René Canuel

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, October 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague and I realize that, when there is a real problem, the government comes up with an agency or committees. It always puts the problem off.

In my opinion, governing means having the courage to introduce effective things and not to try to double or triple certain organizations.

On the subject of the agency. I would ask my colleague how it could do better and how it should be set up so that it will be really effective, not for the government, but for our fellow citizens.

[Madeleine Gagnon, October 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Madeleine Gagnon was elected to the Académie canadienne-française in 1987. She has been the recipient of numerous literary awards, including the Governor General's, the Arthur-Buies, and those given out by the Journal de Montréal and Aquimédia.

This prolific writer, teacher and speaker has frequently been invited as a keynote lecturer at a variety of Canadian and European universities.

A native of Amqui, Madeleine Gagnon returned there for the inspiration of her literary works. A superb role model, she is a source of great pride to the people of her birth place, which she has always depicted so masterfully in her books.

For all of these reasons, her excellent literary reputation in particular, Madeleine Gagnon is the ideal person to ensure that the Amqui municipal library develops to its full cultural potential.

Congratulations, Madeleine.

[Criminal Code, October 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, most definitely, when we open up our morning papers and read about crime, of course we feel we are under attack. When we see abused children and women, we say it makes no sense.

We live in a society where there should be no crime but we know very well that crime does exist—and we see far too many reports on it. I will ask my hon. colleague this later, but will there be less crime tomorrow, or next year, just because we strengthen an act? I am not sure of this.

We do need laws, of course. In my riding, a priest, Father Leblanc, gave a ride to someone and lost his life. I will say no more about this, because the case will be coming before the courts, but a good Samaritan stops and picks someone up, disappears, and is later found dead after a search.

My question does not address crime per se. Everyone is against crime, and agrees it must be stopped. But how? How can we eradicate it in a highly civilized society? I would love to see crime totally eradicated, or at least gradually reduced. I believe this can be done through prevention.

A child aged two, four or five years who is not loved already has great anger bottled up inside. It grows, and becomes part of his very being. At aged 12 or 14, he is teased by his classmates and he then gives vent to that hidden anger. If his teachers, his parents or his guardians do not equip him with any ways of overcoming it, that anger will be expressed even more strongly.

My point is that what is needed is prevention. How can it be that so much money is put into law enforcement and not into prevention? I am asking my colleague what means of prevention could be created to put an end to this?

[Employment Insurance, October 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, that does not solve the problem in the least.

When is the minister going to stop harassing people with unstable employment, and settle the problem for once and for all?

[Employment Insurance, October 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

The minister has brought in a short week pilot project, in order to remedy some of the shortcomings in his employment insurance reform.

Since the majority of seasonal workers are just about to come to the end of their peak work period, and are liable to be penalized by any additional short weeks, can the minister confirm that he will be bringing in the necessary amendments to the legislation to correct this serious problem?

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, October 1st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I would have three brief comments to make.

The bill says the headquarters of the agency must be in Ottawa, but, as we know, the financial community is concentrated in Toronto and Montreal, but not necessarily in Ottawa. So what is the advantage?

The agency will be responsible for contracting with the provinces or for implementing agreements between the federal government and the provinces. How many of these tax agreements does the government intend to ask the agency to look after? None, so what is the point?

The Minister of National Revenue will be responsible for the agency. But the minister may delegate his powers, except the power to make regulations. So a non-elected person who is not accountable to this House could be acting on his behalf. The minister would actually be going through this person. I would like the hon. member to comment on this.

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, October 1st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the remarks of my hon. colleague, who raised some very important issues.

When any bill is introduced, we must first consider how it will affect individuals and their privacy. Does the bill affect privacy? Does it affect individuals?

My colleague mentioned she was from a rural riding; so am I. It is well known that, in rural ridings in particular, services provided to the public are extremely important.

I was listening to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance saying the Minister of Finance has said this and the Minister of Finance had said that. The minister says many things; on the subject of the employment insurance, he has said some pretty incredible things, so this may not be the best yardstick. In my opinion, the yardstick is our constituents, individuals. We also heard that savings would be made. But on whose backs will these savings be made?

I would ask my colleague to elaborate a little on how this could interfere with someone's privacy.

[Judges Act, June 3rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Berthier—Montcalm. He is a lawyer himself and could become a great judge. However, he is an MP today and represents his fellow citizens as I do mine, and he is totally convinced that clause 5 should be deleted. And that is what he is proposing.

Earlier it was said that the chief justice of the supreme court could have a retroactive increase of $25,000. Most of the people in my riding do not earn $25,000.

When we put poverty insurance on trial here. the members opposite laughed. Today these same people are prepared to give judges increases. We are not criticizing judges. We all know that judges, some of them at least, are fine judges. They work very hard. That is a fact, and everyone is aware of it, including us. But that is not what we are talking about today.

We are saying that, in a society where people suffer, where children in certain schools do not eat enough, where parents suffer from depression because they run out of money for food at the end of the month, everyone should be treated fairly.

When a person earns $150,000 a year, I think he or she can manage to buy groceries, to go to hospital, to buy prescription drugs.

When a person earns $15,000 or $20,000, that is something different. In my riding I have seen many forestry workers who start work at 5 a.m. and finish at 5 p.m.; they work for four or five months a year and, even with poverty insurance, do not manage to earn more than $25,000 or $28,000. They have children, and it is hard for them to manage their budget and meet the needs of every family member.

Now they are proposing to raise judges' salaries by an average of $17,000. Tell that to the people in my riding of Matapédia—Matane. This is unacceptable. A little raise, fine, but this one makes no sense. I am therefore asking my colleagues on the other side of this House to reflect on this and to accept deletion of clause 5. I think everyone stands to gain as a result.

I am sure that the judges themselves, those who are really not in it for the money, but to serve their fellow citizens, will understand that the House is not giving them the increase recommended by the commission.

On the other hand, it must be realized that a lot of lawyers put their names on the waiting list. They know what their salaries will be and what conditions they will be working in. If they really need more money, let them stay in private practice and leave room for others, for there are many interested in the position. Money must always be secondary, it must never come first.

[Supply, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member who said his government has provided leadership for some time. It may be true in a sense, but there have been some scandals. Some military personnel gave a wake-up call to the government by doing unacceptable things.

Of course, I also want to pay tribute to the Canadian and Quebec members of our armed forces. A number of my former students are serving in the forces and they honour us through their tremendous work. However, when we say that a government must take its responsibilities, we mean a lot more than that. What do we do with an army? Do we want a peacekeeping force or combat troops?

I think Canada should opt for a peacekeeping force and that decision should be made collectively. The government should assume its responsibilities, because what will the role of an army be in five or ten years, if not to maintain peace, or to provide services to the community, as was done in the Lac-Saint-Jean region, in the areas hit by the ice storm, and in Manitoba? I salute our military for their role in these instances.

It is essential to define the role of our forces. But how are we going to equip them? With submarines? Through contracts that were signed, that the government does not want to fulfil, or that it countersigns? We lost an incredible amount of money with the helicopters. Is this taking one's responsibilities? I do not think so. Is this providing leadership? I do not think so.

I also want to talk about another point, women in the forces. How many women said they were almost persecuted? How many women generals are there in the Canadian forces? Women do not have the importance they deserve, and I wonder what the hon. member has to say about this.

[Supply, April 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will not repeat the figures just cited. They are correct and everyone can consult them. However, I am going to give a few examples from my riding.

Yesterday, I learned that two young people in Bonaventure killed a senior citizen. Many will say that is the way young people are, but that is not true. As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility that we very often fail to assume.

Do we have to do what Martin Luther King did? Everyone is still talking about it years later. What did he do? He got directly involved. Do we have to do what Monsignor Romero or Terry Fox did?

What do we have to do? As parliamentarians we can see that although we are needed it is sometimes hard to get an idea across and to open hearts and minds.

My colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean, who I also congratulate, and of whom I am very proud, has raised a question. I would say it is a non-partisan question: Can something be done for young people? Can something be done for older people? Can something be done for the people in our ridings? That is what we are after. That is why we were elected.

I did not want to be passionate. I wanted to remain very calm today, for the subject to remain above partisan politics. It must appeal to our hearts and minds. We have to loosen the purse strings. Perhaps we should be the first to do so.

However, without a debate, if there is not an actual committee responsible for weighing the pros and cons, and especially possible approaches, what means do we have at our disposal in the next two years to ease the situation a bit?

The Prime Minister has often said that Canada is a rich country. It is. The wealth is there, but who holds it? Twenty per cent of the people who are starving come from our ridings, and it hurts.

My colleague spoke of the next ten years, I want to ask about the period up to 2000. How could we get people some help? There are petitions, of course, but is there anything else?