Stéphan Tremblay

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, October 21st, 1999]

Madam Speaker, my Conservative colleague mentioned the roots of criminality. This is one of the main issues we have to address when dealing with youth crime. What is the root of the problem?

We have heard some interesting arguments linking the increase in crime to the increase in poverty. Unfortunately, in the bill now before the House, instead of looking for the roots of criminality, the government is going for a bandaid solution, not a proper solution.

I do have some concerns when I see a child who was raised in a low income family, or maybe a single-parent family or under a number of circumstances that could have led him or her to commit crimes and become a problem for society, being told “From now on, you are going to be treated like an adult criminal”.

The problem is that this young person, instead of being rehabilitated, going to school and becoming a good citizen, will be sent to prison, a school for crime, where he will be in contact with confirmed criminals. My concern is that, when he is released, he will be even more frustrated with society.

How could a young man have respect for society when he feels he does not get any respect from it? I do not want to be too categorical, but I think that in that school for crime, his frustration with society will just build up, and he will learn more about crime. When he is released, he will probably be a much better criminal. He could also have a thirst for vengeance, and the problem will still be there. Since he will have become a young criminal, he will remain a burden for society for many years.

This debate is very important. I am concerned when I hear some people say that young people should be punished more harshly. But I do understand the basic philosophy of the Reform Party. I know many members of that party have been involved with or have themselves been victims of young criminals. I can understand the frustration.

This kind of frustration sometimes lead to a thirst for vengeance, and we tend to say that we need more stringent laws against young offenders. That reaction is quite normal, but I wonder what the consequences would be for society and for young people.

Since the prison systems are there, I hope, to protect society, a more repressive attitude will not help us solve the problem. Far from it.

A few moments ago, a member talked about prison systems in aboriginal communities. I heard about one system where it is agreed that young offenders have to be isolated from society for a while but, instead of being sent to jail with other offenders, they are sent to spend some time in the forest, which I think is a basic aspect of aboriginal culture, to reflect on their actions and to take responsibility for those actions.

There are alternative measures that have not been examined carefully enough. They could yield better results than the Reform proposals, which, unfortunately, have found favour with the government.

I do not know if most members of the Liberal caucus believe in this approach. I hope this is not the balanced approach mentioned by the government, leaning to the left on some issues, leaning to the right on others, and all that to score political points.

I hope the Liberal members opposite are truly convinced this bill will improve society by putting more young people in jail, by treating them like adult criminals when they are not always fully aware of the seriousness of their actions. I think this is not the way to increase that awareness.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, October 21st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the debate we are having today is rather incredible.

To quote Albert Jacquard “If a city needs a prison, it means something is wrong in this city”. Listening to my colleagues opposite, but mostly elsewhere on this side, I have the feeling prison is the solution for young offenders.

I was offended a little while ago when my Bloc Quebecois colleague, who is a separatist, gave some credible statistics, but was told he was not making any sense because he is a separatist. If I were an Australian, I would still be interested in taking part in this debate because I believe that young offenders must be dealt with the same way wherever you live. We all share the same goal, making sure we deal with them in the best way possible.

Statistics show, and I believe we get good results, that prevention is by far better than incarceration and heavier sentencing. Sometimes I have the feeling that putting young people behind bars, telling them they are no good and always punishing them makes things worse. The results are there to prove it; they are most disappointing.

Why are young offenders sent to prison? Because they have trouble living in society. In prison, they will be thrown in with other people who, for the most part, had trouble living in society. So I often think that prisons can sometimes be schools for delinquency.

Instead of punishing them even more, let us do the exact opposite of what is proposed in this bill and try to make them understand what they did wrong and rehabilitate them, so that, once their sentence is served, they can be reintegrated into the community. This is what a prison system should do.

I am very disappointed today. A young person who commits a crime probably comes from a tough neighbourhood, from a poor family or maybe a broken family. Do members really think that, before committing a crime, such a person would stop and think, along these lines “I have to be careful, because under Bill C-3 I will be given a longer sentence”? Do members think that will stop such a person? Let us get serious here. This measure will not solve crime.

I want to put a question to my Reform colleague. Does he really believe that a young person would stop and think about the consequences before committing a crime. Usually, 14 year olds do not watch the news, they would not know about the new legislation and they do not even have the right to vote. Does the hon. member believe that such a young person would stop and think about what could happen to him?

[Supply, June 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am unable to answer the question from the member opposite because it was directed at the member behind me, who is from a different party. It is directed at him, and I have nothing to say.

[Supply, June 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, if the government took good measures today, if it were in line with the Mills report and if money went fairly and justly to amateur sport, I would be delighted.

If this opposition day—which I do not like to call an opposition day, but rather a debate day—influences the government opposite so that it puts greater emphasis on amateur sport priorities, I would be delighted and I would not feel that I have wasted my time today.

[Supply, June 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have the great pleasure of rising today to speak to the motion put forward by our colleague, the member for Longueuil.

To talk about sports is to take a look at society. At the moment, I think that our societies are going through difficult times and facing great change and I believe that sports are also undergoing considerable upheaval.

Sport can at times reflect our society; therefore analyzing sports is somewhat like trying to understand where our society is headed.

Like events of today, sports sometimes take us to extremes, which makes me think it is difficult to understand the tangents and directions intended with certain decisions.

The debate today concerns the difference between amateur and professional sports. We have to look at the values held by the public and society in general in order to give priority to sports or set it aside. Naturally, there is a difference to be made between the two types of sport.

Earlier I heard my colleague opposite speaking of the benefits of amateur sport, and I think the remarks were excellent. Throughout my youth I was involved in sports and competitions. Sport becomes a passion and it is good for both physical and mental well-being. It promotes a team spirit, a taste for challenge, enjoyment of competition and the feeling of belonging, sometimes to a region. When we represent our region, it is interesting to do and very praiseworthy, but it is also interesting for the people of an area, of a region or of a country to identify with a sports team.

I sincerely believe that sport has many virtues on a human level, but direction is important. I was speaking earlier about identification with teams. We need only look at professional sport, hockey teams such as the Montreal Canadiens, for example, which is part of the Quebec culture, and I would even say Canadian culture, because the Canadiens hockey team has made a name for itself throughout North America.

As I said earlier, changes and disruptions in our society lead to certain inconsistencies. It is currently the case with sport, and this in many respects. I am very interested in anything that has to do with the growing gap between the rich and the poor. Earlier I said that hockey could be an interesting reflection of today's society, and I think it is absolutely true.

The report of the Subcommittee on the Study of Sport in Canada includes some very fine suggestions for amateur sport, but the government will take taxpayers' money to invest it in professional sport. I will not necessarily criticize this decision today, because I did not sit on the committee. However, I am convinced that my comments reflect the views of a large segment of the public, which finds it regrettable that we would now be making such decisions in our society. We are not alone. In the United States they invest billions of dollars in sport stadiums, while cutting funds for education and health care. I happen to believe that education is absolutely critical for future generations.

These are aberrations in a society that claims it has to tighten its belt. We are investing in sport teams that pay incredible salaries to their employees. I will not mention any figures, since everyone here is aware of the huge salaries paid to professional athletes. I think everybody is familiar with this issue.

Such a societal issue cannot be resolved in 10 minutes. Still, I am concerned and I wonder where it will stop. If this trend continues, and it is clear that it will, players' salaries will keep going up. I cannot see a cap being put on players' salaries because they are currently determined by the market. When the market is totally left to its own devices, this can lead to some aberrations. I think that professional sport is a prime example of that.

Today, in spite of all the kind words of the member opposite regarding amateur sport, we are still faced with a government initiative in support of professional sport. Obviously, I did not review all the direct consequences of promoting or not promoting professional sport. From an economic standpoint, we know that professional sport creates jobs, but when we take a look outside the stadium and see that our society is getting poorer and we are having to pay already ridiculous salaries, I must admit that I am in a quandary.

Earlier I mentioned education, as did the member opposite. I think there can be a very direct link between sports and education because very often we learn a sport at school. This has benefits for the body and the mind. It is good for our young people to be able to take part in sports at school, and they should be encouraged to try to beat their own records.

Earlier in the debate some members mentioned that it was a disgrace that a country such as ours lacked sports trainers. This is also a worrisome phenomenon. I could mention other worrisome phenomena, such as the invasion of Nintendo games. As a young boy—and that was not so long ago, no more than 10 years—it was normal for me to be outside playing hockey. Today, many young people routinely stay cooped up indoors playing Nintendo.

To sum up, we could study all facets of amateur sport and their benefits today, but I think that the initial debate is more about the government's decision to invest less in amateur sport and more in professional sports. There is food for thought here, more than I can cover in 10 minutes. However, I am pleased to have taken part in the debate.

[Millennium Scholarships, June 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is all very well to play a semantics game and call someone a facilitator when in fact they are a negotiator. Basically, is the mandate of the federal facilitator not simply to facilitate the life of the Minister of Human Resources Development by providing him with a pretext to avoid getting on with it and assuming his ministerial responsibilities?

[Millennium Scholarships, June 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs made a very troubling statement. He said the agreements signed by officials of the federal government and those of a provincial government would not be binding on governments and that, accordingly, cabinet was not obliged to honour them.

Does the Minister of Human Resources Development think that his negotiator will have the trust of the Government of Quebec on the millennium scholarships after what the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said and after what occurred in the matter of Nanoose Bay?

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, May 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today we are speaking about Bill C-32, which deals with protection of the environment.

When I speak of the environment, I always think of the aboriginal saying that we do not inherit the planet from our parents, but rather we borrow it from our children. Any discussion of the environment and its protection is an attempt to create links with others, not just today but in the future as well. The harm we do to the planet now will have repercussions during our children's lives. I think it is always important to keep this in mind.

Governments can come up with as many wonderful bills as they want to protect it, but they must always start with individual citizens. There must be good public awareness and education regarding protection of the environment.

There are very specific examples in my riding, including the zone known as ZIP. Many people from the community and from various sectors have joined forces to clean up a tiny river. This is just one example, but it gives me great hope to know that, although this river was polluted in the past, I may one day be able to swim in it, thanks to the efforts of these individuals. Five years ago, this would have been completely unthinkable, and today I can look forward to this area in my riding being cleaned up.

I have begun on a very positive and enthusiastic note, but there is a long way to go. When I look at everything going on in the world today with regard to the environment, I think our planet is sick and we must continue to work hard to set environmental rules that will help us protect the environment.

We hear more and more about the globalization of economies, a subject I am very interested in. Businesses and large corporations that have to decide in which country they will locate are often attracted by tax benefits. However, we have to look at the environmental benefits that some countries might offer large corporations. For short term gains and for job creation, some governments in the world could be tempted to relax their environmental regulations, and if there is one area where globalization already exists, it is certainly the environment.

The members who spoke this morning are all well intentioned and they probably agree with what I just said about protecting the environment. The reason I am speaking to Bill C-32 today is to discuss the approach we will use to protect the environment.

I was a little bit surprised today to hear members, even on the government side, express concern about this bill not being tough enough. I find it interesting. As I said earlier, it is always a challenge, with regard to the environment, to reconcile economic interests with environmental interests, in other words, to try to have a long term vision.

I will now try to summarize Bill C-32. With this bill, pollution prevention will become a national objective. This bill replaces the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. It contains provisions to implement pollution prevention, new procedures for the investigation and assessment of substances and new requirements with respect to substances that the Department of the Environment and the Department of Health have determined to be toxic.

The list of these substances is very extensive. The bill provides new powers for investigators and new mechanisms to deal with offences. It also specifies criteria for courts to consider for sentencing.

In addition, like the provinces and territories, aboriginal governments are provided the right of representation on the national advisory committee. And therein lies the problem.

Environment is said to be a federal-provincial matter. We are used to rise in this House to decry the behaviour of the current federal government, which wants to keep all the powers for itself and leave the provinces only with a advisory role.

To want to protect human health, to want to protect the environment is quite worthy. But today, I am opposed to the way the government wants to proceed. And this is why the Bloc Quebecois had to put some amendments forward.

Earlier, I gave very concrete examples of what some of my constituents did to set up community projects in order to protect the environment. Environmental protection starts at the grassroots level to hopefully reach the highest levels of government.

We, in the Bloc Quebecois, believe that the governments closest to the people are in the best position to make environmental regulations that meet the needs of the citizens. I think this is true. The closer one is to the people, the better one can meet their needs. This only makes sense.

I regret that, in this bill, the government is ignoring the provinces, as in many other pieces of legislation. Once again, there is the temptation to centralize power in this country. Then they wonder why political parties or individuals in Quebec, or even elsewhere in Canada, are anxious for independence. These are challenges here to which we must respond.

The Bloc Quebecois amendments introduced by my hon. colleague for Jonquière, whose riding next to mine, propose deletion of the part of the preamble which sets out national environmental standards and national codes of practice relating to ecosystems and environmental quality. Since the environment is not a solely federal jurisdiction, this is unacceptable to us.

We also wish to delete the references in the preamble to the presence of toxic substances, which is treated as a matter of national interest. Once again, the federal government is looking for an excuse to meddle in the environment from coast to coast.

We are therefore calling upon the government to amend the preamble so that Quebec may speak for itself internationally when its interests are at stake. This amendment fits in with Quebec's determination to speak for itself internationally when its interests are at stake, particularly in the areas of culture, education, health and the environment.

Among the amendments proposed for paragraph 2(1)( d ), we wish to delete the words endeavour to in reference to the federal government's acting in co-operation with the provinces. This strikes me as a strange agreement, when the federal is described as having to endeavour to do something. This is a somewhat relative term. I believe everyone has his own definition of how much effort this entails.

Having regularly witnessed the federal government's behaviour, I wonder how much effort this government will put into endeavouring to co-operate with the provinces. Will mere consultations be considered an appropriate effort? I doubt it.

We are asking the government to delete the provision in clause 2(1)( g ) on the establishment of nationally consistent standards of environmental quality, because such standards adversely affect our specificity.

In the case of clause 2(1)( l ), we are proposing that the term endeavour be deleted, again to make sure the federal government will act in the spirit of the intergovernmental agreements reached with the provinces regarding the environment.

This amendment would not leave any possibility for this government to shirk its responsibility.

I could go on and on, but I think and hope that all the members of this House share the same goal, which is to set adequate rules to protect the environment.

The Bloc Quebecois' opposition today, expressed through constructive additions and amendments, is simply about how the environmental reality will be dealt with through consultations and committees, in which the provinces, which are closer to the public, will have their say, being fully aware of what is really going on.

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, April 16th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am please to take part in this debate today. I would like to deal with the details of the UN agreement.

First of all, I would like to quote part of the preamble:

Recognizing the need for specific assistance, including financial, scientific and technological assistance, in order that developing States can participate effectively in the conservation, management and sustainable use of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks,

Convinced that an agreement for the implementation of the relevant provisions of the Convention would best serve these purposes and contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security,

Affirming that matters not regulated by the Convention or by this Agreement continue to be governed by the rules and principles of general international law,

Have agreed as follows:

I would also like read the general provisions of article 1, which deals with use of terms and scope.

For the purposes of this Agreement:

(a) The word “Convention” means, of course, the United Nations convention on the law of the sea of 10 December 1982.

It is very important that we know the details of the UN agreement.

(b) The expression “conservation and management measures”, means measures to conserve and manage one or more species of living marine resources that are adopted and applied consistent with the relevant rules of international law as reflected in the Convention and this Agreement.

(c) The term “fish” includes molluscs and crustaceans except those belonging to sedentary species as defined in article 77 of the Convention.

(d) The term “arrangement” means a co-operative mechanism established in accordance with the Convention and this Agreement by two or more States for the purpose, inter alia, of establishing conservation and management measures in a subregion or region for one or more straddling fish stocks or highly migratory fish stocks.

1. (a) The term “States Parties” means States which have consented to be bound by this Agreement and for which the Agreement is in force.

(b) This Agreement applies mutatis mutandis to:

(i) any entity referred to in article 305, paragraph 1 (c), (d) and (e), of the Convention and

(ii) subject to article 47, to any entity referred to as an “international organization” in Annex IX, article 1, of the Convention which becomes a Party to this Agreement. To that extent “States Parties” refers to those entities.

1. This Agreement applies mutatis mutandis to other fishing entities whose vessels fish on the high seas.

Article 2 reads, and I quote:

1. The objective of this Agreement is to ensure the long-term conservation and sustainable use of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks through effective implementation of the relevant provisions of the Convention.

Article 3 deals with the application and reads:

1. Unless otherwise provided, this Agreement applies to the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks beyond areas under national jurisdiction, except that articles 6 and 7 apply also to the conservation and management of such stocks within areas under national jurisdiction, subject to the different legal regimes that apply within areas under national jurisdiction and in areas beyond national jurisdiction as provided for in the Convention.

2. In the exercise of its sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks within areas under national jurisdiction, the coastal State shall apply mutatis mutandis the general principles enumerated in article 5.

3. States shall give due consideration to the respective capacities of developing States to apply articles 5, 6 and 7 within areas under national jurisdiction and their need for assistance as provided for in this Agreement. To this end, Part VII applies mutatis mutandis in respect of areas under national jurisdiction.

And I continue:

Nothing in this Agreement shall prejudice the rights, jurisdiction and duties of States under the Convention. This Agreement shall be interpreted and applied in the context of and in a manner consistent with the Convention.

Now, moving on to the second part:

Part II. Conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks.

Article 5. General principles

In order to conserve and manage straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks, coastal States and States fishing on the high seas shall, in giving effect to their duty to co-operate in accordance with the Convention:

(a) adopt measures to ensure long-term sustainability of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks and promote the objective of their optimum utilization;

(b) ensure that such measures are based on the best scientific evidence available and are designed to maintain or restore stocks at levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield, as qualified by relevant environmental and economic factors, including the special requirements of developing States, and taking into account fishing patterns, the interdependence of stocks and any generally recommended international minimum standards—

The agreement is intended to assess the impacts of fishing, other human activities and environmental factors on target stocks and species belonging to the same ecosystem or associated with or dependent upon the target stocks.

Article 5 (e) reads as follows:

(e) Adopt, where necessary, conservation and management measures for species belonging to the same ecosystem or associated with or dependent upon the target stocks, with a view to maintaining or restoring populations of such species above levels at which their reproduction may become seriously threatened;

Article 5 (f) concerns pollution and reads as follows:

(f) minimize pollution, waste, discards, catch by lost or abandoned gear, catch of non-target species, both fish and non-fish species, —and impacts on associated or dependent species, in particular endangered species, through measures including, to the extent practicable, the development and use of selective, environmentally safe and cost-effective fishing gear and techniques;

Articles 5 (g) to (l) read as follows:

(g) protect biodiversity in the marine environment;

(h) take measures to prevent or eliminate overfishing and excess fishing capacity and to ensure that levels of fishing effort do not exceed those commensurate with the sustainable use of fishery resources;

(i) take into account the interests of artisanal and subsistence fishers;

(j) collect and share, in a timely manner, complete and accurate data concerning fishing activities on, inter alia, vessel position, catch of target and non-target species and fishing effort, as set out in Annex I, as well as information from national and international research programmes;

(k) promote and conduct scientific research and develop appropriate technologies in support of fishery conservation and management; and

(l) implement and enforce conservation and management measures through effective monitoring, control and surveillance.

Next comes application of the precautionary approach.

1. States shall apply the precautionary approach widely to conservation, management and exploitation of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks in order to protect the living marine resources and preserve the marine environment.

2. States shall be more cautious when information is uncertain, unreliable or inadequate. The absence of adequate scientific information shall not be used as a reason for postponing or failing to take conservation and management measures.

The agreement also states, at article 6, paragraph 3, which deals with implementing the precautionary approach:

1. In implementing the precautionary approach, States shall:

(a) improve decision-making for fishery resource conservation and management by obtaining and sharing the best scientific information available and implementing improved techniques for dealing with risk and uncertainty;

(b) apply the guidelines set out in Annex II and determine, on the basis of the best scientific information available, stock-specific reference points and the action to be taken if they are exceeded, of course;

(c) take into account, inter alia, uncertainties relating to the size and productivity of the stocks, reference points, stock condition in relation to such reference points, levels and distribution of fishing mortality and the impact of fishing activities on non-target and associated or dependent species, as well as existing and predicted oceanic, environmental and socio-economic conditions; and

(d) develop data collection and research programmes to assess the impact of fishing on non-target and associated or dependent species and their environment, and adopt plans which are necessary to ensure the conservation of such species and to protect habitats of special concern.

1. States shall take measures to ensure that, when reference points are approached, they will not be exceeded. In the event that they are exceeded, States shall, without delay, take the action determined under paragraph 3 (b) to restore the stocks.

2. Where the status of target stocks or non-target or associated or dependent species is of concern, States shall subject such stocks and species to enhanced monitoring in order to review their status and the efficacy of conservation and management measures. They shall revise those measures regularly in the light of new information.

3. For new or exploratory fisheries, States shall adopt as soon as possible cautious conservation and management measures, including, inter alia, catch limits and effort limits. Such measures shall remain in force until there are sufficient data to allow assessment of the impact of the fisheries on the long-term sustainability of the stocks;

Therefore, if a natural phenomenon has significant detrimental effects on the status of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks, states must adopt, as soon as possible, conservation and management measures so that fishing activities do not make these detrimental effects even worse.

That is what I had to say on this subject.

[Social Inequality, April 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, according to Statistics Canada, between 1970 and 1995, wealth has gradually been concentrated in fewer hands.

This confirms the statement that “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer”.

During this period, the share of the aggregate income going to families at the bottom of the income ladder diminished somewhat, while the share of families at the top increased.

Statistically speaking, between 1970 and 1995, the increase in the actual average family income varies from 19.4%, in the case of families at the bottom of the income ladder, to 37% for families at the top. The result is that 30% of the families held a greater share of the aggregate income in 1995 than they did in 1970, while 70% of all families had to do with less.

Do we still need to remind the House that this even greater concentration of wealth calls for a comprehensive review of our ability to reduce social inequality, in this era of globalization? When will we have the courage to do such a review?