Mario Laframboise

[Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1987, June 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill S-3, probably my last opportunity before the summer recess.

The Bloc Quebecois is opposed to this bill for the pure and simple reason that this is not the time for the government to be introducing it to this House.

Once again, this is evidence of a government that is in over its head and is trying to mark time. We all know that the session is going to be over earlier than expected. Probably, then, there has been an order passed down to each minister and deputy minister to table some bills. Bill S-3 is a striking live example of a bill that ought not to have been introduced in the House at this time.

Bill S-3, an act to amend the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1987, is described by the government as a highway safety act. Everyone in this House, including my colleagues and the parliamentary secretary, is making wonderful speeches about how this bill should enhance safety on Canada's major highways, and particularly the monitoring of highway carriers.

However, reading clause 3 of the bill:

3.(1) The objectives of this Act are to ensure that the National Transportation Policy set out in section 5 of the Canada Transportation Act is carried out with respect to extra-provincial motor carrier undertakings, and, more specifically, that a ) the regulatory regime for those undertakings is focused on safety performance assessments based on the National Safety Code for Motor Carriers; and b ) the operating standards that apply to those undertakings are applied consistently across Canada.

This is far from being a bill that will guarantee safety on major highways across Canada. It targets extraprovincial motor carrier undertakings and its purpose is to subject them to a consistent national evaluation and monitoring regime.

Be that as it may, the monitoring and implementation of the regime come under the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories. It is important that Quebecers and Canadians realize that the Government of Canada has no means, no monitoring policy, no effective policy to guarantee the monitoring of undertakings. It is the provinces and territories that are responsible for implementing the standards that they themselves set.

The provinces and territories have had safety standards for decades. Moreover, they agreed to adhere, among others, to standard 14, which is part of the national safety code for motor carriers. The provinces and territories made it their objective to implement this standard. Finally, the proposed bill would have the effect of implementing standard 14.

In order to implement such a standard, we must be able to set up, in each province and territory, a system of evaluation and compatible assessments across Canada on which, as I said earlier, the provinces and territories agree.

In order for the system to be effective, there must also be a penalty and downgrading process, including the cancellation of permits for major offenders, and also an effective monitoring system.

This is where the problem lies because, as we are speaking, the territories have still not been able to come to an agreement with the federal government to implement this system of evaluation, assessment, penalties and monitoring. Implementation costs are a major factor.

The implementation of an evaluation system with ratings, penalties and monitoring would be very costly for the provinces and territories. Right now, not all provinces and territories have the financial means and the capacity to implement that evaluation system with ratings, penalties and monitoring. Discussions among the provinces have been ongoing since 1999, when a standing committee was struck by the provinces, the territories and the federal government.

The committee is studying the best way to put in place an evaluation system with compatible ratings, the necessary penalties and the monitoring required to reach the objective. There is still no agreement.

Why introduce Bill S-3 if, in the field, the recommendations contained in the bill cannot be implemented? Once more, here is a government that does not care. I do not doubt the sincerity of the parliamentary secretary or the Liberal members of the committee. However, the bureaucrats were let loose and they proposed a bill to try to kill time. Finally, we have too much time. Right now, the rumour is that we will adjourn earlier than expected.

Public servants were left to introduce the bill, which cannot be implemented in the provinces and territories for the simple reason that no agreement has yet been reached on how to supervise, harmonize the entire assessment and rating system, lower ratings, or cancel permits, and for the regime as a whole. The government has not reached any agreement with the provinces and territories.

Worse yet, the officials had the gall to come before us in committee and say they had the agreement of all the provinces and the industry. On three occasions, I had to correct the government officials. I told them that Quebec had not given its approval when Bill S-3 was introduced for the simple reason that Quebec's standards are higher than the Canadian ones.

If a province applied the rating of this standard to its industry, it would limit the industry's competition. Imagine if a province or territory decided to sanction its carriers more strictly than other provinces or territories. It would make the motor carrier industry less competitive if the industry had to meet tighter standards and face stricter sanctions with fines attached.

This would threaten competition among industries in Canada, and this is why it is important to have a single standard across Canada. Each of the provinces and territories must also have the means to implement this standard.

From the very start, with the lack of cohesion in relations between the provinces and the federal government, I said whenever I spoke in committee that the bill had been introduced too soon. The provinces are in agreement with standard 14. The problem is that there is not enough money to harmonize Canada wide in such a way that the trucking industry is not worse off in one province than in the others.

The government kept telling us that there had been consensus. Again, I had to remind officials that, as far as I was concerned, Quebec had not given its approval.

In committee, we were able to hear from industry stakeholders, because the committee had decided that it would be a good idea to invite them to appear before it anyway. The following is from the brief submitted by the Canadian Trucking Alliance, which represents 70% of the trucking industry. It sits on the standing committee and therefore represents the industry at the table, and is very knowledgeable about harmonization problems and the provinces' and territories' lack of financial resources to enforce the standard:

However, it is our fear that without a significant commitment of political will and increased funding on the part of the federal government to ensure that the National Safety Code ...is consistently applied in all jurisdictions, leadership will be lacking and the safety rating standard may prove to be an unattainable goal.

The representative went on:

In our view, the time has now come for the federal government to expend the political capital and financial resources necessary to effectively exercise its constitutional authority over trucking.

Obviously, this is a strong appeal from the Canadian Trucking Alliance, which represents 70% of the industry. It says that there is indeed a problem with respect to harmonization and that the federal government has to set a Canada-wide standard. However, the government must also provide the necessary funding to ensure the implementation and enforcement of this standard by the provinces and the territories, who are the only ones who have the required monitoring equipment and the resources.

In spite of the amendments recommended by the Canadian Trucking Alliance, there is nothing in Bill S-3 to include the setting up of a standing fund to support enforcement and harmonization.

In this bill, even if all the stakeholders, including the industry, say that there is a money problem and that it costs a lot of money to have the rules enforced from one end of the country to the other—since the provinces and the territories do not all have the same capacity—in spite of this problem, even the industry, the Canadian Trucking Alliance, which represents 70 % of the industry, has not even dared to ask the federal government to pay its share in the enforcement and monitoring of this standard.

This is where the problem lies. I come from another environment. I spent 18 years in municipal government before coming to this House. I have great difficulty understanding that stakeholders, people as aware as the representatives of the Canadian Trucking Alliance—70% of the industry—realizing that the federal government collects excise tax on gasoline, the GST on gasoline and finally half the taxes on everything that truckers or motor carriers pay in most jurisdictions, do not even dare—they are shy—ask the federal government for money, and indicate that the federal government “should”.

Even in their recommendations and their amendments, believe it or not, they asked for this instead, “the minister shall, by order, remove the power of delivering certificates from the provinces that are unable to ensure follow-up and monitoring”.

So, instead of asking the federal government to pay its fair share, the industry suggested—probably on the recommendation of federal government officials—to remove from provinces the power of delivering certificates, whereas the federal government does not even have a single person able to do so in the whole country, for the simple reason that this is a provincial jurisdiction.

Of course, once again, the pressures the industry may face from government representatives, particularly at such a crucial moment, are due to the fact that, even though work began in 1999 and all the provinces and the territories are discussing and trying to find solutions, the issue of funding for all those measures has not yet been resolved.

It is not enough to just put in place standards with which the industry must comply, there must also be a mechanism for monitoring this standard. Monitoring costs big bucks.

I repeat, I am a representative of Quebec. The province of Quebec is not the one that lacks the means to ensure compliance with standards at this time. In some ways, Quebec standards are stricter than the national safety code, particularly as far as motor coaches are concerned.

The industry in one province must not be penalized because it enforces stricter standards and stricter penalties, lays comparatively more charges against certain types of industry than in other jurisdictions.

Obviously, if there is to be healthy competition, the principle of this bill must be applicable and applied across Canada, which is far from the case at this time.

In conclusion, this is a consensus that must be obtained before such a bill is introduced. That is what should have happened. As I have said, the provinces did not give their okay to the introduction of this bill; Quebec did not.

In closing, I would just like to state that I believed the departmental officials when they told us that all provinces and territories were in agreement with Bill S-3, despite the fact that I had told them on three different occasions that this was not the case for Quebec. They insisted it was the case for all provinces and territories, and for the entire industry. Obviously, I will share with the hon. members what Teamsters Canada had to say before the committee as well as the content of their brief. They are hardly insignificant, representing as they do 80% of unionized truck drivers throughout Canada. They said, in part:

Moreover, it was stated that provincial governments and industries were consulted on this and that they agreed on Bill S-3. Teamsters Canada does not believe that all the provinces agree with this bill. In the eyes of the public, Teamsters is synonymous with the trucking industry. We are the pillar of highway transportation and we were not consulted on this bill.

It is difficult for me to support this bill, especially when I hear the statements by government officials. Again I am not blaming the parliamentary secretary or the Liberal members who sit on the committee. The bureaucracy is the one to blame. It probably received a mandate from the very top to try to fill the time in the House, because we will be adjourning earlier than expected.

I blame public servants for presenting a bill that cannot be implemented and that may create a malaise between the industry and the provinces that had not given their approval. This malaise could jeopardize the implementation of that standard, which is meant to be acceptable to the provinces, the territories and the industry. The problem is that this bill is being introduced too soon.

It is for these reasons that the Bloc Quebecois will oppose Bill S-3.

[Immigration And Refugee Protection Act, June 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the proposed motions to amend Bill C-11, the immigration and refugee protection act.

Bill C-11 had a predecessor, namely Bill C-31, introduced during the last parliament, on April 6, 2000.

This is a bill that did not get passed in 2000 for the simple reason that the government decided to call an early election. As a result, more than 400,000 men and women in Canada or elsewhere in the world are still waiting on permanent resident status or permission to come to Canada.

The government has lost a whole year while men and women who view Quebec, for instance, as the promised land where they wish to spend their future, could have been allowed to immigrate to Canada.

The Bloc Quebecois could not disagree with the principle that it was high time to amend the immigration and refugee protection act. This bill allows men and women who qualify as good potential citizens to settle in Canada, while closing the door to all those who, for all manner of reasons, do not and would not have the ability or the right to settle here.

The minister, who described her bill as tough and intended “to close the back door to those who would abuse our generosity—so that we can open the front door wider to the immigrants”, cites fine principles, which we must support. The Bloc Quebecois supports all ideologies aimed at preventing people who are not good citizens from settling in the promised lands of Quebec and Canada.

However, those good citizens in the various parts of the world could still come and enrich our fine country, which has again set as a objective, it must be said, 300,000 new arrivals annually in order to consolidate the fabric of the community affected by the aging of the Canadian population. Canada must see immigration as promising for the future. The objective of 300,000 new arrivals Canada set for itself has never been met.

That means that its immigration policy never met projections or estimates or demands from coalitions made in the course of discussions and dealings with the stakeholders from the various sectors. Finally, it means that the objectives set by the stakeholders, expert and elite, who can represent immigration across Canada, were creditable, but I repeat, Canada has never met its objective. In 2000, barely two-thirds of the objective of 300,000 new arrivals was met. All this to say that it is time we made a major amendment to the immigration and refugee protection act.

With regard to the motions tabled by our wise member colleagues, there are three I would like to comment on. They are the motions in Group No. 2, but I would like to return to the motions in Groups Nos. 1 and 3 as well. I would, by this, like to have the members understand the ideology and philosophy that should underlie any legislative amendment to legislation as important as that on immigration.

With this bill, we should always keep in mind a fundamental principle, namely the principle of coercion, concentration and discussion that has always guided previous amendments to the Immigration Act. All the stakeholders must be given a real opportunity to discuss things together. This is why critical work was done in committee to support the amendments that were tabled regarding this bill.

Motion No. 2 tabled by the hon. member for Laval Centre deals with clause 5(4) of the bill, which would allow the governor in council to make the regulation at any time after the proposed regulation has been laid before each House of parliament. The bill does not include all the components of the important immigration host system or program. This bill does not explain all the host programs. Regulations have been and will continue to be tabled from time to time to improve this legislation.

Regulations are adopted to improve existing acts. Clause 5(4) would allow the governor in council to make or approve regulations that were tabled in the House without first having been reviewed in committee. I can only agree with the hon. member for Laval Centre on this matter. The bill was considered in committee and it has already been the object of a major debate during the last parliament, as Bill C-31.

We have trouble seeing why the governor in council is being allowed to approve regulations tabled directly in the House, without prior discussion in committee, as in the past. I therefore support Motion No. 2 moved by the member for Laval Centre.

I hope that members will understand that the purpose of legislation as important as the Immigration Act must be debated. All stakeholders, all those who have made immigration as important as it is in Canada, must be allowed to continue their work in a climate of consensus. That is the purpose.

The consensus is there. All parties in the House are agreed that they do not want bad citizens settling in Canada, but they do want Canada to reach its objective of taking in 300,000 new arrivals annually, which it has yet to do.

What we therefore need is legislation which will create a climate conducive to consensus and discussion so that immigration may play its rightful role in our society.

As for Motion No. 5, moved by the Canadian Alliance member for Surrey Central, not only must there be the consensus to which I referred in my speech on Motion No. 2, but we must ensure that bad citizens are not allowed into Canada. I think that this is a view shared by all Canadians and recognized by all parties in the House.

Paragraph 34(1)( d ) of the bill mentions:

34.(1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on security grounds for d ) being a danger to the security of Canada;

Obviously the word danger is open to interpretation. Our colleague from Surrey Central submits that it might be worthwhile to replace this wording with the following: d ) being a threat to the security of Canada—

Section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act provides a definition of threats to the security of Canada. Examples are provided, such as espionage or sabotage, foreign influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada, activities in support of acts of violence. These definitions are far more specific than the single word danger, which can lead to serious confusion.

I will close with a brief discussion of Motion No. 9 from my colleague the hon. member for Laval Centre. The purpose of her motion is to put an end to the interminable delays in processing new arrivals in Canada. As a result of these delays, the provinces often have to meet the costs of supporting people who are already on Canadian territory or, in the case of Quebec, on Quebec territory.

Hon. members must understand that all of us here in this House should support Motion No. 9, which will make it possible to reduce the long delays involved in examining people's status as immigrants to Canada.

[Supply, May 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, of course we are not stupid. Tax points have been a longstanding claim in Quebec. I will not reiterate all the statements made by my colleagues in the House. It is an historical issue.

The province of Quebec is asking for tax points for all kinds of historical reasons, and one in particular that Quebecers and people in other provinces will understand. It is because the quality of life is ensured by the provinces. Health care, education, everything we can think about, such as public safety, national safety, water, water treatment, garbage collection, all these services are provided by the provinces and their creatures, the municipalities.

There is a reason why the provinces are asking for their fair share, to assure the quality of life of the citizens of Quebec and Canada. To answer my colleague's question, there is a reason why, like his predecessors, the leader of the opposition in the Quebec national assembly is also asking the federal government to transfer to the provinces the tax points they deserve in order to meet their ever increasing expenses.

I repeat that in Quebec health care expenses will double by 2008. The same will happen in every other Canadian province. New technologies are extremely expensive. When the system was put in place the federal government paid 50% of the expenses and, today, it only pays 14%. This is the harsh reality of being part of a federal system.

I will answer the member for Markham that I believe he is becoming machiavellian with all the things he is dreaming up against Canadian unity. They are showing daily that Canada is less and less united. It is with reactions like the member for Markham's that people in Canada will understand that trying to bleed the provinces to death is not a solution, because they are the ones who are providing services ensuring the quality of life of their citizens.

[Supply, May 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. We all know that the last economic recession ended several years ago. We hope that there will not be another one. The last recession ended in 1987. Since then, the surpluses from the employment insurance fund have belonged to the workers of Quebec and Canada.

The EI fund has been an independent fund since 1996. Contributions are made directly by employers and employees. The federal government no longer makes any contribution. This is quite something, considering that out of the $19 billion in surpluses, my colleague estimates that $7.5 billion comes from the employment insurance fund.

Under the bill that was recently passed by the House to amend the Employment Insurance Act, the government will directly appropriate the $7.5 billion that belonged to the workers and employers of Quebec and Canada.

That money allows the government to boast, declare surpluses and profits and unilaterally decide to reduce the debt.

As regards employment insurance, the Bloc Quebecois has always held the same position in the House: let workers and employers discuss and decide what they will do with an insurance plan to which they contributed for their own benefit.

Let these people discuss the issue among themselves. As for the rest of the surpluses, let us give a chance to the provincial premiers, as my colleague suggested, to get together and discuss the future of the huge surpluses that my colleague estimated so accurately once again.

[Supply, May 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak to my colleague's motion. According to this motion, the government should call a federal-provincial first ministers' conference to discuss the federal government's surpluses and a possible transfer of tax points.

It was practically unbelievable to hear members, such as the Liberal member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, mention in the House that there were deficits and that is why the federal government must no longer transfer tax points to provinces, when we have surpluses coming out of our ears. The federal government has $19 billion in surpluses.

I am proud of my Bloc Quebecois colleague—duly recognized by the member for Markham—who, on this day last year, estimated to within 2% the surpluses forecast by the Minister of Finance. Again, my colleague is announcing that next year the federal surpluses will still be $19 billion. I tend to believe him more than any other member in the House. He was the only one, and I thank him, to tell all Quebecers and all Canadians about the financial situation of the federal government.

I consider most timely his motion that the government should call a federal-provincial first ministers' conference to discuss the federal surpluses of billions of dollars and a possible transfer of tax points to the provinces, which certainly need them, for a very simple reason. For all those Quebecers who are listening today, I say our quality of life is provided to us by the provinces and their various entities, including the municipalities. Here is what I mean by that.

Health is the main factor that contributes to a person's quality of life, and health services are provided by the provincial government. The same goes for education. We all want our young people to have a good education so they can succeed in life, and education is a provincial responsibility.

There is also public safety; we all want to feel safe. There is water quality, water treatment, household garbage collection and disposal, these are all services provided by municipalities, as well as transportation. These factors that contribute to the quality of life of all Quebecers and Canadians depend on services provided by the provinces and municipalities, their entities.

That quality of life has been severely compromised. Let us all remember the year 1992. That is when the federal government decided to make the most drastic cuts to transfers to provinces in Canadian history. In 1984, these transfers were at 23%; in 1993, they were at about 20%. They were cut by nine percentage points over six years before going back up slightly. Now, about 14% of Quebec spending comes from federal transfers. But let us not forget that when the health system was put in place, the federal government paid 50% of the cost. Now, it is down to just 14%.

It is important that we all remember the year 1992, the year when, perhaps to eliminate the accumulated deficit, the federal government decided to make drastic cuts in transfers to provinces. It is only fitting that we should be debating my colleague's motion today, at a time when the government will rake in, year in and year out, a $19 billion surplus. The Canadian government should convene the premiers to discuss the federal surpluses and to transfer tax points to improve the quality of life of Quebecers and Canadians.

We should never forget that by 2008 health spending will have doubled in Quebec, from $10 billion today to $20 billion.

Health and education will take up over 45% of the provincial budget. If that is true in Quebec, it will be the same in all Canadian provinces.

We should understand that since 1992, the federal government has withdrawn some of its support to try to erase its huge accumulated deficit. This withdrawal had a domino effect in the provinces.

Since 1992, they had to make cuts in health, education and transfers to municipalities. I am well aware of this because I was in municipal politics. Until last year, I was president of the Union des municipalités du Québec. Prior to 1992, none or very few of Quebec's municipalities submitted applications to the federal government. They always managed to reach agreement with the government of Quebec.

With the cuts in federal transfers to the provinces since 1992, a crisis has developed in Quebec involving the municipalities and the government of Quebec. In the past few months, without any reason, and even though the municipalities are the creatures of the government of Quebec, we have heard statements made by ministers outside the House and even in the House that consideration should be given to amending the Canadian constitution so that money may be transferred to the municipalities. This is rich.

The federal government is not even capable of transferring the proper amounts to the provincial governments in order to resolve education and health care problems, and it is prepared, for purely political reasons, to transfer funds and consider amending the constitution in order to transfer funds to municipalities to help them settle their problems. Prior to 1992, they had no problem, they could deal with provinces one on one.

Now, because of the cuts to transfers and because provinces have had to put most of the money they could get hold of into health and education, which are major expenses, over 45% of Quebec's budget and, because of the federal government's drastic cuts in transfers to the provinces, they barely manage to maintain the portion the federal government could send them. Some of the small increases are nothing more than what they were getting before in federal subsidies to keep up with the cost of spending in each of these sectors. But the federal government still maintains its share of approximately 14% of all spending on health care and education and other public services. The federal government pays only 13.9% of spending on all these services in the provinces.

As far as I know, we pay 50% of our taxes to the federal government. What does it do with our taxes? Simple. It is maintaining an old age security system that has hardly been indexed. The government has not even been able to index the old age security system to the cost of living. But it is keeping an army. In Saint-Jean, Quebec, they closed a military base. In Quebec, we have the army, but they are closing military bases.

With respect to airports, we have discussed in the past, here in the House, the developments at the Mirabel and Dorval airports in Quebec, the transfer of flights from Quebec to Toronto. This is a federal decision. This is what the federal government is doing with Quebecers' money.

I can talk about research and development, because I come from the Outaouais region. There are 50 research and development centres in eastern Ontario. Until last year, we had one on the Quebec side in the Outaouais; the government shut it down. This is what the federal government is doing with Quebecers' money. It has decided to spend money on economic development.

In conclusion, in the transportation area in the last two years, $10 million out of the whole budget was spent in Quebec. We are talking about road infrastructures, with an annual budget of $100 million. Only $10 million was spent in Quebec. Elsewhere in Canada, over 50% of the budget was spent in the maritime provinces to help Liberals win the last election.

These are always political decisions that go against Quebec's interests. I hope that Quebecers will have understood that since 1992 it is Canada, through the most drastic cuts in its history, that has hurt the most the health and education systems of Quebec.

[Supply, May 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to point out to my colleague from Markham that before the election he said, “Mr. Martin has erred in his forecasts for political reasons so that the surpluses turn out to be larger than planned”.

What does he have to say about that?

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, May 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, once again, when a taxpayer, an influent member of society and a member of the elite who knows and understands young people, both male and female, and young offenders in Quebec, is asking us to do that, we must listen to his comments.

Like him, we believe the federal government has an obligation to invest in youth rehabilitation instead of spending time and energy trying to change a law that is working very well in Quebec.

Of course, I cannot but agree with Mr. Lamarche and ask the federal government and the Liberal members from Quebec why we should not take this opportunity to make a little amendment in committee before the end of the session to allow Quebec to opt out of the application of this legislation and invest the moneys requested by the elite, those representing the people who work with young people in Quebec.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, May 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to point out to the hon. member that, according to Statistics Canada figures, community centres, as she says, which should look after young people, are represented by the Youth Justice Coalition.

This coalition opposed Bill C-7: the Conseil permanent de la jeunesse, the Centre communautaire juridique de Montréal, the Fondation québécoise pour les jeunes contrevenants, the Quebec Association of Police and Fire Chiefs, the Conférence des régies régionales de la santé et des services sociaux, the Crown Prosecutors' Office, the Child Welfare League of Canada, and the Association des avocats de la défense du Québec.

I will stop listing the organizations opposed to Bill C-7 who have said they support the Young Offenders Act as enforced in Quebec. I hope that this will satisfy the hon. member.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, May 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-7, an act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other acts.

This will be my last opportunity to speak to this bill. It is difficult to see how arrogantly the Liberal government in power is treating the citizens, youth, and adolescents of the province of Quebec.

For more than 16 years now, Quebec has been enforcing the Young Offenders Act, and the system has worked very well. It has worked so well that the Liberal government commissioned a study called “Canada's Youth Justice Renewal Strategy”, conducted by the officials responsible for drafting Bill C-7, which involved a province by province analysis. It was noted that Quebec's charge rate was the lowest in Canada.

Quebec's youth incarceration rate was also the lowest in Canada, at fewer than 500 per 100,000. Quebec is the only province under this threshold.

It was therefore not for nothing that last week, on May 23, all parties in the national assembly of Quebec, the Parti Quebecois, the Liberal Party and the Action Démocratique party passed a unanimous motion rejecting Bill C-7, which the House of Commons is getting ready to pass.

In this House, we are supposed to represent the elite, but in some areas, we are not the elite. When dealing with young offenders, the rehabilitation and reintegration of young persons in Quebec and in Canada, we are not the elite.

In Quebec, the elite is made up, among others, of members of the Quebec coalition for youth justice, representatives of the Association des policiers et pompiers du Québec, youth organizations and defence attorneys, all those who deal day in and day out with young persons. They are the experts in rehabilitation who, for sixteen years now, have made the Young Offenders Act successful in the interest both of the people in Quebec and in Canada who are watching us and of young offenders in need of rehabilitation. Their task is enormous but so useful to society.

It is always sad to realize that a young man or a young woman has committed a crime. Thanks to the comprehensive strategy concerning the reintegration of young offenders in the community developed by Quebec, the number of charges laid and offenders sentenced to custody is lower in Quebec than in the rest of Canada. So, the system in Quebec is working fine.

With Bill C-7, the federal government is again interfering with a system that works well in one province in Canada. Members of the House must understand that, if Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Atlantic Canada had a system that was working well, everyone would be inclined to defend the interests of that province.

Well, that is what is happening in Quebec. As a member of the Bloc Quebecois, it is hard for me to see that Liberal members from Quebec, who were elected in that province, do not understand that the approach used by Quebec over the last 16 years with regard to the Young Offenders Act is the best in Canada.

It is hard for me to understand that some of my colleagues in the House speak out against Quebec's interests, against an approach that has been recognized as being effective by all experts who deal with the rehabilitation of young offenders.

There are several reasons for committing a criminal offence. In the case of young teenagers, rehabilitation is the key to getting back on the right track. That is how Quebec treats young offenders, by going to the root of the problem and by trying to rehabilitate the young teenager, in his or her interest, before imposing a sentence.

That is why we have the best success rate in Canada. So it hard for me to see members and the Prime Minister, who is also a member from Quebec, take a stand yesterday, in this House, and say: “If the Quebec act is so good”. As far as I know, the Prime Minister of Canada is still a member from Quebec. He should know and he should have noticed.

Numbers were used in the Canadian renewal strategy by those who drafted Bill C-7. Those persons noticed, when they drafted tables that the situation in Quebec was the best in all Canada. I have copies of them that I could table in this House.

We can see that young people, young men and women who have committed criminal acts have a better chance of getting back on the right track in Quebec. Ideally we should never have to use such a bill. Young people should never have to appear before youth courts, but this is still a reality.

It happens not only in Quebec, but in every province in Canada. Too often, young men and young women commit crimes for any number of reasons. When we can understand young persons and their problems, it is not too late to set them back on the right track, which is what the Young Offenders Act is doing in Quebec. Once again, the justice minister told us that all provinces could adapt the bill to their own situation. We still have time before the end of the session to include an amendment that would allow any province to opt out of Bill C-7 and continue to enforce the legislation currently in force in its jurisdiction.

It would be so simple and much easier for community stakeholders. However no, look at how dumbfounded the members opposite seem to be. Even if they do not want to believe the Bloc Quebecois, the members from Quebec should at least take note of the motion unanimously passed last week, on May 23, by the national assembly of Quebec.

At the national assembly, members of the Parti Quebecois, the Liberal Party and the Action démocratique du Québec unanimously agreed to urge the federal government not to pass Bill C-7 or at least not to implement it in Quebec. Once again, in Quebec we have our own way of doing things, our own approach. It is a societal choice.

Each province has the right to have its own vision for the future. It has the right to make societal choices. Quebec made a choice for its teenagers. It chose to take charge of them, to trust the professionals, who tried to bring the young offenders back on the right track, whatever their sentences were.

It is never too late to understand. That is exactly what I hope my Liberal colleagues from Quebec, the Prime Minister, who is from Quebec, and many of his ministers will do. Once again, they are trying to make Quebecers believe they are wrong. I repeat that all of us here do not form the elite who can best judge what is good for our youth.

Let the specialists in the field decide. Leave it up to those who deal with the difficult cases of teenagers and treat them individually depending on their crimes. Quebec has a success rate that all other provinces envy. When we get to the vote, let us try to make the intelligent choice. Let us vote in the interest of Quebecers. I hope my colleagues opposite will understand that.

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, May 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie.

There is nothing better than real striking examples to show those watching, and those in Quebec in particular, under what conditions this legislation is being received.

It is not for nothing that in 1992 the government of Robert Bourassa decided, with the unanimous support of the national assembly, to oppose any federal intrusion in provincial jurisdictions.

Here in the Outaouais region we have and still are witnessing the construction in the city of Hull of a highway called axe McConnell-Laramée. Concerning this construction project, which has been announced and will of course be carried out under a federal-provincial cost sharing agreement, I would like to ask my colleague to explain what could be the cause of the delay following that announcement. The Quebec transport minister had already asked his federal counterpart to co-ordinate his environmental intervention with that of the province of Quebec.

My question to my colleague for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie is this: What would be the impact of this bill on the McConnell-Laramée project in the Outaouais region?