Re: New alarm licensing for Province of Quebec

["petem" <petem001@xxxxxxxxx>]

"tourman" <robercampbell@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit dans le message de groupe de
discussion :
4a9e976c-d51d-4c11-981c-91a53420a123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> On Oct 21, 8:07 am, "Petem" <petem...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> "tourman"  a écrit dans le message de groupe de discussion :
>> 6c8eade2-1fe9-401f-b734-736d98fa0...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Oct 20, 11:55 pm, "Petem" <petem...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> "tourman" <robercampb...@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit dans le message de groupe
>> >> de
>> >> discussion :
>> >> 70bbd5eb-d9c0-49b8-b431-eaded7dfe...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> > >> Well, it seems the restrictive Quebec unions are finally getting
>> > >> their
>> > > >way. Effective next year, any company installing alarms in Quebec
>> > > >will
>> > > >need a provincial license, which costs $1400 annually for the
>> > > >company,
>> > > >plus $102 for each installer working to install. It will also
>> > > >involve
>> > > >a criminal background for all employees of the company. Fines for
>> > > >companies caught operating without a license will be in the region
>> > > >of
>> > > >$5000 an offence !!
>>
>> > > >A recent publication distributed to all wholesalers describes it as
>> > > >a
>> > > >government attempt to move alarm installation from the domain of a
>> > > >trade to that of a more professional level of activity. The real
>> > > >truth
>> > > >is it's an attempt to cozy up to Quebec unions who are notorious for
>> > > >their wish to keep Ontario companies out of fair competition in
>> > > >Quebec, and of course, it's another tax on on the small and big
>> > > >businesses working there (and which will work it's way down to the
>> > > >end
>> > > >price paid by the consumer). It also reflects the fact that there
>> > > >are
>> > > >a lot of scumbags in the business there (as well as in the
>> > > >locksmithing trade). But regardless of the worth of background
>> > > >checks,
>> > > >this is a clear case of killing a fly with a shotgun !!!
>>
>> > > >Frankly, I'm so damn tired of Quebec and all their special
>> > > >privileges
>> > > >within Canada, along with their rightly earned place of being the
>> > > >most
>> > > >corrupt province in Canada !! I have dozens of customers across the
>> > > >river from Ottawa in Quebec, and I can tell you I won't stop
>> > > >servicing
>> > > >these accounts because of this bullshit !!
>>
>> > >Fine with me.. ;-) I am not really happy with that legislation also,
>> > >and
>> > >by
>> > >the way it was pass on 2006 and it took effect last summer..
>>
>> > >It was pass cause some american government asked that there would be
>> > >more
>> > >security in Canada.. dont worry it will come to Ontario soon..
>> > RHC: No it was passed because of pressure from trade unions.
>>
>> Bob it all started in 2000 with the Consultative committee on security.
>> take
>> a look at this cdoc and you will see that the union were there, but just
>> barely..
>>
>> http://www.securitepublique.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/Documents/police/sec...
>>
>> I will copy who was there for the alarm section of the comity..
>>
>> ANNEXE 3
>> MEMBRES DU SOUS-COMITÉ « ALARME ET SERRURERIE »
>> M. Jean-François BouchardDirection des affaires policières et de la
>> prévention de la
>> criminalité, ministère de la Sécurité publique.
>> M. Georges Belisle Emploi-Québec.
>> M. Réjean Bérubé A.D.T. Sécurité Multi-Nat, Canada.
>> M. Normand Bouchard Fraternité internationale des ouvriers en
>> électricité.
>> M. Robert Branchaud CANASA.
>> M. Pierre Dussault Maîtres serruriers du Québec.
>> M. Robert Dutil Service de protection Microtec.
>> M. Michel Ferland Sûreté du Québec.
>> Mme Louise Marcoux CANASA.
>> M. Lionel Perron Les Laboratoires des assureurs du Canada.
>> M. Réjean Ratthé Service de prévention Microtec.
>> M. Robert Robillard Groupe Sécurité Robillard inc.
>> M. Jean-Paul Roberge Protectron inc.
>>
>> In all those people only one was from a Union.. all the rest.. alarm
>> company
>> or alarm association ....
>>
>> So are you telling me that one men from one union is able to hammer down
>> his
>> way of thinking on all those poeple.. Wake up and smell the cofee Bob..
>> and
>> stop playing cartoon in your head..
>>
>> >  If the
>> > American government wanted more security in Canada, anything that
>> > happened would happen at the border crossings, not just within the
>> > Province of Quebec.
>>
>> then after the comity 911 came..
>> it was followed by this:
>>
>> http://www.securitepublique.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/Documents/police/sec...
>>
>> I know its all in french..
>>
>> Thenn in 2006 the law, if there would not have been 911 nothing would
>> havwe
>> change here..
>>
>> > And no, I doubt such an expensive licensing scheme would every fly in
>> > Ontario ! You work for a big company, so this affects you not in the
>> > least.
>>
>> No Bob i dont work for a big company, I represent the best part of all
>> alamr
>> tech in Quebec as there union rep.
>>
>> > However, smaller companies would be hit hard by such excessive
>> > charges (although some form of basic licensing probably wouldn't be a
>> > bad idea). But you don't kill a fly with a hammer !!
>>
>> Thats BS Big company have central station, all the poeple working there
>> need
>> the same permit then the tech, and who do you think pay for this? the low
>> salary worker or the big company?
>> and then all the direct boss of thos people need the permit.. who pay for
>> that? the company, big of small they are all hit. I was not for the
>> legislation, but what can I dio. its there and we need to play by it.
>
> RHC: Ok, thank you, I stand corrected - but that scenario is even
> worse than I thought.!!  All the players in this contrived fiasco are
> large alarm company conglomerates or representatives from CANASA who
> are supposed to be working for the best interests of the alarm and
> security industry !! How the hell can this legislation be to the best
> interests of the whole industry of only the big companies can afford
> it ?  It certainly is for the 15% of the market held by the large
> companies but it doesn't do squat for the other 85% of the market held
> by the mom and pop type organizations. In fact, I would suggest it has
> a hidden motive to limit these types of businesses which take away
> untold accounts from the expensive "big boys" !!
>
> I have long suspected CANASA is unduly influenced by the ADT's and
> Protectron's of the world and doesn't represent my interests. That is
> why I have steadfastly refused to join this "old boys" club !!! The
> unions were just smiling like sharks all the way to the bank, since
> this also works in their best interests by keeping Ontario companies
> out of Quebec.
>
> Call me paranoid, but if it squawks like a duck, and shits like a
> duck, then it probably is a duck !!

Tell me are Union really strong in new brunswick?

I am pretty sure its no, well they have the same type of licensing for tech
too. were they trying to prevent you from working there?? or quebecer from
working there.. dont think so..
In fact many of the tech in quebec have there licence for NB cause big
company send tech from here to there when there is a job rush.. ( adt have
only 2 install tech for the whole province ;-)  )