Marc Lemay

[Aboriginal Affairs, April 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement in principle was signed for a comprehensive settlement of the native residential schools question, but it has still not come into effect. The government can assuage its conscience by signing agreements, but all the delays mean that too many victims die every day without ever being entitled to their just reparations.

Can the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development promise to implement the agreement on native residential schools as soon as possible?

[Aboriginal Affairs, April 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the previous government promised in Kelowna $5.1 billion for aboriginal peoples. Unfortunately, the history of relations between the government and aboriginals has been marked by a host of broken promises. Even though the Kelowna agreement does not respond to all the concerns of the aboriginal chiefs in Quebec, they feel that it is a first step in the right direction.

Does the minister intend to keep the agreement signed with the aboriginals?

[Grey Cup, November 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, all eyes were on football last night. We were all treated to a spectacular show during the Grey Cup championship game, pitting the Montreal Alouettes against the Edmonton Eskimos.

Many Quebeckers over the past 40 years have played some great games for the Alouettes, but it was quite unique last night to see so many great plays by Quebeckers on both teams at the Grey Cup.

We would have preferred to see the Montreal Alouettes win, but we are happy for the Eskimos, specifically Danny Maciocia, who was the first Canadian Football League coach from Quebec to win the coveted Grey Cup.

Maciocia is from Montreal and was a member of the Alouettes coaching team after a stellar career in minor and inter-scholastic football in Montreal. Everyone remembers him as a proud and determined gentleman. Congratulations to the Eskimos and the Alouettes for such a great game.

[Françoise Mongrain-Samson, November 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute in the House to a deserving award recipient. Françoise Mongrain-Samson, from the Abitibi—Témiscamingue region, was named 2005 female farmer of the year at the Saturne gala held during the Quebec federation of women farmers' convention.

Ms. Mongrain-Samson runs a dairy farm with her husband in St-Félix-de-Dalquier, near Amos. The mother of three children, she was the first woman on the Amos farm co-op's board. Since January 2000, she has been board chair. She helped found the Nord-Agri association, which promotes hog farming.

Thanks to her commitment to her community, Ms. Mongrain-Samson is helping to promote agriculture.

The Bloc Québécois congratulates Ms. Françoise Mongrain-Samson on this well-deserved honour.

[Supply, November 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question.

There has indeed been a real uproar in all the regions of Quebec. I want to thank the UPA federations in all the regions of Quebec, who are very sensitive to this issue. The regional federations are doing a wonderful job of mobilizing federal MPs like me. I will never thank them enough for having keep us as informed as they have of what was happening on this issue.

We are very aware and sensitized, and things did happen. Obviously, as soon as the negotiator hints at possible give and take, suggesting that something might have to be given up, everyone gets scared. If any changes to supply management as it currently exists were to be made, that would really be a very serious problem for agriculture.

Nevertheless, the agreement signed in July 2004 could be maintained through the explicit recognition of sensitive products set out in articles 31 to 34, the recognition of the principles of fairness and balance, consistency and flexibility discussed in articles 3 through 35 and, finally, the ability to use various combinations to improve access to market.

Things can be done, but it is critical not to give in on supply management.

[Supply, November 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou for his question. It will enable me to point out that we do in fact have a number of restrictions, which is why we have this opposition day in order to make it very clear to those who are going to be negotiating on behalf of Canada that Quebec is, unfortunately, still part of Canada and thus our demands need to be taken into account. Supply management is an essential part of Quebec's agricultural base. It is absolutely vital that the negotiators not fold under pressure, because the survival of our agriculture depends on it.

I agree with what my colleague has said. We must, clearly, be careful because the government has already gone to other forums with the avowed intention of making no concessions, and has caved in anyway. I am in favour of strengthening Canada's position. That is the reason for an opposition day today on this subject.

[Supply, November 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Drummond.

From the time I was elected in June 2004, supply management has been an extremely important file to me. I want to thank the Union des producteurs agricoles in my riding of Abitibi—Témiscamingue, which met with me on numerous occasions. We have discussed this somewhat complex issue. This has been, however, an opportunity to learn a little bit more. In fact, it is above all an opportunity to learn about the essential work being done by farmers in regions such as my own, not only in the Témiscamingue region, but also in Abitibi, in terms of milk and other products produced.

As others said earlier today, there are five products under supply management: table eggs, hatching eggs, milk, turkeys and chickens. I want, above all, to provide some important figures.

In Canada, supply managed farm cash receipts represent $6.7 billion or 20% of total farm cash receipts. Annual sales of added value products are $14.8 billion. There are nearly 75,100 on-farm jobs; 47,900 agriculture-related jobs; and 91,400 jobs in the processing sector, for a grand total of 214,400 jobs. One in five jobs in Canada is in the food industry.

In Quebec, supply managed farm cash receipts are $2.3 billion. There are 16,171 producers; 32,940 direct jobs and 36,584 indirect jobs, for a total of some 69,000 jobs. This is what supply management represents in Quebec. It is huge. This is 40% of total farm cash receipts in Quebec, and supply management exists in 16 regions in Quebec, including mine, Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

I want to make it clear that this is an extremely important issue. Supply management is based on three major pillars. First, production is limited by a quota system to ensure that it covers all domestic demand, without causing overproduction which might lead to a price collapse.

Second, as production is limited to needs, prices are regulated to avoid excessive fluctuations, ensuring producers a relatively stable price for their products.

Third, to keep supply and demand in balance, the borders are closed through the imposition of high duties on the importing of poultry, eggs and dairy products. That way imports do not disrupt the balance.

These three pillars are essential. If one of them takes a hit, the system collapses. That is what we want to avoid with this opposition day. We want to remind the government of the importance of these three pillars.

I do not want to get the figures wrong, but I will repeat them. They have been provided to us by the Union des producteurs agricoles. These figures, which are for all of Quebec, could be made proportional to my region. There are 32,940 direct farm jobs and 36,584 indirect jobs, for a total of some 69,000 jobs which partake of and depend on supply management.

This represents 40% of all farm activity.

As the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, since I knew that our opposition day would be dealing with supply management, I held a meeting last week with certain producers and representatives of the Union des producteurs agricoles. They told me that if supply management were to be sacrificed on the altar of the World Trade Organization tomorrow morning, that would signal the end for at least 80% of the farms in Abitibi-Témiscamingue.

For the dairy, poultry and turkey producers, it would be the end. This region is not on the doorstep of Montreal or the big centres. For them, the disappearance of the quotas is catastrophic. For us, for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, dairy and the four other supply managed products make up an essential sector. Supply management must continue.

There is one point which is not clear, and about which we are apprehensive. I would have liked the government to talk to us about this a little. In summer 2004, the members of the WTO concluded an agreement in principle on agriculture. The elements of this agreement in principle are being negotiated as we speak.

It is true that we are told that supply management will not be abolished under this agreement. We believe the WTO. Despite the general commitment to further liberalizing trade in agricultural products, raising quotas, and reducing tariffs, countries preserve the right to protect a certain number of sensitive products. That is what the debate will be about in Hong Kong, and that is what we will insist on, because supply management is in danger of being weakened under this agreement.

The government's strategy for defending it must be reviewed. First, it will only be possible to protect sensitive products—we are speaking obviously about the supply managed products mentioned earlier—if trade in agricultural products in general is liberalized more than it was before the agreement.

Second, even for these sensitive products, market access will have to be substantially improved. This is not clear. We obviously want controls. We must ensure that supply management is not imperilled for any reason. The security of many farmers depends on it. In my riding of Abitibi—Témiscamingue, it is clear that if supply management disappeared tomorrow morning, much of my region would also disappear. The problem is that our farmers cannot compete with what would enter Canada from countries like New Zealand, Australia or even the United States.

I will finish, therefore, by asking the entire House to pass the motion introduced today by the Bloc Québécois because the government has to know that it must negotiate properly and must not make any concessions when it comes time to negotiate in Hong Kong over the next few weeks.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, November 16th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak today in the House on the bill introduced by our colleague from Prince George—Peace River. Bill C-248 is interesting and raises a number of questions. It forces us to dig a little deeper in order to understand the purpose of this bill. We have some concerns.

The Bloc has no objections to this bill being referred to the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. Under the bill, every person who sells drugs within one kilometre of an elementary or a high school can be charged with an offence and, upon conviction, is liable, for a first offence, to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year and, for a subsequent offence, to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of two years.

We have questions about two issues. Since I was a defence lawyer for over 30 years, I want to raise at the very least a practical problem with Bill C-248.

Let us imagine that I have a client who is dealing drugs on a main street, not knowing there is a school on another street less than five hundred metres away. I am not saying it is right to deal drugs. This raises a serious question concerning mens rea . The Bloc Québécois is, of course, opposed to dealing drugs, and we cannot agree to allow illegal narcotics or other drugs to be sold without a permit. We know all the complications that can come from that.

I have a problem with this part of the bill. We will be able to debate it in committee later on, but it is obvious that a person involved in drug trafficking might, like many others, not be aware that a school is located 500 metres away. In small communities, it is quite common for a school to be located off the main street.

There is more. We are gong to have a serious problem with this bill and it merits careful study in committee. The bill sets out minimum prison sentences. I do not know where my colleagues in the Conservative party come up with this, but they turn up here regularly with demands for minimum prison sentences.

To take one case as an example, today someone appears before a Quebec court for drug trafficking, marijuana for instance, and it is a first offence. No court, except in really exceptional circumstances, will ever impose a minimum one year sentence. He would have to have sold drugs by the pound, not done petty trafficking. We need to agree, because all cases are different. In this instance, a minimum is being imposed.

I have read in detail what the Minister of Justice has written. We were provided with certain information and we have made inquiries of the Justice Department as well. It appears to us that Bill C-248 might be contrary to the underlying principle of proportionality in sentencing. If the bill gets to committee, it will need to be examined very carefully before any minimum prison sentences are imposed, particularly considering the nature of the offence. We are not talking about trafficking in heroin or cocaine here, but about just any drug.

The bill talks of any person trafficking in a controlled or restricted drug or a narcotic. So it is talking of marihuana or very small quantities, not of large quantities, pounds or kilograms. It refers to any sort of narcotic sold within five hundred metres of a school. An individual found to be guilty should be punished for a criminal act and given a minimum prison sentence.

This strikes us as very heavy. The committee will have to debate this point.

We have always wondered about certain offences. Mandatory minimum prison sentences can not only create practical problems but give rise to appeals under section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This section concerns cruel and unusual punishment.

How will the court interpret these various cases? A person selling narcotics in a hotel would be sentenced to six months' probation or a $1,000 fine, while someone selling the same type and quantity of narcotic within five hundred metres of a school would be sentenced to a minimum of a year's imprisonment. No doubt, the court would be called on to determine whether the sentence was cruel and unusual.

We think it important to raise this point now. When we examine the bill in committee, we will have to work very hard to come up with a solution. The bill's aim to make it an offence to sell narcotics near schools is a very good one. However, the minimum one-year sentence is clearly a problem. We will have to look at that.

Generally, in determining sentences for drug-related offences, the courts must take into consideration all aggravating circumstances, for instance, the sale of narcotics or substances to a person under the age of 18, or trafficking at a school, on school grounds or other public places generally frequented by minors. However, this bill does not take extenuating or aggravating circumstances into account and would encourage rigidity in the sentencing process. We feel that is one of the biggest constraints that need to reviewed in committee.

We have already discussed minimum sentences. Our Conservative friends tend to submit requests for minimum sentences regularly. With all due respect to my colleagues in the Conservative Party, I find that constantly asking for minimum sentences is the wrong approach. In that approach, the focus is more on repression than on rehabilitation. In my opinion, that is not the right solution.

We will not vote against the bill because we find the idea of condemning the sale of drugs near schools an important and interesting one. However, in committee, we will be able to discuss at greater length the type of sentence that could be imposed on a person who commits this type of offence, which we condemn, of course.

[Privilege, November 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the speech my colleague from the other side delivered. Since the Gomery report is the topic of the day, let us talk about it. I want to tell my colleague across the floor that we have read the Gomery report. I am a lawyer so I will refer to the report and the summary.

Here is what Justice Gomery says on page 9 of the report:

As an initial finding, which will be expanded upon in the pages that follow, it became apparent to me throughout the hearings that, with virtually no exceptions, the conclusions of the Auditor General of Canada, expressed in Chapters 3 and 4 of her 2003 Report to Parliament, have been confirmed. With only one exception of a purely technical nature, relating to the purchase of horses by the RCMP, no one has seriously suggested to me that any of her conclusions were unfounded.

Thus, we must look at the conclusions and I am coming to my question. The conclusions of the Auditor General quoted on page 12 of the summary are as follows:

Parliament’s role was not respected;

there was a breakdown in internal controls;

there were problems related to the selection of agencies;

files were poorly documented; amendments were made irregularly;

there were serious problems relating to section 34 of the Financial Administration Act;

commissions and production costs were excessive; and

the Government’s Transfer Payments Policy was not observed.

Therefore, I read the report and I could keep asking questions for the remainder of the month. Do you agree with the conclusions of the Auditor General quoted by Justice Gomery on page 12 of his report? If so, since you must agree—I suppose you agree with the report entirely—what do you intend to do? What guarantee do we have? This is the reason why we have informed our constituents about this scandal.

Do you agree with the conclusions of the Auditor General stated again in the Gomery report, which is about one of the worst scandals in Canada?

[Privilege, November 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have question for my colleague. She mentioned she was a lawyer, like many members in the House. Lawyers play an important role according to her since they often have to interpret the law.

We will have to go back the Gomery report and I will refer the members to the same page she did, so we should all be there fairly quickly. I will read the same paragraph, but in its entirety:

The LPCQ as an institution cannot escape responsibility for the misconduct of its officers and representatives. Two successive Executive Directors were directly involved in illegal campaign financing, and many of its workers accepted cash payments for their services when they should have known that such payments were in violation of the Canada Elections Act.

My colleague practised law for a long time. In her view, whether one carries, delivers or receives money, isn't it all the same thing, especially if it is dirty money, like Marc-Yvan Côté pointed out? So why are the Liberals acting as both judge and jury and why are they not telling us the names of the eight or ten candidates who received dirty money from Mr. Marc-Yvan Côté?