Serge Marcil

[Robert Bourassa, October 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it was five years ago today, October 2, 2001, that a great Canadian and a great Quebecer, Robert Bourassa, passed away.

I had the privilege of sitting in the Quebec national assembly with Mr. Bourassa, when he was the leader of our party and the premier of the province. We can never overemphasize the fact that Robert Bourassa was a great visionary for Quebec. Among other achievements, he started and developed the whole hydroelectric industry. Robert Bourassa is the father of that industry, which has contributed and continues to contribute to Quebec's economic growth.

As early as in 1985, when he returned to active politics, Robert Bourassa's primary concern was to strengthen Quebec's potential in the high tech and qualified manpower sectors by promoting the aerospace and pharmaceutical industries, and all the value added sectors. He also gave Quebec a universal health care system and a charter of human rights and freedoms.

All these achievements remind us that Premier Bourassa was motivated by the well-being of Quebec's women and men—

[Pierre Elliott Trudeau, September 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on September 28, 2000, Canada was stunned by the death of former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau. One year later, Canadians are still affected by this great loss.

Pierre Elliott Trudeau left an indelible mark on our country. He shared his passion for Canada with each and every Canadian. He was a man who fully explored his ideas and dreams. He strove for a just and modern society in which everyone could thrive. He dreamed of a bilingual country that would respect diversity, of a country that would make its name in the world by defending liberty, peace and justice.

One year after his passing, it is fair to say that he will continue to have a place in the memory and history of Canadians. We will miss him for a very long time.

[Road Transportation, June 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians living in the greater Montreal area are going through hell every day in terms of access to the island of Montreal, because traffic is getting heavier every day.

According to available studies, over 2.3 million trucks per year are in transit on the island of Montreal, thus damaging the infrastructures and contributing to the increase in CO2 emissions.

According to the same studies, the Jacques-Cartier and Champlain bridges are the most heavily travelled in Canada. Moreover—

[Supply, May 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make a comment. We must always pay attention to what we say, particularly when we know that people listen to the debates and also read news originating in the House of Commons. Often we tend to exaggerate the facts.

When the members of the Bloc Quebecois say that there has been so many cutbacks to employment insurance, that the government has accumulated a huge surplus to wipe out the deficit, they neglect to point out to the public that this is the same phenomenon as in all provinces. This was a period of heavy recession, and all provinces, the country as well, were heavily in debt. Each government, therefore, accumulated a larger operating deficit with every passing year.

In 1993, the deficit was $42 billion. According to the Bloc Quebecois, the Canadian government should have borrowed still more money in order to pass it on to the provinces. That is more or less the mechanics of it. The more our budgets increase, the more the deficit increases, the more we borrow; the more we borrow, the more interest we pay on the debt. Asking the federal government to transfer tax points to the provinces, money to the provinces, when there is an operating deficit in excess of $42 billion, is like asking it to borrow money on behalf of Canadians and then give it to the provinces.

So a deficit at one place is increased in order to try to decrease it at another. When things like this are said, care needs to be taken.

The second point is that there is still reference to our ranking 25 out of 29 as far as social spending is concerned. I do not dispute that ranking of 25 out of 29. It refers to social spending, not the quality of services provided in Canada. The quality of services provided to Canadians is not what is involved here. They say Canada ranks 25 out of 29 in terms of social spending.

When spending in Canada is being considered, all social spending by the provinces is added in as well, not just federal spending. It is the total of spending in the country by each provincial government, plus federal spending, that makes up total social spending.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, May 28th, 2001]

—and if I add the Conservative federalist vote and the NDP vote, we have more than 60% of the votes in Quebec. Therefore when I rise in the House it is an honour for me to speak on behalf of the majority of Quebecers.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, May 28th, 2001]

It also encourages Quebec to continue its efforts. The federal bill is flexible enough to allow Quebec to apply its own legislation regarding young offenders effectively. The provisions of the bill meet the needs expressed by the provinces.

However the youth criminal justice act is founded on federal powers governing criminal law and criminal proceedings. There should be only one youth criminal justice law framework in Canada but with the possibility for each region to apply its own approach.

It has been said that the Bloc Quebecois speaks on behalf of Quebecers. I am sorry but when I rise in the House I speak on behalf of Quebecers also. We got more votes than they did. I can say that I speak on behalf of the majority of Quebecers—

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, May 28th, 2001]

To think that way is to be defeatist, as they usually are, and negative.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, May 28th, 2001]

According to the Bloc, there is a broad consensus in Quebec on the effectiveness of the current legislation. In this regard, Quebec wants the status quo.

It seems to me that even though there is a Canadian criminal law framework for young offenders, Quebec implements its own legislation. As the Prime Minister said once more today in the House, the proposed legislation would allow Quebec to continue to implement its own legislation.

Each of the regions would have its own criminal law framework. The bill would allow each region of Canada to adapt its approach. This frees up resources that can be used for more positive action for the young offenders.

The proposed bill would give a lot of freedom to provinces. As we will see, it will be implemented and if there are problems, we will solve them. We will solve them one at a time.

Provinces can apply the bill according to their own needs and taking into account their own situation as long as they respect the guidelines provided for in the federal act. They are guidelines. It is a criminal law framework. What is a framework? It is a set of rules that allow each of the regions of Canada to adapt and to put forward a particular approach, as has been the case until now and as still is the case.

The Government of Canada recognizes the success Quebec has had in rehabilitating young offenders. Have members ever seen a government pass legislation that goes against well applied legislation, against a successful approach put forward by a province?

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, May 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could speak without hearing all the barnyard noises across the way. The Bloc Quebecois believes that Bill C-7 favours repression over the rehabilitation of young offenders. Even the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm said in this regard “that the new legislation continues to focus on repression by neglecting the needs of young offenders. Once more, the federal government has rejected the consensus in Quebec that focuses on rehabilitation, an approach that is working in Quebec”.

I read this in the press release he issued at that time but we are still asking the question. We get the impression that we are not reading the same bill. There are two sides to a coin. They read the bill one way, and we read it another.

We know very well that the objective of the federal government in Ottawa is not to marginalize young offenders. The purpose of this bill is to prevent crime, to ensure the rehabilitation and the reintegration of minors into society and to show that when they commit an offence there are real consequences.

The Bloc Quebecois cannot oppose such objectives, which will make our communities safer as well as allow for the rehabilitation of young offenders. We are talking about rehabilitation, we are not talking about repression. This is why the bill provides that young offenders who have committed a serious crime and gets an adult sentence will be held apart from adult criminals.

While these young poeple are in custody, they are supervised and those in charge will provide them with any therapy or other program needed for their rehabilitation into the community.

We should realize the obvious: the Bloc Quebecois exaggerates all the time. It is a grand master of the art of blowing things out of proportion. The balloon eventually blows up.

The Canadian government is not intent on repressing adolescents. The measures in the bill give the preference to rehabilitation and the reintegration of young offenders into the community. We should speak the truth. Some, especially in that party, have a tendency to tell the opposite of the truth.

We want young offenders to get the help they need to develop in our society. A young offender is just starting in life. The bill's purpose is to help young offenders through a difficult period in their life in the best way possible so that they can have a fulfilling life afterward.

The Bloc Quebecois is asking the government to withdraw the bill or to give Quebec the right to opt out so it can continue to implement the current Young Offenders Act.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, May 28th, 2001]

When the Bloc Quebecois says that it believes Bill C-7 favours—