Raymond Côté

[Copyright Modernization Act, February 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her very relevant question. Yesterday, I was watching the Radio-Canada show Enquête, which was reporting on the scandalous behaviour of the authorities and their accomplices in the asbestos industry. We saw exactly the same thing with the tobacco industry. It is absolutely unbelievable. I want to thank the hon. member because she is exposing the same modus operandi, the same danger to the general public. It is scandalous to subject some 34 million Canadians to some very narrow special interest groups.

[Copyright Modernization Act, February 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my answer to the member is simple. I am a father. Sometimes, when dealing with certain behaviours, we must keep repeating ourselves. We will not hesitate in the least. If the government continues down this road, I believe that millions of Canadians will say again and again that they no longer accept this at all.

[Copyright Modernization Act, February 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I feel very honoured today, as the member for Beauport—Limoilou, to be one of the few members who is able to speak in the House about this bill. In fact, it is completely shameful that the government is imposing a gag order to basically prevent us—one could even go so far as to mention censorship—from offering our suggestions and stating the reasons why we are concerned.

As long as this dialogue of the deaf continues, we will continue to make and reiterate our suggestions and those that Canadians have expressed to us directly. Let us be fair. Abusing gag orders and using them repeatedly is a cowardly way for the government to avoid doing its duty in the House. That is a fact.

I will now focus on Bill C-11. I would like to seize this opportunity to talk about the economic impacts we can expect if this bill is passed. Members will have noted that this is a topic that I am particularly concerned about and that I have spoken about in the House many times. Unfortunately, the Conservatives were listening only half-heartedly, if at all, except to sometimes hurl insults.

What is truly a shame, what is truly unfortunate is that many aspects of the bill that we are debating today, as it now stands, are valid, in whole or in part. We could agree on these aspects or request certain amendments.

However, the members opposite refuse to listen to what we have to say about the other aspects of the bill, which are a cause of great concern to us and which we oppose because of the damaging, if not completely unfair, impact they would have on all Canadians. It is truly appalling.

The debate on Bill C-11, like all debates in the 41st Parliament, shows just how dysfunctional the House of Commons has unfortunately become. If I take the liberty of using that word, it is because it has already been used in the past to call an election and to try to muzzle the opposition.

I am here because I am deeply concerned about certain specific aspects of the bill. In fact, I would like to raise two specific issues, two aspects of the bill that are of great concern to me. I am completely shocked that members of the government party are defending these truly negative aspects of the bill so strongly.

I would like to begin with the first aspect. The scope of digital lock protection under C-11 is huge. It is absolutely unbelievable. In fact, one has to wonder for which particular interests the government is working so hard.

Yesterday, when speaking about the motion we had the honour to move, I condemned the government for abandoning not only workers and pensioners, but all Canadians, because of the flaws in the Investment Canada Act. At present, anyone is more or less completely free to steal jobs, intellectual property, our heritage and our resources, right out from under our noses. These resources belong to all of us. The digital lock protection proposal goes so far that it is practically a submission. The word is not too strong. The government is imposing something that is almost a submission to special interests, particularly foreign interests.

There are other repercussions. Such broad protection could cause other problems because it would not respect certain provincial jurisdictions. This would even have legal repercussions concerning some aspects of our Constitution. This protection, this advantage, could go so far as to create a quasi-oligopoly among the multinationals that hold the copyright to certain works.

What would be the result? It is a basic economic principle. When an oligopoly exists, as is the case in other industrial sectors and areas of economic activity, we can expect upward pressure on prices. All of us, ordinary consumers, all Canadians, would pay the price because a very small group of copyright holders would impose their rules, their prices and their distribution limits on our market. This could have unbelievable and devastating repercussions. We must be aware of this. Time allocation is nothing short of an outrage, because it prevents us from examining all the repercussions of this bill. It is truly unbelievable.

There is something else that I find ridiculous. I would even laugh about it, if not for the truly serious consequences of the penalties for those who try to circumvent a digital lock. How can we support the potential criminalization of users who may be students or grandmothers? I know many women over 60 who use the Internet and the new tools a great deal. They could be fined up to $1 million and sentenced to up to five years in prison for circumventing a digital lock deliberately or inadvertently, as it might be someone in their family or circle of friends who did it.

A two-year prison sentence results in a criminal record, which precludes travel to the United States, for example. Such a harsh sentence for circumventing a digital lock? Where is the logic? How can the government defend this measure and threaten thousands of Canadians with such a stiff penalty? This is definitely like using a sledgehammer to kill a fly. I realize that the government has shown rather poor judgment in its decisions, such as the procurement of military equipment. We are trying to reach out and offer our help so that it makes better choices. But this is going too far.

The government's complete unwillingness to listen and its very disrespectful answers show the extent to which this government is against Canadian society. Its contempt for most members of this House is unacceptable behaviour and cannot be condoned by anyone. Our concerns are legitimate. We are not asking the government to reject all of Bill C-11; we are just asking that it listen to us. We spoke to specific groups and we want to make amendments. We even want to work with the government because, I repeat, the bill contains some valid elements. These elements will fall by the wayside and this government, as it often does, will not hesitate to accuse us in a backhanded and malicious way of voting against this bill.

The government is refusing to listen to us and will make millions of Canadians pay. This type of behaviour must stop. If the government continues to act this way in the next four years, it will pay a high price. I will personally see to it.

[Copyright Modernization Act, February 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I am not happy about the time allocation, which severely limits our debates and enables the government to ignore its obligations to the House. I would like to talk about the interests that this bill really protects: the interests of the powerful.

Yesterday, the Minister of Industry said that the Investment Canada Act should not be strengthened in a way that would hurt investors. The government is applying the same logic to Bill C-11. We are all being sacrificed to special interests, and we have no idea of the consequences of that.

I would like to ask the member how much this will cost taxpayers. If such powerful locks are instituted, the content owners who hold the rights and privileges associated with those locks will be able to do whatever they want price-wise and laugh all the way to the bank. What restrictions will be in place with respect to content distribution? How much will these access restrictions cost students and legitimate users who can currently use content for different purposes, including learning?

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Burnaby—New Westminster for the question. It could have been a rather funny quip. As a Christian, I have to say that this government is upholding the Christian value of sharing—that is, sharing poverty. That is clearly the situation. And that is what is really terrible. They are just encouraging mediocrity and the pillaging of our resources. And not just our natural resources, but also our human resources, our ability to create wealth.

I cannot get over it. It seems that this government is bowing down to a small group of interests, that it wants to maintain these relationships at all costs, and that it has abandoned 33 million Canadians for the sake of a few hundred well-off people. It is absolutely unbelievable

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question because I agree with him.

Let us ask the question clearly: why do good jobs that pay $35 an hour have to be wiped out at all costs under false pretences—whether those jobs are in the private sector or the public sector? What does that do for society? How is it bad for society, people, our constituents if those well-paying jobs that provide an annual income of $80,000 or $100,000 are maintained? Those employees provide significant spinoffs in the places where they live.

Thousands of businesses in Canada, thousands of small businesses end up suffering the consequences of outright abandonment and widespread impoverishment. It is scandalous.

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, this morning I am honoured to speak to this motion and defend the interests of thousands of workers across Canada. We are not talking about just the workers at Electro-Motive in London and White Birch Paper in Quebec City. We are talking about the large number of workers and retirees who have been directly or indirectly affected by the government's wholesale, reprehensible desertion of their cause.

I would like to sincerely thank my colleague from London—Fanshawe for having moved this motion and for giving me the opportunity to share my thoughts about it on this opposition day.

I will concentrate on the situation in Quebec City, beginning with some background information. It is important to understand all of the ins and outs. What happened at the Stadacona plant in Quebec City had nothing to do with market forces, constraint, profitability issues or anything like that, and everything to do with a manoeuvre that, unfortunately, within the existing legal framework, enabled outright theft, and I am choosing my words carefully. For months, I have been talking to the workers, the union and retirees to gain an understanding of the situation. I have had access to privileged information, and what happened in Quebec City is a real scandal.

Not long ago, on January 11 in Quebec City, White Birch Paper management sent employees a final offer, an ultimatum actually, which a staggering 91% of the employees rejected. We must not forget that, in December, around the holidays, these offers were preceded by a separate offer sent to the Rivière-du-Loup and Masson-Angers plants, which 99% of the workers rejected. From the start, White Birch Paper management has been trying to divide and conquer so that it can exploit Canadian families, families in Quebec City and elsewhere in the province.

On January 12, following what appears to have been an unfounded lockout ordered on December 9, 2011, White Birch Paper announced the permanent closure of the Quebec City plant without giving any reasons for the closure. Management talked about profitability and the impossibility of continuing operations. Unfortunately, White Birch Paper is a privately owned corporation, so it is not transparent and does not disclose information about production, profitability and what was really going on in its three plants. White Birch Paper also has a plant in the United States, where it is facing legal action because of manoeuvres that are considered fraudulent under U.S. law.

In response to the permanent closure, the union prepared a plan, a list of offers to reopen negotiations with management. In the end, management agreed, albeit half-heartedly, and negotiations are currently under way. Although I do not want to assume anything, I think I can guess the outcome. Unfortunately, there is a good chance the workers will be cheated once again, but we must give the negotiations a chance. We have always defended this principle. We defended it last spring during the Canada Post dispute, which was an unjust lockout. Thus, we must give the negotiations a chance.

Another important deadline is February 17, when the parties are scheduled to go back to court, and we know that the company has been under CCAA protection for the past two years. Justice Robert Mongeon will decide what happens next. Justice Mongeon has been very patient and very conciliatory, I might add. He has granted several extensions to allow White Birch Paper to come up with a solution and reach an agreement with its workers. The management of White Birch Paper has therefore had plenty of opportunities to address the challenges presented by the company's so-called difficult situation.

From the information I have gleaned and the conversations I have had with various stakeholders, the reality is that the current owner, Peter Brant, is a social misfit, an enemy of society in general, especially in Canada. Those are the facts.

The first company on the list of creditors is Black Diamond Capital Management, which happens to be the company that would buy back White Birch Paper's assets. White Birch owes Black Diamond Capital Management $157 million. Peter Brant, the current owner of White Birch Paper, is also involved in Black Diamond Capital Management, so this whole affair is quite dubious. I have a serious problem with that.

I do not want to name all of the creditors on that list, but there are several all over the world, particularly in the United States, including Credit Suisse—which is owed $32 million—GE Capital, Merrill Lynch and Dune Capital. White Birch Paper owes tens of millions of dollars to a slew of creditors and investment funds.

What really happened? The hon. member for London—Fanshawe provided an accurate summary of the situation. Unfortunately, under the existing legislative framework, money can be stolen outright, and it is Canadian families who have to pay the price. We are talking about 600 families of workers and as many, if not more, families of pensioners, not to mention a number of company closures. This has an enormous impact. Hundreds of other indirect jobs will also be lost as a result of the closure of the plant in Quebec City alone, not to mention the two other plants in Rivière-du-Loup and Masson-Angers.

Looking at the existing situation, we wonder why the current government is acting as an accomplice in outright theft—theft that, unfortunately, is legal because the laws are not adequate. I will not mention our private member's bill on the Investment Canada Act since the hon. member for London—Fanshawe has already given a clear and brilliant speech on that. I spoke with representatives of the Regroupement des employés retraités White Birch-Stadacona. They were shocked and gave their unconditional support for our bill on the protection of pension plan funds in the case of bankruptcy. The lawyer for the pensioners' association said it best when he stated that this is the law Canada needs to solve the problem.

Our two bills—we are focusing on just these two—are important in order to maintain a balance in industrial labour relations and labour relations in general. At the same time, the government must take responsibility for its people and protect Canada's interests, which it is not doing. We have a legal framework, but it is not necessarily enforced. There are no constraints, as the Investment Canada Act currently demonstrates. The government can close its eyes and say that it is sorry, that it cannot help what is happening, and that it believes the rich and ultra-rich who are basically vulgar social misfits and behave like common criminals by stealing from the people around them.

This government is basically an enemy of workers, pensioners and all Canadian families. A good example of this is the private member's bill that the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale is trying to introduce, which directly attacks the ability of workers to associate in order to negotiate in good faith, as equals, with their employers.

The government is handing Canadian families over, with their hands tied, to a few national, but mostly foreign, interests. It is scaring away jobs, billions of dollars in capital and an industrial potential of which we were rightly proud and which we are going to lose because this government has given up and refuses to face reality.

I will end on that point. I do not want to get involved in a chorus of insults. I am being upfront about what is particularly important to me.

[Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act, February 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my outrage at my colleague's comments. The reason the registry is not reliable is that this government deliberately neglected it. Amnesty after amnesty, criticism after criticism—it is no wonder the registry is full of holes.

Here is a useful analogy: if I repeatedly neglected to pay my electricity bill and my phone bill month after month, I would be in the dark, I would be cold, and I would have no way to contact my electricity company to ask them to turn the power back on. That is obvious.

Now that they have deliberately created a crisis, how can my colleagues opposite continue to support a bill to dismantle the registry that they spent the last six years undermining?

I cannot believe it. How can my colleague continue to support that position?

[Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act, February 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech very carefully, and I thank him for making it. I must admit, I simply do not understand why he continues to support the bill in its current form, especially since we made suggestions repeatedly in previous Parliaments to try to find some common ground. The main sticking point has to do with decriminalizing the failure to register a firearm.

Many of my friends are hunters, and I completely understand why someone who owns a firearm might feel harassed, or as though they were being treated like a potential criminal, for having to fill out a questionnaire. However, considering the value and usefulness of the firearms registry to police officers, families and even firearms users themselves, since it allows police to intervene safely, why is this government putting our law enforcement officials in danger by excluding these weapons?

[Business of Supply, February 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am always shocked to hear the Liberals and the Conservatives alike defend pension plans that are administered by the private sector. At the beginning of the week, I read the comments of one analyst who said that, at this time, private pension funds are being suffocated by current conditions and the low interest rate, and by the fact that it is very difficult to get decent returns from the stock market.

So, how can my colleague support a solution that would exacerbate the problem, rather than advocating, as we do, a solution that relies on a safe, public, proven and strong system, as even the government recognizes?