Patrick Gagnon

[Department Of Agriculture Act, October 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that much remains to be done in agriculture. The hon. member must bear in mind however, that the federal government and several departments are working on finding ways to make programs more accessible to the Quebec producers. At any rate, I would like to point out to the hon. member that, as it happens, we are managing and considering programs in which producers are invited to get involved in biotechnology.

As it happens, there is program in my riding to encourage farm producers, these men and women who work the land, to try and find ways to perhaps introduce such products making use of new technologies, for the betterment of Canadians health and well-being.

Of course, the opposition is none too pleased to hear such things, but as far as the entrepreneurs are concerned, when we talk about bank loans, about the implications for example of the involvement of the Federal Office of Regional Development, of the Federal Business Development Bank, it is all a matter of balance. What matters for Quebec producers, in terms of balance, is to make sure that there is a Canadian market in the first place.

I think that Quebec producers agree almost unanimously on the importance of the Canadian market and the need to maintain this market to compete with the United States.

Funds were made available to farmers, scientists, research workers, unions, labour organizations. The federal government has a role to play. Let us not forget it and let me tell you that it is often welcome, contrary to what the hon. member opposite claims.

[Department Of Agriculture Act, October 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a well known fact, although the opposition seems to ignore it, that 48 per cent or the Canadian milk production comes from Quebec, and this is because of the quotas that were instituted by the federal government. It is thanks to the federal government which protected the Canadian market that Quebec could control 48 per cent of our milk production.

Potato farmers were mentioned once again. Let us talk about potato farmers, let us talk about maple syrup. I know what I am talking about, I used to work for a company abroad which tried to open up this market for Quebec producers. It is totally false to say that the federal government did nothing. In my riding, UPA received $84,000, and you refuse to acknowledge that we paid more money to people who work in the field in order to diversify local production.

I am disappointed by the denials of the opposition. Once again, we only hear the separatist rhetoric, that real Quebecers do not want.

[Department Of Agriculture Act, October 19th, 1994]

So I am very surprised, and I realize we are on questions and comments, but just the same, if we are talking about agriculture and research, including research on cattle, I repeat, the federal government has made a commitment to develop new technologies, but unfortunately, once again we hear the Bloc Quebecois setting themselves up as the defenders of the public service. I do not claim to defend the public service. I defend and promote the

interests of farmers in the Gaspé. And when I hear the opposition defending the public service, I have my doubts.

[Department Of Agriculture Act, October 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of farmers in my riding, and as you know, farming is a major industry in Eastern Quebec, in the province as a whole and, of course in Canada.

I was again very interested to hear the hon. member's comments, but I was surprised at this tendency to ignore what the Government of Canada does for a sector that is so important to Quebecers and especially to the people in the Gaspé.

I had the privilege of working with the Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec in my riding, where we handed over a cheque of $84,000 to develop a small-fruit industry, as part of a program to provide new incentives for local farmers to grow new products for local, provincial and even international markets.

I would also like to point out that the same people have already contacted me, and I am referring to representatives of the UPA and farm producers, especially in the dairy sector, to set up a program for regional processing of milk and cheese.

These people came to see the Government of Canada. They came to see their federal member. However, they have yet to receive an answer, and people may have the impression that their member is the Minister responsible for Agriculture in the riding of Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine and has not bothered to respond.

I took this project very seriously. I transmitted it to the Federal Office of Regional Development, because we want to show local people that the federal government is prepared to work with them, in partnership with farmers, the Government of Quebec and all the agencies concerned.

[Women, October 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, 65 years ago today, women won the right to be recognized as persons.

We in the Liberal Party use persons day to honour the accomplishments of women and to acknowledge that we still have a long way to go. The members across the way in the Reform Party celebrate it by belittling the accomplishments of women.

The member for St. Paul dismissed women in the Liberal caucus, claiming they were given their jobs by the Prime Minister. She must be confused by her own party's selection process. After all, it was the Reform Party that had candidates fill out an application form.

Many women contested nominations in the Liberal Party, far more than got elected. The battle waged by every female Liberal MP was real. The fact they made it through a male dominated and sometimes sexist process must not be diminished.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, October 18th, 1994]

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I find the remarks made by the hon. member opposite quite legitimate. I agree with him that the system is not perfect. It is true that further efforts are required to safeguard the Canadian cultural space, whether French Canadian or English Canadian. And I believe that is the primary goal of the Canadian National Broadcasting Strategy. There is no doubt that the bill deals with several aspects that extend beyond radio and television broadcasting.

It also deals with parks, as well as multiculturalism. That is true. Matters that affect culture also affect the cultural industry, and the hon. member is right in saying that we must remain wary of the American competition which, as we know, can be plainly disloyal at times not only vis-à-vis the Canadian culture but also other cultures worldwide.

Take France, England, Japan for example. These are countries that already pay closer attention to their cultures because of the massive American invasion in our cultural spaces. The fact remains however, and I believe all the hon. members agree on this, that Quebec and the francophone culture in Canada, which certainly extends beyond the boundaries of Quebec, are better protected in a federal context than if left to fight the American cultural giant on their own, alone, without any friends or allies.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, October 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the Bloc Quebecois has expressed its concerns about the federal presence in cultural matters. I listened with a great deal of interest to what was said, but I must admit I was somewhat surprised at the cafeteria metaphor.

They worry that people are allowed to choose. They worry that people do not have the knowledge, the discipline or the ability to make informed decisions about the kind of food they should eat.

As you know, thousands of people use the Commons cafeteria, and I think we have quite a variety. People eat more than cakes and cookies. They are concerned about good nutrition. All Canadians, especially young Canadians, are very much aware of the importance of good nutrition.

In the bill before the House today, we want to give Canadians a chance to make choices and not necessarily make those choices for them, as the hon. member for the opposition assumed. I trust the public, and I am confident that our fellow citizens can make informed decisions. After all, the purpose of this department and the objective of the Government of Canada is to establish links among the various elements that make up our country.

I think we can benefit from the experience of a fisherman from the maritimes, a logger from Quebec, and a western farmer. I think we should realize that the genius of federalism

lies in having invited these various elements to come and build such an extraordinary country.

Once again, the opposition talks about controlling. Controlling whom? Controlling choices made by adult individuals, by people who want to find a way to express themselves? For instance, the federal government never intervened when Pierre Falardeau decided to do his film Octobre . I must say I do not share the views expressed by Mr. Falardeau. However, the Government of Canada, through Telefilm Canada and the National Film Board, agreed to produce, to fund this film which, as you all know, is raising a lot of questions and causing a lot of debate. People say it is not a big success because unfortunately, the Government of Quebec refused to participate.

This goes to show that when partnership is lacking, some projects often never get off the ground. And some are often not well received by the general public. In any case, I wish the opposition would realize that as far as Canadian heritage and culture are concerned, the goal of this government and of all creative artists has always been to stimulate our intellectual curiosity and urge people to reach beyond the horizon. Oddly enough, separatist nationalists often say they want a Quebec that is open to the world. So why not start with a Quebec open to Canada, and vice-versa? I think we already have a system that works well and is very open to the range of different opinions we have in this country.

To go back to the cafeteria metaphor, I am glad to know I have a choice and that this choice is a matter of individual freedom. Unfortunately, the opposition only proposes to remove or control those freedoms we take for granted.

[Department Of Industry Act, October 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest once again to the contradictory remarks of the hon. member.

In the first instance they are telling us that any federal government intervention in rural areas, which is where I am from, is contradictory to what the Government of Canada should be doing in helping rural areas. However I find it curious that they are trying to bring in a centralized model where all regions of Canada would be treated in the same way. In other words, we should say that the little town of Bonaventure and the little town of Old-Harry on the Madeleine Islands are the same as Bay Street, that they have the same economy as Toronto.

They do not seem to recognize the other side. The opposition benches like to pride themselves as representing rural Canada and rural interests, but they want to take rural Canadians and put them in the same boat as urban Canadians. Many members opposite actually represent areas with only one industry: a mining town, a pulp and paper town or a government town. Whereas in other urban areas of Canada such as Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal there are various choices, various industries, a concentration of populations, a concentration of schools and a concentration of services.

We do not have that in the regions. That is why in order to encourage regional economic development the Government of Canada has to make it easier for corporations and companies, which it always likes to defend, to invest more in our areas. It should make sure that there is equitable expenditure across Canada. It should also recognize that rural areas also have taxpayers; they have interests that are important to them. Members opposite should go back to their constituents and ask them if they think the Government of Canada should remove itself from regional economic development. I am sure they are not going to last past the next election.

I go back to my constituency as a rural Quebecer, a rural Canadian, with examples of where the Government of Canada intervened. Thanks to that intervention we managed to create jobs. We managed to create income. We managed to develop the local economy for the benefit of all Canadians and for the benefit of regional areas such as those represented by the Reform Party.

[Department Of Industry Act, October 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. member, who once again dismisses the achievements of the Government of Canada with respect to regional economic development. No amounts were given, no reference made to what has been done in his sector.

When I hear the mining industry mentioned, I ask myself how many millions Noranda, to take an example, has received from the federal government in regional development incentives.

Forestry also comes to mind, companies like Tembeck, Stone Consolidated, Abitibi Price. We could also mention the famous 33 per cent investment tax credit given to companies who invest in the regions. You invest $10 million and the government of Canada gives you a 33 per cent tax break. This is taxpayers' money being used to encourage regional economic development that the opposition unfortunately refuses to recognize.

I can give you an example. I have just come from Îles-de-la-Madeleine, where there is a company called Les entreprises Léo A. Leblanc in which the Federal Office of Regional Development has invested $79,600. This is a grant, not a loan. It must be pointed out, however, that thanks to the intervention of the Canadian government, a new job-creation project has come to fruition, that will see this company's activities focus on the export market. Now, the company is even taking small vessels from New Brunswick and Nova Scotia for repair in Îles-de-la-Madeleine. In fact, the company owner told me that, because of the investment by the government of Canada in this project, he has been able to expand.

I could mention all sorts of projects. There is, of course, the off-set program for fishermen and factory workers, whereby the government of Canada is going to invest close to $5 million in new fishing technologies, including aquiculture.

There is also the last report, the Eastern Quebec Forestry Development Program. Forgive me, I realize that I am not supposed to show documents as part of a debate. Nevertheless, the government aided forestry workers in 1983 and has continued to do so to this day, although the program is currently under review. But I dare the opposition to find one of the 6,000 affected workers to speak out against the federal investment program for reforestation and providing support to forestry professionals in either construction start or silviculture. I would say that the government of Canada has taken its responsibilities.

In fact, more and more of these forestry workers are asking that the federal government remain involved. Apparently, this would be the only program suited to forestry workers. No one has come out and said that the government of Canada should back out of its responsibilities. The federal government is here. We are there for these 6,000 workers.

There is also the Federal Business Development Bank. On the subject of Quebec institutions, did you know that we have the Caisse populaire Desjardins in the Gaspé Peninsula, with a $500 million reserve made up of the savings of the Gaspé people, but very little of this money is actually invested back in the community. So, it is thanks to loan guarantees given by the government of Canada that financial institutions like this one re-invest in the community.

I think that, instead of telling stories of overlapping, the hon. member should review the matter thoroughly, looking at every investment we have made these past few years. Take my word for it, Mr. Speaker, we have the federal investments to thank, because this government listens to the community and decided to invest not only in these particular industries but also in the future of the regions.

This government's objective-and my reason for representing the riding of Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine here, as the only government member east of Trois-Rivières-is to maintain a federal presence because this presence is welcome and indeed desirable in terms of regional economic development.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, October 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Surrey-White Rocks-South Langley for moving such an important motion. We obviously need to better protect our children against repeat violent offenders.

As a starting point and proof that such action is necessary, my colleague referred to the crimes committed by Joseph Fredericks. The senseless death of young Christopher Stephenson, murdered in 1988 by this chronic paedophile from Brampton reminds us, in case we need to be reminded, that we must act quickly to deal with the weaknesses of our criminal justice system and reduce the risk of similar tragedies, in future.

The federal government, the provinces and all the various areas of the criminal justice system agree that they must work together to reach this common goal. As for the federal government, he is determined to act on this issue. This is why it has already taken measures to implement several of the recommendations made in 1993 by the coroner in charge of the investigation concerning the death of young Christopher Stephenson.

Finally, most of the federal measures recommended were implemented, which helped to improve the preparation of case management and risk assessment reports throughout the federal correctional system. We were also able to improve the exchange of information on offenders, the accountability mechanisms and the coordination of management and treatment activities for sex offenders. We have made some remarkable progress, but still have a long way to go.

This is why we will work hard to implement the few remaining recommendations. These recommendations address complex issues that cannot be resolved overnight. They require global and sustainable solutions. Bill C-45, which amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, is one measure that will help improve public protection. This bill, which was introduced by the Solicitor General last June, is now before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

One of the proposed amendments would make it easier for the National Parole Board to keep sexual offenders who have a preference for children in prison until they have served their full sentence. As the Solicitor General pointed out recently, this amendment does not mean that sexual offences against children are more serious than those against adults. However, in the case of children, it happens quite often that the National Parole Board cannot keep a high risk pedophile in prison because it is difficult to prove that he has caused serious harm to the child who was the victim.

The proposal would solve this problem by eliminating the need to prove that serious harm has been caused in these cases. The Board would therefore have the legal right to keep an offender in prison until he has served his full sentence if it believes that the offender is likely to commit another offence against a child. I think this proposal would be a great help in protecting our children against sexual offenders under federal jurisdiction.

However, we must keep in mind that real reform requires more than just amending the legislation. Sooner or later, most convicts are released. This is the reason why the government has taken a number of initiatives aimed at protecting society in the long run. Improving treatment programs for sexual offenders is a case in point. If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on what we know about treating sexual offenders.

Research shows that sexual abuse has many roots and that there is more than one approach to treatment. However, clinicians agree that, in many cases, the chances of re-offending can be considerably reduced through continuous treatment and preventing relapses.

Preventing relapses is crucial as it helps sexual offenders control their urge when they are back in the community. In this context, the Solicitor General announced that, as part of the public security reform proposed by the government, programs for sexual offenders will be improved and reinforced.

To ensure that the corrections system makes use of the most effective means to deal with and treat sexual offenders, Correctional Service Canada undertook a complete review of its evaluation and treatment programs, last year, with a view to improve evaluation of sexual offenders' needs related to their criminal behaviour, to implement a series of treatment programs designed to meet the various needs of this group of offenders, to train corrections officers in the latest techniques for dealing with sexual offenders, and to conduct research aimed at improving the effectiveness of these approaches.

During the last five years, it made spectacular progress by increasing the number of places set aside for sexual offenders from 200 per year to over 1,800 per year.

In order to improve the national aspect of the management and treatment of sexual offenders, the Commissioner of Corrections recently announced the nomination of a senior psychologist as incumbent of a new position, that of sexual offenders program consultant. This is another example of action taken following the enquiry on the death of Christopher Stephenson.

In accordance with other recommendations made during that enquiry, the government will take measures in order to help local agencies better protect children against abuse in their communities.

The RCMP is at the forefront because it gives all police forces across Canada access to the data base of the Canadian Police Information Centre, the CPIC. Thanks to those data, the local police can determine the background of any person who applies for a job involving children and can transfer that information to local community organizations.

With these data, the organizations can make sure child molesters and sexual offenders cannot come into direct contact with children through community work.

In order that our national screening process be the best possible, some representatives of the Solicitor General, in cooperation with colleagues from Health Canada and Justice Canada, are studying possible ways of improving on the data bank of the CPIC so that the acquisition process would bring in more complete data on criminal convictions and investigations.

For our part, we will have a much better screening system at the national level and we will be able to prevent contacts between children and paedophiles or sexual offenders.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank once again the member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley who raised this vital issue in the House.

We have the responsibility, in memory of Christopher Stephenson and as a protection for all children and parents in Canada, to do everything in our power to protect our young people against sexual predators.

However, protection does not depend exclusively on legislation. It also depends on the design and implementation of effective treatment programs for sexual offenders, so the risk can be manageable once they re-enter society. It is only through a balanced reform of the criminal system that we will be able to build a safe society where children will not live in fear of violence or exploitation.

The initiatives I just described and the efforts we will continue to make over the next few months exemplify the commitment of our government to a better protection of our children. I am confident that all members will co-operate with us in the fulfilment of this goal.