Marcel Gagnon

[Criminal Code, October 23rd, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today, on behalf of my party, on this bill to amend the Criminal Code by removing the obligation for the courts to pay special attention in the case of aboriginal adolescents or other groups of adolescents. I find it hard to talk about the fact that aboriginal peoples should not be considered in a particular way, and that they should be judged in the same way as everybody else.

Members need to have aboriginal communities in their ridings, as I do, and see the particular circumstances in which they live, to know that judges must be asked to consider these particular circumstances when judging aboriginal teens for any offences they might have committed.

We must try to act more justly toward this community. It is not true that aboriginal peoples have the same opportunities. It is not true that they are not influenced by their environment. It is not true that they have the opportunity to develop like everyone else.

It is true that we hear all kinds of things about the abooriginal peoples. Each time I have the opportunity to visit a reserve, as I did recently and as I will again in two weeks, I realize that there are people who live in trying circumstances. Without excusing them, I can understand that, at times, a despairing young aboriginal may commit reprehensible acts. On the contrary, I ask judges to consider the unique situation of these people.

We will vote against this bill, because we feel that sentencing alone is not enough, there must be understanding too. Recently, on my way back to Ottawa, I was listening to a show on Radio-Canada hosted by Marie-France Bazzo. She was interviewing an expert who showed how punishment, revenge and violence, even if reprehensible, begets only violence.

He showed that the United States, for example, has the highest prison population. Over the past few decades, the prison population in the U.S. has risen from one-third of a million to 2.3 million today. If violence is on the rise anywhere, it is in the United States.

Given all the measures that would prevent a judge from understanding the situation and analyzing the facts, particularly when it comes to adolescents, I will vote against this bill.

The House will remember the debates on the Young Offenders Act. My hon. colleague, Michel Bellehumeur, who is now a judge in Quebec, travelled around Quebec and fought to get Quebec's system adopted instead, since it had proved effective. Quebec's system is based on understanding and helping young offenders. It is not a system that seeks to impose harsher sentences, but rather one that ensures young offenders will be helped and reintegrated into society.

I am personally acquainted with some young people who today are a credit to Quebec society, but might have been put behind bars for life had they been judged with the severity that is being proposed.

I do not believe we should vote in favour of this legislative amendment. What is needed instead is to make an effort to take into consideration the conditions in which aboriginal people live and to, in the words of the law “respect gender, ethnic, cultural and linguistic differences and respond to the needs of aboriginal young persons and of young persons with special requirements”. This position, as a minimum, must be retained.

Looking at the latest census, we see that the average income of Canadians over the age of 15 years is $25,196. The average for aboriginal Canadians, however, is $14,283. So I do not want anyone to try to tell me that aboriginal young people lived in the same conditions as other Canadians.

These people need understanding. They need help. They need consideration of their situation. Let us try to help them and to understand them, rather than try to punish them, disregarding the fact that they are aboriginals and live under special circumstances.

I could certainly repeat the speeches made in this place by Michel Bellehumeur when he was an MP. They would show that what is needed is understanding, not repression. I share that opinion, and I am sure my party does as well. We will, therefore, be voting against this amendment.

[Supply, October 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay.

I mentioned something to that effect earlier. It is the case every time I stop at a gas station and I meet people. Last Monday, people were celebrating a 100th birthday in Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pérade. I was a bit late, I had had quite a busy day and the first question I was asked when I arrived was, “Do you think that the Prime Minister will go? How can he stand all this?” I told them that was not my party, my man and my policy.

However, I find this spectacle thard to take. This is inhumane, it makes no sense to do this to a man who has given 40 years of his life, to the best of his knowledge, to this country. This makes no sense, this is unacceptable.

Also, this must stop as soon as possible, so that we can get on with the business of the House. We are wasting our time here. Just think of how much it costs Parliament for every hour, every day of sitting. It is horrible to see how little has been accomplished since we came back to the House, and even in the last year.

[Supply, October 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Jonquière for her question.

I was indeed elected to the National Assembly under Premier René Lévesque. There is no doubt that any leader goes through some rough times. In 1984, when René Lévesque felt it was time for him to quit politics, he naturally waited for the right time to go.

I remember that, because he made his last official visit in my riding. I heard some of his opponents tell him, “Premier Lévesque, you have done too much for us to go this way. We need to thank you before you leave. Don't let them get you down”.

When there is a leadership convention, things can get complicated. However, when Mr. Lévesque left, he made way for his successor, and that is what the current Prime Minister and member for Saint-Maurice should do. That is all we are asking for in our motion.

The Prime Minister has decided that he would be leaving in February 2004 and he is being stabbed in the back not only by the future prime minister, but by all those who want to be in the good books of the future prime minister or want the keys to a limousine. Members opposite are putting on a very sad show, indeed.

They think nobody is noticing. But we only have to read the papers and listen to the people. Every weekend, our constituents tell us that it must be hard to work in Parliament with everything that is going on. They are making life miserable for the current Prime Minister. Basically, our motion is a friendly gesture. We are asking the Prime Minister to make way for his successor. We will thank him for his hard work and then address our questions to the future prime minister.

[Supply, October 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Jonquière.

Today, we are discussing an important issue. I will not have the time to respond to the Liberal member who just spoke, because I have some things to say on this issue. However, I think it is somewhat deplorable to hear that a lot of employment insurance benefits have been paid out in a region. It is sad news when EI benefits are paid out in a region.

When the government says it has reduced EI premiums I do not know how many times, the important thing is not the number of times I have robbed you, but the amount of money that I have robbed you of, if I did rob you.

The government has a surplus of $3 billion. It has almost $50 billion in the employment insurance fund. This money comes in part from taxpayers, that is workers and employers. This money is used to reimburse the debts of everyone and particularly the debts of those who have found a way to pay their taxes outside the country, in tax havens. They are the ones who put the government into debt, not the unemployed that the government refuses to pay EI benefits to because it wants to build up a surplus.

It is quite painful to listen to someone actually saying things like that. I think that a billion dollars too much in the employment insurance fund is a billion dollars too much, however many times they have been able to reduce the amount of premiums. If a thief breaks into my house and says he was a good guy to only have stolen $10, when he could have stolen $15, that does not change the fact that he did steal $10. Come on now, that is nonsense.

At the same time, they boast about their great results. Everyone is scandalized about how much money the federal government can waste. Michel Vastel made a list of the unbelievable sums that have been wasted. Federal government spending has increased by 35%. Money is being thrown everywhere.

Do not talk to me about good management. The surpluses have not come from good management, but from the fact that taxes are too high and transfer payments to the provinces, including Quebec, for health, education and the municipal sector, have been cut severely. It is painful to listen to what they are saying this house.

There is something I think is even sadder. The Prime Minister is the member for Saint-Maurice, which is a riding in the Mauricie region. Even though not everyone in Mauricie shares all the opinions of the hon. member for Saint-Maurice, he is still the one we call, affectionately, “the little guy from Shawinigan”. He is the one who started life in Baie de Shawinigan and worked very hard all his life before becoming Prime Minister of this country.

I do not agree with the Prime Minister's opinions, but I recognize that this man has devoted 40 years of his life to his country. He comes from back home, just a “little guy from Shawinigan”. Although he has done things I do not agree with, I think it is sad that, as his reward for a 40-year career in political life, he is being stabbed in the back by a colleague who wants to take over as fast as possible. I think that is sad.

I can tell you that at home we feel sad. Recently, two or three weeks ago, the Prime Minister's wife attended the same ceremony I did. The master of ceremonies said, “You must feel hurt, let us dress your wounds. We thank you for being here and we are proud of you”. I thought it was nice that the people of Mauricie would dress the wounds of a man who, after all, has been very committed.

It does not matter whether or not we agree with what he has done, the past cannot be undone. He followed his convictions. Nonetheless, I find it painful and sad to watch this man being crucified the way he has been for the past few months. It is immoral and unacceptable.

I am not the only one to think so.

A major retailer in Cap-de-la-Madeleine, who is a close friend of the Prime Minister's and whom I see often, asked me when the Prime Minister was going to step down and stop allowing himself to be crucified.

It is painful to see him stuck with responsibility for the country, while decisions are being made by someone else behind the scenes. That someone has good reason to lay low. He does not want be questioned on the awkward position he has put the Prime Minister in time and again. This former minister is the one who stole the EI fund. It is because of him that roughly $3 billion was stolen from the seniors I defend. He arranged things in such a way that they could not get guaranteed income supplements. They are the poor and the least fortunate in society. This member, who is running the show as interim prime minister, who is the prime minister in waiting, is hiding behind the curtain. He will not be here to vote on this motion. We are often ashamed of what he does.

He used to tell this House that we had no reason to criticize him for the EI situation because he had just reduced the EI premiums. He had good news for the unemployed. The government would be continuing to rob them, but not as much. It is a rather sad thing to hear. If he had any honour, he would stop stabbing the Prime Minister in the back.

We would like him to show up here as soon as possible, to answer our questions. We are asking the little guy from Shawinigan, the member for Saint-Maurice and Prime Minister of this country, to step aside. We are telling him, “You deserve better than this backstabbing. You have done enough for the country. You deserve better. Let him take your place, so that we can question him and get answers once and for all”.

We keep hearing that he cannot answer. We would like him to answer our questions. We would like him to account for his actions, for what he is doing with his ships while doing business with tax havens. We want him to question him about the shores of the St. Lawrence River and the pollution in Lake Saint-Pierre. He must account for his actions. This way, when the time comes to vote for or against him, we will know who this man is and what his plans are for the future.

This is a sad day, one of many since we have had this two-headed government, one where the Prime Minister is constantly being contradicted by a man who does not have the courage to show up here.

In my riding of Champlain alone, I note that the shores of the St. Lawrence River have suffered damages to the tune of $4.5 million, and this man's ships are partly to blame for that. Still, he refuses to repair the damage.

I would have many questions for him. I cannot wait. He should stop stabbing his colleague, the Prime Minister, the little guy from Shawinigan and member for Saint-Maurice in the back and take the steps to officially replace him. Then, we will put our questions to him.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, October 21st, 2003]

The hon. member for LaSalle—Émard is playing an April Fools' Day prank.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, October 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it will be difficult to describe my riding in two minutes. I will barely have time to get started. Indeed, when I talk about democracy in action, it would be so easy to do that.

The member for Trois-Rivières represents the neighbouring riding. For example, he can very easily go around his riding in half a day and come back home for lunch. In my case, going around my riding requires a week of travel if I want to have time to stop in different places. Indeed, my riding covers 38,000 square kilometres. I think that it is the seventh largest riding in Canada. And I am not complaining when I say this.

However, when I meet people from Lac-Édouard, from Weymontachie or from Parent, they have every right to say to me, “Well, it seems that you do not come to see us very often. You should have consulted us on this or that. It seems that we do not carry much weight”. Indeed, when I explain to them that it takes me four hours to get there and four hours to go back home and that I sit here four and a half days a week, of course they understand that I do not have time to go and visit them. I agree with the question that I was just asked.

Why, in defining new electoral boundaries—and we could ask the commission to do things differently, it is up to us—is the size of the riding not taken into account, so that not only members would represent more or less the same number of voters, but each voter would be able to expect more or less the same services from his or her federal MP?

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, October 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Trois-Rivières is touching on a point I unfortunately did not have the time to address, but he is absolutely right. This frightens me. I am an independentist. I often say so. I sit in this House and, God willing, I will work in politics until such time as Quebec has become the country I dream about. That is pretty clear.

Today, in question period, we had glaring evidence once again that the government is shamelessly provincializing and shrinking Quebec. What is being done to the St. Lawrence River—and the question has not been answered—is outrageous to all Quebeckers. The river is our treasure, our wealth.

Once a study is underway, the government gets caught up in the system and refuses to answer questions. It refuses to consult the public. We are weaker at the national level, with the total number of seats having grown from 294 to 308. In the region of the hon. member for Trois-Rivières and mine, one seat was lost. Not only does the government not answer our questions, but it is taking steps to reduce the number of members who can ask questions in this place, taking steps to reduce the number of members who can defend the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region, because we have one less seat, while there are more in the rest of Canada, since the total number has risen from 294 to 308.

I think that Quebec is in jeopardy. Personally, with the time and health I have left—because I got better and still have some time ahead of me—I will be working hard to make Quebec the country I dream about.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, October 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I understand my colleague and thank him for his question.

Indeed, at a meeting last night or the day before yesterday, people asked me whether the Notre-Dame-des-Anges, Notre-Dame-de-Montauban, Lac-aux-Sables, Parent, Lac-Édouard, and Wemotaci parishes were in my riding. They wanted to know the exact distance from where we were. Did you know that it takes 1 hour and 45 minutes by plane to go from Trois-Rivières to Wemotaci in my riding? A member was saying earlier that it takes him half a day to cover his riding by car. In my riding, after 1 hour and 45 minutes in a plane I have not even reached the midpoint.

Most people have no idea of the immensity of the area. I am not complaining, because it is one of the most beautiful areas in Quebec. But in addition to serving a great population and a beautiful area, I have to consider that these people have rights within these boundaries. We have to speak on their behalf and be able to consult them. It is important that they know exactly what riding they live in. Unfortunately, there are people who do not really know what riding they are in.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, October 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to exercise restraint this time, so that you do not have to call me to order.

Earlier, I questioned a colleague from the Canadian Alliance about the new redistribution and his answer was that my question was off topic, the topic being making the legislation take effect earlier, on April 1 instead of August 25. I understand the difference. We are not necessarily dealing with the substance of the bill, just making it effective five or six months earlier.

In addressing this bill, it is difficult to dissociate the purpose of the act from its application, which should normally take effect in August instead as April, as proposed.

In my opinion, this legislation is the very basis of democracy. We know that democracy allows us, every five years at the outside, to go before the public to report on our mandate and determine whether the public will re-elect us or elect someone else.

It was decided that every five years, we should go back to the people. It strikes me as somewhat excessive, however, to be going back consistently every three years or three years and a few months. If the government was overly democratic, I would applaud, but it is far from that. It is using this legislation to abuse a power a person wants to give himself.

I remember the time when I was working with René Lévesque in Quebec City. I mention him often because he was my political mentor. He is the figure who has inspired me—me and others—the most. You or people you know may have known René Lévesque or heard about him. Still today, even his opponents describe him as a great democrat. One of the first things he told us when we got elected in 1976 was that we were in office for five years and that it cost a fortune to elect a government. A government is a machine that must operate for a maximum of five years and he intended to work his full term.

On average, our two mandates under Mr. Lévesque, in Quebec, lasted four years and a half. We squeezed all we could out of these two mandates. We worked hard the whole time. I remember once, during an economic crisis, he decided to adjourn for two months and asked us to go back to our ridings and talk to our constituents to find out how they thought we could come out of the crisis. That was in 1981. My hon. colleague who worked closely with a minister at the time knows exactly what I am talking about.

I was truly impressed by the importance that the man attached to the people. He often reminded us that, when we start questioning what we are doing and debating among ourselves, it is time to go back to the grassroots and ask the people what they think. After all, we work for the people.

I was impressed by this man and struck with the passion of his arguments. The opposition also had a great leader, Gérard D. Lévesque. He was not a member of the Parti Quebecois. He was leader of the opposition for a while. Although an opponent of mine and a Liberal member, he really respected democracy like no one else. Under the leadership of Mr. Lévesque, I think we all learned in Quebec what democracy is all about.

The bill that is now before the House is outrageous. I heard an Alliance member say earlier that it does not matter if we do not agree, since there will be a vote.

The member for Acadie—Bathurst said earlier that in his riding, some French-speaking people were not happy with the changes being made. This will put them in even more of a minority situation. They have asked the courts to force the government to go back to the drawing board so that these Acadian francophones do not lose too many powers, so that they can keep those powers. They do not have too many as it is.

By moving up the coming into force of the new electoral boundaries from August to April 1, all the representations already made by this French-speaking community from Acadie—Bathurst will have been in vain. If we believe in democracy, we have to stop talking about it and to start doing something about it. If it was felt that the distribution of the electoral map had to be reviewed every ten years, following the census, and that the implementation of the new map should occur one year after the redistribution made by the commission, it is because people knew that the whole process would take a year. We need a year to organize ourselves and to challenge the decisions made, a year to go to court if necessary. However, when democracy has been abused to the point of even preventing us from doing those kinds of things, I think this is shameful for a country like ours that is considered a model of democracy. This is something that really bothers me.

And why are they doing this? We know that the now invisible member for LaSalle—Émard used to be an extremely important person. He was finance minister until the PM let him go for doing things behind his back. That member is going to become the leader of the Liberal Party, and thus the Prime Minister of this country. When he was Minister of Finance, he did some things we have a duty to question him about.

When he is Prime Minister, we would like to ask him some questions, but we know he is a poor weak scared creature, and he is right to be scared. We know he is afraid to answer our questions. For example, we know he is the one who pilfered the employment insurance fund, grabbing $45 billion that did not belong to him, did not belong to the government. Those $45 billion belong to the workers and employers. Those $45 billion belong to the workers who have lost jobs in the softwood lumber sector. Those $45 billion belong to those experiencing difficulties, for instance because of mad cow. Those $45 billion belong to the fishers, who are having problems because of the way the fisheries are being managed. Those $45 billion represent money they are refusing to return to the workers. The one who needs to answer these questions is the former finance minister and future prime minister.

I have worked on one issue concerning seniors. They are my concern, so the leader of my party did me the great favour of asking me to act as critic for policies for seniors. The Bloc discovered that the Minister of Finance of the day had helped himself to $3 billion belonging to the least well off members of our society. Three billion taken out of the nearly empty pocketbooks of those who already have the most trouble making ends meet.

I and the member for Sherbrooke attended a meeting in his riding. We heard about an elderly lady, since deceased, who had had a miserable old age, barely getting by on just the old age pension, while the finance minister had $90,000 that belonged to her.

She had never received the guaranteed income supplement to which she was entitled. In front of her family, along with the hon. member for Sherbrooke, we did the calculation. We figured out that the government has $90,000 in its treasury belonging to this woman in Sherbrooke who should have had a more comfortable old age than she had.

Last week, I was in the Gaspé with a colleague from my party. In the meeting, someone got up to say I was right. I discovered later, thanks to my colleague's research, that there was one woman who was owed $4,000 per year. But she had only been reimbursed for one year's income, that is, 11 months plus the current month. The rest went to the former finance minister who is going to be prime minister.

I would like to talk to him and ask him some questions on behalf of workers and seniors.

Why does he refuse to grant a normal amount of retroactivity to the senior who, because she did not receive enough information, or any information at all, has been deprived of her due? Why is it that when someone owes money to the government it goes back for at least 5 years, imposing fines and charging interest?

But in this case it is the government that owes money to a person, who is often ill, who is old, who lives alone. And she has to struggle and make a great effort. She was not given the information and we find out, 5, 6 or 7 years later, that she is owed $3,000, $4,000, or $5,000 per year. Moreover, they refuse to give her all she is owed, only a retroactive payment to cover 11 months.

I would like to see that man, the new leader of the Liberal Party. I would like to see him in the House so that we can ask him questions about this and so that the country can find out for whom it is voting when it votes for this prime minister, who is currently the member for LaSalle—Émard.

I think that would be a simple, honest and logical exercise in democracy. When we hear him talk about the democratic deficit—I am not going to repeat the things you called me to order for; I have written down the things I must not say—we have said that at the least he lacks courage and frankness. At the least, the biggest democratic deficit is his. He talks about it, and yet he is the one creating it.

In a democracy and in a country such as Canada, if he believes in democracy with the wealth that he has—I am not mad at him, I congratulate him—he should at least have the courage to pay taxes to the country that sustains us. He should at least have the courage to have his ships built in the country that employs us.

This man, president or co-owner of many companies, is one of those who has benefited from tax havens the most. In the name of democracy and on behalf of future voters, we are entitled to ask him questions to find out whether he was in conflict of interest at any given time. For example, when he denied seniors their due, instead of contributing to the fund and paying his taxes here, why did agree to have his companies pay taxes to tax havens?

Why have ships built elsewhere than in the big shipyards in Quebec and Canada? In Lévis, we have an extraordinary shipyard. We know that Canada Steamship Lines builds ships abroad. As Minister of Finance, and owner of a company like that, he knew full well that he was paying taxes and having ships built abroad.

I would like us to stand up to this man without pressuring him too much. In the name of democracy and on behalf of all Quebeckers and Canadians, I would like to tell him this, “Account for those things, so that we can know you better, have a better idea of the direction you will take as the Prime Minister, of whether or not you will show the same respect for us as you have in the past and what your commitment for the future will be”.

It would also be interesting to know if he actually transferred these assets to his children. Why is he hiding when we have not only good questions to ask but also important legislation to pass?

I made a calculation. Between today's date and the same date in 2004, we are likely to sit a maximum of three months. There is talk about adjourning in two or three weeks. We would then be coming back in February, probably to a new budget, and by April, we could have an election.

If an election were held in late April or early May, this House would sit very little, if at all, before the summer. Come summer, there will be a recess. We will resume sitting in September, while this is October. The member for LaSalle—Émard is crowing about democracy and the democratic deficit here in this place. This is place to debate and ask questions on behalf of the people, even if we never get any answers. Just think, over the next 12 months, we will sit a maximum of three months.

During nine months, this country will be run by orders in council. During nine months, it will be possible to do just about anything, and we will never know exactly what was done. We will see what comes of it.

There is no doubt that we oppose Bill C-49. We cannot support a bill that moves up by six months the date when the new electoral map will become effective. Earlier, I heard an hon. member talk about the power of the commission and say to we could not do anything about it. Come on, this commission reports to someone, in this instance, to Parliament.

If we really wanted to better apply democratic principles, if we wanted democracy to be more accessible to people, more real and truthful, should we not review the standards on which this commission is basing this new electoral map? People in Wemotaci, Obedjiwan and Parent also pay taxes and are entitled to representation. If I want to go to Obedjiwan and Parent, I have to plan a month in advance, and I still would not reach the end of my riding.

In addition to dividing Quebec into 75 ridings, it is essential to consider the distances members must travel. People on the very edge of my riding, like those in all the really large ridings, have the right to be consulted, to know and meet their member of Parliament and to take part in the democracy of this country, Quebec, that we are defending.

Madam Speaker, I see my time has run out. I said what I could, although I have changed nothing. That is unfortunately too often the case in this House. We just had oral question period, during which many important questions were asked, but the minister who should have answered let someone else do so. When we asked that individual a question on another subject, the minister who should have answered the first question answered the second. That is how things are here.

Nothing has changed, but at least the people in my riding and my region will know what I think of this system and will adopt positions that might help to improve things.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, October 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my Canadian Alliance colleague, who says that he believes in democracy and disagrees with the bill on which we will soon be voting. However, he says that he will vote in favour of this bill.

I do not know exactly what his real democratic values are. Indeed, if there is something that calls for democracy in this country, it is the electoral process, the exercise of the right to vote.

How can he vote in favour of a bill in which he does not believe, that he believes is fundamentally bad and undemocratic? He says that, indeed, this will force him to travel more by car to represent his constituents.

As a matter of fact, the change being imposed with the new redistribution represents more than kilometres by car. There are people who are left out. There are people who have the right to be heard. There are taxpayers who are increasingly further from the centre of decisions, from our Parliament, who have less and less access to a member of Parliament. I believe that, in this bill, the real democratic values are being violated.

How can he vote, how can he say that he is a democrat, that he believes in democracy and disagrees with a bill such as this and, at the same time, say that he will vote for it? I have a lot of problems with this interpretation.