Marc Lemay

[Criminal Code, September 26th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my learned colleague, the hon. member for Hochelaga, on his brilliant presentation. If I may, I would like to briefly go back to the fact that, in 1949, Canada did not ratify a UN convention.

I was wondering if, after almost 50 years, we would make up for this delay with Bill C-49, which the Bloc Québécois is asking the House to pass as quickly as possible.

I am putting the question to my colleague. In his opinion, why is it that Canada did not fulfill its obligations towards the UN in 1949 and that today, almost 60 years later, it is tabling a bill that is essential to protect the public? What the public wants is that such a bill be adopted at the earliest opportunity.

I wonder if my colleague could provide me with an answer, following the meetings that he had over the summer regarding this legislation.

[Criminal Code, September 26th, 2005]

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to put a question to my colleague, the hon. member for Québec. I know that she is doing an outstanding job on status of women issues brought before this House. There are two bills in particular, namely Bill C-53, which is currently before the committee—I will have the opportunity to work on it in the coming months—and particularly Bill C-49, which I hope will be passed by this House and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness as soon as possible.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague the same question I asked of the previous speaker. I did not get a very clear answer from the department or from the member opposite. I know that my hon. colleague has done extensive work on this issue.

There is a clause in Bill C-49 that is of particular interest to us. I will quote it. It deals with causing:

—by means of deception or the use or threat of force or of any other form of coercion, to have an organ or tissue removed.

Under Bill C-49, this would be illegal and would be prosecuted under the Criminal Code as aggravated assault and assault with a weapon. I wonder if this will apply to the same extent to the whole issue of female circumcision.This is an issue that has been much publicized, without ever being settled. With this bill, could those who, directly or indirectly, commit this kind of aggravated assault on women be prosecuted? That was my question to the hon. member.

[Criminal Code, September 26th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I read the bill carefully and I listened to the comments made by the hon. member. I want to ask him to explain further.

I want the member to tell us how to deal with cases where someone has been tricked, threatened, forced or otherwise constrained into donating an organ or tissue. In my opinion, this is one of the important parts of the bill. To date, not much as been said about this. Obviously, white slavery was discussed. This bill is extremely important. The Bloc Québécois supports, without reservation, the government in implementing it as soon as possible. However, I want to hear what the hon. member has to say about this, because this is one of the lesser known parts of the bill before us.

[Department of Social Development Act, June 1st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague. I am trying to understand, but I still do not understand and I am sure I am not the only one here to not understand. Why do they want to split this department? Would the hon. member have an idea? I see nothing whatsoever to indicate any urgency or distinction. I am trying to understand the logic behind this bill, but I do not.

I would invite my colleague, if he has seen something I and I am sure many of us have not, to convince us that splitting the department is an intelligent idea, something I have my doubts about, I would very much like to hear what he has to say.

[Gala des Mercuriades, June 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, at the Gala des Mercuriades, Marcel Baril Ltée, a well-known company in my riding, won the Mercure award in the distribution and trade category.

Located in Rouyn-Noranda, Marcel Baril Ltée specializes in distribution and serves 60% of the Quebec market in very diverse sectors. This dynamic family business is well known for its logistics excellence and original methods of ensuring customer satisfaction.

The directors of Marcel Baril Ltée are bold entrepreneurs. They have made their hopes and dreams come true, while respecting their clients and their employees.

I want to congratulate the entire staff of Marcel Baril Ltée for the outstanding achievements of their company whose success has benefited the entire Abitibi-Témiscamingue region.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, there go the Liberals. Applauding, but for money that was already announced three years ago. They have been asked to add more to it, but they have refused. This is last year's money.

This is my question for my hon. colleague. Perhaps my colleague from Pontiac could ask the same thing, since he is from the same side. They have to be asked to spend everything they have committed to for 2003-2004, before starting to spend for the next six years. That is important.

What I would like to ask the hon. member is whether he can tell us when they are going to spend the $2.3 billion left in last year's budget, that is, the one for 2003-04? When are we going to see that money spent, before we adopt this budget?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully to my colleague's lengthy rhetoric. I could ask him close to a dozen questions but there is no time. What is rather surprising is that we are being asked to support a budget, to adopt it immediately and then, all of a sudden, are told that there is still money to be spent from the 2003-04 budget. The 2004-05 budget was accepted by the Governor General on May 11.

Everyone, every Canadian and every Quebecker, has questions. I have a good example of that for my hon. colleague. Two weeks ago, the Minister of the Environment came to my riding to announce that broadband would finally be coming to the riding of Abitibi—Témiscamingue and our entire region. Great, except that—

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, May 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the hon. member, who made an excellent presentation.

If we look at this bill, we notice that the government is taking a piecemeal approach in an attempt to buy agreements with a number of provinces. Here is my question to the hon. member.

Does he not believe that, far from helping Canada, these agreements reached by resorting to a piecemeal approach are harmful to the provinces and confirm the existence of an imbalance between them and the federal government? By taking this piecemeal approach to reach these agreements, is the government not creating an even greater fiscal imbalance?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 19th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Jonquière—Alma for his excellent question. It gives me an opportunity to mention that, in my riding of Abitibi—Témiscamingue, our livelihood depends on four main resources: agriculture, forestry, mines and, more recently, tourism. Three out of these four industries are ailing.We are starting to see some mining exploration, in response to a huge demand. Agriculture, I already commented on. As for forestry, it is currently facing a serious crisis.

What we have asked for and will ask for again is that the Program for Older Worker Adjustment be implemented. The POWA would have helped with the rationalization and it would have made the current crisis more bearable. It would have allowed older people to enjoy the retirement they deserve.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague. I hope this will not be the last question he asks in this House because he is a great help to us. We hope he will reconsider his decision. In the event he does not, I would like to thank him very much for the work he has done on behalf of seniors. It is thanks to him that we on this side have alerted the government about the situation of our seniors, as we will continue to do.

The bill states as follows:

—increase the guaranteed income supplement by $18 a month for single pensioners and by $14.50 a month for each pensioner in a couple, effective January 2006.

Not next week, but January 2006.

Also, the amendments increase the allowance by $14.50 a month and the allowance for the survivor by $18 a month, effective January 2006. In addition, the amendments provide for identical increases to the guaranteed income supplement, the allowance and the allowance for the survivor in January 2007.

Not only is there no effort made toward retroactivity, to giving back the money taken, the money of which seniors were deprived, but as well the increases start only in January 2006. This is totally ridiculous. The budget should be voted down on that alone.