Mario Laframboise

[G8 and G20 Summits, September 24th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, although we have only seen 20% of the expenditures for the G8 and G20, we can only imagine that the worst is yet to come. It is already clear that the Conservative government completely lost control of its spending. We have every reason to be concerned when we see that the government agreed to pay $13,000 for umbrellas and $31,000 for flagpoles, all in the name of security.

How can the government and the member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean justify the fact that the unemployed, seniors and forestry workers are struggling, while the government indulges in an orgy of spending like this?

[Cracking Down on Crooked Consultants Act, September 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to speak to Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Cracking Down on Crooked Consultants Act.

I would like to begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois will vote to send Bill C-35 to committee for further study. Our party has decided to give the bill a chance, to see if we can improve it in committee. Those watching us at home are trying to understand how the House of Commons and its committees work. We now have the opportunity to explain that the bills introduced here can always be improved in committee. After we hear from witnesses and examine the evidence they have given, we can propose amendments to the bill, which are voted on by the committee members and then reported back to the House of Commons.

We have noted that too many immigration consultants have been acting fraudulently and getting away with it. After all these years, the federal government still has not managed to effectively regulate this area. The failure of the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants is irrefutable proof of that.

We believe that the committee should examine the issue to determine whether a new regulatory body is needed, one that is better monitored and can crack down harder on corrupt consultants who provide services related to federal immigration programs.

Since the regulating of professions falls under Quebec and provincial jurisdictions, the Bloc Québécois is worried that a federal act to create and establish an organization to regulate immigration consultants will interfere in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. This is important. Every day, Bloc Québécois members, who have been elected by the people of Quebec, proudly stand up in this House to defend the interests and values of Quebeckers. An example of those values is respect for our jurisdictions. How professions are regulated is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. The Bloc Québécois will make sure that the government understands this in committee.

The Quebec government demonstrated its jurisdictional authority by passing a regulation concerning immigration consultants. This regulation will come into effect on November 4, 2010. Quebec is often at the forefront of numerous initiatives that are then borrowed by other Canadian provinces. We have always said that when Quebec is its own country—and we hope that will happen sooner rather than later—it will have good neighbours and good relationships with those neighbours. It will continue to create exemplary legislation, as it is doing now, that can be emulated by Canada.

We hope that the Government of Canada will learn from the Government of Quebec. To do this, the federal government must recognize Quebec's jurisdiction as well as that of the provinces so that it is clear that crooked immigration consultants will be replaced by a professional body. This body will then be regulated by Quebec since this falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.

On June 9, 2008, the Bloc Québécois convinced the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration to pass a recommendation that Quebec immigration consultants be officially recognized under Quebec laws instead of being forced to join the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants.

The Bloc Québécois is always true to itself. Our excellent critic, the member for Jeanne-Le Ber, did a wonderful job making the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration understand that it is important that the Canadian government officially recognize Quebec's immigration consultants, who will be governed by a regulation as of November 4, 2010.

Even though Bill C-35 would better regulate consultants who deal with immigration matters that come under federal jurisdiction, the Bloc Québécois has serious concerns about the power the minister is giving himself to be able to designate a regulatory body in federal legislation. Overlapping jurisdictions never works well, needless to say.

This was particularly evident in recent months, even for over a year. The federal government decided to interfere in the securities market by establishing a national securities commission. And yet Quebec has its own securities commission as do the other provinces. The Canadian system was recognized for having weathered the recent economic crisis—a financial crisis that hit stock exchanges around the world— better than others.

Naturally, it is still rather difficult to understand that, once again, the federal government wants to replace something that works with a centralized, national body even though the effectiveness of the Canadian system has been acknowledged internationally. The passport system allowed every province, Quebec as well as the other provinces, to have their own securities commissions. This provided security during the stock exchange crisis.

Even though the Minister of Finance is practically hoarse from ranting that it is a voluntary system, he knows very well that corporations will be encouraged directly to join the Canada-wide system.

The federal government is always trying to chip away at the powers of Quebec and the provinces. That is fine if it does not bother the provinces; however, we notice that Alberta also has a great deal of difficulty with this. It seems to want to stand its ground, which seldom happens. It usually bows down to the federal government. However, in this case, Alberta seems to want to oppose the national securities commission.

Once again the Bloc Québécois will be vigilant. Above all it does not want Bill C-35, the so-called Cracking Down on Crooked Consultants Act, to infringe on provincial jurisdictions. In fact, as I was saying earlier, the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants is a dismal failure. Clearly, Quebec and the provinces should be allowed to provide good, effective oversight of immigration consultants.

What is more, our party is of the opinion that there should be closer consideration of the committee aspect. Our concern is that Bill C-35 would require information to be communicated between members of the Barreau du Québec or the Chambre des notaires du Québec and the federal government. We have to take a closer look at this aspect of the bill in order to ensure that it does not conflict with Quebec's laws and to maintain the integrity of the Barreau du Québec and the Chambre des notaires du Québec.

As a notary by training, I can provide a little lesson in law. As hon. members know, in Quebec notaries are jurists who specialize in the contractual aspect of business and individual relationships. That is the objective. The Civil Code of Quebec is based on the Napoleonic code. That is a particularity of Quebec. I am always surprised to see colleagues who are notaries with a federalist bent, when the Chambre des notaires du Québec and the notary profession are a true reflection of this diversity, this difference between Quebec and the rest of Canada. We are the only province to have a chamber of notaries and notarial training. This training is obviously French-based. Notaries are highly respected professionals in France. Again, because the Civil Code of Quebec stems from the Napoleonic code, the notary profession is a direct link to these ancestral laws that Quebec held onto, which is not what happened in the rest of Canada. The rest of Canada has the common law, while Quebec has the civil code.

If it is decided that the Barreau du Québec and the Chambre des notaires du Québec are to report to the federal government, we must ensure that Quebec's rights and jurisdictions are respected. That is the objective. As for the Chambre des notaires du Québec, we all agree that the federal government has no knowledge of or jurisdiction in the matter.

In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois is opposed to the federal government encroaching on Quebec's jurisdiction in any way. It will ensure that Bill C-35 does not give the minister any power he is not entitled to.

We are talking about immigration consultants. One interesting way of reducing the number of crooked consultants would be to transfer part of these powers to Quebec lawyers or notaries or to lawyers in the rest of Canada who are regulated by professional codes.

If we consider what is happening the field of law, there are a few lawyers and notaries who have been caught. However, since there is a process to follow and an established structure, they were disbarred and can no longer practice. That is not the case with the federal structure, which is why the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants, which was somewhat regulated, was a failure. It was not a recognized profession.

There needs to be a new way of training consultants. They should report to the Chambre des notaires du Québec, the Barreau du Québec or other provincial bars. It would be an interesting path to take.

These professions are governed by Quebec's professional code. Members of the Chambre des notaires du Québec and the Barreau du Québec are governed by Quebec's professional code. We have to make sure that any new power granted to a professional association respects Quebec's jurisdiction and that of the provinces.

I would like to go over some background to Bill C-35. On June 8, 2010, the government introduced Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I will give an overview of the bill now.

The minister will be able to designate a governing body to regulate and oversee consultants' activities; this organization will replace the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants.

Only consultants approved by this body or members of a provincial bar or the Chambre des notaires du Québec will be allowed to charge fees for immigration advice, with some exceptions: students-at-law acting under the supervision of a member and entities and persons acting on their own behalf in accordance with an agreement with the government, such as visa application centres and other service providers.

All individuals who “knowingly represent or advise a person for consideration—or offer to do so—in connection with a proceeding or application under this Act” are guilty of a criminal offence punishable by two years in prison, a $50,000 fine or both. This offence already exists in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Consultants have to be recognized by an organization. If they knowingly advise people, they will be committing a criminal offence.

The law provides for information exchange between different levels of government. The designated organization will have to supply information set out in regulations to allow the minister to determine whether the organization governs its members in the public interest.

Regulations will govern information sharing by enabling the department to disclose professional or ethical information about members of provincial bar associations to the designated organization or to the person responsible for investigating a consultant's conduct.

We must ensure that discussions between the federal government and the members of the Barreau du Québec and the Chambre des notaires du Québec respect the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces at all times.

On August 30, 2010, the government published a call for submissions from applicants interested in becoming the regulatory body for immigration consultants.

I should point out that in this bill to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the provisions apply to persons who are the subject of proceedings or applications pertaining to immigration and refugee matters, not citizenship matters. The Citizenship Act does not provide for the same regulatory powers as the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. However, Bill C-37, introduced last spring, would provide regulations, in particular, by increasing penalties for consultants who fraudulently help individuals obtain citizenship.

Bill C-35 and Bill C-37 amend different acts.

In short, Bill-35 expands the range of activities governed by the act. In current federal regulations, the government can only take action when the application is submitted or at the beginning of a proceeding. Under Bill-35, the authorized representative commits an offence if he represents or advises a person for consideration in connection with a proceeding or application under that act, or offers to do so. This addition would make it possible to regulate—and punish, if an offence occurs—all forms of representation and advice at any stage, including that provided by unauthorized consultants, who might be involved before an immigration application is submitted.

All those who solicit work, that is crooked consultants, ask for payment in return for helping people with immigration proceedings.

We have seen some abuses—and the media have certainly jumped on them. Some people have been swindled out of a lot of money, sometimes the only savings they had, when seeking permission to immigrate to Quebec and Canada. I believe we must intervene.

The Bloc Quebecois wants to point out that Quebec also has powers in the area of immigration. All we want is for Quebec and provincial jurisdictions to be respected. Earlier I gave the example of securities commissions. The government wants to centralize exclusively provincial powers into a Canada-wide federal organization. That is what is going on with securities. Yet that system is what got us through the crisis. The Prime Minister keeps telling us over and over again that Canada has come out of the crisis exceptionally well, better than any other country in the world, as we heard again today in question period. It is not necessarily thanks to the Conservatives. It was a financial crisis, primarily a stock market crisis. It was thanks to our financial system and the fact that our banks were not allowed to merge.

I was one of those who opposed the Canadian bank mergers, so that they could not turn around and acquire American banks and contaminate all of the investments made by our citizens. That is one of the reasons we were able to get through this crisis relatively well. Furthermore, the stock market system allowed each province to have its own securities commission. When we have 10 such bodies, we can monitor things better than if we have only one. However, it is difficult, because the federal government is always trying to take powers away from the provinces. We will ensure that Bill C-35 does not have this unfortunate tendency to take power from Quebec and the provinces, in this case concerning immigration, and in particular, power over crooked consultants. Quebec is ready to take charge in this important area, since we already have legislation that is about to come into force on November 4, 2010. If all other Canadian provinces were to do the same, all of our immigrants would be better protected.

[Combating Terrorism Act, September 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the real question is: what message do we want to send about terrorism and to terrorists? Do we seriously think that violating the rights of our people is a message that will discourage terrorism? That is the real question our colleague was asking. Is that what will discourage terrorism, or will it simply help prove their point that these societies have less and less respect for the rule of law?

Often, that is how we are able to integrate people into our societies, because they choose to come to a place where human rights are considered and respected. That is a choice that we have made. If we decide to go against our values, we will have to ask ourselves whether we are sending a message that discourages terrorism.

[Combating Terrorism Act, September 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should understand that I have made the effort to quote my learned colleagues because my legal background is in the area of contracts rather than crime fighting. Nevertheless, I do have an understanding of the situation. The Bloc Québécois has always had a balanced position. That is how we do things. We must often attempt to put aside our personal frustration. We have to try to find a balance.

The hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin gave a presentation to the members of our caucus. We must be able to improve laws. When the Criminal Code is amended, it must benefit the police officers who work in the field. Can we do more while continuing to respect rights? Our society has decided to respect individual rights. Other societies have decided to set aside individual rights and serve the interests of the public. Clearly, this is the society's decision.

We want to have a balanced position. If we keep the Criminal Code as it is, preventive detention is allowed when there is sufficient evidence. If the hon. member is telling me that he would like to see preventive detention without evidence, that would be up to society to decide. However, that is not what Quebeckers have currently chosen to do.

[Combating Terrorism Act, September 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-17, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions), a type of anti-terrorism legislation. I am also pleased to explain to you, Mr. Speaker, and to all those watching us, the balanced position that the Bloc Québécois has always defended.

The hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin has championed this issue with support from our member for Ahuntsic. Those two hon. members have some experience in this. Let us not forget that the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin is a well known criminal lawyer. He was Quebec's attorney general at one time. He was the one who launched Quebec's Opération Printemps 2001, a large-scale operation to break up organized crime and criminal biker gangs in particular. Our colleague from Ahuntsic is a criminologist by training and we refer to her for information on fighting street gangs. She even played a role in the arrest of marijuana grow operators. We get our advice from people who fight crime for a living. Those are the people the leader of the Bloc Québécois chose to champion this issue and try, in a responsible manner, to fight terrorism. That has always been the Bloc Québécois' approach.

Our party has been involved since the very beginning of the process to review the Anti-terrorism Act. Between 2004 and 2007, the Bloc Québécois heard witnesses, read briefings, and interviewed specialists, civil society representatives and law enforcement agencies. During the Subcommittee on the Review of the Anti-terrorism Act's specific study of the two provisions in Bill C-17, the Bloc Québécois made its position on investigative hearings and recognizance with conditions clear.

Our party felt that the investigative process needed to be better defined. It was clear that this exceptional measure should be used only in specific cases in which it is necessary to prohibit activities where there is imminent peril of serious damage, and not in the case of misdeeds already committed.

We were also firmly opposed to section 83.3, dealing with preventive arrest and recognizance with conditions. Not only do we feel that this measure is of little, if any, use in the fight against terrorism but, more importantly, there is a very real danger of its being used against honest citizens. This is important, because it is part of a responsible approach. Some members here say they want to amend the Criminal Code, but really, the goal should be to actually improve the situation. But that is not the case here, as we can see in the position taken by the Bloc Québécois as a result of the analysis done by our esteemed colleagues, as I explained, the hon. members for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin and Ahuntsic.

I would like to quote the text, because it is very important. Amendments to the Criminal Code are often very complicated and contain many references. In a dissenting report, my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin very clearly explained his position and his viewpoint regarding these legislative amendments. It is worth reading, to ensure that all members and the people watching us at home understand better.

Again, I am quoting my colleague's text.

Terrorism cannot be fought with legislation; it must be fought through the efforts of intelligence services combined with appropriate police action.

There is no act of terrorism that is not already a criminal offence punishable by the most stringent penalties under the Criminal Code. This is obviously the case for pre-meditated, cold-blooded murders; however, it is also true of the destruction of major infrastructures.

Moreover, when judges exercise their discretion during sentencing, they will consider the terrorists’ motive as an aggravating factor. They will find that the potential for rehabilitation is very low, that the risk of recidivism is very high and that deterrence and denunciation are grounds for stiffer sentencing. This is what they have always done in the past and there is no reason to think they will do differently in the future.

This part of the text signed by my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin is important. It explains that we already have a criminal code, that there are laws in place and that judges have already convicted people who have committed such serious crimes as murder and have already established a way to set sentences and judge these people.

We must also consider that, when it comes to terrorism, deterrence has limitations. First, it will have very little impact on someone considering a suicide bombing. Second, those who decide to join a terrorist group generally believe that they are taking part in an historic movement that will have a triumphant outcome in the near future and that will see them emerge as heroes.

Continuing with the logic of my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, I would say that it is important to understand that terrorists' perceptions and actions are different than those of ordinary citizens. I would add that we should not believe that they will be deterred by legislation. Therefore, we have to bear in mind the fact that their motivation is different than that of ordinary citizens.

Therefore, one cannot expect that new legislation will provide the tools needed to effectively fight terrorism.

Legislation can, however, be amended if police do not seem to have the legal means needed to deal with the new threat of terrorism.

Consequently we must ensure that the proposed measure does not unduly disturb the balance that must exist between respect for the values of fairness, justice and respect for human rights, which are characteristic of our societies, while also ensuring better protection for Canadians [and Quebeckers] and for the entire world community.

Section 83.3, which provides for preventive arrests and the imposition of conditions, was advanced as such a measure when it was adopted.

Now, this provision has gone unused.

That is not surprising, given that police officers can use existing Criminal Code provisions to arrest someone who is about to commit an indictable offence.

Section 495 of the Criminal Code states that:

“(1) A peace officer may arrest without warrant

(a) a person […] who, on reasonable grounds, he believes […] is about to commit an indictable offence”

As my colleague's text mentions, clause 83.3, which would be added by Bill C-17, does not change anything, because the Criminal Code already contains section 495, which allows for preventive arrests.

The arrested person [when he is arrested under section 495] must then be brought before a judge, who may impose the same conditions as those imposable under the [Act]. The judge may even refuse bail if he believes that the person’s release might jeopardize public safety.

If police officers believe that a person is about to commit an act of terrorism, then they have knowledge of a plot. They probably know, based on wiretap or surveillance information, that an indictable offence is about to be committed. Therefore, they have proof of a plot or attempt and need only lay a charge in order to arrest the person in question.

Therefore, it is very important to understand that section 495 of the Criminal Code already does what Bill C-17 would do, but with evidence that makes it possible for a judge to render a decision.

There will eventually be a trial, at which time the arrested person will have the opportunity to a full answer and defence. The person will be acquitted if the suspicions are not justified or if there is insufficient proof to support a conviction.

It seems obvious to us that the terrorist act thus apprehended would have been disrupted just as easily as it would have been had section 83.3 been used.

In keeping with what my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin was saying, section 495 of the Criminal Code already exists, allowing for preventive arrest, provided there is sufficient evidence.

And concerning section 83.3, my colleague added:

However, it is this provision that is most likely to give rise to abuses.

Section 495 does not give rise to abuse if there is evidence, but section 83.3, as set out in Bill C-17, is vulnerable to abuse.

My colleague went on to say:

It may be used to brand someone a terrorist on grounds of proof that are not sufficient to condemn him but against which he will never be able to fully defend himself. This will prevent him from travelling by plane, crossing the border into the United States and probably from entering many other countries. It is very likely that he will lose his job and be unable to find another.

This is a predictable situation that could create injustice. And that is what my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin was arguing against.

He continued on, saying:

Terrorist movements often spring from and are nourished by profound feelings of injustice among a segment of the population. The fight against these injustices is often conducted in parallel by those who want to correct the injustices through democratic means and those who believe it is necessary to use terrorism.

The former made a positive contribution to the transformation of the societies in which we live today. They are often the source of many of the rights that we enjoy.

It is inevitable that political activity will bring the first and second groups together. Very often, the former will not even be aware that the latter are involved in terrorism. The planning of terrorist activity is by its nature secret.

The point is that we have to be careful. If we were to pass the proposed section 83.3, when we already have section 495 of the Criminal Code providing for arrest in cases with sufficient evidence, that would open the door to abuse.

We cannot give certain members of society cause to protest by taking away some of their rights. That is how terrorists operate. They try to convince segments of society that the only thing the current government and politicians want is to take away people's rights. That gives them an opportunity to say that the rights of individuals are not being respected and that society is unjust and unfair. That is one way to stoke terrorism. That is what the Bloc Québécois is warning against. We must always act responsibly.

In seeking to convict an individual, we must always have enough evidence of the kind that will hold up in our justice system, which was created by our predecessors and has worked well to this day. Section 495 of the Criminal Code currently provides for preventive arrest when the police can lay sufficient evidence before the court. We can do the work.

So why try to improve this kind of legislation for political and partisan reasons? That is pretty much how the Conservatives do business. They get people worked up by saying that they will come up with a bill to prevent something from happening—terrorism, in this case. But they are just adding fuel to the fire. It is perfectly clear that abuse can happen. Provisions like section 83.3 can be passed to enable the government to violate people's rights and show that our society is becoming less just, less tolerant. That would arouse hostility against our society. That is what the Bloc Québécois wants to prevent. We always try to deal with situations responsibly.

The Bloc Québécois has always stood up in this House to defend the interests of Quebeckers and to help the members of other political parties from outside Quebec understand what it means to be a Quebecker. That is what the hon. members for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin and Ahuntsic tried to do. That is what they do every day here in the House, drawing on their personal experiences.

As I said at the beginning, we are trying to make people see that Quebec has been very successful in certain areas, and one example is the fight against crime. The statistics speak for themselves. The Conservatives can try to change Statistics Canada's long-form census all they like and do whatever it takes to prevent us from getting the real statistics, in an attempt to impose their philosophy and ideology on all situations. But the reality is this: Quebec has a much lower crime rate than the other Canadian provinces and the United States.

Our society has made a conscious decision to try to understand and invest in the fight against poverty and rehabilitate criminals instead of trying every possible way to prove that crime exists, that more and more prisons need to be built and that tougher sentences are needed. This is what the Conservatives are doing by allowing everyone to have weapons without a firearms registry. They want to put more weapons on our streets, while believing there will be fewer criminals. I do not think that is the solution.

The Bloc Québécois has taken a balanced position regarding Bill C-17. We believe that the Criminal Code has all the tools needed to combat terrorism, as long as we are able to conduct analyses and investigations.

This is a society governed by the rule of law. It must be proven that a person has committed an offence before he is charged. That is the way things are done, but the Bloc Québécois has never had any qualms about reversing the burden of proof when necessary. And it has done so. The Bloc Québécois introduced the first ever reverse onus legislation in this House regarding profits made from the proceeds of crime. As a result—and thanks to the Bloc Québécois—criminals now have to prove that they came by their money honestly, otherwise it automatically becomes evidence of their guilt. That is a choice. These battles have to be fought, and they will be won—as my colleague said in his speech—when more power is placed in the hands of the police. But they already have these powers under section 495 of the Criminal Code, which enables them to carry out preventive arrests based on sufficient evidence.

Section 83.3 gives us an impression that preventive arrests could be made in the absence of sufficient evidence. We saw what happened with the Arar affair. I will not recount all the instances of Canadian police officers being hauled before the courts and being told that they have not done their job properly. Compensation has had to be paid out, among other consequences.

They are trying to change the laws in an attempt to gloss over a whole new approach to fighting crime, which includes making arrests without all the necessary evidence. This is a line that the Conservative Party dares to cross blithely and gleefully. We in the Bloc Québécois, however, are seeking out other approaches before we simply trample on people’s rights. I will not read out the list again, but if a person is accused of terrorism, it is no secret that they risk losing many rights, including those I referred to earlier. Now, should evidence turn out to be lacking—and if it were determined that an individual was not guilty and that there was insufficient evidence—the government would have no choice but to pay substantial amounts in compensation.

We would prefer that the Criminal Code remain unchanged, since it already has provisions for preventive arrest. We feel that Bill C-17 goes too far.

That is our colleagues' dissenting opinion on this issue. And I would again like to commend my colleagues, the members for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin and for Ahuntsic, for enlightening us all. All members of this House would do well to lend them an ear and learn about the responsible and intelligent approaches favoured by Quebec when it comes to fighting crime.

[Agriculture, June 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. minister for his openness, but can he confirm that the negotiation process will be simplified and that the outstanding files will be resolved by the end of the summer? It is the negotiation process and red tape that are causing problems.

[Agriculture, June 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, when he was leader of the opposition, the Prime Minister moved a motion on November 30, 2004, calling on the federal government to sell the 11,000 acres of arable land back to the families and farmers whose land was expropriated to build the Mirabel Airport. The Conservatives even reiterated this promise during the 2006 election campaign and made an official announcement in Mirabel after the election.

How do they explain the fact that thus far, six years later, only eight files have been or are in the process of being resolved?

[Canada Labour Code, June 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government's habit of imposing things through legislation is a terrible way to proceed. So it is rather difficult. In the case of a labour conflict, transportation, whether it is air, maritime or ground, is considered an essential service, and legislation is imposed. I can understand that the Conservative members want to pass a law to show that they are big and strong, and to impose working conditions. What often happens is that employers rely on that and do not negotiate with their employees.

They tell themselves that the federal government will pass legislation and will impose working conditions, and that that is how they will resolve their conflicts. But that is not the solution. I urge the Conservative member to look at his own statistics. Currently, businesses under federal jurisdiction receive fewer job applications from the younger generation because they do not respect the living conditions that this new generation is looking for.

By always giving the employer the upper hand and by ramming working conditions down people's throats, the Conservatives will run a lot of companies out of business, since they will not be able to recruit employees. That is the case with the ground and air transportation sectors. I know what I am talking about; the member should talk to some airplane pilots. There are no new employees coming in, because the working conditions are imposed; nothing is negotiated. The new generation does not want to work in those sectors. We can choose to think like the regressive Conservatives, who are 40 years behind, or to be visionaries like the Bloc Québécois, which is 30 years ahead.

[Canada Labour Code, June 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the statistics I just gave speak for themselves. There are two and half times fewer days of work stoppages because of lock-outs or strikes at companies under provincial jurisdiction than at companies under federal jurisdiction. This means that disputes are shorter and therefore less likely to become acrimonious.

As the saying goes, what is left lying around gets dirty. That is definitely the case with labour relations in companies under federal jurisdiction. Disputes go on far too long and they become dirty because people hold grudges for decades. When the time comes to try to save a company together, people would often rather see it close and the owner lose everything because he did not manage to find the right balance in labour relations.

Labour relations need to be protected by legislation, as they are in Quebec, where there is a true right to strike and essential services are maintained. That is a fairer and more balanced way to deal with labour relations.

[Canada Labour Code, June 11th, 2010]

moved that Bill C-386, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce Bill C-386, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers). I would like to summarize it. Parliamentarians in this House are familiar with this bill as this is not the first time it has been introduced. We continue to hope that the Liberal and Conservative members will understand its importance.

On the one hand, the bill would prohibit employers governed by the Canada Labour Code from hiring replacement workers to carry out the duties of striking or locked out employees; on the other hand, it would require employers to maintain essential services. It also sets out fines for violations.

The best way to acknowledge the outstanding contribution of those who are building today's society is to truly respect their rights, starting with eliminating the use of replacement workers during a strike or lockout.

Therefore, it is imperative that workers governed by federal legislation have the same rights as those governed by Quebec's labour laws, including the true right to strike. By employees under federal jurisdiction we mean those working in telecommunications, the media, the Internet, banking, ports, marine transportation, bridges, and air and rail transportation.

The Canada Labour Code must be amended and brought into line with the Quebec Labour Code. Anti-scab legislation would ensure that workers governed by federal legislation enjoy balanced bargaining power. That is the objective of Bill C-386.

Unlike in Quebec, which has prohibited replacement workers since 1977, there is currently nothing in the Canada Labour Code that clearly and specifically prohibits the use of replacement workers.

Subsection 94(2.1) of the Canada Labour Code contains a prohibition relating to replacement workers, but only where an employer uses replacement workers for the purpose of undermining a trade union's representational capacity.

However, a firm prohibition is essential for civilized bargaining to take place during a labour dispute and to promote industrial peace, and is also the cornerstone for establishing an equitable balance of power between employers and employees.

I will give some examples. Quebec workers in industries that are governed by the Canada Labour Code make up about 8% of the Quebec labour force.

According to Quebec's labour department, Quebec workers whose employer is federally regulated are almost always overrepresented in the number of days of work lost because of disputes.

While they account for just under 8% of Quebec's labour force, they experienced 18% of the person-days lost in 2004 and 22.6% of the person-days lost in 2003. In fact, a peak was reached in 2002. While 7.3% of Quebec workers were employed in federally regulated organizations, they accounted for 48% of days of work lost because of labour disputes.

In a nutshell, there were, on average, two and a half times more person-days lost in the last decade in labour disputes in Quebec involving workers governed by the Canada Labour Code than those workers represent in demographic weight.

This means that the disputes last longer and are therefore more violent. Such disputes are happening right now in Quebec, just as they have occurred over the past ten years. Consider the dispute at Sécur, or the Vidéotron dispute that lasted over six months and involved acts of sabotage. There was also the dispute at the Cargill grain elevator in Baie-Comeau that ended in 2003 after a three-year lockout imposed by the employer.

Let us not forget Radio Nord and the television networks: TVA, TQS in Abitibi and CBC. We saw this with the Journal de Québec and we are seeing it now with the Journal de Montréal.

From the beginning, the Conservative government has indicated its opposition by hiding behind doom and gloom scenarios because it lacks any real arguments, when the situation is clear in the details I just provided. In the statistics on days of work lost to labour disputes alone, we see that workers under the Canada Labour Code are without work two and a half times longer than workers governed by Quebec labour laws, which prohibit the use of replacement workers.

This is not the first time this type of bill has come before the House. The last time, we introduced Bill C-257, which passed at second reading. At report stage, the Liberals decided to reverse course, saying that the bill did not include measures on essential services. That is why the bill before us today includes the protection of essential services. We are prepared to do our part.

I will try to explain something. We are at a turning point in employer-employee relations. A number of major companies are located in my riding: Bell Helicopter, Bombardier, and Pratt & Whitney to name a few.

I am interested in labour relations. I recently attended a seminar on the sociology of work. The Conservatives, and even the Liberals, are not aware of the change taking place in our society. The new generations do not look at work the same way we do. I am part of the baby boom generation. Those who came before me are part of what sociologists call the veteran generation. After me come generations X and Y. Baby boomers like me, and the veterans who came before me—my father—have lived to work, while generations X and Y work to live. It is completely different. Who is right? Did we take our work too seriously? Perhaps we were afraid to lose our jobs because there were so many of us. Now, the young generations no longer have this mindset about work. They think more about their family. They think more and more about balancing work and family. I would add that employers who do not understand that will simply not survive. In other words, they will not be able to find employees to work for them.

I realize that the Conservatives and Liberals will always be regressive when it comes to replacement worker legislation. However, it is not helpful if we allow employers to use scabs or replacement workers to avoid resolving a conflict. We will see more and more businesses under federal jurisdiction having a hard time finding employees. We already see that in the interprovincial ground transportation sector. Employers have a very hard time recruiting employees, and the average age is very high. It is not very well known, but there is currently a shortage of airplane pilots. The new generation does not like the schedules and working conditions in the airline industry. That is a reality we will have to face. Banks are also having a hard time recruiting employees. You need only visit a branch to see how many retirees have been brought back on contract, because the banks could not fill their positions. The new generations want work environments that encourage personal development.

If we allow a business to use replacement workers during a conflict, and if there are lockouts, and jobs are lost in an economic sector for two, three or four years—that is not uncommon—there will be no new employees coming into businesses of that kind.

That is what is in store for companies under federal jurisdiction. It would be nice to keep managing as though people were all still veterans and baby boomers, but companies need to be careful because generations X and Y see work in a whole new way.

Here in the House of Commons, we have to be visionaries. It is time to make companies, particularly those in sectors under federal jurisdiction, understand that they cannot use replacement workers to avoid conflict resolution. The time has also come to add essential services. Businesses in certain sectors provide services to all communities. Those services should therefore be considered essential and even mandatory in some cases.

The Bloc Québécois has always been against forcing people to stay on the job and always will be, but it is important to negotiate essential services and maintain certain services. When disputes arise, it is important for employees to have the right to strike so they can make the employer understand that things are not working. That is the best way to move labour relations forward.

Over the past few months and the past year, a forestry company in my riding, the Fraser company in Thurso, placed itself under the protection of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act because it did not have a recovery plan and had decided to sell the company.

I have been a member of the House since 2000. In my own way, I advised the president of the company union, who is a childhood friend. Every time he negotiated an agreement—there have been four since 2000—he asked me what I thought of the situation. I always advised him to the extent of my knowledge, but I am not clairvoyant.

I looked at what was happening at the Conference Board and at Statistics Canada in terms of employers' offers. I talked to him about it, and it was all very nice. Often, after the negotiations, I found that much of the advice I had given him had found its way into the final agreements.

This past year was a terrible one for the employees. Just prior to June of last year, they found out that their company was closing.

My friend called me again to tell me that it seemed to be over and to ask what I thought. I told him that “it ain't over 'til it's over.” Good old Piton Ruel of the Montreal Canadiens used to say that. The same can be said of an exercise that decides the fate of an industry.

The only advice I gave him was to approach the employer about renegotiating working conditions, in case the company were to start up again.

It is not easy for employees and an employer to talk together. It is easier when you know you will keep your job, but when you have already lost your job and no one knows if the company will survive, that makes it hard.

Believe it or not, they negotiated new terms for working conditions in the three or four months following the closure, even though the company was not in production mode. It was difficult. Salaries were reduced by 20% and retirement eligibility was moved from age 55 to 65, but it meant that the company was able to start up again. The company's buyer had no say in the working conditions that had been negotiated by the employer's representatives and the employees while the company was closed. That meant that the company could start up again.

If this company had been under federal jurisdiction and a lock-out had been imposed, these employees would have been laid off for three or four years and the union and employer would never have been able to start negotiations. The tension would have been so bad that they would have wanted the company to close because of the lay-offs.

Once again, I am asking my colleagues to vote in favour of this bill, which is a new way of looking at labour relations.