Michel Bellehumeur

[Young Offenders, February 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, instead of the minister saying just any old thing, I would like her to try to understand Quebec's approach in this area. I will give her another very straightforward example.

Today, a young offender found guilty of a serious crime leaves a rehabilitation centre when Quebec social services consider him rehabilitated. However, with the minister's bill, the young person will be treated as an adult and automatically released after serving two thirds of his sentence, rehabilitated or not.

Does the minister understand that the bill prevents Quebec from continuing its rehabilitative approach?

[Young Offenders, February 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, currently, when an adolescent commits a minor offence, the matter is referred to the crown prosecutor, who determines whether the young person needs help. If so, the Quebec system rehabilitates him immediately.

With the minister's bill, the youth will receive a warning only. The crown prosecutor will not see the record and will not be able to require the young offender to follow a program of rehabilitation.

Does the minister realize that her bill puts an end to Quebec's educational approach?

[Pierre-De-Lestage High School, February 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on January 7, fire destroyed the Pierre-de-Lestage high school in Berthierville, the county seat of the riding of Berthier—Montcalm, which I have the honour of serving since 1993.

This tragedy, which caused bedlam in our community, has seriously disrupted the lives of hundreds of students and their parents. In a spirit of solidarity, the community has pulled together to make it possible for the student body of some one thousand young people to complete their school year at the high school in Saint-Félix-de-Valois, L'Érablière.

Today I would like to draw attention to the courage of the students, parents and teachers of this school and the great spirit of co-operation from the institution in the neighbouring municipality which took them in the day after this sad event.

My best wishes to all students and staff of both schools for the rest of the school year, and congratulations on the spirit of brotherhood that has enabled these young people to continue their schooling with peace of mind and will therefore contribute to their academic success.

[Saint-Côme Festival De Sculptures Sur Glace, February 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, as the honorary patron of the 10th Saint-Côme Festival de sculptures sur glace being held now until February 10, I take this opportunity to congratulate the organizers, volunteers, artists and sponsors who make this event such a success. This festival introduces thousands of visitors to one of the most beautiful corners of the country.

Again this year, there will be over 70 ice sculptures by artists in my riding for the public to admire.

The festival also offers a multitude of activities, including skiing, snowmobiling, sleigh rides and a tribute to lumberjacks.

I extend an invitation to our audience, the members of the House and to you, Mr. Speaker. If you come on the weekend to Berthier—Montcalm, dress warmly, because generally at this time of year, the temperature in the kingdom of Saint-Côme is a lot lower than it is in Ottawa.

[Speech From The Throne, February 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am stunned by the speech of the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.

Since the hon. member changed sides in the House of Commons, his views have also changed drastically. Part of his speech dealt with health and was to the effect that the reason there are problems in Quebec is because the Quebec government is too centralizing. This takes the cake.

Moreover, Toronto MPs applauded him. He delivered a speech that got applause from Ontario MPs. Mr. Speaker, I hope your constituents are listening, because I am going to remind the hon. member of some of the statements he made here barely a year ago.

“What was scrapped in Canada was not the GST, but the health care system, particularly in Quebec...Yes, people are tired of the constitutional debate, but they certainly need a break from the provocation carried on for the past 30 years by the leaders of the Liberal Party of Canada”.

That comment was made on November 29, 1999. On March 20, 2000, the hon. member said:

“How does one go about getting rid of a Prime Minister who, not just in the case of Human Resources Development Canada, but in the case of the budget, is determined to interfere in all sectors of provincial jurisdiction?”

Here is one last quote:

“The federal government grabs all the money and then haggles with the provinces on education, health services and the infrastructure programs”.

There has to be some logic in comments. One cannot speak from both sides of his mouth in the House, make completely contradictory statements and, above all, blame a government for something that does not come under its jurisdiction. It is the federal government that is to blame, not the provincial government.

[Speech From The Throne, February 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like you to note that I will be splitting my time with the new Bloc Quebecois member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

Although I have already asked some questions and made some comments, this is the first opportunity I have had since being elected to actually rise and respond to the throne speech.

I would like to begin by thanking a few people. I am sure that the House will understand. My first thanks go to my wife Nathalie and my children Roxane and Vincent who, although still young—eight and eleven years old—have a very good, not to say an excellent, understanding of the demands made on a member for parliament. I also wish to thank my family, the organizers and voters of the riding of Berthier—Montcalm, who have put their trust in me since 1993.

This is the third election for a party, the Bloc Quebecois, which was not supposed to be around for more than three elections in a row. In the riding of Berthier—Montcalm, my percentage of the vote went up starting in 1993. I therefore think that there is room for the Bloc Quebecois and that it is using its position properly to defend Quebec's interests.

This brings me directly to the throne speech. What are we to conclude from this particular throne speech? The tradition after a general election was to have a speech that would give parliamentarians some direction, that spoke about the government's vision. Things had to change. There were new bills on the table.

Unfortunately, I must agree with many other experts and journalists. In a nutshell, all the time put into the throne speech was pointless and very expensive. As we have seen, it was even a very imperialist exercise, with the Governor General, the Queen's representative. There is nothing, or nothing new anyway, in the throne speech. It shows a complete lack of imagination on the part of this government, which is simply maintaining the course it embarked on after the 1997 election.

It seems to me that this was an opportunity to follow up on certain comments and wishes expressed by the public for changes.

But no. We can see for instance that, by wholly reproducing what was already in its red book—not to fault that, but it was unnecessary to have a general election and a throne speech—the government decided to continue its usual incursion into areas of provincial jurisdiction.

The reaction may be that the Bloc Quebecois is always saying that, but it is the very source of this country's problem.

I would remind hon. members that Quebec did not sign the constitution. No Quebec premier signed it, whether Parti Quebecois or Liberal. None has signed the constitution. Yet here again we find a government preparing to invest—because it has the cash—in areas of provincial jurisdiction. Just think of parental leave and education. Is there any area, under the Canadian constitution, which falls more clearly under provincial jurisdiction than education?

In the throne speech we can see that the federal government's investment is under the pretext that there is a problem. Yes, there is a problem, and not just in Quebec. The problem has been caused by the federal government with its cuts to transfer payments.

This is why we are asking the federal government, which is accumulating billions of dollars, to transfer the money it took to the provinces, which are closer to the people and provide services directly to constituents so they may invest wherever there is a need, including among others in education. It is, however, not up to the federal government to invest directly in education.

This is the basis of a number of misunderstandings. Let the government honour the Canadian constitution, which it boasts is good. Let it honour it. In doing so, they will end up with a lot fewer overlaps.

The same is true in education and health care, where the government will create a supervisory superstructure. As if the provinces could not manage their hospitals and the health care system.

The problem, I repeat, was created by the federal government when it cut the transfer payments and money, which was in fact intended for these public services.

There is the matter of potable water. It is true that this has been a problem in certain municipalities in Canada and Quebec. However, water quality and availability are provincial matters as well. Will the federal government start investing in that area as well? That does not line up very well.

I understand that the government opposite is very arrogant. I understand that it is quietly pursuing the same approach since 1997. Perhaps it should realize it is off track. The Bloc Quebecois will be there to remind it. We will be there to get the most for Quebec, to remind the federal government that it is off the beam in the case of many bills and we will try to influence it, as we have done in the past. Through it all, we will continue to do our job and we will respect provincial jurisdiction.

To be honest, there was at least one positive thing in the throne speech, and I can hardly wait to have it in my hands. This is the anti-gang legislation.

The House will recall that when the Bloc Quebecois spoke about the problem of biker gangs in Quebec and in Canada, the government members opposite practically laughed in our faces. They said there was no problem, that the Criminal Code was fine the way it was and that additional legislation was not necessary. All the Liberals in the House heard the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice tell us this.

However, in the wake of the election campaign, people realized that Canada did not in fact have the tools to effectively combat organize crime.

We read in the throne speech that the federal government is preparing to introduce anti-gang amendments.

It has understood, and this is why the Bloc Quebecois is important. Without us, the government would have done nothing because it did not understand the problem. We got the message across. We are going to continue to speak out because there are other messages that must get across to the government, including the one having to do with the Young Offenders Act.

I would have thought that after an election campaign the government members opposite, especially those from Quebec, would have understood that Quebecers do not want the Minister of Justice and the federal government meddling with the Young Offenders Act. This legislation has demonstrated its worth in Quebec, where the crime and recidivism rates are the lowest in Canada.

We are succeeding where other provinces are not. Why? Because we apply the Young Offenders Act while some provinces do not. They do not have the necessary infrastructures to deal with young people who have a problem with crime.

What will the minister do? Will she listen to Quebec? Will she follow Quebec's example, since our approach is successful? Have the Quebec Liberal members of parliament managed to convince the minister? They have not.

Following the throne speech, the minister introduced a bill repealing the Young Offenders Act. She used the lowest common denominator, that is those provinces that had the lowest success rate with young offenders.

Now, the government is saying “Quebec will have to apply the same provisions as western Canada”. This says a lot about the value of the motion passed by the government to recognize Quebec as a distinct society.

As for the Liberal members from Quebec, I would be ashamed to belong to this government given the way it is dealing with the Young Offenders Act. They have failed in their responsibility to get the message across to the Minister of Justice.

As for us, we will continue, along with the national assembly, the coalition and the Quebec consensus, to oppose the government regarding such an important bill for the future of our young people and having to do with the Young Offenders Act.

I see that my time is up, so I am leaving the floor to my colleague.

[Speech From The Throne, February 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure you will agree with me that the remarks just made by the member for Mississauga West are disappointing.

The job of MP is no doubt a very honourable one. I also know of a number of other very honourable jobs in Quebec and in Canada. There is one thing we will agree on for sure and that is that the speech just given was not honourable. It was petty. The member did not attack the opposition or the Bloc Quebecois in particular, but there are, I think, limits at some point.

I rise in the defence of all those he attacked, because he knows full well that what he said was just about totally false. It is inadmissible.

It is true that nowadays politicians do not command a great deal of respect. But I can understand that voters who listen to the debates in the House of Commons and who hear a speech like the one we have just heard no longer trust us. I can understand that they have lost their faith in us. I would have liked to hear the government member talk about the real issues.

I hope the hon. member read today's newspapers. Many journalists and editorial writers said that the throne speech lacked content, that there was no point to it. It is as though nothing has changed. There were some major oversights in the speech.

I would have liked to hear what the member had to say about employment insurance, about the people who are starving right now. How does the government plan to help them, rather than going after someone who is entitled to a pension?

Here, we work very hard for what we earn. I think that everyone, even people working in the public and private sectors, is entitled to a pension after devoting their working life to a job. I would have been more interested to hear what he had to say about employment insurance and health.

All the provinces, not just Quebec, are complaining that they do not have enough money, because the federal government is too tight-fisted. They are demanding their fair share of transfer payments.

What does the member have to say about that? Absolutely nothing. He is only interested in general attacks on the members opposite, as though the Liberals were the sole holders of the truth. How very arrogant in the first week of this new parliament.

Consideration must also be given to the various demands being made by the provinces. There is Quebec, which is unanimous in its opposition to the Young Offenders Act. The throne speech would have us think the opposite.

I would like the member to reflect a little on his honourable position, to give an honourable speech this session and use his remaining time to talk about actual issues addressed in the throne speech, instead of launching pointless attacks on opposition members.

[Speech From The Throne, February 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville on her election. The Bloc Quebecois is very pleased to have such an energetic woman in its ranks. My colleague will undoubtedly know how to protect Quebec's interests, as the Bloc Quebecois has been doing since 1993. Her constituents have made an excellent choice.

I want to raise a more specific issue that relates to the throne speech. We just had an election campaign and the hon. member probably heard the same things I did. Women are currently the victims of several injustices in the federal system and this is what I want to discuss.

The hon. member talked about parental leave. In Quebec, such benefits are much more generous and universal. We should get the money from the federal government and have a single program that would be even more beneficial. But there is the whole issue of employment insurance, an area where women are often penalized. Currently, even pregnant women are adversely affected. If a woman is covered by the CSST's preventative withdrawal from work, her weeks are not calculated to determine her benefits. The system is not geared to deal with the situation of these women.

There is also the fact that the family allowance program is obsolete. Shared custody is increasingly common and women must often fight to get the cheques. The system has not been adjusted.

Then there is the POWA program for those who lose their job when they are close to retirement. The federal government gives these people access to POWA, but when they reach age 65 and are entitled to old age benefits, the moneys paid during the previous year are taken into account. This means that these people are penalized for at least two years because of the income supplement. It is often women who are affected.

I am sure that the hon. member has heard about these problems. So has the Prime Minister. Upon reading the Speech from the Throne and from what she has heard, did the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville come to the conclusion that the government has understood the demands that have been made, including through the World March of Women? Has the government understood the demands made by women during the election campaign and in recent years? Has the government opposite understood the needs of these women?

Is there hope, with the throne speech, that women's urgent needs will be met once and for all? Poverty affects everyone, particularly women.

[Speech From The Throne, February 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague on his accurate interpretation of the throne speech.

He looked at the speech from a Quebec perspective, naturally, and I think all Quebecers are analyzing much the same way the government opposite's views of provincial jurisdictions and the powers Canada has or is giving itself, since, as we know, Canada now has very considerable financial manoeuvring room.

It has accumulated billions of dollars on the backs of the provinces. With the throne speech, we can see just how the government is going to use this money to overlap provincial jurisdictions and oppose often vital consensus, such as on the Young Offenders Act, parental leave and other matters we will be seeing during the course of the government's term in office.

My question, however, is much more specific, in order to enable the member to answer it and also further enlighten our audience, especially the members here, the government members opposite, so they may make the appropriate representations to the Prime Minister and the leaders of this government.

I recall very clearly, when we arrived here in 1993, the government opposite, in an effort to stymie the sovereignist movement a bit, passed the famous motion—you will no doubt recall it—in which it said it recognized the distinct nature of Quebec society.

My question is very simple and it is for the member who examined the throne speech from Quebec's perspective, from the perspective of everyone in Quebec. Did the government opposite mention or hint at a follow-up to its motion on Quebec's distinct society in this speech? Where in the throne speech do we see that this motion has any value?

[Information Commissioner's Report, October 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen it in question after question. The government has decided to attack the public's right to information.

The commissioner even told us in his report that the career advancement of his employees was threatened in no uncertain terms.

Will the Minister of Justice tell us whether she intends to launch an investigation in response to these serious accusations by the information commissioner?