Marc Lemay

[Petitions, April 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present a petition. We have with us today in the House several members of the first nations.

I am tabling a petition signed by 22,731 members of the first nations who absolutely want post-secondary education to be a government priority. These petitioners call on the government to address this critical issue and to honour its responsibility to provide adequate funding with respect to the right of first nations to post-secondary education, by taking immediate steps to follow up on the recommendations contained in the report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development published in February 2007.

[First Nations Education System, April 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is time for the federal government to review its policy, which puts a 2% limit on the indexing of financing for first nations post-secondary education programs.

Furthermore, not only is post-secondary education under funded, but so is the entire first nations education system. Primary and secondary level programs are also suffering, because their respective funding is not being indexed to the cost of living. The fact that the number of students has increased since 1996 is not helping the situation. This has resulted in the loss of several million dollars over 13 years and the situation cannot continue.

I will be presenting a petition today on behalf of Quebec first nation people who are calling on the government to take action on this. The first nations education system is facing a crisis. It is time for the government to do something about it.

[Criminal Code, March 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague the member for Hochelaga, an extraordinary leader at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, gifted with a composure that will undoubtedly serve him well in his future endeavours. Personally, I would be very disappointed to lose him, should he go.

That being said, I think that there is a blatant lack of communication within the Conservative Party. If the Minister of Justice, rather than behaving in this way—my colleague is perfectly right—had spoken to his whip, things would not have come to this pass and this little crisis, which lasted 10 or 15 minutes, would have been averted. This does not reflect well on the image of a minister of justice.

That said, it is important that we be given the proposals ahead of time, and that we also move forward with Bill C-14, which will be referred to committee within a few minutes.

[Criminal Code, March 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I am pleased to remind hon. members opposite that they are in a minority government. They have to understand that. It would at least be a step in the right direction. Second, when you are in a minority government, you try to work with the opposition parties to move matters forward. Bill C-14 is the best example.

If the government knew what common sense was, it would, at 9:00 a.m. this morning, have sat down with the opposition parties and asked them if they were in agreement. We are in agreement that the bill should be sent to committee. This is why debate in this House is being limited. The government must understand. It is a minority government and it is having a little difficulty understanding that.

[Criminal Code, March 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that the last few minutes did not make a very eloquent contribution to the current debate. The problem is settled and I would have liked the Minister of Justice to hear this. I hope that he will listen to what I am going to say. My colleagues opposite are not very knowledgeable about parliamentary procedure. That is the least I can say given these circumstances, so as not to offend them even more.

Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity to greet you. I knew you as Chair of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. This is the first time that I have risen to speak in this chamber when you were presiding over the deliberations. I want to congratulate you on your appointment to the position of Assistant Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole and thank you for the work you did as Chair of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. I hope, and am in fact convinced, that the work you are doing here now will also be very productive, especially during the kind of debate we are having today.

We are debating Bill C-14. Our Conservative friends made this a top priority in the fight against organized crime, something they seem to think has only appeared in the last few years. Unfortunately, I will have to give them a history lesson. Memory is well known as that faculty which forgets, and the Conservatives probably have the shortest memory on record. We should remember that the Bloc Québécois, since 1994—not just for the past two weeks—has been informing this House of the fact that there is a serious problem with organized crime and that steps need to be taken. Several were taken thanks to our efforts.

In spite of what the Conservatives will be saying, if not for the Bloc Québécois, thousand dollar bills would still be in circulation. The Bloc Québécois forced the government to make that change. I do not want to attack the Conservatives or the Liberals, but the fact is that governments finally understood that thousand dollar bills were causing an increase in organized crime and in money laundering. I can talk about this not because I have had several thousand dollar bills in my possession, but because before my election in 2004, I was a criminal lawyer for 30 years. I practised criminal law for the defence and I am very familiar with the organized crime file.

Whether the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles likes it or not, the measures put in place are the result of repeated requests by the Bloc Québécois. The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, who sits on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights as parliamentary secretary, does not seem to have known about this before 2000. We have known about it since 1990. It seems to me that he lives in Quebec, but he did not know about it either. It took some time for them to recognize the existence of organized crime. Now everyone knows who the Hells Angels are. We know a little about how its members are recruited and how we can combat these organized gangs, whether the Bandidos or the Hells Angels. It is easier for us, and I am choosing my words carefully, to understand how these organizations work.

However, we are facing a new phenomenon. Whether my Conservative friends, including the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, admit it or not, street gangs have existed for at least five or six years now. They have never understood that. For them, street gangs are the same as the Hells Angels. That is not the case. Streets gangs are a new phenomenon, and a growing concern. Whether in Vancouver, Toronto, in the east end of Montreal, even in Halifax and many other places in Canada, idleness is a phenomenon that is triggering senseless crimes. That is what they really are: senseless crimes.

First there was the mafia—and we need not look back at the godfather—with people killing each other. We could understand, follow and watch how it worked, but street gangs are completely different.

Street gangs might decide that tonight, they are going to shoot at anyone wearing black. Street gangs operate differently. They are radically changing how we see and deal with crime.

I want to say right away that we will support Bill C-14, despite its flaws. We will ask that it be studied in committee. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, on which I also sit, has already begun looking at organized crime. We will take a very close look at the new phenomena around organized crime as we study Bill C-14.

The bill is important, because it redefines murder. I feel that part should be clarified, such as the fact that a contract killing is not an ordinary murder. I am sorry, I am weighing my words and that is not easy, but murder is murder. Murder itself is bad enough. But contract killings, gratuitous murders, murders to intimidate and murders to send a message are a new and unacceptable phenomenon, and I think it is time we took action.

These new definitions in subsection 231(6.01) will be important, because they will go further. That is the purpose of the bill: to make murder committed for the benefit of or at the direction of a criminal organization first degree murder.

Let us think back to what used to happen. It has not been so very long since I was a criminal defence lawyer. We made deals and tried to find solutions so that an individual got off. We said a killing was murder, but that it could be considered second degree murder because it was not premeditated. That will no longer be possible. We are going to close that door, which allowed a person to put a contract out on someone, I am sorry to put it that way. I do not like that sort of language either, but I use it and we all know what it means.

We are finally going to close that door in the Criminal Code. That will put an end to the dilemma around criminal organizations and the people associated with them. We will at least close that door. The same thing will hold true for murders committed during an attempt to commit an indictable offence, and we will have a chance to look closely at that. That will target criminal gangs. We will be able to deal with criminal gangs and hit them with heavier penalties.

Now here is where I must plug my message. The Conservatives do not yet understand this. They really do not understand this and, once again, Bill C-14 must be looked at carefully, because minimum prison sentences will not solve the problem of crime. I want to repeat this, so it can be properly translated into English and so they understand clearly. Imposing minimum prison sentences will not reduce crime. That is exactly what the Americans did and crime rates skyrocketed. Convicted offenders must serve their prison sentences.

As someone I know has said, the problem is not when offenders go to prison; it is when they come out. They get out too quickly. The problem is that the Conservatives are telling themselves and everyone has said that this does not make sense. Someone can be sentenced to 18 months, but get out of prison in two months. That is unacceptable. The Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Justice need to have a chat. As far as I know, they are in the same political party. But they need to talk to each other, because something must be done about the parole system.

I know a bill is to be introduced tomorrow. We will have to wait and see what is in that bill. We think it is important to eliminate the two-for-one provision. We know what this means, but we can debate that another time.

For the time being, the Conservatives must realize that we need to do something about parole to ensure that an accused sentenced after a fair trial serves his sentence, does not get any goodies and does not get out earlier because of good behaviour.

I have some examples. That is the problem with Bill C-14. It calls for a minimum prison term of four years. There would still be plea bargaining to reduce the sentence and change the charges. That is not the right solution. We will examine it in committee; it is an interesting bill in that regard. We will see how we can ensure that the sentences handed down—and it is not a question of giving the judges a set of directives—are served.

There are many other amendments in the bill. There are some minor, but interesting, changes. We will definitely be targeting organized crime as well as street gangs. We will probably have to rethink the interception of communications because, with respect to organized crime, there has been no change in the past 10 to 15 years in ways of intercepting communications. Because of the Internet and all the changes in that time, police have asked for amendments.

I do not wish to speak much longer, but Bill C-14 is truly interesting. The light has gone on for the government, but it still has a long way to go before understanding that crime will not be reduced when offenders enter jail or by imposing minimum mandatory sentences, but rather by having offenders serve the sentences handed down. That is the important point. However, this will probably be the subject of another debate.

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, the answer is yes. Not only do I agree, but there has to be investment in research and development. Secondary and tertiary processing is essential. We have to stop selling nothing but 2x4s to the United States. We have to do the R and D, come up with new products, produce stronger doors and windows, et cetera. The entire future of the forestry industry depends on research and development.

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2009]

Madam Speaker. I agree with my colleague. I will try to be less harsh. I am not saying that the government does not want to do anything. I am saying that the government does not seem to fully understand the impact of the crisis. If all the forestry industry workers were in the same place, the crisis would have the same impact as the crisis affecting the automotive industry in Windsor, in southern Ontario. The problem is that the forestry industry crisis affects small businesses spread out in many places, generally in small communities.

We are asking the government to show some sensitivity. When a business is forced to close down in a community of 200 people, it never comes back. That is why help is being requested. The industry is not asking for cash. It just wants loan guarantees.

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I think that my colleague was not listening. This is a major crisis. We are facing a major crisis. If my colleague thinks that I did not read the document, he is wrong. I read it completely. When I see that $170 million is invested over two years to help the forestry industry get through the crisis and that, on the other hand, $2 billion is invested to help the automotive industry, I see a big problem.

The industry is not looking for handouts. It is looking for loans. My colleague for Lévis—Bellechasse should listen when I am speaking. The industry is looking for loans. It does not want cash. It is looking for loans.

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I will try not to get carried away during this debate, because I know our interpreters sometimes have a hard time translating what I say when I get carried away. I will try to stay calm, but this is a debate that quickly becomes emotional for me, because the Abitibi—Témiscamingue region has been hard hit by the softwood lumber crisis.

But first, Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate you. I have not had the chance to speak in the House since you were appointed as deputy chair of committees of the whole, and for the time being, you are presiding over the work of the House. Congratulations.

That being said, I am extremely concerned about the softwood lumber situation. I will give some examples. I have a specific example of what is happening in our area. In 2006, we approached the Conservative government that had been elected. We will all recall that there was a softwood lumber crisis. At the time, when the softwood lumber agreement was signed, the NDP and the Liberals voted against it and we voted with the Conservatives to support the agreement. We supported the agreement for several reasons. First, because the workers, the employers and the municipalities asked us to, because otherwise they were all going to shut down. That is the nub of the problem. I may have the Minister’s answer, since he does not want to give an answer regarding the section that deals with the softwood lumber crisis and the reason why he does not want to give loan guarantees. We asked the government then and we are asking it again—we asked the Speaker and the Minister—to clarify the so-called anti-circumvention clause. I am going to speak a little on that subject.

I know I have only 10 minutes, but this is an extremely important clause and it was so vague. We told the government: “Be careful, this absolutely has to be clarified with officials at Canada Economic Development and the Department of International Trade,” because they are going to come back to us and say: “The assistance works like this, it does not work like that, and you cannot do that.” Here is an example. In Barraute, in Abitibi-Témiscamingue, there is a company that manufactures wood box springs for beds. That company asked for assistance from the federal government and CED said: “Listen, it is not clear. We do not know whether you are going to be able to ship that to the American market. If you ship that to the American market, it comes under the anti-circumvention clause and it might violate the agreement.”

That is the issue. The government absolutely has to help companies get through the crisis, and there are not a lot of ways of doing that, there is only one. These companies have to be given loan guarantees.

In my riding, there are Tembec, Abitibi Bowater, Kruger, Domtar and four independent companies. The first four I just named—I will repeat them: Domtar, Kruger, Abitibi Bowater and Tembec—are not doing well. They are actually on life support. We were expecting Abitibi Bowater to declare bankruptcy yesterday or today. That has not happened, luckily for us. But for us in Abitibi—Témiscamingue, this means more than 2,000 direct jobs. For a region with a population of 130,000, if we lose 2,000 direct jobs, plus another 4,000 indirect jobs, we have just shut down several villages. As it stands, Launay has shut down, Béarn has shut down.

My colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou will be talking about Lebel-sur-Quévillon again. But in my riding, I have to say that Tembec is not doing well. They have asked the federal government for assistance.

If the ministers on the other side could listen to me for 30 seconds—I am thinking about the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of State for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and especially theMinister of International Trade—if they could get together and understand that a situation like that is dangerous for our regions, then we would have made some progress. We might think they do not talk to one another. We might think that the ministers and departments find it very difficult to talk to one another.

I know this because we have worked with Tembec on applications to Canada Economic Development. CED told us it would help us, but Export Development Canada thinks that this would violate the softwood lumber agreement. That agreement has really hurt us. It was a negotiated agreement, but to use an expression from legal jargon, it was “with a gun to our head”. Sign it or you die. That is exactly what is happening now. We have proposed 15 measures that could be useful, and I am going to review a few of them for the benefit of my colleagues opposite.

The forestry resource could generate more jobs. Recovery is an option. Some companies, such as Cyclofor, in my riding, need help. When Cyclofor goes to cut blocks, it recovers everything left in the cutting area to the level of about three 3 centimetres of sediment and chips the residue. What does it do with the chips? They are not selling anymore. It has to transform them into something else. It needs help with research and development to come up with new products and find new uses.

I will not talk about stimulating the creation and development of new processing industries. This crisis may give some regions an opportunity to reassess and to change their tack. The forest is like a ship, and needs to change tack significantly in order to change the focus of its production. We must stop exporting 2x4s. This expression is understood in the forestry industry. At the moment, 2x4s are shipped out. Houses built there are transformed, and often the 2x4s leave Abitibi-Témiscamingue, head off to Toronto, cross over at Detroit and come back to be sold to us. This is unacceptable.

Our motion today encourages the government to do its homework. New product research and development must be stimulated. How? Personally, I sent three proposals to Canada Economic Development, for example. One department is not doing its job, and it is the Department of the Environment. That department could help the forestry industry hugely by assisting research on producing ethanol from forestry residues. Instead of making ethanol from corn, it could be made from forestry residue. The mills are there. The people are there who can work their way out of this.

I have another example. There is talk of establishing pellet mills, processing tiny bits of wood into the fuel used in slow-burning wood stoves. Pellets can be used in place of wood. One example is Écoflamme in Témiscamingue. Tembec has its head office there. If it fails, some 500 jobs will be lost and everything around it will close.

We are in a crisis. I will close by asking the government to be sensitive and concerned about the affected regions and to think about helping them.

The measures we have taken are vital. The government could hep us if it wanted to.

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I will come back to that.

I would like to ask my colleague a very brief question. In his speech, he said he had gone to Washington on a parliamentary mission and had had the opportunity to meet with senators who were talking about the return of protectionism.

I would like him to tell us a bit more about what that means and how they saw the risk of American protectionism in relation to the softwood lumber crisis here.