Guy St-Julien

[Victims of Crime, October 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the victims of crime in Canada, and in Quebec in particular, have a strong grievance against the justice system. They are frustrated at being excluded, and demand equal attention with the offenders who have done them wrong. As well, they demand the right to speak when the time comes to make parole decisions concerning those offenders.

Consultations with victims held by the office of the solicitor general and the National Parole Board this past spring have revealed a rare unanimity across Canada.

Victims spoke of their frustration at being shunted aside, while the offenders who ruined their lives enjoyed all manner of rights and attentions. Victims, everywhere, made particular reference to the terrible fears they felt about the offenders' return to society.

Some believe that there should be no parole for the perpetrators of violent crime. Others feel that it should not be automatic at the two-thirds mark in the sentence, without the offender having done anything to deserve it. Many of them feel that offenders ought to be required to serve their entire sentence.

[Mining Industry, October 1st, 2001]

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

What is the federal government doing to support the Abitibi-Témiscamingue region as an area of excellence in the mining research sector?

[Softwood Lumber, September 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, currently, France Gagnon, the CEO of Précibois, a family business in Barraute, in the great Abitibi region, is very concerned about the U.S. decision to impose harsh measures on her company.

As in the case of previous trade dispute over softwood lumber, it was vital that countervailing measures be applied to the primary mill price.

The U.S. decision to impose this measure on the last mill rate means that the unsubsidized remanufacture sector is hit first and hardest. If this measure remains, the industry could disappear.

For the good of the managers and forestry workers of this fine business, the Minister of International Trade must have this value added sector excluded from the trade dispute immediately.

[Supply, June 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that we will not resolve all the problems here by November. There will always be something somewhere that needs improving, but this evening, with the motion brought forward earlier today, we will improve things. That is what counts.

We must find a solution together to improve things so we can say to the other members “Go on, introduce bills, bring forward motions, you will have a chance”. Today, many members are no longer bringing forward motions or introducing bills. I was not bitter following the committee's decision because the members of the committee do good work.

In conclusion, the second time I appeared before the committee I was in good humour and said “I do not want my motion to be votable. I wish you a good day and will let you continue your work”. I was not in a bad mood. However, it is true there are always things to improve. The member is right. There will always be something to improve. Perhaps this will happen even next December. I appreciated the member's question.

[Supply, June 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to split my time with the member for Scarborough—Rouge River.

I am glad to see today's motion and delighted at the enthusiasm shown by Canadian Alliance members at the possibility of improving the rules and procedures of the House of Commons.

I listened to several speeches and I really appreciate the comments by members of the other political parties.

With respect to private members' business, I am one of the lucky ones. My name gets drawn rather often because it is true that I present a lot of motions, but that is not the issue, since our name stands only once for the draw.

One day, just to explain how it works, I had spoken for an hour here in the House on a motion to pay a salary to women who stay at home.

When my hour was up around noon, I immediately went to the clerk's office and I again presented my motion. It was a Tuesday and, the next day, during the afternoon, the motion I had brought forward had a new number. There was a draw and again I won; I chose this same motion. Recently I have been lucky and my name has been drawn twice.

I support the motion because solutions must be found. It is true that some members have presented motions for four years and their motions have never been drawn. A solution must be found.

What I have trouble with is the way the decision is made about whether a motion or bill is votable or not. We must go before a committee made up of members from all political parties. At the very end, we have five minutes to explain what our bill is all about.

Then a decision is made, but it all depends on how the discussions went: outside the House we are all friends, but inside it is like a hockey game, and it is not easy. In committee, if just one member is opposed to the bill, it cannot be a votable item.

I experienced that recently. I presented a bill concerning the posting of the gross price of a litre of gas before taxes. When I look at the criteria set in April 1999, this bill, which reflected the public's wish—because we always serve our constituents and all Canadians—was perfectly in keeping with what the public was asking for with respect to the price of gas.

What I find troublesome is the fact that decisions are made by friends or colleagues, members who are against us within the House. We should testify before an independent committee made up of three people who have experience in the House of Commons and to whom we would explain for five minutes what our bill is all about.

Once a decision is made, the reasons why it is or is not a votable item should be put into writing, specifying under which criteria. We never get a written decision, as it is all done verbally, as to why our item is votable or not, and we are never told why. All of a sudden, we are out of luck.

This is rather troublesome, because all the members of this House work very hard. They put a great deal of effort into finding solutions to everything that affects Canada. This is why I am saying that we must find solutions.

I am pleased by the motion put forward today by the Canadian Alliance member, because it calls on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to use its great expertise in this area, precisely to find solutions.

Even you, Mr. Speaker, have examined reports and tried to find solutions Today, we are back at it again.

I will vote in favour of this motion this evening and I truly appreciated the comments made today.

[Supply, June 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the words of the hon. member for Provencher, and I must say that he made several points of interest to us in his intervention.

As for his final remark about not knowing the criteria, I would state that, just by chance, I have them here before me. I would like to make a comment and then ask a question.

In April 1999, in a report to the House, the standing committee on private members' business established the new list of criteria for selection of votable private members' business.

There are five points. What is important is that, in the House of Commons, it is his party that ought to inform him on this, or he ought to contact the committee to find out what the criteria are.

Should he not get these directly from the House of Commons or from his party?

[Road Safety, June 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in La Presse , the letter of the week was from Montreal lawyer Sylvain Lallier, and was headed “Time to act”. The letter concerns the government of Quebec's innumerable promises to legislate.

We are still waiting. What is the argument for the lack of action? The hard core. Do members know what the “hard core” is? It is Quebec's 4,000 chronic drunkards, who are untouched by the province's laws and sanctions. The people who fear nothing, neither police, nor fines, nor road blocks, nor judges nor prison. They are not moved by public awareness campaigns or society's scorn.

Each time a tragedy occurs, the SAAQ fails to react, saying it is inevitable because the law would not reach the reckless driver, however severe it might be.

And then there is the “no-fault” aspect of it, which provides unlucky drunks who injure themselves in an accident with generous compensation by the SAAQ. These unacceptable privileges are being stubbornly maintained.

[Foreurs De Val-D'Or, May 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, today is a day of great celebration in Val-d'Or, in honour of the hockey players, coach and trainers of the Foreurs de Val-d'Or, and their solid performance at the Memorial Cup in Regina.

The Foreurs de Val-d'Or's super performance is the result of their character, great spirit and exceptional team solidarity. They never let up, right to the final game.

The Quebec major junior hockey league champions and Memorial Cup finalists will be feted as champions this evening at the Palais des sports de Val-d'Or, and greeted by the cheers of the hockey fans of Val-d'Or and the entire Abitibi—Témiscamingue region.

[Petitions, May 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present, on behalf of the workers of the Sigma mine, in Abitibi—Témiscamingue, and of the residents of the City of Val-d'Or and of the Vallée de l'Or, a petition asking the government to take action to reinforce its presence and increase its activities in resource regions that are experiencing difficulty in adapting to the new economy.

The petitioners are asking the government to make the rules governing existing programs more flexible and to ensure they are used in resource regions.

At the same time, the petitioners call upon parliament to set up a financial assistance program for thin capitalization mines in Quebec and Ontario resource regions.

[Mining Industry, May 10th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the people of Abitibi—Témiscamingue are calling for a mining sector emergency fund.