars over 15 years would solve the problem. Otherwise, we are headed to our demise. I did not make this up. Ask some of the Liberal members who were at the same presentations as I was.

Obviously these people who are invited to show us problems as they are do not come there to lie to us. They come to tell us the truth because they are scientists who travel the world over in their work with the World Bank.

We are now talking about a missile defence plan that will cost somewhere between $60 and $100 billion, or one sixth of what we would need to solve a major part of the global energy problem, to solve a major part of the pollution problem that we are responsible for because we do not take action and we wait until tomorrow, because there is not enough of a financial advantage for us, because we do not give a damn about the people who live in misery and poverty.

Every time I attend such conferences, I wonder what we can do to get some response. I asked a Liberal member who was with me, “Do you think that the Prime Minister and Mr. Bush listen to these speakers? Do they ask them questions?” He said, “I am sure they do not. And even if they listened to them, they would not believe that they are telling the truth”.

However, these people are our leaders; they are making decisions about our future. We were talking about young people. My colleague was saying that yesterday he met some young people who are concerned. They are right to be concerned, not because we would not be able to change things, but because we do not have the courage to change things, because we do not have the guts to change things, because we live as though we are the last people who will walk on this planet. I find this quite discouraging.

When the government tells us, “We have no choice; the Americans have decided this”, I say, “No way. We are a country. We are able to take our responsibilities”. We should be able to tell them what is wrong—

[Paul Massicotte, May 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute today to a man who is one of our own, Mr. Paul Massicotte, from Champlain in Mauricie.

As a successful businessman, he has served the world of agriculture through the cooperative movement, whose local activities he led for many years. The parish and the region quickly became too small for this man capable of bigger things, and he became a member of the executive of the Coopérative fédérée de Québec, where he served for 30 years, 11 of them as president.

He has travelled around the world and, in his own way, has been a great ambassador for Quebec. Quebec, the agricultural sector, the riding and the municipality of Champlain are proud of you, Mr. Massicotte.

I would like to congratulate his wife, Lise, and their six children for supporting and encouraging him so well. Bravo, Mr. Massicotte, and enjoy your well deserved retirement. Thank you for being a beacon to all who work in agriculture.

[Supply, May 1st, 2003]

Yes, arm-twisting. That is exactly what happened. Workers have been asking for a proper balance of power for a long time. Workers do not necessarily want a strike that goes bad. Workers want their rights to be respected.

Balance is achieved by ensuring that the use of scabs is no longer allowed, as the Quebec Labour Code already provides, with the result that there are no scabs working during a strike, and strikes get settled.

I would like the speech of the Liberal member who just spoke to be distributed to all the workers in our region who, because of the lumber issue, among other issues, find themselves in a precarious position. I would like them to hear him, see him, and read what he said. They would find it hard to believe what we are hearing from the people opposite on this issue.

It is imperative that this bill be passed when it comes back before the House. Hon. members must be guided by their conscience and pass this bill.

At the time when the anti-scab legislation was passed in Quebec, Minister Johnson gave a great speech. I recall another minister: Pierre Marois. He had been involved with the labour movement. He was a leading expert on the Labour Code. Pierre Marois was the Minister responsible for Social Development. He made a speech which emphasized the social aspect and the fact that we have no right letting disputes go unresolved and no right upsetting the balance of power between management and labour at a time as difficult as the time of a strike.

Pierre Marois demonstrated the need for collective awareness, an awareness strong enough to ensure that these issues are settled as quickly as possible.

I am getting on in years, but I have this dream that before I retire, I will get to hear speeches that will advance the social issue, the community and the sense of humanity. Speeches should be made, which are more fitting of a big, beautiful Canada; after all, it is being called the best country in the world. The speeches should better reflect who we are, and who the workers are. Society should be the one developing legislation fostering greater social justice.

[Supply, May 1st, 2003]

The hon. member for Jonquière, who was part of that group, tells us it is utterly false, that the union never agreed. It must have given in, because it was that or nothing.

[Supply, May 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on this day, May 1. I join with my colleagues who offered their best wishes to the workers in their ridings, and I too offer my best wishes to the workers in Champlain.

Today, my thoughts are especially for workers who have lost their job, for instance, because of the softwood lumber dispute, a dispute that has still not been settled by the government, which is just standing by and sitting on its hands.

Earlier I heard a speech that shocked me, I am talking about the last Liberal member who spoke. He says he is the son of a unionist, but I must say it has been a very long time since I heard such a depressing speech for the working class and workers, and such contempt for workers. I do not know how to say it otherwise, but it makes me seethe to hear, in 2003, speeches it would have been difficult to accept in 1975. These speeches are 30 years behind the times.

I was a member of the Quebec National Assembly when René Lévesque asked his labour minister, Pierre-Marc Johnson, to introduce anti-scab legislation. There is a reason we passed it. There is a reason it helped the situation in Quebec.

We have the numbers to prove it. My colleague from Joliette mentioned them at length since, in an earlier life, he worked in the labour movement. The situation in Quebec as far as strikes are concerned has improved greatly since 1977. It is not true that it has been detrimental to businesses. It has actually helped businesses. Days of work lost to strikes and violence on job sites have never benefited anybody. It is of no benefit for the evolution of society.

When Mr. Lévesque asked us to pass an anti-scab bill in Quebec, I had the pleasure of hearing great speeches. I also had the displeasure of hearing speeches from those who opposed it. Those speeches were similar to the one we just heard from the Liberal member. This bill brings to my mind good memories, but also bad memories linked to people who are against workers and the evolution of work and who despise the working class.

It does not surprise me to see that people like those opposite have stolen $45 billion from the employment insurance fund. That does not surprise me at all. This money is now paying society's debts. But it was not the workers who got the society into debt. With that kind of attitude, we wonder how Quebeckers would be defended if all we had were Liberal members. We can ask the workers how well protected they would be in Quebec if all we had was this kind of member of Parliament.

Fortunately, the Bloc Quebecois is on the job. This is the eleventh time we are presenting a bill asking the government to show some conscience with respect to the workers and help redress the balance of power in labour disputes.

I still hope that the government will do it, because I know the hon. members opposite. In the corridors we sometimes meet members who cannot object to a motion or a bill. I know this law has improved things in Quebec. We have said so.

In 1976, before the Quebec law was passed, the average strike lasted 39 days. In 2002, strikes lasted 15 days. And is someone going to say that this is not good for all people, including the bosses? The workers are not the only ones who lose out in a strike: bosses do too.

And then there are all the problems generated by these disputes which, after the strike is over, take months to solve. And that is because scabs upset the balance of power and prevented the strike from being settled properly.

I would like to commend the hon. member for Laurentides for raising this issue today. I hope we will debate it as often as possible, so that the hon. members across the way will one day realize that they should pass such a law. It is rather curious that, when they were in opposition, they vsupported an anti-strikebreaking law. Now they are in power and the minister tells us today that everything she has done has had the blessing of the workers and the unions.

[Guaranteed Income Supplement, April 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, every week, seniors who were deprived of their rights die in poverty without obtaining justice.

Does the minister not feel something for the thousands of seniors who, because of her, will not be able to assert their rights?

[Guaranteed Income Supplement, April 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, as regards the class action suit initiated by seniors against Human Resources Development Canada, we know that the department will now ask the court to refer the case to an administrative tribunal. This will have the effect of eliminating any possibility of a class action suit.

If the federal government is so convinced that it acted properly, why is it doing everything it can to avoid having a court rule immediately on the merits of the case?