Guy André

[Criminal Code, September 26th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want only to respond to the member's statements. Naturally, I am in favour of this bill. However, I do not necessarily believe that legalizing prostitution or creating a framework for it would increase white slavery and sexual exploitation. I do not necessarily agree with this part.

On the contrary, I believe that if we provide more of a framework for prostitution, which unfortunately has always existed in our society—although it should not, it always has—the situation might improve somewhat. I think that there is not necessarily a connection between the trafficking of individuals for sexual purposes and the legalization of prostitution. I would like to hear what the member thinks about this.

[Criminal Code, September 26th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I will definitely vote in favour of this bill. It is important to provide some security against trafficking in persons for the purpose of sexual exploitation.

This bill is a step forward, but it will not resolve everything related to this unfortunate phenomenon in our society. In my previous career as a social worker, I came up against this issue many times.

Apart from the necessary legislation, does the hon. member see any preventive measures, or intervention in the communities, to prevent all this organized crime and trafficking in persons for sexual purposes?

[Supply, June 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in reaction to what my Conservative friend had to say. In Quebec, as everyone knows, the day care system offers various ways of caring for children. There are facilities that bring together a number of children and there are also home-based child care agencies that have been developing for about 20 years in Quebec.

For children, the day care centres are places for socialization, early detection of problems, and prevention as well. The system of centres is an instrument with which Quebec, as a community, provides adequate service for children while also meeting the needs of parents. As my friend from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier said, there are 1,000 day cares involving between 10,000 and 15,000 parents in Quebec, thanks to major participation from the province of Quebec.

I also wanted to highlight the home child care agencies, which are part of Quebec's day care system. They can be found in communities and can also be adapted to the needs of the parents. They are not big facilities, simply parents who care for children at home, but they are supervised by professionals.

I asked myself the following question. When there are parents who have difficulty accessing child care services, the home child care agencies can meet their needs, a little like school boards vis-à-vis schools. Should individual private schools be developed for parents who, at some time, cannot let their children to go to school? In the same way, day cares are part of a public system. I find the discourse of my Conservative friend somewhat annoying in this regard.

[National Defence, June 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in November, the Minister of National Defence announced that he would be carrying out a pilot project in July 2005 to recover shells and other projectiles from Lac St-Pierre, which has been designated a world biosphere reserve by UNESCO. These shells pose an environmental threat and are an obstacle to tourism development at the reserve.

Is the Minister of National Defence, who made this commitment last November to the people of my region, going to keep his promise and have these shells removed immediately?

[Supply, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to react a little to the Conservative party motion.

First I would like to say that, before being a member of Parliament, I worked in the health sector for 18 years. I am therefore very sensitive to questions of cancer prevention, heart disease and mental illness.

In Quebec, as in the other provinces, we know that cancer, cardiovascular disease, mental health problems and other illnesses are posing ever greater problems. The needs in Quebec are also very great. However, all the infrastructure, programs and services exist to meet the needs of people living with illnesses such as those mentioned by the Conservatives.

We have hospitals, independent hospitals, research services, community organizations and CLSCs that provide prevention programs all across Quebec. We also have our own strategies for fighting cancer and our own mental health policy.

I have a question for my Conservative colleague. I was very surprised to see this motion introduced by the Conservatives because we had been hearing some talk recently about them wanting to respect provincial jurisdictions more.

Since we already have all the infrastructure and services we need in Quebec, what we want now is money. There are needs of course. But we already have the infrastructure, programs and services. We therefore want more health transfers for our province. I am surprised to see this motion introduced by the Conservatives because a strategy to fight cancer and other illnesses would duplicate what we are already doing in Quebec.

My question is therefore as follows. Does my Conservative friend not see a certain contradiction of the political progress they have made recently toward respecting the jurisdiction of the provinces and Quebec over health services?

[Supply, June 2nd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I want to respond to the comments made by my Conservative colleague. Naturally, we do not oppose the NDP motion, although we find it falls short compared with the 28 recommendations recently proposed by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

It falls short because, as we know, the Liberals have taken a little over $45 billion from the EI fund in recent years, partially destroying it. In our regions, unemployment has been rampant for over a decade now, and the program has created numerous exclusions.

I come from a rural region. There are many seasonal workers in Berthier—Maskinongé; they work on wildlife preserves, in the hotel industry, forestry and other sectors. By destroying the EI program, the Liberals have prevented many of them from accumulating enough weeks to qualify for EI benefits on an annual basis, thereby forcing them to apply for social assistance.

Since the federal EI program is inadequate, Quebec has to meet the needs of these workers with a social assistance program intended for income security recipients. This reduces people to poverty. So, clearly, this motion is inadequate.

To respond in part to the comments of our Conservative colleague, I believe that the program needs to be improved. Our constituents want to work. It is not true that they are not looking for work, but, at present, there are not enough jobs in our communities. There are many seasonal jobs, and we need a EI program. As the House knows, the EI fund has money in it; it just needs to become an independent EI fund.

I want to ask my Conservative colleague a question. How can he say that people do not want to work? In our regions, in Quebec, people want to work and they are entitled to an improved EI program.

[Sustainable Development, May 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw attention to a specific example of cooperation between francophone nations, Quebec and Mali.

In fact, for 15 years, the people of the municipality of Sainte-Élisabeth, through the committee Des Mains Pour Demain, have been working passionately to improve the living conditions of the people living in the Sanankoroba commune in Mali.

I would also like to mention the participation of the RCM of D'Autray, which is helping with Mali's policy on decentralization by helping carry out the village of Sanankoroba allotment plan. Finally, I would mention that the municipality of Lavaltrie is twinned with the Malian commune of Dialakoroba.

I would like to thank all those involved in sustainable development and in ties through solidarity, especially with our partners in the Francophonie.

[Supporting Communities Partnership Initiative, May 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, there is considerable disappointment and concern among Quebec agencies that work with the homeless. The federal government included nothing in its latest budget on extending and improving the program known as the supporting communities partnership initiative. As a result of this inaction, the continuation and consolidation of services to the most disadvantaged members of our society are at risk.

The budgets allocated under this program made it possible to improve shelters and drop-in centres, the housing and shelter development strategy, and support for street worker projects.

The Bloc Québécois urges the Liberal government to add the necessary funds to SCPI, and to transfer to Quebec full responsibility for housing and the corresponding budget envelopes.

[Federal Government, April 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I affirm in this House that the federal government is abandoning the regions of Quebec, including the riding of Berthier—Maskinongé.

Its lack of solidarity in response to the numerous pleas for help from farm producers; its lack of cooperation in supporting cultural and tourist activities; its lack of support for the textile and apparel industries; and its lack of sensitivity to workers in refusing to overhaul the employment insurance system, implementing programs poorly suited to local realities, and rejecting the principle of fiscal imbalance, are all blatant proof that the central government has abandoned the regions of Quebec.

When will this government stop the hemorrhage in the regions of Quebec when it is swimming in budget surpluses?

[Official Languages Act, April 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is of course with great pleasure that I rise today to address Bill S-3, an act to amend the Official Languages Act (promotion of English and French).

I would like to begin by referring to the promoter of this bill, former senator Jean-Robert Gauthier. I want to stress the work and dedication of former senator Jean-Robert Gauthier in the defence of francophone minorities and the promotion of their rights.

I also wish to sincerely thank my fellow Bloc Québécois members who addressed this legislation during the first hour of debate at second reading. I am referring, among others, to the hon. member for Repentigny and the hon. member for Verchères—Les Patriotes, who are both staunch defenders of the rights of francophone minorities.

This bill, which amends the Official Languages Act, was the fourth one tabled in the Senate by senator Jean-Robert Gauthier. He first introduced Bill S-32 during the first session of the 37th Parliament, then Bill S-11 during the second session and, finally, Bill S-4 during the third session. These three bills, which died on the order paper, were, for all intents and purposes, identical to Bill S-3.

The bill that is now before us primarily seeks to enhance the enforceability of the federal government's obligations under Part VII of the Official Languages Act. We are referring here to the federal government's commitment to enhance the vitality of the English and French linguistic communities in Canada, to support and assist their development, and to foster the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society. We are talking about section 41, which would be amended to make it enforceable and thus provide guidance for its interpretation by the courts.

Bill S-3 also proposes to amend section 43 to read as follows:

The Minister of Canadian Heritage shall take appropriate measures to advance the equality of status and use of English and French in Canadian society.

Finally, it is proposed that part VII be added to subsection 77(1) of the Official Languages Act. This amendment to section 77 would allow citizens to file complaints before the courts to ensure that the obligations included in Part VII are met.

In summary, the purpose of this bill is to clarify the responsibility of federal institutions to implement Part VII of the act and to adopt regulations for the enforcement process of the requirements provided in section 41 of the act. Furthermore, it requires that the federal government take measures to advance the equality of status and use of English and French in Canadian society. Finally, it provides for a court remedy to challenge a violation of Part VII of the Official Languages Act.

As we have said already, the Bloc Québécois cannot support this bill in its current form. We believe Bill S-3 is incomplete and contains elements that do not reflect the linguistic reality of Quebec and Canada in confirming the implementation of identical measures in Quebec and in Canada. This situation would deny the distinct character of Quebec.

Indeed, under section 43 of the Official Languages Act, as amended by Bill S-3, the government shall advance “the equality of status and use of English and French in Canadian society”. However, in Quebec, French is the very foundation of Quebec's identity in North America. Quebec is the only place on the continent where French can become the common language and the language of convergence and exchange of its citizens. On a continent where the overwhelming majority of people speak English, promoting the equality of use of English and French in Quebec would weaken the status of French in Quebec and in North America.

Another thing that must be kept in mind in this debate is that the Official Languages Act does not recognize the asymmetry of needs. Both minority linguistic communities in this country do not benefit from the same services. It is clear that the needs of the minority French communities are much greater than those of English speaking people in Quebec. The situation of French speaking people outside Quebec remains very alarming and uncertain in some regions.

Our political party has several times mentioned the notion that the Official Languages Act should recognize the asymmetry of needs. Unfortunately, Bill S-3 still does not reflect the importance of recognizing that asymmetry.

By the way, I should point out that the Bloc Québécois is not alone in proposing this approach. Indeed, the current environment minister and the Commissioner of Official Languages have said in the past that an asymmetrical approach should be taken to the official languages file.

Another major shortcoming of this bill is that section 43, as amended, could prompt the federal government to meddle in areas that are exclusively under the jurisdiction of Quebec. We all know how much the federal government, especially when it is led by the Liberal Party, has increased, year after year, its intrusions in jurisdictions exclusive to Quebec. Members will understand that the Bloc Québécois cannot support that aspect of Bill S-3.

The amendment to section 77 of the Official Languages Act, which gives citizens the power to turn to the courts to enforce the obligations listed in Part VII, also has many shortcomings. How can one explain the absence of precise criteria regarding results achieved by the federal government in the promotion of English and French? We believe that the absence of clarity could not only foster excessive recourse to the courts, but also encourage the central government to take measures in violation of the Charter of the French Language.

I would like to conclude my remarks by making two important points. Throughout this debate, it is obvious that the federal government, in and of itself, could feel obligated by Part VII of the Official Languages Act to ensure the development of minority French-speaking communities.

The problem, according to us, is not legislative, but political, one of attitude and conviction. Undoubtedly, there is a lack of leadership in the federal government with respect to official languages and this has been the case since the very beginning of the Official Languages Act. It is that lack of political will on the part of the federal government which has penalized francophone minority communities.

When a government cannot manage to enforce a piece of legislation that has been in effect for 35 years, and this legislation is disregarded with impunity in its own jurisdictions, departments, and public service, it is because this government does not have the political courage to enforce it.

Today, it is being suggested that making Part VII of the act enforceable could settle all the problems. Come on. As I just said, for 35 years, the federal government has not had the will to enforce the sections of the act that are already enforceable. Why would its attitude change overnight?

Our party is aware of the special difficulties French-speaking minorities have. Unfortunately, the federal government chose not to recognize their special situation. I want to emphasize that our position on Bill S-3 does not take anything away from our commitments to French-speaking and Acadian minorities in Canada. In fact, the opposite is true. Since 1994, when it made a formal commitment not to let down French-speaking Canadians and Acadians, the Bloc Québécois has been the political party in the federal Parliament which has most often raised issues that are important for French-speaking minorities.

On numerous occasions, we have pressured the federal government to raise the level of funding for French-speaking organizations. For example, we asked the Minister of Canadian Heritage to increase the funding for the Canada-communities agreements to $42 million annually to meet the request of the FCFA. Unfortunately, the government has still not responded favourably.

We also raised other issues such as the number of French-speaking Canadians at senior levels in the public service, the use of French at work, the requirement for Air Canada to provide service in French outside Quebec, and so on.

The Bloc Québécois has worked on all fronts and it will continue to do so.