Patrick Gagnon

[Standing Committee On Industry, November 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, again, they would have us believe that the federal government is doing absolutely nothing in the regions. When I hear the opposition's demagogy, I find that it hurts our ears to hear the member opposite say that the Federal Office of Regional Development has done nothing, the Federal Business Development Bank has done nothing, the Prime Minister of Canada, who is now in China, has done

nothing for regional economic development and especially to advance social and economic development in Quebec.

As a member from the rural hinterland of Quebec, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, and I find it regrettable that the opposition fails to mention it in their propaganda, that there is a serious lack of co-ordination and co-operation among various provincial bodies involved in small-business development.

People in Quebec, and especially in the regions, have denounced the Caisse populaire Desjardins, which has over $500 million, for not lending enough to small-business people in the regions. One would say that the opposition is taking an urban point of view which does not reflect the socio-economic reality of the regions. For example, they do not realize the major investments we have made in important enterprises in the regions, including in forestry. Take the Eastern Quebec Development Plan, for example.

Six thousand small businesses and workers commended the Government of Canada for what it is doing, its serious approach and business plan, and that is no joke. If there is a lesson to be learned from this, it is that the Government of Canada is welcome because it is a good manager. Unfortunately, all we hear from the opposition is that there are too many players and unfortunately the provincial level is not well co-ordinated.

Our area does not even have someone to go to foreign countries to promote the regions, because Quebec is doing a bad job and they should admit it.

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I just heard the hon. member opposite talk about the stubbornness of the government of Canada and governmental services such as the FORD-Q, the Federal Business Development Bank, and the services responsible for promoting Canadian exports.

I would really like to know whether the federal government was stubborn when it came to providing assistance to Canadair, Bombardier, SNC Lavalin, when it came to providing assistance to Spar Aerospace in Montreal and Quebec pharmaceutical companies. Did they call it stubbornness on the part of the federal government when tens of thousands of jobs were created with the direct participation of the government of Canada?

Unfortunately, the hon. member takes a stand that completely ignores such accomplishments as well as the unconditional support of the Canadian government to Quebec businesses.

The member opposite talks about the qualifications of Quebec representatives abroad, but what does he think of the appointment of the former chairman of the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste of Montreal, an ideologist who knows nothing about Quebec business, let alone about international affairs. You would call him a worthy representative of Quebec and Quebec business people abroad?

I know what I am talking about. I speak from experience. I have had the privilege of working in Japan myself on a number of occasions. To think that we, Quebecers, are represented by an ideologist from the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste of Montreal whose sole purpose for being there is to sell separatist propaganda instead of working to open up new channels of trade for Quebec businesses, I say it is time that we determine how useful

these Quebec offices abroad really are, when we are represented by the likes of Mr. Doyon, the former chairman of the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste of Montreal.

With respect to education in Germany for example, one must remember that nothing prevented Quebec from training semi-skilled manpower because, as we know, education is a provincial jurisdiction. Quebec has had control over education matters for much more than 30 years; it has had it for 125 years.

So, nothing is preventing Quebec from setting up a real vocational training program that meets the needs of the people of Quebec and the challenges of the next century.

I would be curious to hear what the hon. member opposite has to say on these three subjects: first, the fact that the federal government has always participated and that many businesses in Quebec have benefited from its participation; second, the fact that I challenge the qualifications of the Quebec delegate general in Tokyo and, third, whether or not he recognizes that Quebec was never prevented from conducting its own in-house vocational training program.

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, October 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in continuing to conduct nuclear tests China is breaking the tacit moratorium which has been observed by all nuclear weapon states. China has said it will participate in comprehensive test ban treaty negotiations. Nonetheless continued testing by China draws into question its commitment to the early completion of the comprehensive test ban treaty negotiations.

I would like to remind the hon. member it is true that on October 7, 1994 the People's Republic of China conducted its third underground nuclear test since the start of the CTBT negotiations.

Although Britain, France, and the former Soviet Union, now the Russian Federation of the United States, have all instituted national testing moratoria, China has refused to stop testing, arguing that it needs further tests to catch up technologically with other nuclear weapon states.

What Canada has done is encourage the People's Republic of China to engage in responsible, international behaviour with respect to arms sales and nuclear proliferation. To this end we have pressured China to end its testing program. Following the second test, our ambassador at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva made a strong public appeal and, as members know, following the last test the Chinese ambassador was called in by

the Minister of Foreign Affairs and was apprised in no uncertain terms of Canada's condemnation of continued nuclear testing.

The Prime Minister, who will be heading off to China very shortly, has been fully briefed on these matters and intends to raise them with the highest levels of the Chinese leadership.

Canada's relationship with China on non-proliferation matters are complex. In some areas, like the cut-off and NPT extension, there is near-term potential for productive co-operation. On others like testing we will continue to press China to do the right thing and to join the other nations in banning nuclear testing once and for all.

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, October 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to what the Opposition said, including that member and the critic, or the one who has the critic's role-she criticizes the Department of the Environment very badly for its efforts to serve all Canadians so that they can live in a healthier environment.

Again, all I heard was ideological ranting about the arrogance of wanting to take Quebec's place in the environmental field.

They talk about provocation, contempt and arrogance towards Quebec. They even talk about a kind of domineering, totalitarian federalism. You know, those are not solutions, that is not a constructive approach for finding environmental solutions. As we know very well, Quebecers are perfectly aware that pollution knows no boundaries. Everything that happens in the Great Lakes, in the St. Lawrence River and even in the Gulf concerns Quebec, although some of these places are outside the province.

I believe that Quebec and Quebecers recognize the importance of finding a common position with the provinces and countries that occupy North America, namely Mexico, Canada and the United States. It is false for the member to claim that he is defending Quebec's interests and that he speaks for Quebec. Some people on this side of the House represent Quebec ridings, including myself and many Liberal members, and I can tell you that we care a great deal for the environment.

I can prove that we Liberals were the ones who dealt with the Irving Whale and thanks to the close co-operation of my colleagues from the Maritimes, the Department of the Environment and the minister, who is from Ontario, we were able to solve this problem once and for all.

I still find it strange for them to say that the federal government does not consider the legitimate demands of Quebec, or of its governments. I find it curious that they refer to the people to make a distinction: They talk about the people, the governments and the Bloc Quebecois' headquarters in Quebec City, but they do not necessarily discuss the issues which really concern the population. And I find it particularly strange that no mention is made of existing administrative agreements between the federal government and the province of Quebec in the pulp and paper sector.

Such an agreement was signed in August, to ensure that pulp and paper companies comply with environmental standards not only in Quebec but also across the country. I believe that success will largely depend on our way of doing things, on a co-operative approach between the provinces and with the United States and Mexico, to ensure standards which will be beneficial to Quebecers but also to every Canadian. In fact, Quebec relies on a Canadian policy to ensure a sound environment for the benefit of its current population as well as its future generations.

[Criminal Code, October 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to continue my remarks regarding Bill C-226, an Act to amend the Criminal Code.

There is no doubt that the creation of section 745 was unique in the criminal law of this country. However, this section was included in the first reading of the original bill in 1976 and it was fully reviewed and discussed by the justice and legal affairs committee before it was finally debated and passed by Parliament.

Rather than the original proposal to have three judges to hear a case, Parliament amended the bill so that a jury would decide the case instead and this was done specifically to increase public participation in the process.

There was even a press release at the time which highlighted this provision in the proposed legislation. Clearly there was debate and communication in the public arena and efforts were made to make the resulting judicial review hearings as public as possible.

Let me review briefly how the provision works because there are many misconceptions about the process. An offender whose parole ineligibility period exceeds 15 years may apply for a judicial review hearing after at least 15 years have been served. Provided the criteria are met a superior court judge in the province in which the offender was convicted empanels a jury to hear the application.

In making a decision on the application the jury considers the character of the applicant, the applicant's conduct while serving his or her sentence, the nature of the offence for which the applicant was convicted and such other matters as the presiding judge deems to be relevant.

Some people who are against section 745 hearings suggest that the judicial review process is equivalent to automatic parole, but this is not so.

First of all, I would like to say that even though it is true that 36 applicants out of 47, or 77 per cent, have obtained favourable decisions to date, the fact is that juries are free to reduce or maintain the period of ineligibility for parole.

Several juries, particularly in Ontario and in Alberta, have not allowed some offenders to apply for parole. Moreover, a decision in favour of the applicant does not mean that he will automatically be granted parole.

As noted by the Supreme Court, section 745 simply allows the offender who obtains a favourable decision to submit an application to the National Parole Board. There is no guarantee that parole will be granted.

Therefore, based on information they are given, jury members, our fellow Canadians, choose to allow some offenders to apply for parole.

The jury does not have the mandate to determine the length of the sentence or the manner in which it must be served. An offender who has received a life sentence will serve his sentence for the rest of his life, whether or not his period of ineligibility for parole has been reduced.

Parole does not mean the end of the sentence, but rather the beginning of the "community phase" of the sentence. In short, a life sentence never ends, it stays in effect throughout the offender's life.

Another misconception is that all or even most offenders convicted of murder will apply for a judicial review hearing. This has not proven to be the case. At the moment 128 offenders are eligible to apply for a judicial review but only 71 have actually made an application.

One argument frequently put forward to discredit section 745 is that families of victims are left out of the process and their rights are ignored. I would emphasize that judicial review is a public process. Although judges have not admitted victim impact statements as evidence so far, this government has introduced legislation in the form of Bill C-41 which would permit the introduction of victim impact statements as a matter of course in these hearings. When passed, this amendment would give victims a greater role and achieve a better balance in the process.

In conclusion, I would urge my colleagues to contemplate seriously what the courts have said in relation to this provision. For example in Regina v. Vaillancourt, the court concluded that section 745 hearings strike a balance between the considerations of leniency for the well-behaved convict in the serving of his sentence and the community interests in repudiation and deterrence. The Supreme Court has affirmed that the purpose of a section 745 hearing is to call attention to changes in the applicant's situation which might justifiably impose a less harsh penalty.

While cynics such as the opposition Reform Party members may say that offenders cannot change, the Canadian Sentencing Commission noted that some offenders, and I quote: "genuinely repent or make changes in their lives which alter their risk to the public or alter the public's interest in seeing them so severely punished".

Obviously, the courts and the Canadian Sentencing Commission think it is both fair and justified to have a section that provides for a review of sentences, since human beings can change and rehabilitate.

The clearest message of all probably comes from jurors, who are ordinary citizens like you and me, Mr. Speaker. To this day, 36 juries have determined that the parole ineligibility period should be reduced for some applicants. Is this not clear evidence that this section is both fair and desirable?

[Small Business In Quebec, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this is Small Business Week, and I would like to draw the attention of the House to what is being done by the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec.

I want to take this opportunity to mention the strong commitment of the Government of Canada and, more specifically, of its various economic departments that are involved in job creation in Quebec. Federal departments are the key to, and the strategic allies of, growth in Quebec's small business sector.

The Federal Office for Regional Development will also give more assistance to businesses in developing and conquering new foreign markets, like China, for instance. Too bad Mr. Parizeau will not be on the trip!

We must realize that the Federal Office for Regional Development and the Government of Canada support the extraordinary culture of entrepreneurship that we find throughout Quebec and Canada as a whole.

The development and continued support of small businesses in Quebec is a priority for the Government of Canada.

[Supply, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am not a bigot and I have never used those words in reference to the Reform Party. I was only alluding to the form and substance of that party, which is not necessarily reflected in its policy.

[Supply, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in summary, I am still waiting on this side for concrete proposals from the opposition instead of its usual rhetoric that everything done by the government never works.

[Supply, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that a lot of Canadians are not listening to the Reform Party. We have seen it in terms of the percentage of the popular vote it actually has according to recent polls.

I would also like to raise other things. How about regional economic development? That seems to be an area where the Reform appears to be really lacking. I am from eastern Canada. I am from a very rural part of Quebec. The fisheries industry has gone down. There is no longer any fish. We are having problems. We cannot find the various resources we once took for granted. What do we do?

What do we do with these people? What do we do with the 50,000 people of Newfoundland and the maritime provinces who were laid off? Do we just tell them to go away, it is their problem, there is no fish and we cannot do anything? After all this is a compassionate society, is it not? This is why the government has to make sure we address the issues and the needs of all Canadians, but especially those who are having a harder time than other Canadians.

To say that it is inappropriate for me to make comments, the fact is that we know the results of the Reform Party. People have

passed comments and judgments on the way your people look at policy and on the way you people look at governing Canada.

[Supply, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, like many thousands of Canadians I listened intently to this speech and I would like to use a western analogy: Where's the beef?

All we heard was an outright condemnation of the existence of every system in place, everything we have worked for in Canada. I have not heard any solutions or proposals from the Reform Party. They are actually condemning the consultation process which has been put into effect.

The opposition held a number of failed electronic town halls across Canada to try to gauge the population, but to its surprise a number of things came out of that. Often the population in Canada was in total disagreement with its own policies.

Reform members tell the Government of Canada that it is not doing its job. I have seen what happened on their side over the past few months. Every time they have tried to consult the population in their fashion they failed.