André Bellavance

[Continuation and Resumption of Rail Service Operations Legislation, May 29th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I do not know what the Conservatives will be doing during the summer break because they have unfortunately gotten us used to their habit of using the guillotine in Parliament every week, for virtually anything, on every bill. We are in that situation once again.

My question is in a way further to that of my colleague from Compton—Stanstead. I would like to ask the minister whether she is aware that her government's actions have given the employer the opportunity to simply sit back and wait for special legislation to be imposed on workers. Unfortunately, she has shown with Canada Post and Air Canada that this is what employers under federal jurisdiction now have to do: stop bargaining and simply wait for the sword of Damocles.

That sword is not slow in coming. The minister announced in advance that there would be special legislation, which will no doubt be to the workers' disadvantage. So that is what is coming. That also somewhat answers the question by my colleague from Compton—Stanstead, who asked what was coming. What is coming is that, thanks to the Conservative government, there will be no more bargaining. The Conservatives have just stripped the workers of the right to fair and equitable bargaining. This is a scandal.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 16th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois will vote against the motion.

[Copyright Modernization Act, May 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I just heard the Minister of Industry refer to a skipping record. There is a good explanation for that. Despite what he says and all these consultations he mentioned, the government has not heard the message. It is as simple as that.

What we are telling artists again today in Bill C-11 and what we told them in Bill C-32—and the Minister of Industry said himself that the two bills are the same—is that they will not be paid for their work. Whether we are talking about artisans or more or less famous artists, this change has not been made in Bill C-11. That is why we must continue to listen to people, not just here in Parliament, but in committee, to finally make the government understand the situation.

Time allocation always reminds me of a recent ad campaign for a credit card company, or even Club Med, which shows 30 seconds of sunshine and beautiful people strolling down the beach and asks us to imagine spending a week doing the same. With all these time allocation motions that we have had in just one year of this majority government, just imagine what we are in for until 2015. It is unbearable.

[Canadian Chinese Community, May 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I strongly disagree with the decision that was just made. I heard Conservative members refuse to allow the Leader of the Green Party to speak, even though she is from British Columbia, where there is a large Asian and Chinese community.

Any member of a political party in this House should be allowed to speak, especially since the minister said that in the past his party had been unfairly accused of not being open to immigration.

I do not understand why everyone cannot pay tribute to this 65th anniversary. In Quebec, especially Montreal, there is a large Chinese community that makes a big—

[Copyright Modernization Act, May 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, that is not our intention. It was mainly about the opportunity to make amendments that will make people aware of the fact that this bill is completely unsatisfactory.

I know that my colleague is an artist and, because of Bill C-11 and its predecessor, Bill C-32, I am happy that he is an MP. Finally, he is doing better than if he were an artist. It is not that I do not think he is talented, on the contrary. But one thing is certain: this bill puts a serious damper on emerging artists' hope that they will one day earn a living from their work.

In my riding, many painters have the opportunity to showcase their work at a number of artists' symposiums. The career of a young woman from Victoriaville, for example, took off thanks to her hard work and talent. She left her day job. She believed in her art and wanted to be an artist. She was lucky that people believed in her. But today, knowing that it would be increasingly difficult to earn a living from art and culture, I am not sure that we would see her work in major galleries, as I did in Quebec City. For that reason, the bill must be amended.

[Copyright Modernization Act, May 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

I think I was very clear in my speech. I have asked myself the same question as he did: is the government ignorant or wilful in its attempt to rush into things so that almost everything they have proposed, whether it is good or ill, will be the law by 2015? I have described this government as a bulldozer, and I think the term still applies.

Why did the government not take the time to sit down with the artists, authors and consumers affected by this bill? It is favouring the big digital game industry over the interests of consumers, who are going to have enormous problems making copies for their own use—not for sale—without being treated as criminals.

It is a political choice. I think it is deliberate and that the government wants to favour big business. I repeat, and I agree with my hon. colleague, that authors, particularly in Quebec, certainly have the right to be paid, whether they are famous or unknown. If we want them to become famous one day, they will have to be paid for their work.

[Copyright Modernization Act, May 14th, 2012]

moved:

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-11 be amended by deleting Clause 49.

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-11 be amended by deleting Clause 62.

[Copyright Modernization Act, May 14th, 2012]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-11 be amended by deleting Clause 1.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-11 be amended by deleting Clause 2.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, May 8th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg Centre raised a good point. I would like to thank him for pointing that out to people because that is the major problem with this bill. It contains a whole bunch of measures that nobody will ever hear about. In fact, we never heard about them before the bill was introduced.

So many measures have been added to this bill—I call them poison pills—that we have to make sure people are aware of what is looming in front of them, as the member for Winnipeg Centre pointed out. This is a real sword of Damocles for many people.

However, what he just said comes as no surprise. This Conservative government has always had an ideological concept of the economy. It is all about cheap labour. Here is one example. The member for Beauce, who is now a minister, did nothing when a bicycle manufacturer in his own riding closed its doors. Those people, libertarians certainly, are guided by the philosophy that if one industry shuts down—even if that means 250 or 300 jobs lost—it is no big deal because another will take its place.

Obviously, that is not how we see things. We do not think that the government should jump in feet first whenever something goes wrong with the economy, but there are ways to intervene in order to save jobs.

Do we have to say that our bicycles will have to come from Taiwan or China? No, we can make bicycles here. We can put measures in place to save Canadian jobs and make sure they pay well.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, May 8th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the leader of the Green Party, for her question.

Indeed, one of the most disgraceful parts of the budget implementation bill is the one that speeds up environmental assessments and allows the federal government to abdicate its responsibilities. This is not only a disgrace but a real scandal.

Every province pays taxes to ensure that the environmental assessment process for development projects is monitored. Now, all of a sudden, not only does the government want to speed up these projects by having less monitoring, but, from now on, it also wants to wash its hands of any responsibility for that monitoring. So the process will be faster and the government will not provide any oversight whatsoever.

This is one of the reasons why we are saying that these parts of the budget implementation bill must be removed and each one sent to the committees involved. The Standing Committee on Natural Resources and the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in particular could examine the bills that pertain to the environment so that people can come and testify about the importance of environmental monitoring of development projects.