Robert Bouchard

[Business of Supply, April 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and speak to this motion on military operations in Afghanistan, especially since a number of Canadian Forces personnel from 3 Wing Bagotville in my riding of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord are actively involved in the mission. I want to salute their courage and dedication.

Regardless of the disagreements that members of the House of Commons may have regarding the mission in Afghanistan, we all have full confidence in our men and women in the field. There is also no question of an early withdrawal of our troops before 2009. Canada has a duty to inform its allies before withdrawing its troops from Afghanistan because the 2009 deadline is rapidly approaching. That is basically what this motion proposes.

Even though we on this side of the House support the motion, we also propose a rebalancing of the operations in Afghanistan, particularly in regard to Canada’s strategy for supporting peace in Afghanistan and the mandate and methods of the Canadian armed forces.

The people of Canada and Quebec are divided on the issue of our military presence in Afghanistan. The Quebec nation has values and interests of its own, and whenever the Bloc Québécois takes a position on a motion or a bill, it must always ask itself whether this is in the interests of Quebec. Am I for this or against it? Each time we try to decide what the government of a sovereign Quebec would do. That is why today’s debate is very important.

In light of what I have heard in the debates today, I believe that we need to rebalance the mission in Afghanistan. The basic objective of the international coalition and the NATO countries must be to rebuild the economy and democracy and make Afghanistan a viable country. To succeed in this, Canada must play a leadership role in delivering and distributing humanitarian aid for the reconstruction of Afghanistan. It is important to state very clearly, not only for the members of the coalition and the NATO countries but also for the people of Quebec and Canada, that the Canadian army in Afghanistan is going to rebalance its efforts in the field.

The Bloc Québécois has always supported sending troops to Afghanistan as part of a NATO mission. The operation that Canada undertook was more or less a peace mission to stabilize the Kabul region and surrounding areas. Unfortunately, it has become a war operation.

Why are the people of Canada and Quebec still so divided when it comes to the presence of the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan? The people have been told that the Taliban rebels have a fallback position in Pakistan and that they are getting stronger, not weaker. That is the situation. Moreover, according to NATO officials in charge of military deployment, there are not enough troops.

Quebeckers and Canadians must be given assurances that the government is capable of taking the Afghanistan situation to the next level after 2009. Right now, people think that the mission in Afghanistan is getting more and more dangerous.

The situation is getting a lot more dangerous, but there is still time to change the thrust of international intervention. Doing so is becoming more urgent. We will not win the support of the Afghan people by just fighting the Taliban with our weapons and chasing them around the mountains.

The Bloc Québécois is talking about bringing a new balance to the mission. If we continue doing what we are doing, more lives may be lost. Shifting the mission's focus in the following three areas is urgent.

First, we must increase reconstruction assistance and do a better job of coordinating it. From 2001 to 2006, Canada spent $1.8 billion on military efforts and only $300 million on reconstruction. This is extremely unbalanced. Put simply, this is a ratio of $6 to $1. For every $6 spent on military activities and offensive action, $1 was spent on reconstruction and humanitarian aid.

Second, the nature of our military activities must change. Everyone knows that we cannot provide assistance effectively without a minimum level of security. General Richards, the head of NATO forces there, is asking NATO countries for 2,500 more soldiers. Let me be clear: we will not succeed by repeatedly increasing the number of troops. We must remember that the priority in Afghanistan must be speeding up development and reconstruction.

Third, we must drastically change how we look at the opium problem. Afghanistan is the source of 90% of the world's heroin supply. While maintaining our efforts against drug traffickers, we must propose an alternative to Afghan farmers by helping them establish programs for new crops, to grow something other than poppies, and we must help them build infrastructures such as roads, wells, public markets and hospitals.

Social development in Afghanistan is appalling. In 2004, this country was ranked 173rd out of 178 countries listed on the human development index.

The purpose of today's debate is to clarify the situation with respect to the coalition member countries and NATO member countries, as well as Canada's role after 2009. Like the people of Canada and Quebec, those countries have the right to know the issues and repercussions involved in the active participation of the armed forces and to demand that, as quickly as possible, Canadian operations focus more on humanitarian aid, social development and peacekeeping.

With respect to the mandates and methods used by the armed forces, our soldiers must not be like warriors or vigilantes. Rather, they should be considered more as agents of peace and reconstruction.

The most important thing is to redefine the mandate of our soldiers in Afghanistan. We must be able to measure the progress made. From that perspective, if we cannot quantify the progress, it becomes clear that public opinion will focus only on the loss of human life we are suffering.

Quebeckers and Canadians are willing to send troops to Afghanistan, but only if their safety can be ensured.

This is why the government must establish precise timeframes to rebalance the mission, and ensure that our soldiers have the resources they need to carry out reconstruction and security work in the field.

In closing, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I would like to remind the House that, if the balance of this mission is not restored, we will no longer be able to support an operation that is doomed to failure.

[Grands Prix du tourisme québécois, March 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, a number of agencies in the Saguenay were rewarded on March 24 at the 22nd regional Grands Prix du tourisme québécois awards. The regional winners who received honours include: the Festival International des Rythmes du Monde; the Saguenay Musée du Fjord; Parc Aventures Cap Jaseux; Auberge des Battures in Saguenay; the Domaine du Lac Ha ! Ha!; and Promotion Saguenay. These recipients won a prize for their distinction in tourism in their respective categories.

I want to acknowledge in particular the contribution of Cindy Gagnon from the Auberge de la Grande-Baie in Saguenay, who was honoured in the “young tourism talent” category.

I salute the excellence of the artisans from the riding of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord and the 41 finalists from the entire Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area, who attract thousands of tourists every year and who are part of our regional heritage.

[Petitions, March 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, for the fourth time, a petition by several hundred citizens of my riding of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord and the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region opposing budget cuts to the summer career placements program, which impacts my region. There have been about 450 student jobs lost. The summer career placements program is being replaced by the Canada summer jobs program.

These individuals are opposed to the new program and also to changes in the criteria and the fact that decisions will no longer be made in the riding of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord nor in my region, but rather in Montreal and Ottawa. This was a power given to MPs and it is being transferred to another level of government, either in Montreal or in Quebec City.

I am tabling this petition on behalf of these citizens and I am requesting that the Conservative Party in this House take it into consideration.

[Lac Pouce Centre, March 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Domaine de l'Amitié, known as the Centre du Lac Pouce, in Laterrière, provides services to young people aged 5 to 17. This centre offers vacation camps, either during the day, on weekends or during holidays, and integration camps for young people with autism.

After a fire tore through the main cabin in 2001, the directors did not give up. There are now 25,000 people attending the centre every year. Their determination was rewarded when they received the Prix d'excellence “Développement 2006” from the Association des camps du Québec. The centre just received the highest rating in the vacation camp category, and a four-star rating from Tourisme Québec.

Congratulations to all the directors of Domaine de l'Amitié for their hard work. They have my full support as they continue to work with the volunteers and fight to keep their funding from the Canada summer jobs program.

[Canada Summer Jobs, March 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, last Sunday, the Minister of Labour gave an interview to the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean Progrès-Dimanche in which he said he was disappointed that he had lost his discretionary power as a member of Parliament to award subsidies in the new Canada summer jobs program.

As the member for Jonquière—Alma, he was very open about criticizing that decision when in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region, but here in Ottawa, the minister is taking a completely different approach by remaining silent on the subject. If he really is that disappointed in his government's decision, it is his duty to express that here in this House just as he did in his riding. Many community organizations are concerned about the choice to centralize decision-making in Montreal and Ottawa, where regional realities are less well understood.

I would therefore urge the Minister of Labour to stop contradicting himself and denounce the Conservative government's decision here in Ottawa.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague on his speech on the fiscal imbalance.

At this time, the budget presented by the Conservative Party aims to begin resolving the issue of fiscal imbalance. Solutions are proposed to offset the fiscal imbalance, such as writing a cheque every year. What the Bloc Québécois has been calling for for years, rather, is a tax transfer. As my colleague explained very clearly, this would consist of tax point transfers or GST transfers to the Quebec government. This would place all fiscal responsibility on the Quebec government for planning its future revenue.

Now here is my question. Can my hon. colleague comment briefly or draw a parallel to explain to us the advantages of the formula proposed by the Bloc Québécois, that is, obtaining tax points or GST transfers instead of being given a cheque every year, based on the whim or impulse of the government of the day?

[Petitions, March 21st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present four petitions today from my riding of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord regarding the cuts to the summer career placement program. The hundreds of people who signed these petitions are calling on the House to keep and even improve the summer career placement program.

The petitions come from a number of organizations, including the Centre historique des Soeurs de Notre-Dame du Bon-Conseil, the Carrefour communautaire Saint-Paul, the Société historique du Saguenay, the Maison Ephata and the CDC des Deux-Rives. All those who signed are very worried about the intentions of the Conservative government.

I support these petitioners in calling on the Conservative government to cancel its planned cuts to the summer career placement program.

[Grande-Baie Alcan Factory, March 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the management and employees of the Grande-Baie Alcan factory recently ranked third in the world and first in North America for their health and safety record, out of all the aluminum factories of Alcan Primary Metal.

These employees can be proud, because it was a collective success. The factory is now a world leader in workplace health and safety.

I would like to congratulate the members of the Grande-Baie factory health and safety committee: Claude Desmeules, Mario A. Bouchard, Gilles Lessard, Mario Desjarlais, Carol Imbeault, Jeannot Bélanger, Fernand Boudreault, Michel Gauthier, Jeannot Savart, Marc Lavoie, and Caroline Veillette.

In recent years, the Grande-Baie factory has demonstrated a firm commitment to promoting the health and safety of its employees. Today, if the number of injuries has substantially decreased, it is because of the contribution of each and every person, without which this would never have been possible.

[Canada Labour Code, February 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on the anti-scab bill. This is not the first time that the Bloc Québécois has introduced a bill aimed at protecting the rights of workers. I believe the issue should have been resolved several years ago, long before the debate we are having now.

Following the speech made by the Minister of Labour and member for Jonquière—Alma during second reading of the bill, I would like to make some comments. I want to provide some clarification to the Minister of Labour, because, first and foremost, he comes from the riding where we find the highest number of unionized workers in Canada. When the Minister of Labour says that if we really give employees the right to strike without replacement workers it will put the Canadian and Quebec economy at risk, that shows he believes that workers are irresponsible people who do not think about the consequences of their action. Workers who go on strike do not do so light-heartedly and they understand quite well the consequences of such action.

I would also like to commend the work done by the union coalition in my area, which represents a vast majority of the unions in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and which emphasized to the Minister of Labour, the hon. member for Jonquière—Alma, the importance of adopting anti-scab legislation. The minister maintained his position, however, a position that we heard again here this evening. By making such a decision, the minister is turning his back on hundreds of workers in Quebec, in his riding of Jonquière—Alma and in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, the region and riding he represents.

How can the Minister of Labour oppose putting an end to the inequity that separates workers under the Quebec Labour Code from workers under the Canada Labour Code? What could possibly explain the labour minister's about-face, when—as my hon. colleague was saying earlier—in 1990, as the Progressive Conservative member for Jonquière—Alma, he supported the anti-scab bill? The minister can very well say that, in his new role, he must adopt a Canadian perspective of the situation. By taking this action, he is ignoring the reality in Quebec and failing to represent the workers in his riding of Jonquière—Alma. I would remind the House that, in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area, which includes his riding of Jonquière—Alma, some 6,000 workers are governed by the Canada Labour Code.

Prohibiting the hiring of replacement workers during a labour dispute is needed now more than ever. Furthermore, as we have already heard but I would like to reiterate, the studies cited by the minister all come from right-leaning organizations. Any study by the Montreal Economic Institute or the Fraser Institute invariably tends to support the interests of management and to back the employers. Anti-scab legislation has existed in Quebec for the past 30 years. As we have said, and I think it bears repeating, it was under the governance of the Parti Québécois, with René Lévesque as premier, that it was adopted in 1977 and came into force in 1978.

Of course, in Quebec, employers are not promoting the anti-scab measure but it must be said that they can very well live with it.

I want to give a few reasons why we should forbid replacement workers.

First, it would reduce violence on the picket lines. We know that relations are sometimes tense if not violent between strikers and replacement workers. Second, it would force employers to bargain in good faith with the workers to prevent them from extending the conflict, and impose a fair balance in the negotiations between employers and employees. The Canada Labour Code can be interpreted as saying that as long as the employer negotiates that is all that counts. Then, he can hire replacement workers.

There are other reasons. It could prevent households from going into debt when labour disputes last too long. A father must provide for several people. If the family has no income, he must borrow money.

There is also a very wide consensus among unions as to the importance of implementing anti-scab measures.

In today's work world, it is necessary because such measures ensure greater transparency during a conflict.

With this in mind, the current situation under the Canada Labour Code—allowing the use of replacement workers—means that there are very negative consequences during strikes and lockouts. These negative effects are numerous and suffice to illustrate the importance of introducing measures to reduce the length of labour disputes.

The premise is that labour disputes last longer when scabs are used. Even the president of the CSN stated, a few months ago, that everyone agrees that the anti-scab provisions of the Quebec labour code have made labour relations more civilized and contributed to industrial peace.

Such a statement is quite something. We must take note of this opinion. To give just a couple of examples, we believe that the Vidéotron and Cargill disputes would have been resolved much sooner with an anti-scab law under the Canada Labour Code.

Let us return to the Minister of Labour. A while back, not today, he provided some statistics and dramatized the situation that would result with the adoption of the measure in this legislation. I have the figures he gave at second reading of the bill in June: they do not reflect the reality.

In addition, we must consider some other decisive statistics. The average number of work days lost in Quebec is a concrete example. From 1992 to 2002, workers governed by the Quebec Labour Code lost 15.9 days compared to workers governed by the Canada Labour Code, who lost 31.1 days. There is a comparison.

There were twice as many—

[Bank Act, February 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague for his speech on the bill on bank regulation.

He talked briefly about the main objective of the Bloc Québécois concerning this bill, which is intended to promote competition. When there is more competition, there is necessarily a better service provided to the citizens. Competition is also essential to provide services at low costs.

As he said, the Bloc Québécois supports this bill. I would like to hear him on the following question. Could he tell us about the protection that citizens would have, through this bill, against the hungry banks that charge fees on all banking transactions?