Marc Lemay

[Safe Drinking Water, May 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is still refusing to confirm the implementation of the Kelowna agreement and is trying to create a diversion by praising the merits of the action plan to guarantee safe water in first nations communities, but forgets to say that the Anishnabee of Kitcisakik and the Lubicon Cree, who are still today transporting their water by tank, are excluded from it.

What does the minister plan to do to permanently improve the lot of these communities?

[Erasmus-Dussault Report, April 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, 2006 marks the tenth anniversary of the release of the Erasmus-Dussault Report on Aboriginal Peoples.

The Royal Commission of Inquiry, which was an initiative of then Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney in response to the tragic events at Oka, was a promising start and a demonstration of political will, not to quantify the distress of the Aboriginal people, but to look for ways to remedy it.

Quebec recognizes the aboriginal peoples as distinct peoples who have a right to their culture, their language, their customs and their traditions, and their right to decide for themselves what path to take in developing their own identity.

The Bloc Québécois asks that the federal government adopt the findings of the Erasmus-Dussault Report and implement them at last.

[Federal Accountability Act, April 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my learned colleague for his speech. My party has designated me its Indian and northern affairs critic. Since the President of the Treasury Board is present in the House I will also take this opportunity to put my question to the hon. member who has just spoken.

How will this bill apply to the first nations? It is an important matter for debate. We have been told this bill would apply to first nations and that all funds paid to first nations must be accounted for. Will that be the responsibility of the department that will verify if the funds are properly allocated and spent, in accordance with established criteria? Or, in the opinion of the hon. member, will the Auditor General be able to do internal audits among the first nations as she does in other locations?

If my colleague has examined or studied the bill in depth, I would ask him to answer that.

[Paul Ouellet, April 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, an artist from my region, Paul Ouellet, recently took first prize in the CBC/Radio-Canada literary awards in the French creative non-fiction category.

This award established by CBC/Radio-Canada is one of the most important prizes for unpublished works gives writers of all ages an opportunity to promote their work.

The narrative, Moi enfant, by Paul Ouellet was considered on the basis of its high quality writing, originality of style and sensitivity of the story. We are captivated and enchanted by the language Paul Ouellet has used in relating his childhood.

Mr. Ouellet is from La Motte, in Abitibi-Témiscamingue. He is a well known painter in the region and has distinguished himself once again, this time by his writing.

I offer this talented artist my warmest congratulations on his work and more especially on so deservedly winning this prize.

[RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY, April 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, my initial response is that the issue should be examined very carefully.

It seems obvious to me that there is an attempt to become involved in an area that is clearly under provincial jurisdiction, and that is health. In our opinion, the money should be given to the provinces, along with the mandate to reduce wait times. In this way, we could solve part of the problem.

The provinces—in particular Quebec—must determine for themselves how they will reduce wait times. In Ontario, wait times may not be the same as in Quebec or British Columbia. It all depends on the type of surgery. This should all be discussed in a debate.

[RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY, April 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is quite clear. When you send $1,200 to an individual so their child can go to a day care, there has to be a day care for the child to go to. Therein lies the problem.

Child care allowances of $1,200 are going to be handed out. That is fine. However, there may be other means of distributing this money. We are not against the idea. At first glance, it seems interesting. However, these funds should be given out as a tax credit. That is the difference.

For example, I know a stay-at-home mother who is raising two young children. Her husband is an orthopaedic surgeon. She earns $5,000 and her husband earns $300,000. She will be entitled to an allowance of $1,200 per child for a total of $2,400. With all due respect, that is the problem in my opinion.

The government must be careful. We do not think it is a bad idea, but a balance needs to be struck. We already have a day care system in place. Some serious thinking needs to be done.

One solution would be to correct the fiscal imbalance. I hope that my colleague opposite will push for a solution to this fiscal imbalance as promised.

[RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY, April 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, allow me first to congratulate my colleague from Ahuntsic. She just expected to ask a question but actually delivered her maiden speech in the House. Speaking personally and on behalf of my colleagues, I congratulate her because it was a fine speech. It did a good job of setting out the debate on the help and respect that women deserve in our society.

Allow me as well to thank my constituents in the riding of Abitibi—Témiscamingue. Again they expressed their confidence in me to represent them in the House and ensure that the ways in which Abitibi—Témiscamingue is different are recognized all across Canada and Quebec and that these differences are vigorously defended in the House, as they should be.

Getting down to the Speech from the Throne, allow me to point out that it was very predictable. We are glad, though, that it did not go on for more than 15 or 20 minutes because it was a redundant repetition of what we heard during the election campaign. This entirely predictable speech was based on the five great actions that the current government wishes to take.

We were glad to see two of the Bloc’s proposals mentioned in the throne speech: international treaties will be ratified by the House and the government will apologize to Chinese immigrants for the head tax they had to pay. This is very important. During the last session, after sitting on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, I sat as well on the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. We carried resolutions asking that apologies be made to the Chinese community, and they will be. The money reimbursed to them will not make them forget the mistakes of which they were the victims, but at least it will make them feel welcome in Canada.

Let us look now at the five priorities on which the government based its Speech from the Throne. It will probably base all its policies on them in this Parliament, and especially its budget speech, to be delivered in the next few days.

Insofar as accountability is concerned, the Bloc was already talking in 2001 about the crisis surrounding the sponsorship scandal, which cost the previous government a great many seats in Quebec. The last word still remains to be written, though, because the courts have yet to pass sentence on people who abused the system.

We obviously need an accountability act. However, this bill casts a very wide net, too wide perhaps. We will see. Our suggestion is that the government should work together with the opposition parties on consideration in committee of the bill and its implementation. The bill was just introduced in the last few days and will have to be studied in committee. It has more than 200 sections, and we will see how the committee manages. It is a huge bill, but it is hard to be against virtue itself.

Finally, there is day care. The Bloc’s first reaction is to tell the current government that it is good, it is a fine idea. It must be said, though, that we have had this in Quebec for quite a few years now.

Thanks to the Parti Québécois, Quebec endowed itself with the best day care system in Canada. In the words of the former Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Chrétien, it is probably one of the best in the world. So it must not be cut back.

We sincerely believe that, in the next budget speech and in the Speech from the Throne, the government must ensure that Quebec is compensated and deserves to be compensated. We calculate that the daycare centres of Quebec will lose $807 million if the government introduces the $1,200. Our leader has emphasized this, and I will repeat what he said. We have no objection to the $1,200, far from it. However, three things are important.

First, the government did not mention that this $1,200 would be taxable, and that will create all sorts of problems. Second, in Quebec in particular, this amount of $1,200 will be deductible from income security benefits, that is, welfare. That $1,200 will not be very good for people in need. Third, we suggest that the government revisit its idea of $1,200 and maybe offer it as a tax deduction or tax credit. We shall see how it is treated in the budget. What is certain is that the Bloc Québécois will fight to see that Quebec’s jurisdictions are respected, particularly in this matter. It will be very important for Quebec to receive its fair share.

Very quickly, I would also like to talk about wait times. The government has to be careful, because health is a field of provincial jurisdiction. It will have to respect provincial jurisdictions before implementing any program whatsoever, especially in the area of health and wait times.

Let us also talk about security and justice. I want to speak about this because, in the previous Parliament, I was a member of the Standing Committee on Justice. The party now in power, which was in opposition at that time, presented various ideas—which I will not venture to list—for draconian increases to sentences and for minimum prison sentences. To such ideas, we say no. No, because that would be using the Criminal Code to do the work of judges. Yes, there are ways of issuing directives, of inviting the courts to give serious consideration to possibly increasing sentences. Take for example the Coffin decision which was just rendered by the Quebec Court of Appeal. Mr. Coffin pleaded guilty to defrauding the government in the sponsorship scandal. The trial court had sentenced him to about two years less a day plus community service. The Court of Appeal has just revised this decision, in the wake of popular pressure and the notice of appeal filed by the Crown, and has imposed a prison term.

With all due respect, I would like to advise the party in power to be very careful before tabling bills of this nature. The right wing in Canada is not enjoying very good press at the moment. Criminals are not going to be deterred by minimum prison sentences. I know whereof I speak, for prior to June 28, 2004, I was a criminal litigator for 25 years. For the last 15 of those years, I worked in criminal law only. As I told the members of the standing committee, imposing long prison terms is not the solution; rehabilitation, on the other hand, is very important. It is true, however, that we should perhaps take another look at suspended sentences.

We could examine excessively hasty probation and releases.

In closing—

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, April 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. First, I would like to congratulate you on being re-elected to this House and to the position you now hold.

My hon. colleague is very concerned about health, as we saw during the last session. As I will be the Bloc Québécois critic for Indian affairs and northern development, I am enormously concerned about aboriginal health.

Will Health Canada and the Department of Indian Affairs reach an agreement or share responsibility in order to balance the issue of health with social development, which is part of Indian Affairs' mandate?

Will funds be transferred so that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development can appropriately address the issue of aboriginal health, because it is a critical problem, as we will see in the coming weeks and months?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, April 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your re-election as Speaker of this House and also to congratulate my hon. colleague on his brilliant presentation.

I have one question for him. I return to the issue of child care.

Since the Speech from the Throne, a number of government members have spoken in this House. In what way are the proposals in the Speech from the Throne and the speeches of these government members disturbing insofar as the day care system in Quebec is concerned?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, first off, allow me to congratulate you on your election and accession to the position of Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole House.

I would also congratulate my colleague who has just spoken. I would like to ask him a question. Quebec has established a day care system that has proven to be the best in Canada. The government is proposing to provide $1,200 annually per child under six, that is, a preschool child. Quebec has created the best system, which costs it between $1.2 billion and $1.3 billion. If the current government proposal were adopted, Quebec would lose $800 million.

Could my hon. colleague explain to the House his vision of the day care system he and his government would establish if they were in office? Does he see a Canada wide system or a system that would allow the provinces to decide themselves how the money would be distributed in the matter of day care centres?