Lost his last election, in 1997, with 43% of the vote.
Government Organization Act (Federal Agencies) June 21st, 1995
moved:
Motion No. 15
That Bill C-65, in Clause 57, be amended by replacing lines 16 to 18, on page 15, with the following:
"appointed by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister, following consultation with the government of each province and with the approval of the standing committee of the House of Commons that normally considers cultural matters.
(1.1) the Board shall include representatives of the various regions of Canada."
Government Organization Act (Federal Agencies) June 21st, 1995
moved:
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-65, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 16, on page 2, with the following:
"Council, on the recommendation of the Minister, following consultation with the government of each province and with the approval of the standing committee of the House of Commons that normally consides cultural matters.
(2.1) The Board of Directors shall include representatives of the various regions in Canada."
Electoral Boundaries Readjustmentact, 1995 June 20th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I arrived late, but I relied on the television broadcast.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995 June 14th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that, when Quebec becomes sovereign in the fall, you will see no boundaries or barricades being built between Quebec and Ontario or the other provinces. It is therefore in the best interests of Ontario and the other provinces to do business with Quebec. Rules can certainly be drawn up at the political institutions level, through discussions between members from Quebec and Ontario, to govern trade. In that case, I feel every Canadian province would stand to profit from the birth of this new country.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995 June 14th, 1995
Yes, fifty per cent of seats. Two equal founding nations means a 50:50 sharing. Whereas now we are claiming our fair share of seats, that is 25 per cent.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995 June 14th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, of course, here we must refer to the notion of the two founding nations. If Quebec had been respected when this country was formed, it would not have been allowed 25 per cent of seats in this House, but 50 per cent.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995 June 14th, 1995
Amen. And we will naturally be ruled by the present unitary federal government, whereas we would have a new lease on life if we became a country. I hope Quebecers will make that choice. I am convinced they will. Then, with new and more efficient methods, we will proudly develop this country.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995 June 14th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. With regard to my preamble, I believe I answered his question when I said that the present seat distribution formula in this place was not perfect. One must remember that historically Quebec never had its fair share of seats in the House of Commons over the last 125 years.
In order to stop the gradual erosion of Quebec's influence in our federal institutions and, especially-and I think this is the key word-to reaffirm the Canadian duality, members from the Bloc demand that Quebec retain 25 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons as long as we are part of the federal experience.
As you know, in the fall, Quebecers will decide their political future. The member emphasized this in the preamble to his question. It is then that Quebec, depending upon the choice made by Quebecers, will be either a province or a country. This is the choice Quebecers will have to make. In the meantime, they know that if Quebec remains a province in this federal system that cannot be renewed, this province will be limited. It will remain a colony of English Canada and we will remain a minority forever and ever.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995 June 14th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Calgary West, who has been in this House for a year and a half now, and has finally realized that Bloc Quebecois members are first and foremost sovereignists. And of course, this means that what we are seeking is that one day there will no longer be any Quebec members in this House.
This is the reason why, as long as Quebecers are part of the federal experiment, Bloc Quebecois members will oppose any change to the present formula for riding distribution. Its effect would be to weaken Quebec representation in the House of Commons, as long as Quebecers have not made up their minds on a new social covenant.
The present formula for the distribution of seats is not perfect because, historically speaking, during the 126 years of existence of this federation, Quebec has never had its rightful share of seats in the House of Commons. The six amendments proposed by the Senate, far from improving the content of the bill, actually make the situation even worse for Quebec. This is like the Robin Hood principle in reverse. We take from the poor, Quebec, to give to the rich, the rest of Canada.
The first amendment would reduce the maximum variation from the provincial quota from 25 to 15 per cent. What a nice equity exercise on the part of the non-elected members of the other place. According to the thinkers of the other House, one of the fundamental conditions of democracy is the fair mathematical share of regional representation.
I must admit that this is a very nice principle, but it does not explain the senate clause and the grandfather rights.
While the Senate is concerned about a perfect equality within the provinces, it seems to forget that there are several ridings in English Canada that do not even have 35,000 people. I am talking here, among others, about four ridings in Prince Edward Island, the riding of Labrador, the riding of Yukon and a few others. So, where is the senators' concern for equality for the voters in these ridings?
This amendment does nothing to improve this bill, and they know it very well. Besides, they even ignored what one of their peers was telling them. Senator Jean-Claude Rivest, a former advisor to Robert Bourassa, was demanding, like us, in the Bloc Quebecois, that Quebec be given 25 per cent of the seats in Parliament.
I would remind you very briefly that, concerning Quebec's share of seats, the 1985 Act on Representation is quite clear.
In fact, it stipulates that the returning officer must take into account, before distributing any other seats, the fact that 25 per cent of all seats in the House of Commons must be assigned to Quebec.
I am taking the liberty of reminding the House, with all of the respect it merits and which holds traditions so dear, that since the very first parliamentary session, Quebec has always enjoyed at least, and I stress at least, 25 per cent of all seats. This is neither an acquired right nor a favour that Canada has bestowed on Quebec: it is a simple mathematical calculation governed by the Constitution Act, 1867, and by clauses 14 and 15 of the act to provide for the readjustment of electoral boundaries.
It would therefore be a shame, and actually inadmissible, to put an end to this tradition which has been handed down from the very first Parliament. Why put an end to the tradition? Simply to compensate, yes, I said compensate, English Canada for having kept its allegiances straight when voting. Do not forget that Quebec was the cradle of Canada. Quebec brought it into this world, and not the other way around. The first amendment will not only reduce the maximum variation from the province's quota, but could also wipe certain electoral ridings right off the map.
Yes, the population of several of Quebec's rural regions has been steadily declining over the past several years. The government knows it. So, what is it doing about it? With this bill, it is ensuring that English Canada will get additional ridings, and that Quebec will lose a few. What a great exercise in democracy! This is what I would call the Robin Hood principle.
The other amendment I find particularly disturbing is amendment No. 6 which seeks to redefine the concept of community of interest.
The senators suggest establishing boundaries based on demographic and geographic considerations. I realize that to say this amendment totally ignores the human aspect is to say the obvious. It is unfortunate, and it makes no sense at all. On paper this might work, but theoretically, realistically, practically, on a day to day basis, we cannot ignore the human factor because in the end it determines how things work.
For a riding like mine that borders on several municipalities and has a very large territory, this amendment could be a disaster. Take the riding of Chicoutimi. Last year, when the federal electoral boundaries commission came to the riding, it suggested taking the municipalities of Ferland-et-Boileau, Saint-Félix-d'Otis, Rivière-Éternité, L'Anse-Saint-Jean and Petit-Saguenay away from the riding of Chicoutimi and annexing them to the riding of my colleague, the hon. member for Jonquière.
This problem illustrates the importance of community of interest. In fact, these small rural municipalities on the Lower Saguenay, those the commission wanted to take away from my riding, have always considered La Baie, one of the larger cities in the riding of Chicoutimi, as their economic and social centre.
Most of the services used by the people in the Lower Saguenay are located in La Baie. The closest employment centre is there, as is the small business development centre. Ferland-et-Boilleau, the municipality closest to the riding of Jonquière is 45 km away. This is the community of interest proposed by these amendments. It seems rather unreasonable to me.
A bill cannot be permitted to push aside-and I mean push aside-the human factor without a thought in order to establish electoral boundaries. This is a serious mistake, and I find it most regrettable. My comment is, simply: "Stop wasting taxpayers' money with useless and pointless bills. Let us get down to the real problems of our society, which are growing with every passing day".
It is time to deal with the economic slowdown, when statistics indicate that for the sixth straight month there has been no net job creation in Canada. The government is setting an example by its inertia in this area.
The Prime Minister is too busy to study a new plan for reducing unemployment insurance benefits. Perhaps he thinks it will help the growth of employment, which is in a state of exhaustion. Let us stop wasting our time and taxpayers' money and get down to this country's real problems.
Firearms Act June 12th, 1995
Madam Speaker, I am far from happy with Bill C-68 in its present form. As usual, I think the government has turned a deaf ear to the various motions in amendment put forward by the Bloc Quebecois. Once again, the government has missed a wonderful opportunity to improve its bill by incorporating the findings of the various committees, the conclusions reached at public hearings or quite simply the views contained in letters sent in by our constituents throughout this country.
One thing is for sure: for or against, this bill leaves no one indifferent. I have said it before, and I will say it again, although this is a very controversial bill, it is, in my view, essential and in the interests of all Quebecers and Canadians that the govern-
ment pass it so that citizens are better protected against the upsurge in crime and violence that can strike anyone at any time.
I cannot, at this time, go into all the details of this bill, but it is clear from the controversy surrounding it that it has some major flaws. I will mention just two in particular. First, in a move designed to impress the public, the Minister of Justice included in his bill a minimum sentence of four years, in lieu of the provisions of section 85 of the Criminal Code. In its present form, section 85 provides that a criminal who uses a firearm while committing an offence will have to serve an additional consecutive sentence of one year. In the case of a second or subsequent offence, the additional sentence is three years.
Surely the Minister of Justice cannot seriously think that a minimum sentence of four years on top of the original sentence will have a dissuasive effect. It will not. It will merely serve to worsen the already serious problem of overcrowding in Canada's prison system.
Furthermore, I would remind you that members of the Quebec bar told the committee that a minimum sentence of four years for use of a firearm in committing an offence could result in something like an additional 250 people a year joining the prison population. When you think about how much it costs taxpayers to keep one offender in jail, I do not know whether this country, which is bankrupt, currently has the means to support another 250 people in jail. The auditor general also spoke of this subject.
My colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Hubert, the Bloc Quebecois justice critic, is proposing to simply drop clauses 135 to 144, which merely list ten crimes with a minimum sentence of four years. I think that we should stick to the current rules established in the Criminal Code. It should be up to judges to set the sentences for the various crimes committed by offenders.
Would it not be wiser to follow Quebec's example in justice matters, and to channel our efforts towards better understanding, by putting emphasis on prevention and bringing in measures which promote rehabilitation, instead of giving in, like this government has, to repressive movements from all over the country, which are expounded mostly by the Reform Party.
Another point that is of particular concern to me is that section 106 of the current Criminal Code stipulates that people who make a living from hunting do not have to pay the licencing fees related to firearm ownership.
I know very well that we have grown accustomed to the government's double standards over the past two years, but this bill is too serious and important for that kind of game. Clause 110 of the bill would effectively allow the governor in council to introduce discriminatory regulations uniquely for the benefit of aboriginal peoples. I fail to see why belonging to a certain class of persons changes the application of the legislation.
It is therefore imperative that any person who owns a firearm be obliged to pay registration fees, whether that person lives off the proceeds of the hunt or is a native. This government must not allow the creation of different classes of citizens. It is not helpful at all and merely creates conflicts within our society.
Guns must be controlled and regulated by laws that are logical, sensible and apply to all citizens of this country, irrespective of their age, sex, occupation or cultural heritage.
I know this bill does not enjoy unanimous support, but we must remember that as elected representatives, it is our duty to protect our constituents, often from themselves.
This bill should respond to the main concerns which have been raised constantly in the past five to ten years with respect to gun control.
We know this bill is not a panacea for the crime and violence that exist in our society. However, it is time to acquire the additional tools we need to deal with these problems. I think this bill is a tool that will help society evolve, and that a few years from now, it will be too late.
Finally, I may recall that at the present rate, there will be about four million guns of all kinds in less than ten years. We cannot afford to leave this legacy to future generations. It is time to act now. This has gone on long enough.