René Canuel

[Committees Of The House, December 13th, 1999]

It is not true. You belittle yourself.

[Points Of Order, December 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, further to the Prime Minister's announcement that he wants to introduce a bill denying Quebecers their fundamental rights, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table a document that will clarify matters for the House.

It is an article from the December 11, 1999, issue of Le Journal de Montréal , in which Pierre—

[Poverty, November 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister recently said, at the time the government's expected surpluses were announced, and I quote “Give me time to enjoy them”.

If you are one of 1.4 million poor children in this country, or you are unemployed and are no longer entitled to poverty insurance, this sort of statement hurts.

When will this government act to free these children from misery for good?

[Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act, November 25th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I join my colleagues in supporting Bill C-13.

When we talk about the opposition, very often we think that it is difficult for it to agree with some bills. We have an example today where the Bloc Quebecois can be in agreement.

I will talk about some flaws in this bill. One of them is that it should have been introduced as early as in 1993, when the Liberals came into office, because there is an urgent need to invest into research and development to help researchers. We know that the United States are a few steps ahead of us, and that we need to focus on research and development.

It is very laudable to help Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Unfortunately, the money is not transferred to the provinces. This is another flaw, a major flaw, I would say. Why not give this money to the provinces so they can manage it themselves?

Earlier, I heard a Reform colleague ask “Will the bureaucracy be expanded? Will the money go directly into research or into framework and administration activities?” There is always this danger. When we create something, very often a large part of the money goes into the administration and very little goes where it should. This is another flaw that I wanted to mention.

It is nice to agree that money should be provided for health research and development. But we should certainly not forget the $7 billion that were cut from transfer payments to the provinces. The government says it will be generous and give some money back, but let us not forget this $7 billion.

If the Rochon reform in Quebec did hurt—and is probably still hurting—one must look at the root cause: the $7 billion the provinces did not get. Without money, no matter how good a manager you are, you will have a hard time making the system work. Mrs. Marois, who is certainly a remarkable health minister, needs money too.

I will never say this enough: the federal cuts are the root cause of the problems faced by hospitals in Quebec. These cuts are shocking, revolting, disgusting, odious and not worthy of any government. How could they make such drastic cuts?

In the area of health care, when someone arrives at the hospital and needs heart surgery or has cancer, leukaemia or any other form of cancer, the situation is urgent. Some patients have to wait for weeks, even months. In Quebec, patients had to be sent to the United States, not because we lacked expertise—we do have expertise—but because of the federal cuts. At times, you have to make do with what you have.

These thoughtless, irresponsible cuts have gutted health care in the other provinces too, but especially in Quebec, whose problems I am more familiar with. The cuts to the health transfers are the root cause of the difficulty Quebec is having in managing its hospitals properly.

The management and staff of the hospitals and CLSC in Matane, Maria and Amqui are performing near miracles to treat patients with dignity and speed. I visited these three hospitals, which are in my riding.

We really have no idea of all the work and the efforts we ask of our physicians, nurses and orderlies. They have always given their all, but now we are asking for even more. Why is it that we keep asking more and more from these people? We know that when people with tremendous responsibilities get tired and exhausted, medical errors can occur, but fortunately, so far, these have been avoided. These people should not be blamed.

The people to blame are those who cut provincial transfers. They are responsible for the way things stand today. For the 1999-2000 fiscal year, the estimated shortfall will be about $1.7 billion. In Quebec alone, they will reach $850 million. Since 1993, cuts to health care have totalled $3.5 billion. That means that since our election to this House, cuts of $3.5 million have been made to the health care budget.

My constituents come to see me in my riding office of either Matane or Amqui and ask “Why are so many cuts in Quebec?” I tell them what I tell everyone in Quebec “Think about it. Who is responsible for this? Who is responsible for the lack of health care and the long waiting lists?” It is the federal government, and no one can argue about that. We have to keep saying this over and over again. Of course, when people go to a hospital, they are already in pain. They look around and see what is going on and, after one and two hours, they get tired of waiting and lose patience.

I have said it before, and I will say it again—because this cannot be overemphasized—if people have to wait for a week, two weeks or a very long time before an operation, it is not because of the physician or the hospital, but because the hospital is starved of resources and, as a result, the level of services has dropped. Those in charge are doing the impossible to give the best service.

Members opposite should be ashamed for their attack on the sick. Occasionally, members of the opposition in Quebec come up with special cases, but they do not have enough courage to explain why those cases do occur, and why people are on waiting lists. We know very well that inadequate budgets are the problem.

The finance minister is bragging that, in just a few years, he will have raked in a $95 billion surplus. Yes, $95 billion. People in my riding of Matapédia-Matane think it does not make any sense to have cuts in health care and accumulate a $95 billion surplus.

In my riding, many seasonal workers and forestry workers have a hard time making ends meet. In the forestry sector, summers can be very hectic for men with a family—although I am sure some women are forestry workers too. They have to get up very early in the morning, and go to bed very late at night. On top of that, they are under stress because of employment insurance, which the people in my riding and I call poverty insurance. They wonder why they have to pay into this plan, which is just stressing them out. The level of stress is incredible.

When I speak of Bill C-13, when I say that money must be put into health, people may perhaps wonder why so much money is needed. Perhaps we need to find out why people are so stressed out. It is said that one of the things that causes cancer is stress.

This government is a past master at causing stress. It ought to examine its conscience and say “It is true that research must be carried out in order to eliminate or control certain diseases”. I say that is all very fine, but what might be needed instead is a more general examination of the problem.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, November 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleagues all started by saying that it was a pleasure for them to speak on this bill today. Personally, I regret having to address this issue.

The House should never have had a debate on Bill C-3, and the justice minister is well aware of that. Over and over again, we have seen that it is not the Young Offenders Act but rather its implementation that leaves to be desired. Those who implement it appropriately succeed where others fail. Nevertheless, the Liberal government is being stubborn and is about to reform the spirit of this legislation.

Personally, before the bill was ever introduced, I would have liked the House to address some very basic issues. How is it that a 12, 13, 14 or 18 year old can become an offender? We never asked ourselves that question. We do not need to be a psychologist or a psychiatrist to answer that question.

These young people have gone through something that makes them feel unloved. They end up in a gang and seek some kind of recognition.

Even in grade school, some fourth or fifth graders show signs of being—and I hate the word—bad seeds and on their way to becoming offenders. And nothing is done about it. If we had the decency to take care of those young people, they would never end up in court.

Cuts in transfers to the provinces for education penalize teachers. They do not have the time to take care of their students and some of them see themselves as mere numbers in the system.

The Young Offenders Act was passed in 1982 and came into effect in 1984. It did not come up overnight. It is the result of several decades of thinking. In fact, one has to go back to 1857 to find the first measures giving special status to minor offenders. In 1908, we established the first youth justice system. The Juvenile Delinquents Act was designed to put young people back on the right track by minimizing their responsibility.

In Quebec, we have successful legislation and it is in our province that the delinquency rate is the lowest. When a young person is punished and sent to prison, the older inmates will show him ways to commit crimes with minimum consequences.

In the early 1970s, Quebec adopted two social measures that proved very useful with respect to the Young Offenders Act: legal aid and social services reform. In 1974, the first set of measures aimed at solving problems outside the judicial system was implemented. Now, the federal government wants to give the act more teeth.

I heard our friends in the Reform Party say that the names of young offenders should be published in newspaper or mentioned on the radio. Going to that kind of extreme is unworthy of responsible citizens. As I said earlier, responsibility starts in elementary school.

It is reported that 1.5 million children do not eat their fill. This year, in Quebec, there was a campaign to buy pencils for pupils in elementary schools. Some parents cannot afford to buy pencils. This is serious. Some children have nothing to eat for lunch. They see their schoolmates go to the cafeteria and take money out of their pocket to buy fruit and chocolate while they have nothing to eat. I do not know how that would make us feel. I do not know if we would not feel rebellious.

The government is saying, “Let us have stricter laws. Let us send them to jail and it will solve the problem. They will have time to think in jail”. We should ask ourselves what kind of thinking one can do in jail, other than becoming tougher and trying to find ways of getting out of there.

Of course, there is help available in our prisons. There are highly qualified people who try to help, but when someone is seething with revolt, it takes more than six months or a year to get over it. It takes years and, during those years, someone has to be close by, I would say every day. When a tree is sick, what do we do? We put a protective coating on it. When a young tree is not growing straight, what do we do? We do not stick it in the garage. We leave it outside and stake it.

We should do the same thing with young people, that is give them support instead of locking them up.

[Speech From The Throne, November 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment to make.

Mr. Forget, who was a Liberal minister 20 years ago, made a study on a guaranteed minimum wage. This study said that such a program was possible. As my colleague for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière said, it would be very much easier for us if we were sovereign. Even in Canada, however, it surely is possible.

I would like to ask my colleague for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière a question. It is true that there are poor people everywhere, including 1.5 million children. In our regions, it is even worse. What could the member say to the government to convince it to listen up, to open its heart and to help the poor in our regions?

[Lumber, November 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the agreement between the States and Canada on lumber limits increases in exports by the four provinces it covers.

The agreement expires on March 31, 2001, and the federal government will have to define its position in the coming months. It must support the Conseil pour le libre-échange pour le bois d'oeuvre and demand the restoration of free trade for lumber.

For the good of the regions whose economy relies on forestry, the federal government has no choice but to inform the U.S. government that it wants a return to free trade.

The Bloc Quebecois supports the Quebec lumber manufacturers association and the Conseil pour le libre-échange pour le bois d'oeuvre so the industry in Quebec may be given back the opportunity to assume its rightful place in the North American lumber market.

[Speech From The Throne, November 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve for his fiery speech. Even the minister he called upon was listening carefully.

Usually, we cannot tell. The minister appears not to be listening. This time, however, he paid great attention to the message delivered by my colleague.

I would like to ask a question to my colleague, a very thoughtful man who is very sensitive to the plight of the poorest of the poor in our society. I too work with the disadvantaged and the poor in my riding of Matapédia—Matane. Since my riding is in a remote region, communications are not so good. Major companies and multinationals are reluctant to come to my riding, if only because the airport is located in Mont-Joli and it takes close to one hour to get to the airport from my home. Given the transportation services available, this is already a problem.

I clearly recall the case of a local plant. The owners said “We are leaving the plant in Quebec City, because if we move it further east, it will mean an additional half-hour drive, because there is no air service, and half an hour is a long time for business people”.

The hon. member talked about a sovereign Quebec, and I know that he has given a great deal of thought to this issue. How could we be a little more sensitive to the plight of the poor and remote areas? How could we treat them better, just as the people in Montreal, Quebec City or the Abitibi region are treated?

[Supply, October 28th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague and associate. He said that we had introduced this motion on an opposition day today because we want sovereignty. I would have liked him to be a little more logical. I would have liked the House to stick to the issue at hand, because it smells to high heaven.

One of their own, Marc Lalonde, said “Look, I do not think we should go that route”. And now my colleague says “The minister is carrying out consultations, but calm down, that does not mean he will change the regulations”.

Will he be able to assure me sometime in the future that the minister will not make any changes? He will not be able to give me any assurances. He will skate around the issue. He will say anything.

I said that this is dangerous. Can we have the assurance that security will be enhanced and that the air rates will not go up? Of course not. They say almost anything. When we ask questions, they do not even answer. Such behaviour in the House of Commons goes against the spirit of democract. And flouting democracy in the House of Commons, that is serious business. What was said earlier about the Bloc was an insult to the constituents not only of Matapédia—Matane but of each and every riding. There are 44 of us here. It was an insult to all the people of Quebec.

I ask my colleague opposite to apologize, because my constituents will just not take it. I ask him if he can assure us that the 10% rule will not be changed. Can he confirm that security will be enhanced, that the rates will at least remain the same and that in remote areas the level of service will be maintained?

[Poverty, October 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is a source of dishonour for our society that, while our economy is in an excellent condition, poverty is increasing.

This contrast has a direct impact not only on people's physical and psychological health, but also on the chances for success in adult life of the child victims of this poverty.

Instead of putting an end to the considerable waste engendered by duplicating provincial programs, this government has taken advantage of the opportunity of the throne speech to infantilize the provinces and to make children the first victims of the increased federal visibility thus achieved.

Visibility is this government's middle name; it would rather make use of its spending power to gain visibility than to address the problems relating to poverty.

I beg this government to repair the damage it has done to social programs by giving funding back to the provinces and respecting their areas of jurisdiction.