Guy André

[Energy Costs Assistance Measures Act, November 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to my Conservative colleague's comments. He had several concerns about this bill, particularly the fact that it did not take the regions into account.

I am the member for Berthier—Maskinongé, in Quebec, and it is also a rural area. Many people are seasonal workers or employed by small companies such as the furniture industry. They are not well paid and often have to travel a long way to get to work. These people are, of course, all affected by the price hikes. Getting to work often takes great determination and costs them a fortune as well.

I would also like to point out that there are many inconsistencies in this bill, for instance concerning the efforts required under Kyoto. Nothing is being proposed to encourage the use of more economical cars, nor to encourage people to save energy on home heating, for instance getting off oil.

I would like to hear his comments on this.

[Energy Costs Assistance Measures Act, November 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, the Bloc Québécois will be supporting this bill. There are, however, some areas of concern. One of these is the seniors who receive the GIS and could benefit from a measure such as the one proposed by the government.

The 2001 report by the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development indicated that over 270,000 Canadians were not receiving the benefits to which they were entitled. Since then, efforts have been made to contact the seniors in question. We are all familiar with the efforts by the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain throughout Quebec in connection with the guaranteed income supplement. It appears that half of those entitled have now been found.

If eligibility for this fuel program is based on an incomplete list of GIS recipients, that could result in some people who were entitled to it not being able to benefit from it. How is the government going to remedy this?

[Energy Costs Assistance Measures Act, November 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my surprise at the speech by the Conservative member, who appears suddenly to have developed sensitivity to family and social policy. I am surprised. Good for her. I recognize that sensitivity.

As people know, I come from the riding of Berthier—Maskinongé, a rural region where most people are employed in the furniture sector. They earn between $7 and $10 an hour and so have a limited income. In addition, as it is a sizeable region, they often have to travel long distances—from 10 kms to 50 kms—to get to work. These workers are very brave. They are not all married and do not all have children. Some are single, others are in a relationship but have no children. They too should have some help from the government, which appears to be neglecting them.

Also living in the region are farmers, who are facing a major crisis in agriculture. This bill ignores them entirely as it does seasonal workers, who are also prevalent in my riding. They work five or six months a year in forestry or tourism. They too have to travel considerable distances, a fact that creates major costs and obstacles to their doing work that pays between $7 and $10 an hour. A car and special clothing are often required. There are therefore costs inherent in the labour market.

Some people collecting EI or social assistance would like to return to the labour market, as well. They need help. The bill, however, makes no provision for them.

I am rather disappointed, although it is clear some effort has been made. We support the bill, except we would like it to be more generous toward the layers of society not included in it.

What does the Conservative member think of this phenomenon? She mentioned it briefly. What could we do, however, to increase the Liberals' sensitivity to regional development and to society's most disadvantaged?

[Pacific Gateway Act, October 31st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating my colleagues for their contributions to the debate on Bill C-68 on developing Canada's Pacific gateway. We have seen from their expertise that, if we had a sovereign Quebec, we would at last have the skills, interest and expertise to defend our territory and better defend the interests of our people as far as the whole international trade issue is concerned.

I would also like to ask two questions of the colleague who has just finished his speech. Can he explain to me the reason for this insensitivity, lack of interest, and lack of desire to provide more support to our vulnerable industries: textile, furniture, even bicycle manufacturing, in the face of Asian competition? I stress that we are not opposed to this bill. It would, however, have been interesting to see it go hand in hand with actions from the present government to support our industries more.

Can he also tell us about his concerns that the members of the Pacific Gateway Council would be appointed by Ottawa? That could create a problem. We could end up with a council made up of Liberal Party cronies, one that would be somewhat detached from the grassroots, from what people need, as we have seen before in recent years. I would like to hear my colleague's responses to this.

[Pacific Gateway Act, October 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to our Conservative colleague. First of all, I want to say that the Bloc supports Bill C-68.

The gateway is an interesting concept and increased trade with Asia is not bad in and of itself. However, we must take into consideration the negative impact on workers in traditional industries.The federal government must provide better support to manufacturers in the furniture, textile and apparel industries. They are having trouble competing with their new Asian counterparts who have access to a cheap pool of labour, and this is threatening the viability of some of our companies.

My question is for my Conservative colleague. Along with Canada's Pacific gateway strategy, does he not believe that the current Liberal government should be more sensitive in order to support, assist and help our industries weakened by competition from Asia?

[Softwood Lumber, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, my comments are on the NDP member's speech.

An event took place today. The U.S. Secretary of State and the Minister of Foreign Affairs met to discuss the softwood lumber issue. The secretary said that we needed to put the dispute in proper perspective and that it is only a small part of the trade between the countries.

Is this U.S. position on the softwood lumber crisis not becoming worrisome and does it not reduce the prospect of the ruling on this matter being respected? Does it not impel the government to negotiate something that is not negotiable? We all agree that a ruling is not negotiable.

From the perspective where the survival of our industry is being threatened, why is the government reluctant to help by providing loans and aid to the companies?

[Softwood Lumber, October 25th, 2005]

Madam Chair, my question is for the leader of the Conservative Party.

Does he support the proposal by the Bloc Québécois and the NDP to grant loan guarantees to companies currently struggling as a result of the softwood lumber crisis?

[Criminal Code, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the NDP member who just spoke.

As the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie said, we support this bill on the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict. It states that it is prohibited to export or remove cultural property from occupied territory. So we support this bill. However, like the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, I am a bit concerned about the fact that the government does not always respect its international agreements. Think of the Kyoto protocol or the child protection question, as he said.

I am also concerned about something else, namely our own cultural property and heritage assets. In Quebec we could mention our churches and various culturally significant buildings that are often threatened with demolition. The government does not provide any assistance to ensure they continue to exist.

There are two parts to my question. First, is the NDP member concerned about the issue of respecting international conventions? Second, does she think that we should also make a sustained effort to preserve cultural property and heritage assets in our own provinces, where we ourselves live?

[Criminal Code, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the Conservative member's comments. It seems likely to us that the Liberals are proposing measures in Mr. Cadman's name following his death and in light of his vote in this House last fall.

In any event, we support this bill. How can the Conservative member be opposed to Bill C-64? This bill gives police another way to fight against the networks for theft, alteration and resale of motor vehicles, which, as we know, enable criminal organizations to exist and expand in our society.

I heard the Conservatives say that the penalties and consequences were not significant enough for them. We, the members of the Bloc Québécois, know that in Quebec, we believe strongly in cracking down and using deterrent action to fight organized crime. And we also believe in preventive measures. We know that cracking down does not solve everything. In my opinion, there are some valid penalities in the bill.

I want to know what the hon. member has to say on this. Does he believe that an additional multi-year prison sentence can further resolve the situation? Personally, I doubt it. What measures would he prefer to see introduced?

[Criminal Code, October 24th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I would like to take part in this debate.

We are in favour of Bill C-64, which amends the Criminal Code by creating the offence of altering, obliterating or removing a vehicle identification number. There was no such provision in the Criminal Code before. The bill now includes these offences, as follows:

Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1):

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

We feel this bill represents a step forward by providing some means to combat this problem of auto theft, which exists all over the world. In 2004, nearly 170,000 vehicle thefts were reported in Canada.

My Conservative colleague who has just spoken feels that these sentences seem inadequate. I would like to hear what sort of sentences she would like to see in a bill like this.

Several speakers have indicated that this bill was not along the lines of what Mr. Cadman would have wanted. What teeth could we have added to improve it. Perhaps she could go into more detail on this.