Richard Nadeau

[Human Pathogens and Toxins Act, April 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague to elaborate on a point. Why do we find ourselves in a situation where the federal government will once again attempt to interfere with Quebec's areas of jurisdiction?

[Human Pathogens and Toxins Act, April 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of my colleague.

Did I hear correctly that Quebec's health minister is opposed to this bill because it encroaches on the province's jurisdiction?

We know that pathogen issues fall under provincial jurisdiction. If I understand correctly, Quebec's health minister, Mr. Bolduc, is strongly opposed. He is not the only one, since I believe other provinces also voiced their opinions. I would like to hear more about this.

[Public Service, April 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, like the Liberals, the Conservatives have abandoned the Outaouais. For every dollar this government spends, just a penny and a half goes to our region. The research centre situation is just as bad. There are 27 of them in Ottawa and not a single one in Gatineau, which means that our region has been deprived of 1,500 jobs.

How can the minister expect anyone to believe him when he talks about job creation in the Outaouais when, as the employer, he is unable to give Gatineau its due?

[Public Service, April 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, this morning, the vice-president of the Public Service Alliance pointed out that the 75/25 policy covers federal jobs, not office space. Simple logic applies: Gatineau wants its fair share of the federal presence because of the economic spinoffs.

Will the Conservative government quit its word games, accept its responsibilities and correct this injustice, which has been going on for far too long?

[Atlantic Lobster Fishery, April 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to the motion by the member for Cardigan, which essentially calls for a licence buyout program for Atlantic lobster fishers.

Although a number of industries are looking for support from Ottawa, the Conservative government seems to have relegated the fisheries to the sidelines.

Yet this very important industry has many challenges as it faces a more complex problem: the decline of certain stocks and the fact that others, which have been under a moratorium for years, have not recovered.

The Bloc Québécois has long called for a licence buyout program for certain species, such as ground fish. In our opinion, this is necessary for the survival of the east coast fisheries.

The member for Cardigan will have no problem getting support from the Bloc Québécois for a program to rationalize the fisheries as long as that program is funded with new money and the buyouts do not affect regional shares of the fish stocks.

I would like to take a moment to look at what has led to this problem. How have we reached the point where we are setting up programs to pay fishers to stop fishing?

From where we stand, the problem is that both the Conservatives and the Liberals as acting as if they no longer believed in the viability of the fishing industry. The Liberals have failed to manage the resource with a view to ensuring sustainable development. They have tolerated overfishing and have let marine infrastructure deteriorate.

As for the Conservatives, they are keeping the industry in uncertainty with their arbitrary management of the resource. The Liberals are to blame for the depletion of fish stocks. By failing to respond to foreign overfishing and to carefully manage groundfish stocks, the Liberals have mortgaged the future of fisheries and made moratoriums necessary.

The Conservatives are managing the resource arbitrarily. Under the current Conservative government, fisheries management is more arbitrary than ever. Loyola Hearn, the former fisheries and oceans minister and member for a Newfoundland riding, seemed to care only about Newfoundland and the Maritimes. There are many examples.

First, in 2006, Loyola Hearn allocated an additional quota of 7,000 tons of shrimp to Newfoundland fishers, despite the fact that markets were already saturated. As a result, in the middle of the fishing season, Quebec fishers had to agree to a 2.5¢ cent drop in the landing price.

Second, the current Conservative government was slow in implementing a review process for the sharing of seal stocks, because the status quo was favouring Newfoundland, the former fisheries and oceans minister's home province.

Third, on November 8, 2006, lobster fishers from the Magdalen Islands had the McLeod shoal, a high potential 50 nautical mile square fishing zone, taken away from them and given to PEI fishers.

Since the last election, we have a new Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who acts just like her predecessor. In early April, the current fisheries and oceans minister approved a shrimp harvesting plan for the Gulf of St. Lawrence for 2009, which provides for the quota to be permanently allocated to Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.

Clearly, that is an outrageous decision.

Once again, a minister favours her province. The present Minister of Fisheries and Oceans represents one of the four ridings of Prince Edward Island. Moreover, the minister reduces Quebec and New Brunswick quotas to give them to provinces who do not even have a shrimp processing industry. This is a blatant scandal. The decision completely ignores precautionary and preservation principles since the total catch limit is being raised by 1,000 tonnes despite the fact that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans scientists recommended the status quo.

We can understand better now why we have to pay fishermen to stop fishing. For decades, successive Liberal and Conservative governments allowed overfishing and squandered fish resources for short-term political gain. The Bloc Quebecois is asking for an end to the politicization of fisheries management. Decisions must be taken on the basis of scientific data. We must stop seeing fish stock as electoral goodies that can be given to a region.

In the last election, the Bloc proposed an ambitious plan to stimulate the fishery. That plan is now more pertinent than ever since besides helping workers in the industry, it could stimulate the economy at a time where it continues to sink. Let me describe the main features of the plan.

In terms of marine infrastructure, major investments have to be made to repair core small craft harbours in Canada and Quebec.

Concerning the cost of licences, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans must reconsider that cost to take into account the value of landings and ensure the implementation of a policy regarding the reimbursement of the unused portion of fishing licences.

On the seal hunt issue, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans must guarantee Quebec a share of seal quotas so we can have a viable industry in Quebec. It must also put in place an assistance plan with respect to groundfish to help industries, plant workers and fishers.

The Bloc Québécois proposes that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans do another round of fishing licence buyback. In the short term, the federal government must develop special EI measures and put in place a program for older workers.

In terms of international competition, the Canadian government must participate actively in the development of an enforceable international framework so that an environmentally-friendly aquaculture industry can be developed.

Unless a reciprocal bilateral agreement ensuring freer access to markets is signed, the Bloc Québécois believes that Canada should impose a tariff equal to that allowed under the most favoured nation status on imports of seafood products from WTO member countries.

In conclusion, we are saying yes to a new round of licence buyback. However, we believe that it is even more important to put a stop to political patronage in this industry and to implement a real policy to stimulate the fishing industry.

[Vancouver 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games, April 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is just ridiculous how little effort the federally subsidized Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games has devoted to the francophone aspect of the games.

At the countdown ceremony, the only francophone representation was a single musician who admitted that he had likely been chosen at the last minute because of his French name.

There is precious little francophone involvement in the pre-Olympic concert events. VANOC has defended itself by saying that there will be performances by Beast, a group from Quebec that sings in English, Bell Orchestre, whose website is in English only, and Manitoba Metis Music and Dance, which does not sing in French.

When will the government take VANOC to task for failing to comply with the terms of the contribution agreements relating to the presence of French at the games?

[Replacement Workers, April 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is my great honour and pleasure to talk about Motion No. 294 to amend the Canada Labour Code to prohibit the use of replacement workers, thus relegating them to a chapter in history, and a dark one at that.

On 11 separate occasions, the Bloc Québécois has introduced bills to harmonize the Canada Labour Code with the Quebec Labour Code. On 11 separate occasions, the Liberals and the Conservatives have worked together to defeat those bills. We came closest to passing a bill on the subject at hand during the last government. Unfortunately, when it reached report stage, the Liberals listened to their leader, the one who replaced Paul Martin, because they were so worried about Bay Street.

The day after they realized that our bill would not make it past second reading to third reading and then to the Senate before being passed into law, the Liberals introduced a very similar bill in which they changed just two words to try to save face. However, when the time came to place it on the orders of the day for debate in the House of Commons, it was delayed for so long that the sponsor, the labour critic, was replaced by another member who was strongly opposed to the bill. They saved face and remained true to form. Dark blue or red, they are cut from the same cloth and they all have it in for workers.

It is also important to remember that the first time the Bloc Québécois introduced this bill, the NDP voted against it because the nasty separatists were introducing a bill. Fortunately, they saw the light, which I hope the Liberals and Conservatives will do one day, and they supported us the other 10 times. We want people to know that. We must avoid repeating the ignominy of violating the rights of striking or locked-out workers who are out picketing while people are taking their jobs so that the employer keeps turning a profit while the workers are forced to live on the meagre strike pay they get, if they get any at all. When this happens, the two sides are not negotiating on a level playing field.

We must also remember that when the previous government was in power, 19 Conservatives voted to refer the bill to committee. But when the time came to take a formal stand, only one stood up and the other 18 toed the party line and voted against workers.

In Quebec, 7% of workers are likely to fall victim to strikebreakers, because they are governed by the Canada Labour Code. In 1977, during the first term of the PQ government of René Lévesque, a sovereigntist government that cared about Quebec and its workers, the National Assembly passed an anti-scab law, which is still in effect today. It is still in effect, and it has shortened strikes. During negotiations, it has become imperative to find a way to avoid a strike. But in sectors under federal jurisdiction, strikes took place after 1977, and they were often extremely violent. People crossed the picket lines and took food out of the mouths of the strikers' children. The strikers negotiated in good faith while these people took away their livelihood.

And all under the eyes of the federal government. That is completely unacceptable. Harmony is needed and the Bloc Québécois is the party of Quebeckers. Since 1993 we have held a majority of the seats in the House of Commons because the people of Quebec trust the Bloc Québécois, because we fight so that Quebeckers will have better living conditions and to make sure that the money sent to the federal government, as long as we are in this federation, comes back to us so that it respects the consensus in the National Assembly of Quebec.

Anti-scab legislation is essential if we are to have civilized bargaining when disputes occur. In fact, there is no real, full recognition of the right to strike unless the use of scabs, the people who take away workers’ jobs during a strike, is prohibited.

In October 2003, the Bloc Québécois introduced a petition with 46,000 signatures supporting the position of workers and calling on the government to enact anti-scab legislation.

Under the last Conservative government—you were there, Mr. Speaker—we will recall what the Minister of Labour at the time, the member for Jonquière—Alma, had to say. In 1990 he supported an anti-scab bill, when he was an MP in the Mulroney government. He voted in favour of that legislation. And then, when he became a minister, he turned his back on workers.

I was the sponsor of Bill C-257, to introduce anti-scab legislation. In the Human Resources Committee I heard apocalyptic tales, things that simply could not be believed. My stars, it was worthy of a B-grade horror movie. He said that if the baggage handlers at an airport went on strike, Canada’s economy would be paralyzed. Any more and he would have said that the earth would stop rotating on its axis. There was a provision for maintaining essential services.

For a minister to say things like that amounts to saying just anything at all. He said that if telephone operators went on strike, 911 would cease to function. Any more and he would have had the crime rate quintupling or more, because that falls under telecommunications, and that is under federal jurisdiction.

He did go farther. He spoke directly to the Liberals in committee and told them that when they returned to power—and that indicates just how much confidence he has in his government—recess would be over because of the separatists in the Bloc and the New Democrats and they would have labour relations problems, and that is completely false.

British Columbia has also had anti-scab legislation since 1993, and Quebec has had it since 1977. I hope that Quebeckers who fly the red or dark blue colours today remember that this bill has brought about a much healthier labour relations climate in Quebec and much less violence in labour relations situations under Quebec’s jurisdiction. It covers 93% of workers in Quebec.

I hope that members will have their hearts in the right place and will allow the other 7% of workers in Quebec to enjoy the benefits of anti-scab legislation. At the same time, and as fallout from that, I am proud to say that Canadians throughout Canada will benefit from it as well.

[Communication Games, April 23rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, the 13th Jeux de la communication were held in Montreal in March. More than 300 students from nine universities in eastern Canada participated in competitions in 13 different categories. This was the first competition for the delegation from Université du Québec en Outaouais, which was very successful and won nine awards.

UQO was first in debating with Patrick Robert-Meunier, second in social communication with Jean-François Morissette and Michael O'Farrell, third in journalistic interviewing with Laurie Trudel and fourth in television news with Karine DeFoy.

Furthermore, the UQO delegation was given special mention on five occasions by the other universities.

The Bloc Québécois and I congratulate this delegation from Université du Québec en Outaouais on its fine performance.

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2009]

Madam Speaker, members opposite like mixing everything up to keep their demagogy at a constant shameful level.

The gun registry is already in place and its operating costs are now known. The system works well and thanks to it, police forces know if there is a firearm in a house when they have to intervene. It reinforces prevention and that is the important thing.

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ajax—Pickering.

Basically, it is not a question of money or investments, but a question of life and death.

The gun registry is a proven system. Various police forces use it more than 9,000 times every day to prevent more murders and to find out what firearms there are in the houses where they are about to intervene in order to prepare themselves accordingly. That is where the system shines. It is not a question of costs. We cannot put a price on a human life. That cannot be measured in millions or in billions of dollars. Every life is worth saving and the gun registry with its proven track record is a solution. That is at the heart of our debate.