Alain Giguère

[Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, November 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, from what I gather from the many dealings I have had with people who work in field of sexual offences, I must say that one of the main problems is not the punishment, but proving guilt. Before someone is sentenced to prison, their guilt must first be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. That is a serious problem.

Far too often, I have seen cases thrown out for lack of evidence. To get valid testimony from a child or someone who is delayed or mentally disabled takes a team of specially trained police officers. That is the real issue when it comes to the bill before us. I would like to see a provision in the bill for training police officers so that they can get the evidence they need to lead to convictions.

[Committees of the House, November 17th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for telling us about the difficulty of accessing daycare services in remote areas.

However, since I am quite familiar with the Quebec system, which we are proposing for all of Canada, I know that there are child care co-operatives in rural areas, and there are services offered outside regular hours to allow young people to work.

We need to address the unemployment rate as well as the participation rate. Young people need to participate in the workforce. Right now, far too many young people stay at home and continue their studies because they cannot find work and would rather study.

My esteemed colleague's solution gives the impression that she does not want to provide jobs for young people. She would rather provide cheap labour to employers who will not be required to pay for child care or contribute to the Canada Pension Plan and who will not need to have a nationally recognized training service. However, all those elements are essential.

Does the hon. member understand how important and how urgent it is to intervene in these areas to ensure that young people who want to work not only have a job but also have a future?

[Committees of the House, November 17th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the hon. member's answer.

The only problem is that he forgot to answer one thing: will the budget for the Canada summer jobs program increase? It is very simple.

[Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act, November 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, my distinguished colleague is appealing to a sense of solidarity, and of course we will all lend our support to defending Canada in moments of great crisis.

Unfortunately, his colleague from Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette suggested earlier that if we do not quite agree with the Conservatives on the definition and the exclusive interpretation in their bill, we ourselves are terrorists.

Does the member condone statements to the effect that, if we do not agree with him, we must be friends of terrorists? Is that his definition of solidarity and seeking consensus?

[Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act, November 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, my old geostrategy professor told me that a terrorist act is, first, an act of violence or intimidation for political, religious or social ends; second, a structured act; and third, the symbolic act of a perpetrator trying to make his mark. He shared a famous quotation about how terrorism and the media have an incestuous relationship. There was also an element of exclusion in that definition of a terrorist act. Personal motivation was not part of it.

That means that a crazed gunman who climbs a tower and starts shooting people because he is mad that a judge took away custody of his kids is not committing a terrorist act. What he is doing is dangerous and can kill or injure many, but he will be punished under the Criminal Code for premeditated murder.

It seems clear that, when my distinguished colleague defined a terrorist act, he forgot an essential element, which is that terrorism does not include actions that are personally motivated.

[Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act, November 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her eloquent speech.

Basically, in Canada, under the rule of law, not only must justice be done, it must appear to be done. If these laws are considered too repressive, is there not a risk that people will think, and rightly so, that the government is using the terrorist threat as a pretext for restricting their rights?

Would my colleague agree that there could be this extremely dangerous perception in this case?

[Remembrance Day, October 31st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, last week, Parliament, the most important place in Canadian democracy, was attacked.

This attack left us in mourning. Soon we will be celebrating Remembrance Day. Unfortunately, we will have to add two more soldiers to this commemoration. We will remember not only their valour in uniform, but also their everyday lives. The members of our military are fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, who spend Halloween with their children and watch a hockey game with friends. They are true Canadians who care about us and share our desire to defend our rights and freedoms.

In their memory, I invite everyone in my riding to show their support on November 8 by taking part in the Remembrance Day parade in Sainte-Thérèse, organized by the Canadian Legion.

Last week's events serve as a reminder of what is essential: together, we will continue to protect democracy and we will prevail against those who spread fear.

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2, October 31st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, this week we learned the sad fact that 20% of children in Canada live below the poverty line.

I looked closely, but I did not see anything in this budget that will change that. The government supposedly has billions of dollars to give and is handing it to the rich, so why did it not simply raise the tax-exempt threshold for low-income individuals?

It is a very simple solution. That is all the government had to do to drastically reduce the number of poor children. Why did it not do that?

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, October 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, this will make my old Conservative colleagues who are history buffs very happy. I have dusted off my old Carl von Clausewitz book, On War.

He said:

War therefore is an act of violence to compel our opponent to fulfill our will.

Is anyone here able to express our will with respect to this war? No.

Even better, in chapter four he says:

If our opponent is to be made to comply with our will, we must place him in a situation which is more oppressive to him than the sacrifice which we demand; but the disadvantages of this position must naturally not be of a transitory nature, at least in appearance, otherwise the enemy, instead of yielding, will hold out, in the prospect of a change for the better.

The Vietnam War was lost because the people there said they would hold out. The war in Afghanistan was lost because the Taliban said they would hold out.

Does the government know what is going to happen? I would like to hear my distinguished colleague's opinion. What will the people there do? They will hunker down, lay low and come back in two or three years.

Is that what the government is proposing? That we go back every six months?

[Canada Post, October 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, some of the suburbs north of Montreal have lost their home mail delivery service. Now, a private company is preparing to take over from Canada Post by providing a home mail delivery service. For $240 a year, people will be able to receive their mail at home twice a week. That is a perfect example of a two-tier service.

Does the minister understand that many Canadians cannot afford to pay for home mail delivery?