François Lapointe

[Committees of the House, May 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be very concise.

The problem is not with bringing in temporary workers. The problem is that they are part of a temporary worker program. If their help has been needed 12 months a year for the past 10 years, they should be allowed to immigrate. That is all we are saying. That is clear.

If 20% of people—the statistics are the same in every province—do not have the essential skills even to be a cashier, investments need to be made so that Canadians can reach a certain standard of living and have a better job. If these measures are applied and are given the necessary resources, yet an entrepreneur still cannot manage to open an inn or a business because of a labour shortage, then we agree. However, it is imperative that we develop a valid immigration system and support people who need to obtain basic skills. Those solutions, which will make Canadians richer and more prosperous, must be our priority, not an ill-conceived temporary worker program.

[Committees of the House, May 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

The Canada job grant program is a striking example. It has been launched in a rather dogmatic fashion. We know that the provinces were not consulted. What is more, the provinces are opposed to the program for the good reason that training is their jurisdiction.

SME employers and entrepreneurs are also opposed to the program for a very simple reason. The federal-provincial-SME partnership will provide a $15,000 grant. It is much more difficult for a small business that urgently needs to train a plumber, for example, or for an SME in an outlying area than for Bombardier or a major car manufacturer in southern Ontario to pay its one-third share of the grant. Small businesses believe that the program is completely ill-conceived.

Furthermore, employers contribute to the employment insurance fund, and this money is systematically put into the consolidated revenue fund. What happens to this money? We really are not sure. The government buys British submarines that do not work or things like that.

Instead, the fund should be built up, and we should sit down with these people and tell them that we have the money if they need apprentices or training programs.

In Scotland, for example, workers who lose their jobs have to take a literacy test. If it is found that they have difficulty entering the job market because they cannot read, for example, they receive employment insurance for several weeks while they learn to read. Yes, it does cost money, but in the end, someone who is literate can enter the job market with skills. He or she can meet the needs of service businesses that are having difficulty finding people just to be cashiers.

Until we address the structural problem, we will not make any progress, and business people's money will continue to go into a fund that will be squandered. I hope it will not be spent on F-35s this time.

[Committees of the House, May 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to rise in the House today to speak about a report that was tabled by a committee of which I am a member. In the next few minutes, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.

We are focusing our attention on a study tabled by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. This report, which is entitled “Addressing Current and Future Challenges”, deals with the labour and skills shortage in Canada. The report does indeed contain some solutions. However, the entire NDP caucus believes that these solutions are highly inadequate.

Committee members spoke at length about certain recurring points, such as the lack of interest in skilled trades observed throughout the provinces. For several decades now, post-secondary education has been promoted and a BA or other degree has been touted as the key to success. Now, this is causing a significant lack of people with training in skilled trades, and there is a shortage of plumbers and electricians across the country.

In 2008, before the economic crisis and the never-ending economic difficulties, there were signs all along highway 20. Just outside Beloeil, there was a giant sign that said “we are looking for” or “we are looking to hire 12 electricians tomorrow morning”. At the time, before the recent crisis, there was already a labour shortage, particularly in the skilled trades.

The bad news is that, if we are fortunate enough to see a true economic recovery in 2014-15, we will be in exactly the same position, with the same problems we had in 2008. Billions of dollars have been invested in the Conservative government's much-vaunted economic action plans over the past few years. The government could have shown some vision, but it did not. It sometimes even made mistakes. If there is an economic recovery tomorrow, the day after tomorrow or in 2014, we will be in the same position as we were in 2008.

The good news is that, when it came right down to it, all members recognized that the major challenge of the first half of the 21st century would be a lack of human resources. Conservative and NDP members agreed on this.

The not-so-good news is that the government engaged in a completely ridiculous exercise, which is particularly evident at the end of the report, where almost all of the testimony was manipulated. For example, the Conservative majority linked everything that the witnesses said to 2012 budget initiatives.

A standing committee should be a place where members have all the freedom they need to recommend to a minister whether an initiative should be carried out in a certain way, or faster or slower, and so on. Such a place no longer exists.

Witnesses are now being ground down by the Conservative majority, which hacks every argument to bits until each little piece falls into place and conforms with ministers' decisions made months or even a year ago.

Thus, the committees are being completely manipulated. We have known this for the past two years. In this report, however, this exercise is no longer simply verging on the absurd; it has become wholly and utterly absurd.

There is another problem. Throughout the study, this obsession with reducing the size of government was apparent. Let us clear this up once and for all. There are times when the government must support a vision. In order to do so, it sometimes has to spend a little money in order to make more money. Yes, the government can do that. It sounds crazy, but it has happened in the past.

Today we are faced with a huge challenge. We will not have enough human resources, especially entrepreneurs. Quebec alone needs 70,000 people to ensure the entrepreneurial succession of SMEs. That is the big challenge facing our economy and it is by far this government's favourite subject.

As soon as the witnesses started talking about the need to provide more resources, the Conservative majority started tuning them out.

During witness testimonies we heard endless stories such as that of a 20-year-old without the necessary support to become an apprentice because there was a waiting period to receive employment insurance benefits and because the help provided to apprentices does not last for the duration of the apprenticeship.

It is not a total success. Depending on the program and province, 30% to 40% of apprentices drop out. Because the government tries to save a few thousand dollars by failing to support the apprentice for the duration of his apprenticeship, that apprentice resorts to employment insurance or social assistance or returns to an unstable job.

Instead of responding to an urgent need, like the need to have more electricians who earn excellent salaries, we lose that young apprentice. We lose a taxpayer who might have earned an annual salary of $35,000, $45,000, $55,000, $65,000, or $70,000. All because the Conservatives are obsessed with reducing the size of government. The Conservatives do not understand that sometimes they need to invest a bit of money simply to generate wealth and purchasing power. The return on investment can be tenfold or better over a period of 5 to 10 years.

The members opposite do not have this on their radar even though the witnesses agreed that the government needs to make more of an effort and invest more in order to successfully meet this tremendous challenge.

The NDP agrees with a number of the recommendations in the report. I will go over a few of them here. However, none of them go far enough. The Conservatives' logic seems to be, “this is something important that the government should do, but it will cost a lot of money, so let us pretend we did not see it”. It is dizzying.

Let us now look at the second recommendation in the report:

The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada continue its efforts toward achieving better and more user-friendly labour market information, which could [note: could] in turn [if they get that far] be provided to students, graduates and job seekers...

They are so hypocritical. They make cuts to everything that has to do with statistics. They cut resources for statistics gathering even though they know that good statistics are essential for making the right decisions in order to do something about this desperate nationwide labour shortage.

We know there is a problem, so in our minority report, we wrote something that took incredible courage. We wrote clearly that, “New Democrats recommend providing Statistics Canada with the funding it needs to improve labour force-related surveys and restoring core funding to Sector Councils.”

Oh, what a big expense. Yes, it would cost the government something. However, on the other hand, how can we tackle the greatest challenge of the early 21st century if we do not even have the resources to properly define it?

I will now read recommendation 13:

The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada review the resources allocated to the Adult Learning, Literacy and Essential Skills Program to confirm the current levels are sufficient to raise the basic skill level for adults.

Literacy statistics have stagnated for 40 years now. For 40 years, we have known that approximately 20% of our fellow Canadians do not have the basic skills to respond to a simple human resources need like working as a cashier at Petro-Canada. The problem has been around for 40 years. There is no recommendation about allocating adequate resources to resolve this problem. The problem is there and the Conservatives know it.

I would have liked to comment on other recommendations, but I will speak briefly to another aspect that I think is an absolute priority. It is not even about government money, but money that belongs to employers and employees. We have to build the employment insurance fund and leave the money there so that we can respond to urgent, essential industry needs.

I have here the testimony of Mr. Atkinson, the president of the Canadian Construction Association. He said:

One of the things that our industry has been calling for, and, indeed, this committee recommended, was to provide either some tax incentives through the Income Tax Act or some support for relocation expenses through the EI system for workers relocating on a temporary basis.

Someone from the construction industry, not someone from the far left, is simply saying that we need to let the employment insurance fund grow. Workers have basic needs; they need to be mobile so they can get the training they need. Please, let the fund grow.

[Tourism Industry, May 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, people in Eastern Canada can no longer stand listening to that broken record.

The Conservatives continue to undermine the future of the Canadian tourism industry with cuts to national parks, airport taxes that are too high, regional wharves that are not maintained and so much more. Not to mention the employment insurance reform, which is dismantling the human resource base of the tourism industry in the regions.

Furthermore, cuts to the Canadian Tourism Commission are taking their toll. Canada dropped from 7th to 18th place in the list of most popular destination countries at a time when global tourism is booming.

Every year, hundreds of thousands of tourists go elsewhere, and our businesses pay the price.

Does the minister understand that it pays to invest in tourism, tourism infrastructure and marketing?

[Employment Insurance, April 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, hundreds of people from the Lower St. Lawrence travelled 14 hours to participate in the massive protest in Montreal on Saturday. Their message was clear: the Conservatives need to stop gutting employment insurance. Not a day goes by in my riding without an inn or a summer theatre realizing that it needs to rebuild more than a quarter of its staff because of this reform. Tourism in the regions is seasonal, and it requires specialized workers.

Will the Conservatives stop showing such disdain for seasonal industries and their workers? Will they finally take the needs of thousands of small businesses in Quebec and eastern Canada seriously?

[Combating Terrorism Act, April 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, one aspect of the bill concerns me greatly, and I would like to know whether that concern is shared by my colleague. The Liberals wrap themselves in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Yet they are going to support a bill that is necessarily at odds with the charter, particularly when it comes to the part that says we can arrest someone even if we are not sure they are really associated with a terrorist group. There is not a judge in the Supreme Court who will say that there is no danger. It is impossible. There is an unbelievable contradiction.

The major consequence will have an impact on the security forces, who will have to live with completely twisted decisions. They will be wondering if such a thing has to be done, only to end up with a form of charge that is not possible. Doing this is going to put people in the security forces in an untenable position.

We are told that the Liberals are going to support it and that they have not thought about that. They do not want to make their new leader look too soft. They are going to take a decision that makes no sense. I would like to know whether my colleague shares these concerns.

[Combating Terrorism Act, April 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague. His question is a valid one.

Once again, let us return to the basic principle, which the government is not doing a good job of defending. Does the government respect the front-line workers, the investigators and customs officers? It is not helping them by introducing legislation that can have a very broad interpretation. They will find themselves in untenable situations where the decision to be made could violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. What is to be done in such cases?

The government is making an amendment to include a potential exception that could at times apply in the context of terrorism—without really defining what terrorism is—and that would be contrary to the charter. Then the government is asking them to find a way to do a good job. That is what it is telling them. That does not help them.

[Combating Terrorism Act, April 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, cutting hundreds of millions of dollars in resources for people whose mission it is to identify and combat terrorism is an excellent way of being soft on crime, or soft on terrorists. Who would dare to do such a thing? The last we heard, it was the people who are currently in government. Opposing these cuts is an excellent way to show that we respect and appreciate the work these people do. Who has been supporting the people who combat terrorism over the past two years? The people on this side of the House. Can I be any clearer?

I sometimes feel like I am arguing with a stubborn 12-year-old. If we want to support these people, we have to give them the resources they need. We might disagree about regulations but, in the end, the people who respect them want to maintain and increase their resources, and the people who make cuts do not respect them. We cannot make it any clearer.

[Combating Terrorism Act, April 22nd, 2013]

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

Let us say they would have been written by the new chief of the Liberal Party, “—the day after the bombing than by a concern for public safety.”

This analysis is justifiable but troubling. Are we going to hold debates in the House based on the blunders of the new Leader of the Liberal Party? If that is the case, then we should cancel all the debates for the coming months. The young Liberal leader will provide the government with at least one blunder a week, that is for certain.

We will have to have debates on millionaires who, when they hit their forties, suddenly discover the needs of the middle class. We will have to hold debates to determine whether a striptease is a good idea for a fundraising campaign. We will therefore have at least one blunder a week in the coming months.

The purpose of this House is not to focus on the short term or on current events. On the contrary, the purpose of the House is to think about making the best possible decisions to protect our constituents in the long term.

Earlier, the hon. member for Bourassa had a very strong reaction with regard to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He said that the Liberals are thinking about supporting this bill even though there is very good reason to be concerned.

One of my colleagues spoke about an uncle who could be arrested without even knowing that his nephew was part of a group that could be involved in terrorism. These are fundamental rights that might not be upheld. The hon. member for Bourassa shouted: “The Charter of Rights! The Charter of Rights!” Clearly, we have a problem.

The member was adamant about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because the government introduced a bill that flouts the charter and does not take into consideration the people on the ground, the customs officers, law enforcement and police officers who are put in untenable positions.

Who will have to deal with these untenable and completely contradictory decisions about certain key aspect of Canada's laws and regulations? It is law enforcement.

Making hasty decisions and showing up with something written on the back of a napkin—as the Conservatives like to say—shows a lack of respect for law enforcement and the work that these people do.

I will vote against Bill S-7 because this bill threatens rights and freedoms, contains useless provisions that are never used, and exploits current events and the all too recent suffering of some people to further the government's agenda.

I will continue to oppose any cuts to the resources granted to customs officers and investigators. In fact, the real problem and the real threat Canadians are facing in 2013 are the cuts that the Conservatives are making to funding for the dedicated and courageous individuals who take risks every day in the field.

This bill does not respond to this threat. The threat will continue as long as these people are in office.

[Combating Terrorism Act, April 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to speak to Bill S-7, on combatting terrorism.

The Conservative government's intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds, and today is no exception. They are trying to exploit a tragedy so recent—the Boston Marathon attacks—that the victims' wounds are still bleeding.

Our thoughts are with the victims and the many people who risked their lives to protect the Boston area over the past few days. Because of the way the Conservatives do things, our agenda in the House of Commons has once again been flipped upside down without prior notice. Why? Mostly because the government in place lacks vision. It exploits hot-topic issues and uses them to impose its own agenda.

Countries in the G8 are not supposed to rush to pass legislation based on what is going on in the news, especially if the goal is simply to shove the government's own agenda down the public's throat. We must work for the common good, listen to what experts tell us and base decisions on the objectives of our international partners.

This makes it clear that the government cares more about its own agenda than anything else.

The morning after the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, did the government start a debate on crazed killers to help the American president, who has been fighting for tougher laws since then? No. That issue is not in line with this government's objectives.

Given that Bill S-7 has been back in the House since December, why is the government suddenly in such a hurry? Why did we not have this debate in February, for example? With a record number of 30 gag orders, we had plenty of time to debate what has now suddenly become a priority. The government is being purely opportunistic and exploiting current events.

So that we do not play into the government's hands, I would like to recap some facts about Bill S-7.

The committees heard testimony from a number of stakeholders in the legal community and civil liberties groups. They said that Canada's current laws are sufficient.

Immediately providing law enforcement and border services with better resources for field investigations would improve our chances of preventing a tragedy. We should not make a habit of using exceptional measures that threaten fundamental rights. For example, in the case of the Toronto 18, the worst-case scenario was avoided because of a successful investigation, and no exceptional measures were used.

Cuts in the hundreds of millions of dollars to border services and the RCMP make no sense, and they demonstrate this government's contempt for these people. The government loves them so much that it keeps making cuts. I would not wish this government's love and affection on any Canadian. Talk about bad news.

Bill S-7 is useless and disconcerting because it throws wide the doors to infringements of civil liberties and human rights.

Take, for example, the part of the legislation that is perhaps the most disturbing, which is recognizance with conditions or what are known as preventive arrests.

The government included a paragraph in its legislation specifically so that it could use preventive arrests even when individuals were not suspected of terrorist activities. NDP members tried to amend that provision to ensure that only those individuals identified as having potentially been involved in a terrorist activity could be placed under preventive arrest. Committee members were shocked to hear from a parliamentary secretary that the amendment would not be accepted because the government had intended for the provision to be far-reaching so that it would include individuals who authorities do not suspect will commit terrorist activities in the future.

The stage is set for abuse, and the government is promoting it. The fact that the anti-terrorist provisions were never used between 2001 and 2007 clearly illustrates that the government's haste is purely a tactic.

The NDP has gathered a great deal of support for this interpretation of the events. Paul Copeland, a lawyer and member of the Law Union of Ontario, said:

I wanted to comment first on the circumstances of the Air India case, because that is the only case in which this legislation that came in under the anti-terrorism bill was used, and it's a rather bizarre circumstance. It was described as a fiasco, and I think that's an appropriate description.

He concluded his speech with the following:

...the provisions you are looking at here change the Canadian legal landscape. They change it in a way that isn't useful. They should not be passed, and in my view they are not needed. There are other provisions of the code that allow for various ways of dealing with these people.

According to Reid Morden, a former director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, police officers and security forces have all the powers they need to carry out their duties and they do not need any additional powers.

We are talking about very competent people who have taken positions that are very similar to ours.

Further conclusions, also very similar to the NDP's, were expressed in today's Globe and Mail. I wanted to quote this, because I noted that the French-language press was not reporting this as much. These conclusions are quite justified:

“The debate politicizes the Boston Marathon bombings when few facts are known regarding the bombers' motives or inspiration.”

The Conservatives are forcing us to make decisions before the injured have even healed.

“More worrying is the fact that there are aspects of the proposed bill that raise questions about balancing civil liberties with the need to protect citizens.”

The Globe and Mail—and no one can say that it is a leftist leaflet—reached the same conclusion as we did: this raises some serious concerns about fundamental rights.

Here is another quote that made me smile, but bothered me at the same time:

“The government's sudden need to debate Bill S-7 seems more likely to have been prompted by Mr. Trudeau's unfortunate comments about 'root causes'—”