Mario Laframboise

[Infrastructure, March 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, this government is incapable of being open and flexible when it comes to Quebec. Most Quebec municipalities were holding elections last fall and the federal government refused to transfer all the money to Quebec, which meant that an agreement was required for each project, yet now it is stubbornly demanding that projects be completed by December 2010 or March 2011, depending on the program.

Why is this Conservative government refusing to accommodate Quebec municipalities so that they can benefit fully from federal funding?

[Infrastructure, March 9th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec municipalities deplore the Conservative government's lack of flexibility. By imposing December 31, 2010, and March 31, 2011, as the deadlines for completion of infrastructure work funded by Ottawa, the federal government is penalizing Quebec municipalities and depriving them of the funding to which they are entitled.

Why is the government refusing to be flexible and preventing Quebec municipalities from benefiting fully from federal funding?

[Canadian Navy, March 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on the Bloc Québécois' behalf about Motion M-459, which reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, in light of the upcoming centennial of the Canadian Navy, the government should consider reinstating the Navy executive curl on its uniforms.

The Bloc Québécois will support this motion, which was moved by the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry. However, I got the sense that he was uncomfortable presenting the motion. He said that it was a small measure—according to the interpretation—for historians and military personnel. I can understand his discomfort.

The government decided to prorogue the House and lock the doors of the House of Commons on January 25. Today we begin debating private members' motions. The first motion moved by a Conservative Party member concerns reinstating the executive curl on the uniforms of the Canadian Navy.

Despite the many important debates we could have begun in the House, the Conservatives unilaterally decided to lock the doors. I can understand why the Conservatives might feel a bit ill at ease. He said that it was just a small measure, but to the Bloc Québécois, there is no such thing as a small measure when it comes to anything to do with symbols of the Canadian Forces.

The Bloc Québécois has always defended the men and women, Quebeckers and Canadians, who wear a military uniform, whether they are in the army, the air force or the navy.

In the case before us, we have no objection to supporting a motion to reinstate the Navy executive curl, if that is the wish of the officers of the Canadian Navy. It is easy to understand that the reinstatement of the executive curl would be a source of pride and dignity for the officers of the Canadian Navy. Again, this is not a small measure to us.

The year 2010 is the centennial of the Canadian Navy. The first attempt to create a navy was in 1881, but it was not until May 4, 1910 that it was actually created with the coming into force of the Naval Service Act. Then, in 1968, the Royal Canadian Navy joined the Royal Canadian Air Force and the Army to become the Canadian Forces.

The centennial of the Canadian Navy may be an opportune time to reinstate the Navy executive curl.

Since its creation, the Canadian Navy, just like all the other members of the Canadian Forces, has completed its missions with the utmost professionalism.

We remember that the navy's great baptism of fire was the second world war. When the war broke out, the navy had only 13 warships: six destroyers— Saguenay, Skeena, Fraser, Ottawa, Restigouche and Saint-Laurent—four minesweepers—Comox, Fundy, Gaspé and Nootka/Nanoose—and three auxiliary vessels—Armentières, Skidegate and Venture.

The scope of the war was such that Canada became the third largest naval power in 1945, with 433 ships at its disposal. The least we can say is that the Canadian navy lived through its baptism of fire and carried out its mission with great success. With continental Europe under the oppressive yoke of Nazism, the Canadian navy had to supply England. The navy had to organize transatlantic convoys and protect the shops against German U-boat attacks. The navy played a pivotal role in the liberation of Europe.

We think in particular of convoy HX 300, the largest convoy to cross the Atlantic during the second world war. It was made up of 167 merchant ships carrying 1,056,000 tons of cargo and 32 warships. Today, the Canadian navy ranks 28th in terms of its size.

For the Bloc Québécois, it is no small issue when naval officers want to reinstate the executive curl on their uniforms. We will therefore support this measure, and the sooner, the better. If the Conservatives had not shut down Parliament, we could have made this decision two months earlier.

[Infrastructure, March 5th, 2010]

Let us talk about the municipalities, Mr. Speaker.

Municipal officials are unhappy about the federal government's inflexibility with respect to infrastructure projects. The president of the Fédération québécoise des municipalités said that, by maintaining the March 31, 2011 deadline, the Conservative government was primarily penalizing the Quebec municipalities that have to wait for administrative arrangements to be finalized before any work can start.

Does the government not realize that, by stubbornly maintaining the March 31, 2011 completion date, it is depriving Quebec of several worthwhile projects?

[The Budget, March 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, the Leader of the Opposition said that he wanted to hold extensive consultations in Quebec. We saw how Quebeckers reacted to plans for the forestry industry. The government will be investing next to nothing, just $100 million in contrast to the $10 billion given to the auto industry last year.

The Conservative government decided to invest a portion of the money collected from Quebeckers in developing the nuclear industry. It wants to create an electricity provider that will compete with Hydro-Québec. Quebeckers are not happy about a lot of these measures. Columnist Jean Lapierre said that this Liberal Party leader is going to end up doing exactly what the former Liberal Party leader did: sit on his hands and do nothing. That is the truth of the matter.

I would like the Leader of the Opposition to convince me that he really is against the budget even though he and many of his fellow Liberals will once again remain seated and allow this budget to pass despite the fact that it is not in Quebec's best interest.

[Canada Labour Code, December 3rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question.

What he just read from the documents he obtained shows that this bill could work. These employers in the aviation industry know it as well.

That is why for years now the Bloc Québécois and I have been trying hard to make people realize that a fair balance can be achieved in labour relations. We cannot allow scabs to come in and not think that this benefits one side. That is the reality. That is Quebec's experience. We know that because labour disputes involving the 8% of employees under federal jurisdiction who are governed by this legislation last much longer than those involving employees governed by Quebec's anti-scab legislation.

When there is anti-scab legislation, essential services must be maintained. I think the bill introduced today is balanced. That is why I am asking my colleagues to avoid getting carried away, which both sides can do too easily. I am asking them to be logical and strive for balance in labour relations.

[Canada Labour Code, December 3rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, when we reread the amendments to paragraph 87.4(1) we see:

During a strike or lockout not prohibited by this Part, the employer, the trade union and the employees in the bargaining unit must continue the supply of essential services, operation of facilities or production of goods to the extent necessary to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public.

It talks about the operation of facilities and the safety or health of the public. The full operation of the airport is in the public interest. It is certain that if we take the provision of essential services even further, given that there is a public interest and an impact on health and safety, airports are facilities that must remain in operation.

I think that essential service legislation could apply in this case.

[Canada Labour Code, December 3rd, 2009]

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.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, Bill C-386, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers). I am also pleased to be seconded by the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, who worked very hard in the previous Parliament to have a similar bill passed. I would like to quickly read the summary of Bill C-386.

The purpose of this enactment is to prohibit employers under the Canada Labour Code from hiring replacement workers to perform the duties of employees who are on strike or locked out. It extends the obligation to maintain essential services.

The enactment also provides for the imposition of a fine for an offence.

The bill would ensure that all workers who are fortunate enough to work in Quebec are subject to the same legislation, since replacement workers are prohibited in Quebec. I would like to provide a quick background on anti-scab legislation.

The Bloc Québécois believes that the best way to acknowledge the outstanding contribution of all those who contribute to Quebec society on a daily basis is to show true respect for their rights, by preventing the use of replacement workers during a strike or lockout. Therefore, it is imperative that workers governed by federal labour legislation have the same rights as those governed by Quebec legislation, including a true right to strike.

The Canada Labour Code should be amended and brought into line with the Quebec labour code, so as to ban the use of replacement workers, or scabs, once and for all. Anti-scab legislation would ensure that workers governed by federal legislation enjoy balanced bargaining power, and would keep tension on the picket lines to a minimum. That is the objective of Bill C-386, which would prohibit the hiring of replacement workers.

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. That prohibition is very weak, because to be entitled to use replacement workers, an employer need only continue to recognize the union in place and continue bargaining to demonstrate its good faith. As we see, it is very easy for employers to have access to replacement workers.

A firm prohibition, which is what Bill C-386 proposes, is essential, however, 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.

Workers in industries that are governed by the Canada Labour Code, such as telecommunications—workers in Internet businesses, cable companies and cell phone companies—and banks, ports, bridges, airports or Canada Post, who make up about 8% of the Quebec labour force, are therefore at a disadvantage when they have to bargain with their employer, and as a result they get dragged into longer strikes.

According to figures from the Quebec Ministère du Travail, for instance, Quebec workers whose employer is federally regulated are practically always overrepresented in the number of days of work lost. 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. Obviously, this translates into longer and more violent disputes when the employer is able to hire strikebreakers.

Remember the three-month dispute at Sécur, the Vidéotron dispute that lasted over 10 months and involved acts of sabotage, and the dispute at the Cargill grain elevator in Baie-Comeau that ended in 2003 after a three-year lockout. And let us not forget the unionized workers at Radio-Nord Communications, employees of the three Abitibi television stations, TVA, TQS and Radio-Canada, and the two radio stations in northwestern Quebec, who were on strike for over 20 months.

The Conservative government stated its opposition at the outset, and having no genuine arguments, retreated behind apocalyptic scenarios that have nothing to do with reality. Quebec has had legislation prohibiting replacement workers for 30 years, and there have been no catastrophes.

In spite of Conservative opposition, the Bloc Québécois was able to have Bill C-257 passed on second reading, and got it as far as the report stage. That was the first time an anti-strikebreaker bill had made it that far. The Liberals, who had supported the bill in principle on second reading, ultimately did an about-face and said the bill would not have guaranteed that essential services would be maintained.

The Canada Labour Code already includes provisions that require both the employer and unionized employees to continue the supply of services, operation of facilities or production of goods to the extent necessary to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public. The Conservative government, and now the Liberal Party, have done their best to ignore these provisions.

In the March 21, 2007, vote on Bill C-257, during the last Parliament, the Conservatives and the Liberals, with the exception of some Liberal members from Quebec, joined forces to defeat the bill by a vote of 177 to 122. It is important to remember that this Minister of Labour, the same one who fiercely condemned the Bloc Québécois bill and made all kinds of irrational arguments, supported a bill to prohibit replacement workers in 1990. The Liberals tried to avoid completely losing face by introducing a bill similar to the one drafted by the Bloc Québécois. There was not enough time to vote on that bill before the election was called.

I want everyone to understand that we are making a direct connection between the Conservatives' opposition to anti-scab legislation and special bills because the right to negotiate is a basic right. However, Quebeckers also believe that the right to balanced bargaining power is a basic right.

I am pleased to be discussing Bill C-386 here in the House. The Speaker recently received a letter dated December 1 from the Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communications. This association, Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communications, wrote to the Speaker. It is worth hearing what they had to say. The association wrote to the Speaker of the House of Commons to recommend that he vote against Bill C-386. This is a group of employers under federal jurisdiction. Apparently, it is an organization that strongly opposes the rights currently in force in Quebec. I will list some of the members: Air Canada, WestJet, VIA Rail, Canada Post, Fedex, Iron Ore, NAV CANADA, Purolator, Telus, Canadian Pacific, the Airports Association and Bell Canada.

The association does not include banks, which have employees under federal jurisdiction, but they have their own association. It is very interesting to read what the association wrote to the Speaker of the House to convince him to vote against the bill. I will read it in English.

They believe it is bad public policy because it would shift the balance of power in collective bargaining overwhelmingly in favour of the unions.

That is like saying that it is the employers who hold the power right now, and if this bill were ever introduced, it would shift the power to unions. This is despite the fact that the bill has evolved. Essential services have been added. Despite the fact that this works very well in Quebec, there is always this direct opposition from employers. This is important.

They thought it would be good to form an association, the Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communications, to address this. Their letter indicates that 14 anti-scab bills have been introduced since 2000, and they are quite proud that none of those bills has passed.

In the end, they always win. It is clear in their correspondence, and in 1977 Quebec passed anti-scab legislation to ensure some degree of balance.

So employers form an association and send letters to say that if this ever changes, the unions will have all the power. This means that right now, it is the employers that have all the power. But anti-scab legislation, legislation that would prohibit replacement workers and ensure that essential services would be maintained, is a form of balance. This has definitely been proven in Quebec. Once again, it is a difficult situation. When 92% of unionized employees in a nation like Quebec are covered by anti-scab legislation, and the other 8% fall under the Canada Labour Code and do not have the same ability to negotiate or enjoy the same labour relations, this creates a clear imbalance.

Earlier I gave some examples of labour disputes that have occurred, of delays in negotiations, and the use of scabs to allow the work to continue and allow the business to operate as it did before without having to use the employees. Of course, this only fuels the debates.

This often provokes nasty situations. Indeed, people are very unhappy when no progress is being made in negotiations. The employer continues to count on replacement workers to carry on its operations. At this time, in any civilized employer-employee relationship, anti-scab legislation with the maintenance of essential services is necessary. This is what we are proposing in the bill I am introducing here today in my name and on behalf of the Bloc.

We are not engaging in these debates and making these proposals without support. There is a real consensus in the union movement to support this anti-scab bill. This legislation is supported by the Canadian Labour Congress; the Fédération des travailleurs et des travailleuses du Québec; the Confédération des syndicats nationaux (CSN); the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE); the Public Service Alliance of Canada; the Brotherhoods of Locomotive Engineers of Manitoba, Ontario, British Columbia, New Brunswick and Alberta; the Syndicat des employé-e-s de techniques professionnelles et de bureau d'Hydro-Québec; the Ontario Teachers' Federation; the Congress of Union Retirees Canada; the United Food and Commercial Workers Union; the Manitoba Federation of Labour; and the Graphic Communications International Union.

We have support to offset the Federally Regulated Employers—Transportation and Communications, this association of federally regulated employers that has formed and is sending letters to the Speaker of the House of Commons. It is only natural that there should be a balance. As the letter I read earlier said, things are currently weighted in favour of the employers. It is only natural that unionized workers should want a better balance. That is why Bill C-386 is the answer. It prohibits replacement workers and maintains essential services.

I call on all the members of this House to support Bill C-386.

[Infrastructure, December 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Ottawa is responsible for the deadline. It is the government that put that in its latest report.

The Conservatives must take people for fools when they say that 97% of the funding in their stimulus package has already been committed. If there were just 3% left to allocate, the Fédération Québécoise des Municipalités and the Union des municipalités du Québec would not be worried that a number of infrastructure projects will not be funded.

To avoid penalizing municipalities in Quebec, will the government show some flexibility?

[Infrastructure, December 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, recent municipal elections throughout Quebec have caused delays of at least three months in project submissions by a number of municipalities. By setting January 29, 2010, as the cutoff date for funding projects under the infrastructure stimulus fund and the recreation infrastructure program, the Conservatives will deprive Quebec of good projects and many jobs.

By refusing to push back the deadlines for approving projects, does the Conservative government realize that it is mostly penalizing municipalities in Quebec?