Guy André

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I said in my speech that all the members in this House truly want to reduce crime and ensure that the safety of Quebeckers and Canadians is not in any way threatened. The preferred methods are where we differ.

I am a social worker by training and I worked for 20 years in a network with people who were often disadvantaged and whose parents had engaged in some form of crime. Crime must be attacked at the root, during childhood. Through prevention programs, support for the parents and support for the children, we can reduce crime. These are the measures we should be pushing for.

However, if we do not succeed through prevention, crimes will then be committed by a person who often had no support and who will need to be imprisoned because they committed a serious offence. We agree with this, but we do not agree with minimum penalties because they take the judge's place in rendering a judgment, and do not take into account the specific circumstances surrounding a crime. For these reasons, we will vote against the bill.

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain, for his excellent question.

On average, Canada does not incarcerate or put in prison proportionally more individuals than other western countries, such as Germany or France. Furthermore, homicide rates are comparable. The United States has the highest homicide rate and it incarcerates the most people.

This Conservative government is adopting the dominant American ideology, which is not based on any scientific study but which seems to be very popular with certain segments of the population who, in some instances, have not really looked at the research. This is a populist approach. It is quite frankly simplistic and ineffective. They are adopting an American model that has not been proven.

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak today at the report stage of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Criminal Code.

When this bill was introduced and read the first time in May 2006, the government's goal was to toughen the Criminal Code by imposing minimum sentences for criminal offences involving firearms.

My Quebec colleagues and I carefully read and analysed this bill and quickly pointed out numerous flaws that prevented us from supporting the bill at second reading.

When the bill went to committee—and I want to commend my colleagues from Hochelaga and Châteauguay—Saint-Constant on their work—the committee rejected the clauses on minimum sentences.

We in the Bloc Québécois believe that adopting the automatic minimum sentences proposed by the Conservative government is detrimental and ineffective and will not help improve public safety, which is something that this government and we ourselves want.

Even though we have taken pains to explain why we are opposed to minimum sentences and have rejected these clauses in committee, the government is presenting us with the same clauses again today by way of amendments.

Obviously the Conservative government still does not understand that its approach is ineffective and will not decrease the crime rate and the recidivism rate, as it hopes.

As usual, the government is offering simplistic solutions, motivated by its electoral objectives, without taking into account possible solutions, and especially ones that are geared towards concrete and positive results.

So, this report stage gives us another opportunity to explain the reasons we reject the amendments proposed by the government, and we hope to convince them, once again, and try to wake them up to a new approach to crime.

When the then minister tabled Bill C-10 in May 2006, he said that the bill was in response to a crime rate that had, according to him, been increasing in Canada in recent years. Is this true? How many times have we heard members of the Conservative government tell us that society has never been this violent, that crime has never been so widespread, that crime rates are on the rise? But this is not true.

The statistics gathered by Statistics Canada—which this government has access to, and which I hope it takes the time to examine—show that crime, and in particular violent crime, has actually been decreasing since 1992.

Clearly the government is offering solutions based on false premises. Even worse—and the Bloc Québécois is completely convinced of this—they are damaging, ineffective and will not contribute at all to truly improving public safety.

Let us now look more closely at the solutions proposed by the government. The Conservative ministers and members keep telling us that minimum sentences will help fight crime more effectively.

Numerous studies have shown that minimum sentences have a dubious impact in the fight against crime.

One study done in 1997 by the federal Minister of Justice found that the mandatory prison sentences introduced in a number of western countries had no measurable effect on crime rates. I am sure that the government is aware of this study because when it introduces a bill, it must learn as much as it can and go over the studies.

In a press conference and before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the Minister of Justice acknowledged that no Canadian study has demonstrated that new measures to introduce minimum penalties are effective in fighting crime.

As legislators, we all want to improve our laws to make our citizens safer. I believe that all members of this House want to do that. However, new measures must be supported by studies that demonstrate they are effective.

Clearly, the government has been unable to prove that the measures in the bill are effective. Rather, it has shown that its vision is based on a simplistic, populist ideology that has obviously sought too much inspiration in the American model. The American model imposes harsher penalties and puts more people in prison, yet the homicide rate is three times higher there than it is here. The Conservatives should be able to understand that the government will not reduce the crime rate by filling up our prisons and building new ones, which is what the Americans have been doing.

It is important to note that Canada puts far fewer people in jail than the United States does. According to the most recent statistics, Canada incarcerates 116 people per 100,000 while the United States incarcerates 702 people per 100,000. As I said before, the homicide rate is three times higher in the United States than it is here. How can anyone suggest that the American method works? Obviously, it does not, as the studies have shown.

As my colleague, the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, already mentioned, criminals do not read legislation and do not know what the minimum sentences are. When they are planning a crime, their only concern is not getting caught. According to criminologists and experts on criminal behaviour, the criminal mind is convinced that there is no risk of being caught. From that perspective, the threat of a longer prison sentence would have no impact on that individual.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, as well as being ineffective, minimum sentences can also have a negative impact. I will share an example given by a renowned criminologist. Incidentally, the Conservative government should have hired a few such experts, since there seems to be a lack of real analysis here. So, according to André Normandeau, a criminologist at the Université de Montréal, minimum sentences can encourage judges to acquit an individual, rather than be forced to sentence that individual to a penalty the judge considers excessive under the circumstances, for cases in which an appropriate penalty would be a conditional sentence, community service or a few weeks in jail.

We must also fight against poverty, inequality and the sense of exclusion, which are all significant factors in the emergence of crime. These are the areas on which we should be focusing our efforts.

I am convinced that measures to prevent crime are more effective, although we cannot overlook the importance of imposing severe penalties when the crime committed is recognized as extremely serious. We had a preventive measure, but unfortunately, the government preferred to render it less effective.

Instead of waiting until it is too late, the Conservative government should reconsider.

[Criminal Code, May 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to my dear colleague express some of the reserves he has with regard to Bill C-10. I would like to hear what he has to say on one particular point.

As other members of this House, I saw that member introduce last week a bill aimed at reducing violence in television broadcasts. Many members on the government side are claiming that they want to fight crime, to better protect our fellow citizens and to enact bills providing for increased penalties as a form of repression.

However, they voted against that bill to reduce violence in television broadcasts. As you know, certain studies show that television violence can lead to other forms of violence.

I would like the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie to comment on this.

[Quebec Manufacturing Sector, May 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, since 2003, more than 100,000 jobs have been lost in the Quebec manufacturing sector, including 35,000 in 2006 alone with the arrival of this new government. The year 2007 is proving to be even worse, since in the first two months, Quebec has already lost 28,000 manufacturing jobs.

What more does this government need to be convinced that its economic laissez-faire approach is not the solution to the many challenges facing our manufacturing companies, including those in the Quebec furniture industry? What is it waiting for? Is it waiting for our manufacturing companies to become just the museums of a bygone industrial age?

Instead of watching these jobs being lost one after another without doing a thing, the government should be proactive by investing, for example, in research and development to promote modernization and innovation.

[April 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Saint-Lambert for his excellent speech. I would like him to explain why a government which is currently spending billions of dollars to purchase military equipment has made cuts to programs such as the court challenges program.

I visited maritime Canada with the Standing Committee on Official Languages. People said that if they had not had access to this program, they would not have had the right to schools or many other services. Literacy services were available in these communities because of this program. Status of Women Canada programs have experienced cuts, as have the literacy programs, which were extremely important social programs for people with literacy problems. As well, the government is still refusing to improve the employment insurance program. We could also talk about the POWA program to help older workers.

How can the member explain the government's lack of concern for social problems and for the most vulnerable members of our society?

[Business of Supply, April 24th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, for his excellent question.

I think there are possibilities. Instead of reacting to the greenhouse gas phenomenon and denying that greenhouse gas reduction is a priority, we should act in the interest of the Kyoto protocol. We should be more proactive. We should go ahead with new technologies to move towards green energy sources.

In Quebec, we have developed wind energy. We can export other forms of technology throughout the world, because the whole planet will be facing the same problems. We could be more proactive and respond to this situation.

[Business of Supply, April 24th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, in terms of the economy, I believe that the hon. member is just as knowledgeable about it as we are. He has read the report by Mr. Stern, formerly of the World Bank, who said that if every country invested 1% of GDP to decrease greenhouse gases, we would realize savings in the short term as opposed to incurring much higher costs—20 times higher—that we would have to pay in future.

I believe we will have to invest $7.5 billion if we do not take immediate action to decrease greenhouse gases. Future generations and our economy as a whole will be affected. In addition to the impact on the economy, there will be the human cost. There will be many deaths. There will be loss of life among our children. Populations will be displaced because of inaction.

In reply to my colleague's question, the current proposal states that the exchange will be established in Montreal. Why not in Montreal? We are masters of—

[Business of Supply, April 24th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear what the Conservatives think of the Kyoto protocol.

Although many European countries have decided to take meaningful action against greenhouse gases and are in a position to achieve the Kyoto protocol targets, Canada has not yet come up with a precise, detailed plan. There have been delays and doubts, and while some energy targets and programs to reduce energy consumption and save energy have been implemented, nobody wants to implement the protocol. They just want to protect oil companies in Alberta.

Both the Liberals and the Conservatives have refused to take concrete, decisive action for more than five years now. As if this awful mess were not enough, the Conservative government has the nerve to submit a biased report that I would describe as fearmongering, whose only goal is to discredit Kyoto and protect western oil companies who are largely responsible for Canada's rising greenhouse gas emissions.

Clearly, the government does not want to enforce the polluter-pay principle because it would rather protect its friends, the oil companies. It is unfortunate that our Conservative allies from Quebec chose not to vigorously defend the unanimous decisions concerning Kyoto made by the people of Quebec. As we know, Quebec has implemented a greenhouse gas reduction program among the best in Canada. These Quebeckers who have been elected under the Conservative Party banner are not representing in any way the interests of their fellow Quebeckers, as evidenced by the fact that they are not standing up for Kyoto. Does that really come as a surprise? We will recall that, back in 2002, the current Prime Minister called the Kyoto protocol a socialist scheme and said that implementing it would cripple the oil and gas industry.

Enough. Like millions of Quebeckers and Canadians, we reject this campaign of fear orchestrated by this Conservative government. The reason why we presented this motion is because implementing the Kyoto protocol is obviously a necessity for humanity. We also believe that implementing Kyoto would give Quebec a decisive economic advantage. Oil and gas, and petroleum products in particular, are responsible for the vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions in Quebec and Canada.

Petroleum makes Quebec poorer, and it will keep making us poorer and poorer as prices continue to rise in the future. In 2006, Canada's crude oil and natural gas exports totalled more than $70 billion. That is an 80% increase since 2001.

Every increase in the consumption and price of oil enriches Canada and improves its trade balance. In Quebec, quite the opposite holds true.

It is important to remember that the increase in oil prices was enough to send Quebec into a trade deficit.

Therefore we believe that it is urgent for Quebec to drastically reduce its dependency on oil in order to stimulate our economy and to fight climate change.

Respecting the Kyoto protocol by imposing absolute targets and creating a carbon exchange will be powerful incentives for attaining this objective.

[Business of Supply, April 24th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on this Bloc Québécois opposition day. There are two important components to our motion today.

The aim of the first is to apply the principle of polluter pays by establishing absolute greenhouse gas reduction targets in keeping with the objectives of the Kyoto protocol while allowing Quebec and the provinces that so desire to take a territorial approach. The second component of our motion calls on the federal government to establish a carbon exchange as soon as possible, in Montreal.

However, as our motion indicates, no carbon exchange can be created without absolute greenhouse gas reduction targets. The extent of the reduction is clear. What we in the Bloc want and the Quebec National Assembly unanimously wants is a 6% reduction based on the year 1990.

The matter we are discussing today concerns doubtless one of the greatest challenges facing our planet and the men, women and children living on this earth. I refer obviously to climate change resulting from greenhouse gases.

Global warming has been confirmed by many scientific reports, including those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change drafted by over 600 climatologists. There is no longer any dissension in the scientific community. The only disagreement is what we meet here in the House, coming from the Conservative Party.

Human activity and, more particularly, the greenhouse gases it produces are the primary cause of global warming. Thus, with the scientific studies confirming and now identifying the devastating effects of global warming, it becomes clear that investing in the fight against climate change is essential in both human and economic terms. It is absolutely vital that this government, in this House, take swift action in this regard.

The recent report by the former chief economist of the World Bank recommended that each country invest—right now—up to 1% of its GDP in fighting climate deregulation, in order to avoid future economic losses of up to 20% more than the current cost of reversing the trend caused by greenhouse gases. So there are savings to be made now, and they are vital. They are savings in both financial and human terms.

In response to this recommendation, the government last week presented a study aimed not only at discrediting the Kyoto protocol—defended by the principal political and economic players in Quebec—but also to ensure the implementation of the Conservative government's political agenda. It is closely tied to the interests and needs of the rich petroleum companies in the West.

This so-called study, presented by the Minister of the Environment, is both irresponsible and biased because it gives no consideration whatsoever to the consequences of failing to honour the Kyoto protocol.

The cost must be reckoned not only in billions of dollars, but also in loss of biodiversity, millions of refugees and more frequent extreme weather events. The IPCC's latest report, released in February 2007, indicated that other consequences include more frequent droughts, torrential rains, rising sea levels, more frequent heat waves and violent cyclones. We are already seeing this in many places around the world.

In addition to ignoring the consequences of failing to comply with the Kyoto protocol, the Conservative government's study ignores the establishment of a carbon exchange that costs less and allows more flexibility for businesses. This is the option the European Union chose to fight climate change because this system will enable the EU to achieve the Kyoto targets at a cost of less than 0.1% of its GDP.