Guy André

[Sébastien's Law (Protecting the Public from Violent Young Offenders), March 19th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the minister's introduction of this bill, when he noted a significant increase in the crime rate. The statistics that the Bloc Québécois has seen show an increase of 3% in 2006. But that is the first increase since 2003, and it is difficult to draw any real conclusions from that. In Quebec, the crime rate has dropped by 4%.

My question for the minister is the following. In Quebec, we have a number of prevention and rehabilitation measures for young offenders. How will this bill support the reintegration and rehabilitation of our young offenders? I sincerely believe that there must be consequences for serious crimes. Nevertheless, when a young offender commits a serious offence, the ultimate goal is to reintegrate them into society as best we can.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, March 18th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the New Democrat member is talking about safety, but we are talking about justice. The Bloc Québécois has been proposing various justice measures for many years now. I am thinking of release after serving one-sixth of a sentence. We introduced a bill on that, but the government is ignoring it.

The government has proposed its own measures. We often hear about smart crime, but not necessarily about hard crime. In Quebec, we have all kinds of measures to prevent crime, measures that have significant positive effects. Thanks to those measures, we have one of the lowest crime rates in Canada.

But the government wants to get tougher and put more people in jail. It is not aligned with Quebec in matters of security and justice.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, March 18th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, we cannot include everything in one motion. I hear mumbling among the Liberals. I would like to see them try to include all issues facing a community in a single motion.

We know that the Bloc Québécois has been energetically seeking better conditions for fishers for several years. They have lost a lot of money. Moreover, many of them are seasonal workers.

They requested better access to EI because they are seasonal workers. And it is the Liberals who reduced access to EI. The hon. members know it but now they claim that they want to help fishers. Fishers are facing many challenges, and the Bloc Québécois has always been there to support the fishers of the North Shore and the Gaspé.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, March 18th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the Speech to the Throne presented after the Conservatives prorogued the House for over two months.

I have sat in the House of Commons for over five years. After the Speech from the Throne was delivered, I realized that it is difficult to believe that this Conservative government has any real intention of helping the people who are really in need, just as it was difficult to believe that the Liberals had any such intention when they were in power.

When the budget was presented, we learned that the oil companies were being given tax deductions, even though they pollute and rake in billions of dollars in profits. The government is prepared to give them tax deductions to improve their productivity, at the same time as it is failing to provide any support for people who have lost their jobs, the unemployed.

Even banks have been given tax deductions. We are well aware that banks in Quebec and Canada are making huge profits. Very recently, statistics showed that the CEOs and presidents of those banks were receiving salaries of $2 million, $3 million, $4 million and $5 million a year, and yet, once again, banks are being given tax deductions. These banks benefit from tax havens and hide their profits, at the expense of the redistribution of wealth among all members of society.

In the throne speech and the budget, we see absolutely nothing to help low-income families in terms of social housing. Nothing. There is no money for that. There is no will to help low-income families, no will to help the unemployed. At the time, the Liberals slashed the employment insurance program. In fact, that has continued, thanks to the Conservatives’ policies. They have looted it, and stolen billions of dollars. Nearly $60 billion has been taken from the unemployed, money that came from employer and employee premiums. That money has been stolen. And in addition, 50% of people who lose their jobs do not even have access to the scheme.

There was nothing in the budget to support the unemployed. Increasing earnings and eliminating the two-week waiting period are just a few examples of what should have been done. We are not talking about billions of dollars. We are not talking about supporting people whose annual salary is $2 million or $3 million or $4 million or $5 million. We are not talking about supporting oil companies that are making outrageous profits. We are talking about helping the poor. There is no will on the part of this Conservative government to help people. There is no will to help seniors who for many years have also been deprived of the guaranteed income supplement and are living in poverty. We have called for an increase in the guaranteed income supplement for seniors. No, there was nothing in the throne speech to support seniors and increase the guaranteed income supplement. There was nothing about this in the budget. The Conservatives played politics and announced a seniors day.

We agree with having a day set aside to recognize seniors' contribution to our society, but these seniors still need to be able to support themselves. Whether it be in big cities or in the country, many seniors are living in extreme poverty in unfit housing.

We want the guaranteed income supplement to be raised to support low income people. There is nothing to help elderly people in need. We are not talking here about people who earn $50,000 or $100,000 a year. They would not be entitled to this supplement.

In Quebec, there is a crisis in the forestry industry. Quebeckers realize that in the federal system there is no desire to respect their needs and expectations. We saw that in the latest budget. Huge amounts are being invested in the automobile and the oil industries. I say that, partisan politics aside.

Many jobs have been lost in the forestry industry. The government gave a miserable $170 million to support it, but gave $2.7 billion to the automotive industry. People are disappointed. This comes not from me but from Jean-Pierre Dansereau, the director general of the Fédération des Producteurs de Bois du Québec, in his remarks on the latest federal budget. This is why the Conservatives are at 15% or 16% in the polls in Quebec. They do not plan on introducing new measures to help the forestry sector.

Joy is not abounding at the Conseil de l'industrie forestière du Québec either. This industry has to survive in order to benefit from the few measures of interest in the finance minister's budget. The forestry industry in Quebec is dying and needs financial support. It needs loans and loan guarantees. The measures announced may meet some needs, but the industry would have preferred refinancing at a commercial rate in order to survive the crisis rather than support for new technologies.

As regards the manufacturing sector, in 2004, I and some of my colleagues cited the closures of textile plants around Huntingdon and in my riding. We called for loan guarantees from the Liberal government, which was in office at the time. We called on it to support the manufacturing industry, which we were about to lose. But the Liberals did nothing to support it. Many plants closed their doors and people found themselves without a job.

Today, the forestry industry and in the manufacturing sector are still in crisis. The Liberals and the Conservatives are tarred with the same brush. When the time comes to help people in need, to help industries in crisis, the parties in the House do not want to support them.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, March 18th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague, with whom I attended a meeting in Washington with some governors. We met with several American congressmen and congresswomen.

The border is an issue of vital importance. I always have the impression that the Americans are the ones who decide how we should protect our own borders. They are the decision-makers on this kind of issue. I would like to hear the member's thoughts on this.

I would also like to hear his thoughts on the issue of health care. It seems that right-leaning governments, like the Conservative government for example, want to privatize health care. That was a hot topic when we met with the American governors. We learned that the American health care system costs approximately $7,500 per person, while the Quebec and Canadian system costs about $4,000.

We must continue to support a universal public health care system, like Quebec does. Governments must back this public system in order to ensure that the public receives the best possible care. That is not currently the case in the United States, where a large part of the population—30 million Americans—have no access to health care.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, March 18th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to our colleague talk about social housing. Basically, what was presented in the budget was already part of the 2009 economic action plan. What is there in terms of social housing, mainly targeting seniors and persons with disabilities, is good. However, there is nothing for low income families.

This is important because, as our NDP colleague mentioned, more and more people are living in poverty and facing hardship. And access to housing in larger cities is becoming increasingly expensive.

If we want to lift these families out of poverty so that they can ensure the best resources for their children's education, then social housing must be a priority. I would like to hear the member's thoughts on this.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, March 18th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech. He spoke about seniors and said that the government would be creating a seniors day.

The Bloc Québécois was saddened to see that there was nothing in the budget to improve the guaranteed income supplement for seniors. That is an important demand. If we want seniors to celebrate on their day, we should be able to guarantee them a decent minimum income, which is not the case currently.

Can our colleague explain why they want to establish a seniors day but not necessarily support seniors who are living in poverty and in need?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, March 18th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech by the Liberal member, who spoke about climate change and said that a number of Conservatives did not believe in climate change. While the entire world believes that the future is in a knowledge-based and green economy, the Conservatives continue to turn a deaf ear.

This $280 billion budget allocates $180 million to energy efficiency and $25 million to renewable energies.

On a per capita basis, China invests four times more than Canada in green and renewable energies, while Europe invests seven times more, Korea invests 16 times more, and the United States invests 18 times more.

How can the Liberals support the throne speech and the budget when the Conservatives deny the existence of climate change and are not investing any significant amounts of money into green and renewable energies?

[Protection of Insignia of Military Orders, Decorations and Medals Act, March 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in rising today on Bill C-473, An Act to protect insignia of military orders, decorations and medals of cultural significance for future generations.

I must say it is surprising to see the Conservatives taking an interest in the cultural aspect. They are often much more interested in the military angle. However, as the Bloc critic for veterans’ affairs, I would like to thank the hon. member for Perth—Wellington for introducing this bill.

As its title indicates, the purpose of Bill C-473 is to protect Canadian military medals and insignia of orders that are culturally significant to Canada. The word culture here obviously has a historic meaning. The cultural importance of a decoration is determined by the regulations.

In order to keep these decorations in Canada, the bill we are studying today would impose restrictions on the transfer of insignia of military orders, decorations and medals. It would be prohibited to transfer culturally significant insignia to a non-resident, that is to say, someone who is neither a citizen nor a permanent resident of Canada.

The bill would, however, allow anyone who so desired to transfer a decoration provided that they have first tried to sell it at its fair market value to the Canadian War Museum, the Canadian Museum of Civilization or the Department of Canadian Heritage, in other words the Government of Canada. If the government refuses to purchase it and provides written confirmation to this effect or has not accepted the offer within 120 days after receiving it, the person may then transfer the decoration to a non-resident.

It is important to emphasize that the bill introduced by the hon. member for Perth—Wellington states that all these restrictions do not apply to the transfer of a decoration to a near relative, that is to say, to parents, children, brothers, sisters, and grandparents or to an heir.

Finally, the bill stipulates that if a Canadian transfers a decoration considered “cultural property” in violation of the provisions I just mentioned, that person is committing an offence punishable by a fine in an amount that does not exceed five times the market value of the insignia. It might be interesting to see how owners of insignia or medals can be informed about the new provisions in this bill. We will have to find ways to inform people.

The Bloc Québécois has analyzed Bill C-473 thoroughly and has decided to support it in principle so that it can be studied in committee. That will give us an opportunity to hear from witnesses and examine various aspects of the bill in greater depth.

I think it is important to emphasize, as I pointed out in one of my earlier questions, that this bill is flawed. We agree with the principle that near relatives should be exempt from the restrictions set out in the bill. However, I think that spouses should be included as well. We will definitely be proposing some amendments to this bill in committee.

As I said before, the definition of “near relative” includes parents, brothers, sisters and grandparents of the owner of the insignia, but does not include spouses. I think that should be specified. We find it unacceptable to exclude spouses from the bill. That will have to be corrected.

Overall, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-473 in principle because its purpose is to preserve our heritage.

The bill before us today focuses on military history and the insignia, orders, decorations and medals awarded by the country to recognize the merit and actions of Quebec and Canadian military personnel.

In bestowing these decorations, a country recognizes the sacrifices and achievements of those who have served the cause of peace and freedom throughout the world over the years.

It is important to acknowledge the devotion of the men and women who have fought in various conflicts. Everyone here knows that our military personnel work hard and overcome many challenges. Many sustain serious injury, and some die.

Without hesitation, they accept the most dangerous missions with humility, determination and courage. We have an obligation to recognize and support these soldiers.

As I said earlier, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill. We believe that all governments can and must do what they can to preserve the cultures and histories of the peoples under their authority. Military history and recognition of the dedication of the men and women in uniform are important parts of the history of a people or a state.

The federal government must do what it can to preserve this history whenever possible. I am thinking, for instance, of the work being done by the Canadian War Museum, which we appreciate.

That said, I must point out that this bill introduced by the Conservative member aims to protect a cultural asset that is military in nature.

That is all well and good, but it is not enough, because when the time comes to protect Quebec culture, we see less action and there are fewer bills introduced in the House. We are more likely to see cuts to culture.

Remember that in August 2008, seven federal assistance programs for the cultural sector were abolished, including the arts promotion program—PromArt—in the foreign affairs department, the Trade Routes program, as well as other programs totalling $23 million.

I am not off topic as there is a cultural component to this bill.

More recently, in the 2010 budget, the Conservative government did not provide any direct assistance to artists and creators of cultural assets. There is no direct assistance for artists, no funding for tours, no increase in assistance for filmmaking. In short, it is unacceptable that no new cultural measures were introduced other than this bill.

Are we to surmise that, for the Conservative government, the only things that qualify as cultural assets are medals and Olympic Games souvenirs? Their actions since coming into power indicate as much.

The Conservatives wish to prove that they want to preserve military history. Although we support this praiseworthy initiative, the Bloc Québécois urges them to do much more to support the cultural sector.

The Bloc Québécois believes that supporting the cultural sector will help Quebec emerge from this economic crisis. For that reason, we must reinvest in this sector and inject $300 million starting this year.

I will close by stating that the Bloc Québécois supports in principle Bill C-473, which will protect military cultural artifacts, so that it can be studied in committee. We believe that all governments can and must do what is necessary to preserve the culture and history of its peoples.

We support the bill to protect one form of military culture. However, we insist that this government invest more in the protection and promotion of the culture of Quebec, a distinct nation and people.

[Protection of Insignia of Military Orders, Decorations and Medals Act, March 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to our colleague's speech. Upon reading this bill, I realized that there is an omission. The definition of near relative includes parents, brothers, sisters or grandparents of the insignia's owner. The bill makes no mention of the spouse. Why can an insignia not be transferred to a spouse?