Marcel Gagnon

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Laval Centre. It is always a pleasure to listen to her speeches since she is a very competent and experienced person.

We have here a debate which shows that democracy is becoming less and less important in this country. We hear the future leader of the Liberal Party talk about the democratic deficit everywhere he goes.

I would like to say this and turn it into a question for my colleague from Laval Centre. If what we hear is true—and everything indicates that it is—by amending the legislation to allow an election to be called as early as April 1, it means that we will be sitting a total of three months at the most over the next 12 months, that is between October 2003 and October 2004.

Coming from someone who is talking about a democratic deficit, I find this rather outrageous. To serve the interests of one man who does not want to be held accountable for his actions before the people, this Parliament will be sitting a total of three months at the most over the next 12 months, since we will not be sitting in the summer of 2004.

The election will be held at the end of the spring, and we will probably resume sitting at the beginning of September. This means that for 9 months over a period of 12 months, this country will be governed through orders in council made by a small group of people that are cabinet members.

Is my interpretation accurate? I would say to my colleague from Laval Centre that I believe that this would create a huge democratic deficit. Is my interpretation accurate?

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

Mr. Speaker, you are right. Having occupied the position of Speaker in Quebec, I will certainly withdraw, but it does not change what I think.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the remarks of my two colleagues. I would like to add my own opinion after the last speech I heard. I find the present situation utterly unfair and even unethical.

In the Mauricie area, everyone was also unanimously of the opinion that it made no sense to eliminate one of the three seats we have. Just like Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, the Mauricie area is faced with the problem of its young people leaving to go elsewhere.

Even though the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard does not answer the questions being asked in the House, we know that at election time, when he travels throughout Canada, he says that he cares about the regions. Well, he lied. I am sorry I have to be that blunt. It is completely false. The only thing he is doing is serving his own interests and his own political agenda.

He does not answer the questions being asked in the House concerning the $45 billion surplus in the EI fund, for example, or the $3 billion in benefits withheld from seniors in the guaranteed income supplement program, or the fact that many of his companies pay their taxes in tax havens. He refuses to answer these questions, and he is using what should be a democratic piece of legislation to avoid sitting in the House. He wants to be the next prime minister without letting people know who he really is and what he intends to do when he is the prime minister.

What does my colleague from Manicouagan think about this? Personally, I am saddened by the fact that an area such as mine, his, and Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay are being deprived of the right to express themselves because some politician wants to look out for his own interests. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on this.

[The Income Tax Act, October 9th, 2003]

He is indeed a very good accountant.

It has been said that the $250 million will help the oil and gas companies pollute more. Instead of increasing research on renewable energy, we are going to increase pollution from fossil fuels. If the government really does not want to invest the $250 million in renewable energy research, there are a few other things I could suggest.

I toured Quebec in the course of my study on the guaranteed income supplement. The member for Sherbrooke knows what I am talking about, because I attended a meeting with him in Sherbrooke. We discovered something really incredible and interesting.

I learned that, for years, 68,000 Quebeckers have been deprived of the guaranteed income supplement. Older women in particular were affected. You know that 64% of women over the age of 65 live on less that $10,000 a year.

The government took the money from the guaranteed income supplement. If it does not know what to do with the $250 million that it is now giving so generously to companies that do not need it, it could maybe think about using the money to reimburse Canadian seniors who were deprived of this essential income.

I would like the member for Sherbrooke, who dealt with one of these cases personally, to tell me if he would agree that it would be much more effective to use the $250 million for this rather than giving it to the oil companies.

[The Income Tax Act, October 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rose many times during this debate to make some comments and ask questions on this very interesting subject. Being an accountant, my colleague from Sherbrooke knows very well what can be done with money. He is very good at counting.

[The Income Tax Act, October 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, after hearing the comments from our colleague on the other side, we understand why the member for Lac-Saint-Louis says that conflicting decisions are being made.

On the one hand, we signed the Kyoto Protocol and we feel it is urgent that we work on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Anyone who cannot see the urgency of the situation is not playing with a full deck; just think of all the disasters happening around the world. In spite of all that, some still think we are creating jobs. Of course, we are creating jobs because of the forest fires. We are creating jobs in areas where we are destroying the planet.

It is dispiriting to hear a member of Parliament speak like our colleague from the other side. However, I do want to thank the member for Windsor West, who clearly cares about the environment. It is really not very brilliant to say that the $250 million given to these companies will have no effect on the environment and will create jobs. I can assure you that the $250 million invested elsewhere would also create jobs, but jobs for the future.

Let me give an example. There is in my riding a company called Marmen. This company builds wind generators and sells them worldwide. The demand is very strong. We would like to develop the port in Cap-de-la Madeleine to make it easier to ship those wind generators, but National Harbours has no money for that. They do not have the $2 million or $3 million needed to build a wharf on the river, in Cap-de-la-Madeleine, to help this company sell wind generators. Marmen creates hundreds of jobs in the renewable energy sector. This really is money well invested.

I had a question for the member for Windsor West, but I will get to it later. I will just make some comments. I would like to congratulate him, but I will not congratulate the Liberal member opposite who asked a question. It is not smart at all to say such things. It is not too smart either to support the bill now before the House.

I would like the member for Windsor West to tell us what we could do with the $250 million that we are giving to the oil and gas companies, which do not need it at all. What research could we conduct? He mentioned Toronto and Montreal, two cities that have real pollution problems. I would like to hear his comments on this.

[The Income Tax Act, October 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for Lac-Saint-Louis for his speech. Having served with him in the Quebec National Assembly, I know he has always been concerned about the environment. When he was minister of environment in the Quebec government, this really was an issue of concern for him.

I do not remember the exact figure, but at the Quebec conference that two ministers of this government attended, as well as other members and myself, World Bank specialists told us that the greenhouse effect was almost catastrophic around the globe. They mentioned that an incredible number of people on this planet did not know anything about electric energy and the member for Lac-Saint-Louis was said that also.

These people work with hard energy, like coal and wood, which explains why between 15 and 20% of the sun's rays are not reaching the earth on a whole continent. This creates major environmental problems, as the member for Lac-Saint-Louis also pointed out.

When I hear a speech like this one, or the one by the member for Davenport, I wonder how it is that we are studying such a senseless bill, one that is so remote from environmental concerns.

How is it that, in 2003, we cannot get any reaction from the government when we say that this bill has to be withdrawn? We have to take what is being given to the oil companies to do exactly what the member for Lac-Saint-Louis was proposing, conduct research on renewable energy.

I am asking the member for Lac-Saint-Louis what we can do together to get the government to take action along these lines.

[Income Tax Act, October 9th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my hon. colleague as well as to the member for Drummond. Both speeches enlightened us about the bill now before the House.

I find it quite outrageous that the House is considering a bill that defies common sense and is completely out of step. The environment is a central concern for most people. We want to move toward cleaner energy and fight pollution in large cities like Montreal and Toronto. We are looking for solutions and a bill like C-48 does the exact opposite of what we should be doing.

Not only are we not investing $250 million in research for clean energy, but we are spending $250 million on an increasingly polluting source of energy. Can the hon. member tell me how I should explain this to my constituents? How does he explain the fact that the government is so intent on passing a bill that is so totally out of sync?

Is it only to score points in Western Canada?

[Income Tax Act, October 9th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I just heard a refreshing speech. It is interesting to see that some members on the other side share the views of the member for Davenport. I took note of at least four reasons why we should not support this bill.

I totally agree with the member when he says that we should not grant tax relief to very wealthy and profitable corporations. When we are increasingly talking about trying to reduce pollution, we should adopt the polluter pay principle. Here we have the reverse: an industry that promotes pollution is being rewarded. This is how I see it anyway.

The member also mentioned the risk of depletion: we will probably face an oil shortage within 20, 40 or 50 years. I believe the Kyoto protocol is an issue he is keenly interested in. As we know, developing the oil industry cost Canadians a bundle. The oil industry is rumoured to have benefited from $66 billion while the hydro electricity industry, especially Hydro-Québec, got nothing.

Does the member for Davenport not agree that the $250 million the government is planning to give the oil industry would be better used if it were invested in clean, renewable energies? Would it not be more logical and safer for our future to promote research on windmills? The member talked about the future of the young pages who are here, the future of the country as a whole.

In view of the fact that Hydro-Québec never received any development help from the federal government, while the oil industry in western Canada received billions and billions of dollars and is about to receive further handouts, would it not be a good idea to spread the assistance around so that together we can develop cleaner industries and promote fairness for all?

[Public Safety, 2002, October 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague was referring to the events of 1970. He said that he did not want to name names, but there is one name that comes to mind for me. I am thinking of officer Samson who placed a bomb near the residence of former Prime Minister Trudeau. While he did not die, he at least lost the use of one arm.

That is when it was discovered that a good many of the bombs had been planted by the RCMP to try to discredit those who were working for Quebec's sovereignty. That does not mean that FLQ members were being protected, but that there were groups that wanted to be heard.

To show that these groups were reprehensible, for example, the RCMP was asked to steal a Parti Quebecois membership list. That made everyone in Quebec very nervous and I, for one, very nearly lost my life.

In 1970 I was arrested and found myself looking down the barrels of two guns for an hour. I was arrested in Baie d'Urfé. I can report that, when one has done nothing wrong, and sees flashing lights and police officers everywhere, when one is taken for a criminal and has two guns pointed at one for more than an hour, until the error is discovered, giving more power to the police is not the first thing one would consider. I have always promised myself that I would think twice before I did anything of the sort.

After that incident, I told the police officers, “Now, to me you look like the bad guys”. Not all police officers are guilty of such disrespect, but when you have been held the way I was and the way others were in the 1970s, it leaves a scar. As my hon. friend pointed out, some 400 or 500 people were imprisoned for no valid reason, on the pretext of public safety. Give me a break. The only people safer were a few politicians.

Perhaps the politicians were helped to correct their errors, but the RCMP was asked to so something it never should have had to do. In my eyes, police forces in general lost much of their previous credibility. When the hon. member was talking about the 1970s, I was thinking about that event.

After September 11, we were told there was a need for security and I agree. I do not agree with those who commit crimes like the attacks on September 11. Nonetheless, after September 11, we heard some fine speeches from people who had put their finger on the problem.

I remember, after September 11, Tony Blair saying that now we must truly address the unrest in the world. We must ensure that there is more justice and deal with the root causes of what happened on September 11. Since then, those fine speeches have been shelved. The police are being asked to be repressive and to arrest anyone who looks the least bit dangerous.

If we had paid more attention to speeches like the one Tony Blair made the day after the attacks, there would be less fear today. We would not need Bill C-17. We would just have to ensure a little more justice in the world and stop stealing from those who cannot defend themselves. We go on about child poverty, but every day, more children are poor because of our policies that make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

If the bill did not give power to the police, but were used to ensure justice in the world, then all of my colleagues and I would vote for it. However, we will not vote for a bill such as Bill C-17.