André Bellavance

[Employment Insurance, October 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois, along with thousands of other individuals, demonstrated last weekend in Thetford Mines, in front of the office of the Minister of Industry, the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, to condemn employment insurance reforms.

The government is ravaging the employment insurance system, and we must stand in solidarity with workers and the unemployed. This is not the government's money; this money belongs to workers and employers.

During this demonstration organized by Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans-emploi, the participants condemned the passage of Bill C-38, which amended the employment insurance rules. These changes will affect not only workers—especially seasonal workers—but also employers, who could lose their experienced employees. These changes tighten the eligibility rules and force claimants to accept jobs further from home and at lower pay.

The government cannot ignore the thousands of people who spoke out not only in Thetford Mines, but also in the Gaspé and elsewhere. And this is only the beginning.

[Budget Implementation, October 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, when the second mammoth budget bill was introduced, the Conservatives said that it could not be divided and had to include all the budget measures. And yet, they divided it for MPs' pensions. Yesterday, they confirmed during a public relations operation that this was an all-purpose bill and put nine different committees in charge of examining it, but without allowing substantial amendments or separate votes. In short, they are trying to avoid a real democratic process.

Does the Minister of Finance realize that his logic does not stand up and that the only thing to do is to divide the second mammoth budget bill into separate bills so that we can do our work and so that Canadians can be heard?

[Clarity Act, October 25th, 2012]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-457, An Act to repeal the Clarity Act.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise here in the House today to introduce this bill. People, and Quebeckers in particular, understand what this bill means. The bill aims to right an historical wrong for the Quebec nation, because this federal Parliament created conditions meant to tell the Quebec nation how to go about exercising its self-determination. It is unspeakable, unjustifiable and unwarranted.

At the time, in 2000, when the bill was passed by everyone except the Bloc Québécois, of course, no party in the National Assembly of Quebec—whether federalist or sovereignist—agreed with this bill.

This injustice still persists today. My bill is very simple: it repeals the Clarity Act. No federal Parliament should be able to tell Quebec, or any other province for that matter, how to go about exercising its self-determination. That is why I wish to discuss the matter here and debate it with my colleagues in order to correct this injustice, as I said.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Employment Insurance, October 24th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec workers will not sit back and take the ideological EI reforms that the government is imposing in its two mammoth bills.

These reforms will make workers poorer and will hurt all regions of Quebec. Workers and unemployed workers are mobilizing to participate in a large demonstration at Thetford Mines. Their message is clear: the government must stop ravaging employment insurance.

Will the minister have the courage to come meet with workers and the unemployed in order to reconsider her ideological position?

[Telecommunications, October 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the CRTC refused to authorize Bell's purchase of Astral Media. The organization based its decision in part on the Bloc Québécois's arguments that such a transaction would not be good for consumers, creators or the diversity of voices needed to promote Quebec's cultural vitality. The takeover would also have meant the loss of a large Quebec company to a Toronto telecommunications giant.

Despite this legitimate refusal, Bell directors have indicated that they disagree with the decision and that they are going to appeal to the minister.

We want a clear answer. Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage assure us here in this House that he will not intervene to overturn the CRTC's decision?

[Budget Implementation, October 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the government just introduced its second mammoth budget bill, in which it is again trying to hide a number of controversial measures. For Quebec, this means another attack on the economy of the Gaspé, the elimination of the Employment Insurance Financing Board so that the government can set contribution rates itself, lowering environmental standards for the umpteenth time and more arbitrary powers in the hands of ministers.

Since everyone is criticizing this second mammoth bill as antidemocratic and since the Prime Minister himself criticized this kind of practice not so long ago, will the Minister of Finance agree to split up this second mammoth bill?

[The Environment, October 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the announcement made yesterday by the Minister of the Environment is nothing to be proud of. He announced that only 67 of the 2,300 contaminated sites in Quebec will be cleaned up. This does not even cover all of the high-priority sites, such as the site in Shannon, which has been much discussed here in the House, or the sites contaminated with PCBs or heavy metals that pose a risk to Quebeckers. This also clearly means that Quebec is getting less funding for clean-up than other jurisdictions.

How could the minister announce such a weak plan for Quebec when this problem has been going on for too long, when there are too many contaminated sites and when it is taking too long to remedy this problem?

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, October 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by my colleague from Winnipeg North. I know there are cases like this in his own riding and that he is the immigration critic for his party. He therefore has a great deal of experience with these kinds of issues.

He just gave us an eloquent example. He mentioned of course some well-known individuals, but for everyone, section 42 of the current legislation stipulates that if the person accompanying you, for instance, your husband or wife, has a criminal record in the country of origin, you will be denied entry to Canada. Now Bill C-43 is making penalties even tougher. Indeed, even if the individual does not accompany you, but if they have committed any offences whatsoever, then quite simply, you will automatically be denied entry.

The member gave the example of visitor visas. This is even worse. I have been a member of this House since 2004 and have experienced other governments, including his party's government. I have never seen such a serious erosion of our immigration system and Canada's ability to welcome people. That is one major problem. Canada is refusing more and more visas, not only for the reasons the member mentioned, but for all kinds of reasons.

Sometimes even sports teams cannot enter Canada to take part in tournaments for all kinds of reasons. In my riding, I knew someone from Haiti. He was told that he could attend his mother's funeral in Haiti if he wanted to, but there was no guarantee that he would be allowed to come back. Bill C-43 will only make these situations worse.

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, October 4th, 2012]

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

He is absolutely right. I do not want to hurt his feelings, but our reputation has been tarnished since this government took power, because of its propensity—and specifically the propensity of the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism—to make choices about the kind of immigrants who are welcome in Canada. It is fine if you have money or if you are a member of certain communities, but as soon as we start talking about refugees, things start to get more difficult.

The government wants to quickly remove people who commit certain crimes, but it is talking about crimes that are less and less serious. So obviously, we no longer have a reputation as a welcoming country.

I am thinking about a real case I heard of. In fact I spoke to people who were close to this woman. She is an elderly woman of French origin and has been in Quebec for a very long time. Her only family is in Quebec and her daughter takes care of her. This elderly woman has mental health problems and is now a kleptomaniac. She shoplifts from time to time. Under the current law, the government wants to send her back to France. Her home is in Quebec with her daughter. But they want to send her back to France.

This woman needs help and compassion. She does not need to be sent to France, where she has not lived in years and where her problem will not be resolved.

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, October 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to speak to Bill C-43, the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act.

It seems as though the Conservatives have hired a publicity specialist since they took power, since bill titles are worded in such a way that no one could be opposed to the bill. It is a bit like sugar pie. However, as legislators, we must obviously read the bill and get familiar with the details, the ins and outs, before making a decision about it. We cannot make our decision based on the title; we must base our decision on all of the elements of the bill.

A quick read of Bill C-43 exposes a lot of flaws, gaps and vagueness. There are indeed some measures to be adopted to deport criminals who are permanent residents but abuse the system and the procedures to remain in Canada or Quebec.

I think that all members of the House agree on that. After listening to my colleagues who spoke earlier and after reading some other speeches made since the bill was introduced, I see that we are unanimous on that. However, does Bill C-43 solve all of those problems? No. Does it create others? Unfortunately, I believe so. That is what I will speak about for the next few minutes.

An ideology is behind all of this. This was brought up by the two members who just spoke during questions and comments. The Conservatives are using a lot of prejudices and clichés to promote what I like to call a “tonight we will scare people” ideology.

The notions of criminality and immigration are often confused, as is the case in this bill, which talks about criminality in relation to immigration. So, whether in reference to criminality or immigration, the Conservatives are trying to prove to certain people that there is a danger. Some refugees arrive by boat and, suddenly, we are led to believe that we are being invaded by a host of refugees arriving from all over. And they are not just refugees—that is not how they are referred to—they are criminals. That is what the government wants people to believe. This makes it easier for the government to tell Canadians not to worry because it will send the criminals back.

On weekends, when we go out and meet the people in our ridings, we realize that they are not aware of all the details of these situations, and they do not know exactly what happened. However, they saw the Minister of Immigration at a press conference talking about some extreme examples that obviously do not happen every day. Those examples should be used to address the flaws in legislation. We agree with that. But we should not generalize and make people believe that all cases are like that. I think we need to settle down, take a deep breath and correct the real problems. We should not play politics at the expense of the most disadvantaged—immigrants and people grappling with certain other problems.

The Bloc Québécois obviously understands that reasons for protecting society have to be included in immigration laws. Of course, a society will naturally want to receive law-abiding immigrants who have a real desire to integrate. As well, a society will naturally not to want to become a safe haven for criminals who want to flee their own countries. But some of them manage to sneak in. It is absolutely normal for the minister to speak out against it, and that is what everyone else does too. It is also normal to try to improve processes so that proceedings for the deportation of criminals do not drag on.

I talked about abuse just now. We talk about abuse when people come to Canada and continue to do what they did in their country of origin. For instance, they may be street gang members. Sometimes, street gang members from a country get together and organize themselves in another country. A street gang in a country can have roots in other countries. That can also happen to us. If the first thing those people do when they come to Canada is to join a street gang instead of integrating into society, we will obviously not want to keep those types of immigrants here.

People may be shocked by the examples of people who abuse the processes available to immigrants in order to further delay their deportation. But the minister uses those examples to make us believe that everyone is like that, which is not the case.

However, those measures have to be well targeted; they have to prevent criminals from entering, not stop innocent people at the border.

These measures also have to be proportionate. The government must propose effective measures that respect fundamental rights. We must not adopt a measure that is akin to using a bazooka to kill a fly.

Although the purpose of Bill C-43 is commendable, the bill has not achieved the necessary balance to fill the gaps in the current legislation. My colleagues talked about proposing some amendments to the bill in committee. This would allow us to study the bill, which is the right thing to do.

The current legislation includes a right to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division for immigrants who feel wronged by the first level decision. Some restrictions already exist. Under the current legislation, a permanent resident or a foreign national who is inadmissible on the grounds of security, violating human or international rights, or organized criminality does not have access to the Immigration Appeal Division.

Currently, serious crime is defined as the commission of an offence punishable by a maximum of 10 years that resulted in a prison sentence of two years. Bill C-43 further limits the right to appeal by reducing the imprisonment criterion for serious criminality to six months only.

I heard my colleagues talk about this and I agree with them. What is serious criminality? We would not want to keep someone who lands here and becomes a thief and a highway robber, who commits sexual assault, who repeatedly commits crimes that are punishable by lengthy prison sentences. There is a big difference between someone who commits a serious crime and someone who is found guilty of or charged with possession of drugs—marijuana for example—possession of stolen property under $5,000, or public mischief. I do not have many examples, but I believe a person can be charged with public mischief for urinating on the street or in a parking lot. There is a big difference between that type of public mischief and a more serious crime. I am not saying that people should not be punished for mischief; they should. I am just wondering whether that is reason enough to deport someone. There is a big difference between belonging to a street gang and committing public mischief or being in possession of some marijuana.

The Bloc Québécois is also concerned about the cumulative effect of the Conservative measures. For example, under Bill C-43, a sentence of only six months qualifies as serious criminality. It is important to see the connection with the many minimum sentences that the Conservatives are incorporating into their bills. They have just added a bunch of sentences so that less serious crimes can be used as a pretext to deport people who could contribute to Quebec and Canadian society after they have made amends. The Conservatives are imposing more and more minimum sentences of one to two years in prison, without any regard for how serious the offence actually is and without taking into account the extenuating circumstances.

We have often fought here in the House against the imposition of minimum sentences for anything and everything. This has been the Conservatives' pet project since they came to power in 2006. Regardless of what happened—for example, if the person was only the driver during a crime—and regardless of any extenuating circumstances, what counts is that the person was there at the time of the crime, and he must serve a minimum sentence like the others. The Conservatives are tying judges' hands because there are no gradations in the sentences that they can impose. This breeds inequity.

As a result, an increasing number of people will be labelled as having committed a serious crime. I am thinking of offences related to the possession of narcotics in particular.

I will end my remarks here. Members have talked a lot about the minister's discretionary power. That is another weakness of this bill. We are being told that this process will be guided by regulations, but we do not yet know what these regulations will be. I hope that this will be clarified in committee and that changes will be made to this bill so that we can be safe and so that we are not deporting people who do not deserve to be deported.