Lost his last election, in 2006, with 30% of the vote.
National Defence November 5th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of National Defence realize that, not only he is not respecting the commitment made by the Prime Minister in the Speech from the Throne, but he is also not taking into consideration the opinion of Quebeckers and he will pay a political price in Quebec, because he stubbornly refuses to have a vote on the missile defence shield?
National Defence November 5th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, a poll shows that 65% of Quebeckers are opposed to the missile defence shield. However, the Minister of National Defence said that, personally, he would prefer that the House vote on this issue after, rather than before an agreement is signed.
How does the minister explain that he will not respect the commitment made in the Speech from the Throne, to the effect that there should be a vote in the House of Commons before the government makes a final decision on the missile defence shield?
Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act November 5th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to the arguments I presented earlier on to my Conservative colleague.
I know that his federalist perspective inclines him to give some weight to the principle according to which each region of Canada should get its fair share. But that is a federalist principle. For members of a party such as ours, advocating the interests of Quebec exclusively, there is the conviction that it is not the job of the federal government to allocate money in Quebec. The federal government should give the money to Quebec and Quebec, much more attuned to regional needs, should allocate it.
Would his party be ready, within the framework of the amendments it wishes to put forward, to see money available at the federal level handed over to Quebec to administer on its own for the regions of Quebec?
Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act November 5th, 2004
I'm not speaking to the minister at the moment. This is disturbing me when I speak--I can't concentrate on what I have to say.
I would have liked to ask the hon. Conservative member, whose party always defends the provinces' jurisdictions, including Quebec's, if it would not have been preferable for this bill to let the Quebec government manage the region's money instead of an agency that is only looking to increase its visibility in Quebec?
Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act November 5th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech my hon. Conservative colleague just made. I would have thought that the Conservative Party, who is usually steadfast in its defence of provincial jurisdictions, would have--
Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act November 5th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I am having a hard time understanding how the minister, who says he is responsible for regional development, can say that that responsibility is conferred to him by the Canadian Constitution.
I am surprised also that the Liberals know their Canadian Constitution. Indeed, judging by their behaviour in the House, one can conclude that they are constantly at odds with the Canadian Constitution, because they are always invading provincial fields of jurisdiction.
I find that reassuring, because a Liberal member has finally started to read his Constitution. In my opinion, this is good news today. That said, I hope he will also ask his colleagues to do the same, particularly all those who, since we came back on October 4, presented bills that fall under provincial jurisdiction.
Last week, the eloquent member for Outremont said that it was high time for his government to take care of federal jurisdictions. I also hope that the eloquent member for Outremont, who seems to have some control over Quebec, will ask his colleagues to read the Constitution. Indeed, at the present time, they do not respect the Constitution. They not only force it on us in 1982, but they do not even respect it.
When there are international and economic conflicts—and I call bilateral agreements that do not work conflict—it is not the textile industries that asked to be in trouble. It is this government which made the decision to remove import quotas two years in advance. When an economic situation is caused by a bilateral agreement or is about international trade, it is federal jurisdiction.
I am asking him if, instead of invading Quebec's fields of jurisdiction, he could look in his own yard and deal with the problems the regions of Quebec are facing because of his government.
Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act November 5th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech on Bill C-9. We hear that this bill will create a department of regional development in Quebec. This is the only time I heard the word “Quebec” in this broad definition that the minister has just given.
Obviously partnership is involved. Agencies are mentioned. However, I still feel that Bill C-9 shows one again that the federal government is interfering where it has no business. In addition, I also think that the government is trying to convince the Quebec regions, which where depopulated because of this government's employment insurance policies, that they will be repopulated.
You cannot imagine all the political decisions that have been made by this government. There is employment insurance. There is also the present crisis in the textile industry as well as the situation in agriculture and in the manufacturing industry, which is a soft sector. All these are international responsibilities, responsibilities that fall to the Government of Canada.
In my opinion, this is where the federal government should focus its actions, instead of once again creating regional duplication in Quebec.
Therefore, I ask the minister if he is ready to announce that he will work in close cooperation with the Quebec government on the project, meaning that he will hand over the federal funds to the Quebec department responsible for the regions and that the Province of Quebec will manage the funds because it is Quebec that is responsible for its regions.
Criminal Code October 22nd, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-10, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (mental disorder) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
When I was a journalist, I worked as a crime reporter for two years and had the opportunity to follow some highly unusual trials. I saw both sides, crown and defence attorneys alike, struggle with this delicate question.
When a crime occurs, there are always factors to consider in such an unfortunate incident. Sometimes, those factors are linked to someone who has trouble speaking for himself at trial. It then becomes more difficult and complex for the courts to deal with these issues.
A first step was taken by this House on March 29 of this year. At the time, the Minister of Justice introduced Bill C-29. As is the tradition, the bill was read a second time and referred to a committee so that parties, and especially the Bloc Québécois, could propose amendments to enhance the bill. As I said at the beginning of my speech, the purpose of the bill is to more clearly define this delicate question, which is addressed in the Criminal Code.
Even though we were, at the time, more concerned with pre-electoral stuff than with political issues, committee members were able to come up with unanimous proposals. As I pointed out last Friday, since the start of this Parliament, the Liberal government has kept to one scenario. It reintroduces bills but without taking into consideration the work that was done in the previous session.
When the government acts in this way, it penalizes those affected by this bill. They are already suffering from mental disorder, and then are penalized by the fact that, once again, the Liberal government has neglected to take everything that was said and done in the previous Parliament into consideration. Hon. members are no doubt aware that we are making use of a procedure which allows us to refer the bill to committee earlier in order to get it passed more quickly. Once consideration of it is undertaken in committee, I hope that the committee chair will take time to look at what has already been done, and that the committee will automatically allow all the motions passed that time.
If this government keeps on in this way, the Order Paper will become increasingly weighty. We are operating in the context of a minority government with all sides are trying to make some progress. But, ever since we came back in early October, this government seems to be trying to constantly shunt aside proposals and motions, and most particularly the huge amount of work already done in the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.
I hope that, when the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness comes to examine this matter, it will immediately take into consideration everything that has already been done.
The Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill C-10 in principle, but steps must be taken to ensure that the proposed amendments protect the rights of people with mental disorders effectively and properly safeguard public safety.
Unfortunately, many people are prejudiced against the mentally ill. They deserve more compassion and greater understanding, because they are often accused of doing things that they are not even aware of having done. That is why there are provisions in the Criminal Code to protect them.
The recommendations of the justice and human rights standing committee that were not taken into consideration by the federal government deserve to be again considered in committee in order to understand the reasoning of those who drafted this bill.
When a minister introduces a bill, he certainly undertakes consultation. There is something we are having trouble understanding. Those who drafted Bill C-10 have left out some important parts of Bill C-29, which the previous government had introduced.
I remember April 29, 2004, in this House, when, once again, there was very little discussion of policy. There was more talk about the pre-election process. But there was my colleague from Repentigny, who is very well known and who sits near me. These days, he can be seen in the major debates on the issue of public accounts. I am convinced that he will straighten out the Liberals, once again, on everything this government has done that seems a bit wrong.
I do not need to repeat all that has been said at the Gomery commission. I could table piles of documents I have read in the public accounts committee and tell you what has been happening. I am sure the hon. member for Repentigny will take over.
I return to April 29, 2004. My colleague was saying that the Bloc Québécois welcomed and supported Bill C-29. But at that moment, like all Bloc MPs, my colleague addressed the democratic deficit.
The democratic deficit was a slogan heralding a profound transformation in the way Parliament works. Expectations were created around this deficit, and unfortunately we see that nothing happened, except perhaps that the Liberal government now understands that it is in a minority position and must listen more closely to the opposition majority.
In conclusion, I hope that this positive spirit will carry over to the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness when it makes its decision on Bill C-10, so that the people affected by this important legislation will not be penalized.
Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply October 20th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what the industry minister had to say about the throne speech. I would like to point out to him some sizeable gaps in the throne speech, which made no reference to a number of industries.
As we know, several regions of Quebec, and especially the Chaudières-Appalaches area, are facing a crisis in the textile industry. I have not seen one reference to it in the throne speech and I have not heard one statement on how the government would provide assistance to an industry hard hit by the unfair competition of Asian countries.
I would like to hear the industry minister's opinion on this.
Canada Shipping Act October 15th, 2004
I am pleased to conclude here, because I get the feeling that many in this House are anxious to see this week come to an end, myself included. Not that I want to see the end of my speech, because there is plenty more I could say on this bill.
I will just state that we are opposed to Bill C-3 and that we, the 54 members of the Bloc Quebecois, will keep watch steadfastly, day in and day out, over the interests of Quebec.