Robert Vincent

[Petitions, May 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, at the request of some of my constituents, I am tabling a petition regarding Bill C-38.

[Government of Canada, May 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is ignoring the wishes of most of the parliamentarians in this House.

It started in October, when the Bloc Québécois introduced a subamendment to the throne speech calling for the resolution of the fiscal imbalance. Although it received the unanimous support of Parliament, the Liberal government has ignored it.

The federal government's disdain has reached new heights with its insouciant approach to the majority decisions of this House, for example, the creation of a plan to help older workers, the creation of a trust account for the tainted money and the reversal of the decision to close nine RCMP detachments in Quebec.

Do we have to hire Earnscliffe or Groupaction to get our message across?

Since the start of the 38th Parliament, this government has been besmirching democracy. It will have to acknowledge the confidence vote and act accordingly.

[Canada Labour Code, May 10th, 2005]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-380, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (pregnant or nursing employees).

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to introduce my first bill in this House, a bill to amend the Canada Labour Code for pregnant or nursing employees.

This bill amends the Canada Labour Code to allow the employee to avail herself of provincial legislation on preventive withdrawal from work.

This bill has earned the support of the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, the Bloc Québécois labour critic.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Quarantine Act, May 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite spoke to us about quarantine, customs, the RCMP and border patrol officers. I have a question for her. If we remove RCMP officers from border patrol, if there is only one person assigned to customs duties and we want to protect Canadians by applying quarantine in the event that people cross the border with the flu or other diseases, what can we do to inspect these people if they just go straight across the border, as is often the case?

How can we have control, put people in quarantine or do anything involving quarantine if there are no more police officers, nothing or no one to stop these people at the border?

[Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, May 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate the member for Winnipeg Centre for having intoduced the bill to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to provide better protection for workers. Several of my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois, myself included, would have introduced it if that had not been done already.

There is no need to tell you, therefore, that I am in favour of this important bill that would put workers first on the list of creditors when companies go bankrupt. The reason is simple and obvious: when a company goes bankrupt, it is indebted first and foremost, in my view, to its employees. They should be paid for the hours they worked. In addition, some employers do not hesitate to dip into the workers' pension fund in order to pay off creditors. This means that employers are paying off creditors with employees' money—money that does not belong to them. This is the reason it is somewhat understandable that the Liberals would hesitate to support this bill because they themselves have been misappropriating workers' money by looting the employment insurance fund.

Workers have much more to lose in case of bankruptcy than financial institutions. In light of the billions of dollars in profits that these private institutions make every year, it is only natural that the first creditors paid off by employers in case of bankruptcy should be their workers, whose only source of income is their employment.

Companies that are in danger of having to close their doors put employees in a difficult position. It is not only very hard for employees to evaluate the financial health of the companies for which they want to work but also more difficult for them to absorb a loss of income than it is for large private investors, such as banks.

Changing the law would give workers more security and companies would also benefit. Employers experiencing financial difficulties are at greater risk of losing their most valuable workers if their personnel does not have any protection. If employees knew that they would be first in line to be paid in case of bankruptcy, would they not obviously be less likely to leave their jobs if they sense that their company is in financial danger? Both employees and employers would benefit.

Unless the government wants to support creditors such as banks, I do not see any reason for members not to support this bill. One cannot be against virtue itself!

Hon. members will surely remember that, during the last election campaign, the Bloc Québécois made a commitment to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, so that workers' salaries and pensions would be the first debts to be repaid. Personally, I find it even harder to understand how, in a case of bankruptcy, the employer can have access to the workers' pension fund. A pension fund is money set aside for retirement. The employer also contributes to the pension fund, as provided under the collective agreement. That money does not, in any way, belong to the employer, and it should not be used to repay creditors in case of bankruptcy. The problem is that the current legislation allows that. This means that a company can use other people's money to repay its own debts. This is incredible. It does not make any sense.

What would hon. members say if the law allowed the government to dip into their pension fund when there is a budget deficit? There is no doubt in my mind that Bill C-281 would get the unanimous support of this House.

Yet, these members accept the fact that companies can freely use the workers' money to repay debts that have nothing to do with them. I am anxious to see how the Liberals from Quebec will vote on this issue.

In the meantime, they say the bill goes too far, that we have to think about the investors. The workers need to figure out how to cope with a smaller retirement fund, find another job, since they unwittingly did volunteer work for their employer. It is the wealthiest in our society who oppose this bill to protect the weakest from abuse in the private sector. The individual suffers for the benefit of the major investors, yet again.

With investment comes risk, but it is a calculated risk. A job should not be calculated as a risk factor, a job should provide security and stability. A worker should not have to assess the risk of a company declaring bankruptcy. Did the employees at Nortel—which experienced explosive growth a few years ago—calculate the risk of downsizing? Was it their responsibility to do so? Thousands of employees were laid off even though Nortel did not declare bankruptcy. Nonetheless, if it had, would it have been the responsibility of these workers to have calculated the risk?

Would it have been their responsibility to use their salary and their pension fund to pay back the company's creditors? No, they are not investors, they are workers.

Furthermore, an investor only invests if he has the means to do so. He does so in full knowledge of the facts. If an employee could predict the risk of bankruptcy, then maybe he would choose to work elsewhere. The working person does not have the means not to work. Otherwise, he would spend his time, in my opinion, pursuing personal interests, not professional ones. The investor has a choice.

We are talking about labour peace and justice. To me, justice is allowing those less able to bear the burden to be reimbursed first. The worker is not an investor, but a taxpayer, an employee. His salary and pension fund should not be used to reimburse any creditor. It is ridiculous, disrespectful and irresponsible. Drawing from salaries and pension funds in such a way is theft. It is unethical and makes no sense. Workers must be protected, I will not back down from that.

Everyone knows there is a fiscal imbalance between the provinces and the federal government. Everyone agrees except the Liberal Party. Today, we are talking about a social imbalance between workers and creditors.

In addition, the current Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act threatens industrial harmony. I have two examples drawn from events that took place in my riding in the 1990s.

I am thinking of the bankruptcy of the Peters plant in Granby. Management took all the money to pay back creditors, and none of the employees got paid for their work before the bankruptcy. There was no money left. The employees had to initiate legal proceedings against the three principal shareholders in order to reach an agreement and be paid what was due them. Is that the way it should be? I do not think so.

The example of the Simond firm is all the more flagrant. Simond has subsidiaries in a number of countries. The one in Granby went bankrupt at the end of the 1980s or early in the 1990s. It represented only 3% of the company. Following the bankruptcy, in order to pay back its creditors, this major international company drew $6 million from the employees' retirement fund. After a court battle, which went on for seven years, the unionized employees won the case. It took seven years for them to recover the money that had been stolen. In the meantime, 15% of the retirees died.

Furthermore, at the end of this considerable struggle, the law was tightened up so that workers could no longer turn to the courts to defend themselves. The fact that it is legal to take money from the employees' fund was already absurd, but then, the government tightened the regulations. I feel faint when I hear this story or tell it or even think about it. Let me continue, however.

Allow me to point out an interesting fact. Who was the main supporter of the workers throughout these long lean years of the Simond dispute in which the workers' money was stolen? It was none other than the member for Shefford at the time, the current Minister of Transport. I would like to congratulate the member for Outremont on the work he did at that time. So I can reasonably expect him to support this bill. I also expect the Quebec Liberal lieutenant to show leadership among his colleagues so that Bill C-281 will also have the support of Liberal members.

[Committees of the House, May 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, both sides of the House agree that these RCMP detachments should remain open. The minister is the only one who needs convincing. Until she is convinced, nothing more can be done. The commissioner is not the one making the decision, it is the minister. According to various sections of the legislation, she is the only person with that authority.

We can talk about it all day, but if the minister cannot be convinced, then nothing will change. If anyone should lobby someone, it is the Liberals who need to lobby the minister.

I support my colleague's proposal. I attended the same four meetings of the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness that he did.

I want to ask him the following question: does the minister agree with the committee?

[Supply, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, if you allow me, I would like to go back to some comments that my charming colleague has made in her speech. She was saying at the outset that she was very naive. I agree with her that she is naive.

Then, she said that the opposition parties are making diversion attempts. I think that the Liberals are experts on diversion attempts. It is an art for them. To every question that we ask in the House, we never get an answer. We get all kinds of answers, other than the one that we should have received. So, when we talk about diversion, I think that we learn this art from the other side of the House.

She also tells us that we are talking about allegations, that lawsuits were filed, that we are going too fast in asking that the money be returned. There is one thing that I do not understand. How is it that the Liberal Party, on the basis of allegations alone, has decided to prosecute people who have testified before the Gomery commission? We are still talking about the same thing, about testimonies before the Gomery commission. It is okay for them to prosecute on the basis of allegations made during a testimony, but when we use allegations to urge them to return the dirty money that benefited the Liberals, then these allegations are not enough.

I would be remiss if I did not point out that she also said that she has news for us, that her heart was hurting. Her heart will certainly not suffer at the next election.

I would like to ask a question to my colleague from Gatineau. While the government is filing suits following allegations made at the Gomery commission, why cannot it take the $2.2 million and deposit them in a trust account? At least, the Liberals will be protected. If they are not to blame, they will get this money back. But why do they not deposit this money today?

[RCMP and Law Enforcement in Canada, April 12th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, we cannot talk about the law enforcement role of the RCMP in Canada without mentioning the closing of the nine RCMP detachments in Quebec. Like a number of hon. members, I believe that the closing of these detachments will reduce the RCMP's ability to enforce the law in those communities, since these closures will create a void.

Since I first arrived on Parliament Hill, in September, I have personally attended four meetings with the RCMP, including three with the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. However, none of these meetings had the expected effect, namely the reopening of the detachments. No alternative was suggested and there was not even a glimmer of hope. The government's decision not to put off the closure of the RCMP detachments in nine municipalities of Quebec has made the mayors and residents of those communities quite angry with the government.

The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is as receptive as an oyster. And based on the representations made by the Bloc Québécois since the announcement, I can only conclude that the minister thinks that affected communities have the ability to protect themselves by just closing up, like oysters. Unfortunately, that is not the case, and I would love to see the minister come to explain her decision to seniors in my riding. These people no longer feel adequately protected and I understand them.

The spokesperson for the mayors' coalition, Guy Racine, told us that the RCMP's withdrawal from their communities is a serious threat to the safety of the affected populations and opens the door to more crime.

I would like hon. members to pay close attention to the following. In its 2004 annual report on organized crime in Canada, Criminal Intelligence Service Canada states the following, and I quote:

Illicit drug activities fuel violence unlike any other criminal activity. There are socio-economic costs associated with the illicit drug trade such as property crimes, assaults and homicides.

We can already see that the RCMP's absence from the field will have harmful consequences on the safety of neighbouring communities.

The same report stresses that “organized criminals will exploit less controlled areas”. It is noteworthy that the Executive Committee of the Criminal Intelligence Service Canada, or CISC, is chaired by none other than the RCMP Commissioner himself. How can he approve such a report and maintain his decision to close nine detachments? What credibility will he have now in defending these closures?

The closure of the RCMP detachment in Granby represents a terrible loss for the community, because in the absence of a strong police presence, criminals and organized crime have a free hand. The government is giving up the war on marijuana grow ops, drug trafficking, contraband alcohol, biker gangs and terrorism, while at the same time weakening the enforcement of numerous federal laws.

People pay municipal taxes for their local police services, income tax to Quebec for the Sûreté du Québec and to the federal government for the RCMP. Yet the RCMP is moving out without consulting the public or transferring any resources for the local police to take over their operations. Will the municipality have to levy higher taxes to hire more officers to take over?

Commissioner Zaccardelli's decision is contrary to the mayors' requests and it totally ignores the recommendations made by the members of the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, as well as the motions moved by my political party.

But the commissioner said the following:

I want to reassure all of you today that the RCMP is committed to delivering its mandate and to providing all Canadians with safe and secure communities. In Quebec, as in Ontario, our mandate is to provide federal policing services—

Let us talk about Ontario, where the same thing happened in the late 1990s.

During discussions with some of the police forces affected, I learned that there had been no prior consultations, just as there had been none in Quebec. The RCMP closed down its Timmins, Ontario, detachment and those in neighbouring communities. At that time, Commissioner Zaccardelli assured the mayors of the affected communities that regional detachments would still provide service via satellite offices. According to the Timmins police chief, Richard Lapierre, these promised services never materialized.

How can we think things will be any different in Quebec? Do you think that the RCMP will keep its promises any better there? It is using the same strategy and the same arguments, that is, centralizing resources so as to better fight organized crime.

Yet Statistics Canada data clearly demonstrate that the crime rate has, generally, risen significantly after the RCMP have been withdrawn for purposes of centralization. Let us take the example of Peterborough/Lakefield, where it is reported that violent crime increased 37%, property crime 5%, and Criminal Code offences by 16% between 1996 and 2001, despite a very small population increase of 4%. As well, there was a 22% increase in the number of Criminal Code offences between 2000 and 2001.

The commissioner can insist that public safety will not be affected, but statistics on the redeployment of resources in Ontario prove otherwise. The commissioner has turned a deaf ear to the demands of mayors and parliamentarians. He is the only one who believes this, other than his colleague Bourduas in "C" Division in Quebec. The experience in Ontario should instead encourage the commissioner and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to suspend this decision, which is harmful the public, all the more so since these same communities are generally located along the borders.

On December 9, Commissioner Zacardelli stated that, even though the RCMP has the mandate to patrol unguarded border roads, it does not have the necessary resources to maintain detachments. If it has the mandate but not the resources, who is ensuring border security? We now know, denounced by its union, the border services agency no longer has the resources needed to ensure border security. Border officers alone are on the job, without any protection or means of defence.

One incident that drew my attention to the situation at the border occurred just before the holidays when agents counted at least 17 vehicles illegally crossing the border. However, this is one of the most highly staffed border crossings in Quebec. There are approximately 50 officers working at any time at Lacolle, but this did not stop these vehicles from illegally crossing the border, none of which was intercepted despite being reported. One of them was even a bus. What was it carrying? Weapons? Terrorists? We do not know.

How can the minister keep repeating her confidence in this controversial but very problematic decision for public safety?

[RCMP and Law Enforcement in Canada, April 12th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, the minister tells us that, with the RCMP, we can count on a safer working environment. She speaks of priority and strategy, threats from other countries and from terrorism, and what the RCMP officers do in the community.

All of these things sound good in the House, but we must not lose sight of the fact that the minister has closed nine RCMP detachments in Quebec. That is important because these nine are close to the border, and as a result the border is no longer secure. We have evidence to prove that. Three committees of the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness have addressed the question of whether these detachments ought really to be closed or whether they should be kept open. The committee's response was as follows:

That the Committee recommend to the government that the RCMP immediately stop reassigning personnel in Quebec in order to keep the nine detachments in Quebec open, and that it maintain a critical mass of eight officers per detachment.

That seems clear to me. Why does the minister not recognize this? She ought to acknowledge that the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness has made some unanimous recommendations. The minister feels that the RCMP commissioner is right and that the detachments should be closed. In three weeks, 17 vehicles sailed through the Lacolle border post, one of them a bus. The Lacolle detachment is, moreover, the one with the most officers on duty. There are 50 officers on rotation in the Lacolle area.

Why are these small detachments being closed. Why are there not more staff? Why is there no longer anyone to protect the elderly and everyone in each riding where detachments have been closed down?

[Canada Labour Code, April 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by reiterating my full support for the anti-scab bill. I am particularly interested in this legislation, since I worked with unions for over 20 years. Take my word: I witnessed time and again how important it is to prohibit the use of strikebreakers during a labour dispute. Quebec has had an anti-scab act since 1977. To this day, all the stakeholders, including Quebec employers, recognize the need for such legislation.

First, it is impossible for two parties to negotiate when a third party gets involved and changes the power relationship between the two. For example, let us suppose I want to buy a house and the owner would like to get $100,000 for it. I make an offer of $90,000. If a third party shows up and offers $110,000, he will automatically put me out of contention. It is the same principle when a union is negotiating, except that, in addition, the third party, namely the strikebreakers, undermines the workers' ability to have some bargaining power when dealing with the employer.

The use of scabs generates frustration, animosity and violence. It substantially lengthens the duration of conflicts. I will give some numbers to confirm my point. I want to refer to the famous Sims report, which is constantly used by opponents to the bill. Yet this report is full of major contradictions, and this is why I want to put into proper perspective some of the comments and figures that are included in it.

According to Andrew Sims, the main author of the report, between 1991 and 1994, 75% of the employers involved in labour disputes did not use replacement workers, preferring not to undermine relations between the union and management. The other 25%—that is in 12 of the 48 labour disputes governed by the Canada Labour Code—hired scabs. While Mr. Sims is opposed to anti-scab legislation, he agrees that scabs should not be used to exclude the union, or undermine its role. However, it is demonstrated that the employers who resorted to strikebreakers did so precisely to exclude the union, as confirmed by strikers' complaints of unfair practices and their personal testimony.

Also, as I said earlier, the use of strikebreakers significantly prolongs labour disputes. This is demonstrated, including in the Gunderson study entitled The Effect of Collective Bargaining Legislation on Strikes and Wages , published in 1994.

According to the Quebec department of labour, in all Quebec labour disputes involving the labour code of Quebec—where anti-scab legislation exists—roughly 5,693 person-days were lost between 1980 and 2003. In all Quebec labour disputes involving the Canada Labour Code, 16,032 person-days of work were lost during that same period. A quick calculation shows that disputes last almost three times longer for Quebec workers under the federal labour code than for those under the Quebec labour code. Furthermore, note that Quebec workers under the Canada Labour Code only represented roughly 5% of the entire workforce, which considerably increases our rule of three!

Disputes are longer because of the use of scabs. We have even seen strikes or lockouts last up to four years. Imagine your brother, your father or even you in a federally-regulated job and you end up going on strike or being locked out for nearly four years. Imagine going four years without a salary! How would you react? What would you say about this? The employer is negotiating in good faith? How do you measure good faith? Is there a time limit on good faith?

What would prompt an employer to negotiate if there is no financial pressure because of replacement workers?

In reality, as long as the company has enough supplies to survive a strike or a lockout, or as long as it can hire staff to do the same work at a lower cost, the unions no longer have bargaining power.

How do workers affected cope with this on a daily basis? How does it impact their family life?

The longer the dispute, the less tolerable the situation. Imagine the father or the mother being denied their income and watching the busload of scabs crossing the picket lines with impunity. Worse yet, there have been scabs who have requested union certification. That takes the cake! Their request was denied, but does this not show that employers who use replacement workers do not respect workers?

In a market where anti-scab legislation does not exist, the solution to the problem becomes full employment. Theoretically speaking, there would be no workers available, nor anyone interested in replacing a worker during a dispute. Clearly the employer benefits from a rate of unemployment slightly higher than the natural rate of unemployment, which is roughly 5%.

The use of strikebreakers not only lengthens and inflames disputes, it makes a harmonious return to work at the end of the dispute more difficult. Workers are very likely to remain bitter about the experience and angry with their employer and even the strikebreakers.

In some communities where there are strikes, replacement workers have been relatives of the strikers. Picture the scenario: a worker does without a salary in an effort to negotiate better working conditions, and a family member comes along to support management and impede negotiations taking the worker's place for less money. What will this do to family relations? Do you ever ask yourself? It is not hard to understand that, when more than one party is involved, they need support. If people are left on their own, the result is animosity, as mentioned earlier.

So the absence of anti-strikebreaking legislation carries a significant psychological cost. It affects human dignity and creates family and financial problems over and above the social cost of a strike or prolonged lockout.

Let us restore the dignity of the workers who are governed by the Canada Labour Code through no choice of their own. Let us eliminate the three categories of workers created by the absence of anti-strikebreaking legislation. There are workers covered by the Quebec labour code, those covered by the federal labour code and those commonly referred to as scabs, who do not enjoy the same rights as those in the first two categories and are not covered by legislation.

We must be proud of our workers and give them their full due in society. Let us be open and fair, since they are the cornerstone of a healthy economy. Without them, our society would not be what it is. The best way to support them is to give them our respect and consideration for the job they do. Let us vote in favour of Bill C-263.