Paul Crête

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak to Bill C-10 to provide for minimum penalties of five, seven and ten years for certain crimes according to the number, if any, of previous convictions.

The Bloc Québécois has looked carefully at this bill. In fact, in committee, a number of amendments were withdrawn and now the government is presenting them again here. Why is the Bloc Québécois against this bill? Certainly not because it wants crime to increase.

The crime rate has gone down in Canada. In the past, we realized that prevention measures such as maintaining the firearms registry and better monitoring of the parole system would provide the necessary conditions for continuing to lower the crime rate. What will be the impact of the approach the government is proposing today? The incarceration rate will increase. There will be less money in the budget for prevention and less chance of reintegrating people into society.

For example, under the bill, for armed robbery there would be a minimum sentence of three years for a first offence and a minimum sentence of five years for a subsequent offence. What this does not say—it is there between the lines—is that an accomplice would automatically be sentenced to three years. An unarmed youth involved in an armed robbery would automatically be sentenced to three years. The government has deliberately and knowingly elected to automatically send a 19- or 20-year-old to crime school and likely create a career criminal. We currently rely on something very important and that is the intelligence of judges. Judges are humans with analytical skills. They are considered to have the competence to do this type of work and can take into account the entire context of a crime. This is not an area where automatic sentences will resolve the situation. They will not solve anything. If the bill is passed, I can guarantee that in 10 years, the penitentiaries will have bigger budget problems. The crime rate will go up and there will be less money for prevention. The result will be the exact opposite of what the government was looking for.

It is very easy to say that, for certain crimes, the more severe the minimum sentence, the lower the chances of recidivism. The entire situation must be analyzed. Some people are able to successfully return to society. It has been done in the past. There are also other tools that can be used, such as better supervision of parole. Greater effort is needed in this area.

The Conservative government, in good faith, wants to find a way to reduce crime. However, it is only looking at the first level, while concrete and practical solutions are to be found at the second and third levels. We must look further to achieve results. The American model offers a good example. There are more people in prison in the United States than anywhere else in the world. This breeds a team of criminals, contributes to organized crime and encourages people to become involved in organized crime. Here, we developed a system that allows people to reintegrate into society and return to a normal lifestyle. Thus, we are achieving a number of our objectives.

Experts indicate that the use of minimum sentences does nothing to lower crime or recidivism rates. Evidence to that effect was heard in committee. For example, a criminologist from the University of Ottawa, Julia Roberts, conducted a study for the Department of Justice Canada in which she concluded:

...mandatory sentences of imprisonment have been introduced in a number of western nations. ...The studies that have examined the impact of these laws reported variable effects on prison populations, and no discernible effect on crime rates.

No discernible effect on crime rates. On one hand, we have a knee-jerk, short-term approach, and on the other, we have a professional analysis of the situation. Since crime rates have dropped in Canada, I think we must continue to cultivate this different attitude towards such behaviour, developed in Quebec and in Canada. In the United States, they have not achieved the desired results. In order to continue to reduce crime rates, we need a major systemic intervention to create a society that has less poverty.

That is the primary factor here. Every society that does a better job of fighting poverty finds that fewer people commit minor, entry level crimes. These crimes are often committed by people who are just trying to make ends meet or because they are addicts and do not have access to support programs. I think that is the solution we should be looking at.

More support and better supervision once offenders exit the penal system will help lower the risk to reoffend. We also have to find new ways of doing things. Today, parole is automatically offered once an offender has served one sixth of the sentence. We have to reconsider this. I think modifying the parole system is more important and more urgent than the approach the government has proposed, and would be more effective, too.

We think that bringing in automatic sentencing is a dangerous approach that has not resulted in desired outcomes in the United States and will not result in desired outcomes in Canada. That is why a majority of committee members voted to remove so many of the amendments. Now the government wants to put them back in. We will see what the House decides to do about this, but it seems obvious to me that this approach is not well thought out.

Introducing this bill was like a gut reaction; when you burn yourself, the first thing you want to do is put water on the burn, but that may not be the best solution. Something else might be needed. In this case, there should be a collective approach that allows the situation to be dealt with and worthwhile results to be achieved.

I would like young people, who unfortunately get involved in crime, to return to society as soon as possible and to be properly integrated, thanks to adequate support services. That is better than creating individuals who join organized crime and therefore cost more to society.

That is why the Bloc Québécois will be voting against this bill. We hope the hon. members in this House are paying attention to our arguments and that we will get the desired results. In fact, we hope this entire problem and this bill will be submitted for consultation—even if it is rejected—in order to come up with solutions that will truly improve the situation without making it worse.

We are not necessarily here to copy the U.S. model. The Americans make their choices, and we must not condemn them, but we do not need to copy their methods entirely because they do not necessarily correspond to our social values.

We would like, more than any thing else, to see reintegration as a possibility in our society . I hope that the hon. members in this House will listen to our arguments.

[May 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is discouraging to hear my colleague say things like that. We get the impression that we will never be able to help them make progress. Nevertheless, we managed to do so with the Technology Partnerships Canada program. The Conservatives spent month after month, year after year criticizing the program. It was not until after the last election that our arguments eventually convinced them to bring the program back. Now $900 million will go to the aerospace sector, and that is good. That sector needs the money badly if it is to compete with other countries around the world.

In that same spirit of optimism, I would invite my colleague to take another look at the reality of the situation and make sure that, in the end, the federal government gives Quebec contracts that will maintain the existing distribution. In this case, contrary to what happens with private companies, this is a company that received a contract without going through a tendering process. The federal government will have to deliver the goods for Quebec's 60% share of the aerospace industry.

[May 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to this important issue of the lack of federal government support for Quebec's aerospace industry.

I would remind the House that during question period on March 1, 2007, the Bloc Québécois returned to the charge. For months, the Bloc had been calling on the federal government to respect the existing distribution of Canada's aerospace industry. A total of 55% to 60% of Canada's aerospace industry is in Quebec. In a contract awarded to a private company like Boeing, we would have liked to see the federal government require the company to distribute its investments in a way that reflects the current situation in Canada. The government, however, made no effort to do so. The company itself was the one to suggest a rate of 30%. Thirty per cent is clearly insufficient. This launched an immense offensive from within the entire Quebec aerospace industry—from large and small companies alike—to tell the federal government that Quebec must receive its fair share.

They also appealed directly to the company. The company showed some sensitivity to the issue, but the federal government showed absolutely none. When the project was announced, the two ministers present, who both happen to be from Quebec, were unable to say how the spinoffs of the project would be divided. They called all of Canada the region. This showed complete disregard for the fact that Quebec has developed an expertise and has 55% to 60% of the aerospace industry within its borders. We are talking about thousands of jobs.

The commitment of 30% means that Quebec will lose 18,500 jobs per year, because the federal government did not want to impose a standard that simply corresponded to the current distribution. In the past, we have seen the government make significant investments in the automotive sector, for instance, and the Province of Ontario came out ahead, because that region was identified as where most of the industry is located.

The Conservative government now refuses to make such commitments in the aerospace sector. Consequently, Boeing, which subcontracts its distribution and production chain, will favour these subcontractors, which is quite normal. However, this chain of subcontractors may not necessarily include Quebec sub-contractors. Bombardier is one of Boeing's competitors. Do we believe that Boeing will subcontract to its Quebec competitor? I think that is absolutely ridiculous.

On an opposition day, we tabled a motion, supported by the Liberal Party, to the effect that the existing distribution in Canada had to be respected in order for each region—Quebec and the other provinces—to receive the share of spinoffs from this contract corresponding to the actual impact. Otherwise, the rules of the game are changed and a private company is given the responsibility for drastically altering the distribution.

Given the overall situation, and after the intervention of the Leader of the Bloc Québécois and myself on March 1, and in view of several measures that we took on opposition day, can the government guarantee that Quebec will receive 60% of the spin-offs, which it deserves, in order to respect the current distribution for each region in Canada? Will the government take positive action and promise to guarantee the 60% share?

[Income Tax Act, May 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased and proud to speak to the bill introduced by the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. First, I would like to congratulate him.

The bill tabled amends the Income Tax Act to give new graduates working in designated regions a tax credit. This is a concrete example of social and economic measures that Quebec has taken over the years. We have developed all kinds of original social initiatives, such as child care centres.

What about land occupancy? To ensure that our population will continue to have the requisite resources in our villages and municipalities, the Government of Quebec has developed a practice that it has already implemented. It gives a tax credit to a young person who settles in a region, in order to counter the exodus of youth and avoid the shortage of skilled labour.

This measure is available in my region and has had a positive impact. For example, population movement had been declining for a number of years. Now it seems that this measure has tempered matters in this regard. Additional efforts are required to achieve an even better result, to add a sort of catalyst that will result in further progress.

Bill C-207 is a step in that direction because it simply suggests extending this measure to all of Canada by defining the regions where these credits can be claimed. Consequently, in the end, this will provide an incentive for youth to settle in the regions. This is not charity. It is important for all of our land to be used and developed and for benefits to be found in every location. It is to the advantage of the major centres for the regions to be strong. This bill will help make this happen.

The original project was tested in Quebec. It allowed a new graduate to get an income tax credit equal to 40% of earned salary, up to a maximum of $8,000. That measure was implemented in 2003. That same year, 2,500 people applied for the credit. In 2004, it was claimed by 9,700 people from different regions, including 1,200 from Abitibi-Témiscamingue, 1,600 from the Lower St. Lawrence, 800 from the Gaspé and Magdalen Islands, 1,000 from the North Shore and 4,000 from Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean. We can easily understand why the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord is so interested in the measure. His region did benefit from the initiative put in place by the government of Quebec. Now, we want to broaden the measure.

The experience Quebec has had with it must be taken into account. In fact, the original measure has been amended. The changes made could be included in the bill when it is studied in committee.

I listened to the speech made by my colleague from the NDP and I agree with him. I recognized an interesting principle, a positive way of doing things. For Quebec, the system is already in place and there is no need to reinvent the wheel. We only need to apply the federal tax credit in the same regions where the Quebec credit applies. As for the other provinces, we need to identify the right regions where the tax credit should be offered.

I invite hon. members to consider the results this type of measure can achieve. Young people are moving to the regions and sometimes they stay for a number of years. We would be prepared to consider an amendment, among other things, to spread out the tax credit over three years, like it was done in Quebec. This encourages applying for the credit just once. When someone moves to a region, they often get the urge to invest the rest of their life there and to contribute to the development of that region. The result is quite interesting.

Indeed, an amendment could be adopted in committee to make the tax credit more flexible and make it apply over a number of years. The incentive would have a more lasting effect.

As I was explaining, another amendment could be made with regard to eligible regions to ensure that this will truly be a positive incentive. Furthermore we have to avoid future disputes as much as possible, since there are always borderline areas in these cases. Nonetheless, as far as I am concerned, this issue should not prevent us from implementing a tax credit where it would be appropriate to do so.

Let us take for example the regions I mentioned. My colleague from Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, our party's regional development critic, is certainly aware of this reality.

We have seen the figures for his region in the Gaspé peninsula and for the Lower St. Lawrence. We are well aware that in terms of regional development, we now have to deal with the natural market forces inherent to globalization, which is causing our regions to lose their populations. One might say that that is how the market operates and we have to let the market dictate how this works, but this has a significant impact on support for municipal structures and support for our regions.

When the population of a town diminishes, it does not take long before it can no longer offer services. This disorganization, this de-institutionalization is very negative for our society. In my opinion, it is up to the government to go ahead with measures like this. They do not cost very much and they provide a return. For example, in the medium term, the bill will ensure that schools in villages stay open because young people will settle there, couples will form and children will be born. In that sense, we are keeping the wheels turning and making sure that life can go on in the communities.

It is important to move ahead with the bill so that it can be referred to a committee that will study it, hear witnesses and obtain the necessary expertise. The basic principle is that population movements are not solely a matter of economic markets. It is a question of regional development.

In the past, there were all sorts of initiatives like this that attracted people to regions throughout Quebec and across Canada. We need more such initiatives, because if we do not act, the consequences will ultimately be negative.

Look at what is happening in major cities in countries in the south. Artificial towns are being creating around the cities, where people from rural areas are settling. This is happening in China, and it is creating serious problems.

I hope that we will have the support of the majority of members of this House so that the bill will get through the report stage, come back to this House with any amendments we have suggested and have an impact so that this measure will be implemented in the short term or at least in the next budget. Then, the efforts of the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord will have paid off.

In the next budget, there will be such a measure, and it will improve the situation in our regions and their ability to attract young people. I believe we will all benefit from such measures.

My time is almost up, so I will just remind this House that we are elected in ridings and that when a member like my friend from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord has the interests of his own riding and all rural regions at heart, he deserves to be heard by this House. I hope that hon. members will support the bill so that it can move on to the committee stage.

[Taxation, May 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, if this government is serious about its intentions, the recent budgetary measures will not put an end to this situation.

Do the Minister of Finance and the government understand that they do not even have to change the legislation? The easiest way to deal with the Barbados issue is to amend section 5907 of the Income Tax Act regulations.

[Taxation, May 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General has told us eight times now that excessive use of tax havens, such as Barbados, by wealthy taxpayers is a threat to Canada's tax base.

How can the minister simply stand by knowing that his government is losing billions of dollars in tax revenues every year, billions of dollars that middle class taxpayers have to compensate for, to fund the federal government's spending?

[Business of Supply, April 24th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we must use all the tools set out in the Kyoto protocol to attain the desired results. We must guarantee results but what is needed first is the political will on the part of the government to move forward. I repeat, if the political will of the current government to act on environmental matters were as strong as its will to fight in Afghanistan, fear not, we would find the money to reach that target. However, the quality of life of here at home for Quebeckers and Canadians is just as important and it is vital that we move in that direction.

An extraordinary tool, the carbon exchange, has been devised to ensure that we have an economic interest in achieving these targets.

I am very pleased that my colleague has said he agrees with the wording of the motion. I hope, I truly hope, that he will vote in favour of it so that we will have a clear indication of intent. I hope that the government will vote in favour of this motion. Then we shall see if we can meet the expectations of our people.

[Business of Supply, April 24th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

This is exactly when it becomes important. We are in a situation where economic and environmental benefits converge, if we can only go forward with the idea of a carbon exchange. There are people who, initially, were not really front-line environmentalists. Corporations like Alcan and other businesses throughout Quebec told the Minister of the Environment that they were disappointed with his plan and wanted him to go forward with more measures. We must not separate the economy and the environment. We must have sustainable development. Sustainable development is done in an environmentally desirable way over the long term. Some important findings have been made clear here today. Very important tax benefits were provided to develop the tar sands, for example. Next year, this tax expenditure will cost the government about $300 million. On the other side, we need to find a way to make sure this money is used wisely. We should have strings attached and make sure there is a market so that those who pollute less get the benefits and those who pollute more pay the price.

With the present approach of the Conservative government, we will not be able to meet the goals we want to reach and the goals we need to reach for the future of this planet, for the future of Quebec, and the future of Canada.

[Business of Supply, April 24th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

I would like to begin by congratulating the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for bringing this very important motion before the House for debate. It is very important not just for the moment, or for the year to come, but for all the generations yet to come. Let us think about where we have come from as far as the environment is concerned.

Some twenty years ago, a few ecologists were sounding the alarm, but they were heeded by very few. With time, we have come to realize that they were right. In recent months we have had definitive confirmation that there is a major scientific problem. Even the Conservative government has been forced to admit it to some extent. The Minister of the Environment claimed to be surprised at these findings when they were announced at the international conference he was attending. Now one would expect some action from the government. The Bloc can take pride in its motion today, because it is acting as the true messenger for Quebeckers on this issue.

Quebeckers decided to take the green path a long time ago. They took concrete actions and have a noteworthy record of accomplishments in this area. Now, however, environmental action must be global if results are to be achieved. One of the worst threats to this is the immobility of governments that are unwilling to move forward and overly sensitive to pressure from lobbies such as the oil patch.

Returning to the motion presented, it reads: That the House—and therefore all the representatives of the population who are here—call on the government to set absolute greenhouse gas reduction targets as soon as possible—

What are the greenhouse gases? Six of them are covered by Kyoto. They include: CO₂, the result of the combustion of fossil fuels and of deforestation—petroleum, among other things, is a fossil fuel; methane, which is produced by cattle farming, rice cultivation, domestic waste landfills, and oil and gas operations; nitrous oxide comes from nitrogen fertilizer use as well as certain chemical processes. Pollution created by human beings leads to major changes to the living conditions on this planet.

This has been recognized on a global scale. Only a few countries are still denying this reality. Unfortunately, Canada, which should be at the forefront in several areas, has a retrograde attitude right now that is doing a lot of damage, including to the environment. Most members here have children or grandchildren. They should be very aware of the fact that this is not a short-term partisan decision; it is a decision that will have an impact on every aspect of these people's lives.

On the government side, a lot of energy is being invested into the military to buy equipment and to go to Afghanistan to solve the problems there. If we invested in the environment only a small fraction of the energy invested in the military, not one single member would vote against this motion today. Everybody would support it. It is just as urgent as the issue of world peace and security.

The motion is asking the House to call on the government to set absolute targets. What does that mean? When we have a problem with energy consumption, we can decide to take off a percentage; for example, we can impose a 10% reduction from the current level. That does not take account of future increases in expenditures. In that case, we will not achieve the desired result. We can convince ourselves that we did our best and tell ourselves, in 10 years, that we have met our targets. However, we will not have met them because of the increase in consumption.

This is not a strictly partisan issue that has its pros and cons. The real impact is that our planet will be even sicker if we do not take action, if the Conservative government does not do its share of the work and does not support the measures that all Quebeckers and Canadians are calling for. A vast majority of the population wants us to shoulder our responsibilities. It wants us to move forward, to make proposals like the one before us today and to get tangible results.

I am certain that there is a consensus among the population that is calling on politicians to make adjustments. The problem has been identified. It has been brought forward and concrete steps can be taken. People are waiting for politicians to take those steps and that is what the Bloc Québécois is doing today by presenting this motion. We look for generous support from this House for this motion not only because it is a good idea for the next week, but because it is an essential approach for the future of our planet and of our children. In addition, we have finally succeeded in making a link between the environment and economic development. That is one of the problems of this government.

The Prime Minister continues to make a distinction between economic development and environmental quality of life. According to him, these are two separate things but for sustainable development they must be united. We can no longer move forward with economic development without considering the effects on the environment. We must ensure that our development takes both realities into account, which is something that has been done in the past.

The facts are there before us. The results of not taking both realities into account are clear to see. Perhaps, we were not sufficiently aware, perhaps, we did not have the necessary scientific tools, but today we have them and we can achieve significant results.

It is very paradoxical. This Conservative government —which claims to be close to business and economic leaders— increasingly closes its eyes to the fantastic benefits that could result from creating as soon as possible a carbon exchange in Montreal. In fact, a carbon exchange market would stimulate economic activity in a context of sustainable development. That would make it possible to recognize the special effort made by part of the country, or by the whole country and to reward those who have chosen to invest in the environment with a return on their investment.

For example, if we invested in polluting industries, it would be perfectly normal to have to pay the price; and if we invested in a better quality of the environment, that should pay us a return.

This is not a pious wish. It is what is contained in the agreements. It is what people want to see implemented, and it already exists in Europe. At present, we have our world upside down. Economic groups in Quebec are calling on the Conservative government to press ahead with this measure. Yet, the government is still not moving.

I invite the Prime Minister and the Conservatives to put aside their ideological approach and to recognize, as everyone else does, that this is a major problem. It is perhaps the most important problem in the world today. We have a responsibility. Canadian action alone will not solve this issue. Action is needed everywhere in the world.

Some 40 or 50 years ago, Mr. Pearson came up with a new idea for providing assistance in peaceful military operations. Today, we need this kind of new thinking for the environment.

If someone were to go into a classroom in Quebec or Canada and ask youngsters six, seven, eight or ten years old what is important to them and what they want from their elected officials and politicians insofar as the environment is concerned, the answer will assuredly be what is in the motion. They may not use the same words, but the end result would be. The Kyoto protocol is a bit of a warm-up to help us tackle the problem and deal with it. So far, the government has refused to admit there is a problem. We need to advance to the next stage as soon as possible. We need to make progress and set things up. If we fail, history will be our judge. It will view us as those who failed to take action in time. That is the challenge the people want their elected officials to tackle. We only need to look at the poll results: people are very concerned about the environment.

There is a feeling now that the government is not making any progress. People are trying to find the reasons and the causes. One would think that a minority government would be particularly sensitive. However, the reality about the environment is clearly very different from one end of Canada to the other.

Quebec has done its part and succeeded in ensuring that its increase in greenhouse gases is much less. It also developed its hydroelectricity, which helps a lot. However, other people and groups in Canada developed different resources that are highly polluting. They need to find a solution. And it is not maximum development with an eye to making as much money as possible with no consideration for the environment.

The provinces or parts of Canada that invested in a quality environment should not have to pay the price for years on end. That is the purpose of this motion.

When members rise to vote in the House, they should think of their children and grandchildren and think of the message they will be sending to history if they refuse to recognize the need to comply with the Kyoto protocol. We need to move so that in 20 years time people remember that we got the job done and achieved results that improved the environment for the entire planet.

[April 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian workers who have lost their jobs and then found another usually find that they are earning 25% less, or about $10,000 less per person. That means $2.5 billion less in our economy per year.

Manufacturing sector jobs are being transformed into warehousing sector jobs. As a result, there are fewer economic spinoffs for our regional economies. Up to this point, the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology has given an excellent report. However, the government has not done everything it must do. It took some of the committee recommendations that had a fiscal impact, but it did not do everything that was recommended. The committee's recommendations on accelerated capital cost allowance were much broader than what the government included in the budget. In conclusion, can we look forward to a real action plan—