House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 57% of the vote.
Petitions September 18th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table in this House a petition signed by over 700 people from my riding regarding the excessively high gasoline prices.
The petitioners are calling upon the government not only to adopt a resolution to thwart the world oil cartels, but more importantly to allocate adequate funding to research into alternative energy sources so that, in the near future, Canadians and Quebecers are no longer forced to use oil.
Organized Crime September 18th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, for the past five years the Bloc Quebecois has been calling for legislation to fight organized crime effectively.
In 1995, there were 28 organized motorcycle gangs in Canada. Today there are 35. Something is amiss on the other side of the House.
Will the Prime Minister act like a real head of government, assume his responsibilities and ask the House to debate, vote on and pass anti-gang legislation?
Organized Crime September 18th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, in Quebec the issue of organized crime is one of great concern. It should be of similar concern to the government opposite.
As my party leader has said, a federal report shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that judges, juries, lawyers, crown counsel, even elected officials, not only in Quebec but throughout Canada, are increasingly being intimidated. The whole offensive deployed against organized crime ends, more often than not, in proceedings being dropped or in an acquittal.
Does the Prime Minister not see this as an indication that the weapons we have at our disposal are woefully inadequate and that anti-gang legislation is required?
Young Offenders Act June 13th, 2000
Madam Speaker, I must say at the outset that I understand what can motivate the member to present such a bill. However, I will surprise no one by saying that we, in the Bloc Quebecois, cannot support a bill aimed at changing certain rules provided for in the Young Offenders Act, which is working well at this time.
I am not saying that the Young Offenders Act is the answer to all the questions and all the problems and that it cannot be touched. That is not what I am saying.
However, with regard to the subject matter of the bill proposed by the member from the Canadian Alliance, it works. We must not change the whole procedure and change legislative provisions based on a single unfortunate incident.
Obviously, out of a large number of cases, there will always be one, two or three cases where people did not meet their commitments, which is unfortunate. It happens with young offenders as well as with adults, and each time people do not meet their commitments or honour their signatures, there must be a penalty. Certain penalties are currently provided for in the Young Offenders Act, and we must not touch that.
Before getting into the details of the bill, I would like to comment on some of the things the Canadian Alliance member said in order to set the record straight.
The member said he could not trust the government on this, simply because Bill C-3, the government bill that treats young people as criminals and increasingly turns the youth justice system into an adult system is somehow a rewrite of the Young Offenders Act. Nothing is further from the truth. It is totally false.
I must confess I am extremely proud to say that I am the one to blame for Bill C-3 not being passed before the end of this session in June. I am the one, and I am proud of it. I am preventing its going through committee stage with my endless speeches, and this is why the government decided to move on to something else.
Why am I doing this? Simply because, in Quebec, we enforce the Young Offenders Act the way it should be enforced, and it is bearing fruit. When I am saying that, I am not just talking through my hat. We have the statistics to prove it, the same Canadian government statistics the minister is using to do her sell job, except that she makes a selective use of statistics.
These statistics show that Quebec has the lowest youth crime rate and the lowest recidivism rate in all of Canada. Why? Because we invest where it counts, namely in the reintegration and social rehabilitation of young offenders. We did not start yesterday and we are not about to stop either.
If the member really wanted to improve certain things, he could ask his provincial government to look at the Quebec model and see to it that his province does the same thing.
If I said that we have been at it for a long time and that we have not stopped, it is because recently the Quebec government decided to deal with delinquency at its onset, because it is well known that delinquency starts at a very early age, especially in low income families. The poorer you are, the more likely you are one day to have a brush with the law. Quebec is poised to invest up to $20,000 per child in the zero to five age group. In total, Quebec is willing to invest $100,000 per young person to prevent delinquency and assist the very parents the member wants to help with his bill.
Here again we have the statistics to prove that there is less violence in Quebec. There is still some violence, but less so than in other provinces. And as long as there is violence, we will have to intervene, I am quite aware of it.
In Quebec, we have civil provisions as well providing that parents have the right and duty of guardianship, supervision and education of their child. I believe there is similar legislation in other provinces also. On the civil level, then, the parent has a certain degree of responsibility if the child causes damage.
On the criminal level, there have been some very sweeping studies done in Quebec, one of them the Jasmin report, to which I have referred a number of times. Justice Jasmin, the co-ordinating judge of the youth court, carried out an exhaustive study of this matter and reached the conclusion that—to connect this directly with the hon. member's bill—what the member wants to do must not be done, that is criminalize parental non-compliance with an undertaking they have signed in relation to a commitment to release or support their child who is experiencing problems.
All parents cannot be lumped together. The situations must be analyzed case by case and discretion must be left for the head of the tribunal, the judge who examines the situation and will bring down the decision required to attain the objective of returning the young person to society as soon as possible.
We know that Bill C-297 has a negative effect on three major points in terms of youth rehabilitation. That is why we are opposed to it. A potential two year jail sentence for the parents is not going to help their child fit back into society, when he has the example of parents who have not honoured an undertaking and have ended up behind bars.
I think the government must support and accompany such parents so they realize the importance of the undertaking they have signed, but not to make them criminals by doing so because of something their child did.
The second thing concerns the parents dealing with the situation. As I said earlier, it is often parents who have nothing, who are living in poverty, are needy and do not understand the whys and wherefores of the undertaking they have signed. I am not saying that all those who sign it do not understand it, but I can say that, with the way the courts proceed and given the volume of cases presented, parents sign undertakings and often leave the court without understanding the implications of the undertaking they have signed.
The third point concerns a situation that could arise through a young person's abuse of his parents. We know that at certain stages of their development, adolescents go through periods of rebellion. Who is to say that, with a bill such as the one the hon. member would like passed, the young person would not use it to blackmail his parents, saying “Listen Dad, Mum, you signed that. If I make a mistake or if I go back to court, you will pay for it. What is more, you could end up in prison”.
At present, the law contains a certain balance, especially as concerns parental undertakings. The undertaking must be honoured and nothing must be done that would alter the balance of parent-child pressure. These things work well, as I said earlier and should remain in force.
In conclusion, I wish to say that before trying to amend individual sections of the Young Offenders Act because of situations in our riding or our province, we must look at the overall picture.
I have a question for the member to put to his provincial legislature, to the police in his province, and to all those with direct or indirect responsibility for enforcing the Young Offenders Act: How are they applying the legislation and what is their policy with respect to young offenders? Very often, he will see that the answer is next to nothing. That is where he needs to direct his efforts, to harp on this as often as possible so that the provinces apply the legislation properly and invest properly in retraining and rehabilitation, as the Young Offenders Act now in force requires them to do.
Petitions June 12th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, the second petition I am tabling is signed by constituents of the riding of Berthier—Montcalm, who are calling on the government to withdraw subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act so that letter carriers can form a union and earn a decent wage.
I am pleased to table these petitions on their behalf.
Petitions June 12th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, next time, I will present all my petitions at the same time. I wanted to give others a chance before continuing, but I see that it is more complicated. Next time, I will present them all at once.
I am pleased to present a petition calling on the House to pass a resolution aimed at stopping the monopoly of the international oil cartels in order to reduce predatory pricing of crude oil, and to allocate sufficient funds for research into alternative energy sources.
That is the first petition I wish to table at this time.
Petitions June 12th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I wish to present another petition.
Petitions June 12th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition signed by several constituents from my riding.
The petitioners are calling on the government to quickly pass legislation making it mandatory to label all foods that are totally or partially genetically modified.
Species At Risk Act June 12th, 2000
Madam Speaker, before the House adjourns for the summer, the legislative process is put in high gear for many bills. I was wondering why the government wanted Bill C-33 passed before the summer recess. I was driving to the riding of Berthier—Montcalm in my car when I suddenly heard the answer on the radio.
It is a comment I am making, and I would like the member, who has studied the issue and who follows the minister closely on this issue, to tell me whether I am mistaken or whether I got it right. On the radio, there was a short segment about Canada's wetlands and all the animals that live there. It was a message paid for by the federal government, so it was nothing more than propaganda on what the government does in that area. I thought, would it not be nice if the federal government could add to that that it passed a bill on species at risk?
Would it not be nice to go into the election campaign with such a bill, and to be able to say so on this short segment or on any other segment paid for by the federal government?
It is a way for the government to tell people that it is so good, that it is so smart and that it protects species at risk. Even though this is not its jurisdiction, even though this could alienate the provinces and even though Quebec does extraordinary things in that area, it does not matter. The federal government, our big brother, has money and it uses our tax money, taxes paid by Quebecers and Canadians, to pay for its propaganda. I think I got that answer on the radio.
I would like to know from the member, who is very familiar with this issue, which she follows closely, and who does excellent work in the area of the environment, whether or not I am right with regard to the federal government's motivation in wanting to pass Bill C-33 at all costs before the summer recess.
Human Resources Development May 30th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, the minister should know that it was because of Quebec, and that it was Quebec that wanted nothing to do with the sort of situation she is describing today.
Furthermore, the only guarantee we have that this will not happen again is the government's word. It is frightening.
Would she not agree that the only real guarantee for the public that it will not again be taken advantage of by the government would be for the Privacy Act to be reviewed as soon as possible, immediately?