Thierry St-Cyr

[Canada Elections Act, February 12th, 2008]

I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I am a little out of breath, because I had to run back to my place.

I will finally have a chance to speak on the bill before us, contrary to what I had been told. I welcome this opportunity. Needless to say that the Bloc Québécois supports this bill.

With respect to Bill C-29, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (accountability with respect to loans), we believe in the continued importance of measures to ensure that the rule whereby a cap is applied to contributions by individuals is not circumvented through the use of loans.

We do not agree, however, with all the motions to amend the bill which was approved at committee.

The first of these motions aims to return the text to its original form. Contributions to a leadership campaign would be limited to a total of $1,000 for each leadership candidate, although in committee, it was amended to make it $1,000 per year. We do not agree with that amendment. Everywhere else in the legislation, the principle of contributions is based on calendar years. We believe that if a different criterion is established, that could cause confusion, and there is no particular reason why an individual should not be allowed to contribute to the same campaign in the course of two separate calendar years.

The second motion adjusts the dates from which one would calculate the three year timeframe allowed to pay back a debt, failing which it will be considered a contribution. That is changing. For instance, in a nomination race, a candidate for party leadership would have three years from the end of the race, rather than from voting day, and the party would have three years from the end of the fiscal year in which the loan was made, rather than from the day that the amount is due. These are minor amendments proposed by the motion, which was passed in committee. We think they are acceptable.

Motion No. 3 is the one we most strongly oppose. The government wants to reject an amendment put forward by the Bloc Québécois that aimed to make the political parties responsible for the debts incurred by their candidates. Of course, we find it completely ridiculous that third parties can be saddled with a loan of which they have no knowledge and which they never guaranteed.

I will explain the implications of this government motion. For example, a candidate runs for a party and incurs a debt of $60,000 with his bank to finance his election campaign. The candidate loses the election. He might have won, but let us assume—it is more plausible—that he was defeated. After three years, if he has not yet repaid his debt to the bank, the party will have to repay it. I do not understand where this completely new principle comes from that would allow a debt to be transferred to a third party that has nothing to do with the transaction.

It is like going to my banker to take out a loan and telling him that my neighbour is my guarantor. My neighbour is not aware of this and has no way of knowing, but he is my guarantor. I tell my banker that if I do not repay him, he can go and ask my neighbour to repay him. That is absolutely absurd.

We hope this motion will be rejected because it will do nothing to clean up politics. On the contrary, it will take away that responsibility from candidates who stand for election.

However, we are in favour of the overall bill. We believe that we must prevent the law from being circumvented because candidates in a leadership race or an election could obtain financing through loans that might never be repaid.

Several candidates in the Liberal Party leadership race obtained large loans from individuals and financial institutions. For example, Bob Rae borrowed $700,000, $580,000 at 5% interest from the former Vice-president of Power Corporation, John Rae, and $125,000 from himself.

According to the Ottawa Citizen of May 9, 2007, the current Leader of the Opposition borrowed $650,000: $150,000 from Mamdouh Stephanos, $100,000 from Marc de la Bruyère, $50,000 from Stephen Bronfman, $50,000 from Roderick Bryden, and $25,000 from Christopher Hoffmann.

If there is no provision to ensure the repayment of these loans and if they are never repaid, they end up being disguised contributions. We must prevent this situation.

The Conservative government is not really in a position to be talking about ethics. Its ethics and transparency track record has not been very impressive, and this has been clear since the Prime Minister's leadership campaign. We still do not have a complete list of donors to his fundraising campaign. But beyond the funding of recent campaigns, we see that during the last election campaign, some 60, maybe even 70, Conservative members broke the Elections Canada rules, and there is now a case before the courts.

Of these 60 or so members, several were from Quebec, including some ministers. It is a bit surprising to see a party that claims to set an example in ethics and transparency engaged in a legal dispute with Elections Canada.

This government is obviously being influenced. A former lobbyist was appointed defence minister in the first cabinet. The minister has since been transferred to the Canada Revenue Agency. Communications director and lobbyist Sandra Buckler was also caught in a very questionable situation. Contracts have been awarded to political friends. And recently, this week and last week, there was talk in the House about a contract awarded by the Minister of Finance, at a high price, just for writing a speech that was somewhat questionable in form and in substance. Funds have been used for partisan purposes and appointments.

Since I do not have much time left, I will give a list of Conservative cronies who were appointed by the government: on April 12, 2006, Jim Gouk, a former Conservative member, was appointed to the board of directors of NAV Canada; on April 21, 2006, Gwyn Morgan, a Conservative fundraiser, was appointed chair of the new Public Appointments Commission; on July 27, 2006, Kevin Gaudet, a Conservative organizer who worked for the Prime Minister's leadership campaign, in 2004, was appointed to the Canada Pension Plan Review Tribunal; Brian Richard Bell, a Conservative organizer in New Brunswick, was appointed to the Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick; on September 18, 2006, Jacques Léger, a former interim president of the Progressive Conservative Party, was given a judgeship in the Superior Court of Quebec for the district of Montreal; on October 31, 2006, Raminder Gill, a former Conservative candidate who was defeated in Mississauga—Streetsville to make room for floor crosser Wajid Khan, was appointed as a citizenship judge; on November 1, 2006, Howard Bruce, a Conservative candidate for Portneuf in 2004 and 2006, was appointed to the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada; on January 25, 2007, Loyola Sullivan, co-president of the Prime Minister's leadership bid, was named Canada's ambassador for fisheries conservation.

Unfortunately, I do not have enough time to finish the list. I would have needed a good half an hour.

[Senate Appointment Consultations Act, February 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I too listened intently to the speech by my colleague from Verchères—Les Patriotes. It was well documented and well researched, which proves that one does not have to be a senator to do extensive research.

The Conservatives, who want to keep the Senate, claim that the role of senators is to represent the provinces and the regions. As far as I know, we are all here to represent a riding. Our role is to represent the people from our riding and to defend any consensus within our riding and our province, be it Quebec or another province.

But certain members in this House—and I am thinking of the 10 Conservative members from Quebec—do not defend the issues on which there is consensus in Quebec, including with regard to the bill before us. In a unanimous motion, the National Assembly, the only parliament that can really claim to be representing Quebeckers, has asked that this bill not be supported and be withdrawn immediately. These 10 Conservative members were elected to this place but they do not represent Quebec. They refuse to respect that motion. Why would elected senators represent Quebec any more than these 10 members who put the party line ahead of Quebec's best interest?

[Senate Appointment Consultations Act, February 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. It is interesting to note the reference to the American model, where elected senators represent the regions. It is not surprising that the Conservatives look to the American model, where senators are more influential than the governors of the various states.

The fact that an elected official comes from a province does not guarantee that he will defend the interests of that province. We see that with Quebec's Conservative members, who are preparing to vote for this bill contrary to the unanimous motion of the National Assembly—the only parliament to represent Quebeckers—stating that this bill must be withdrawn and that this issue must not be pursued. Ten elected Quebec Conservatives will vote in favour of this measure.

Since the elected Quebec Conservatives do not represent Quebeckers, why do we believe that elected senators would be any better?

[Prebudget Consultations, February 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague, who pointed out that the NDP now has a presence throughout Canada, which became the case when he was elected. There is even an NDP member of Parliament in Quebec now.

The Bloc Québécois, however, has the advantage of always systematically representing Quebec when it comes to economic issues like those that have arisen in the House. For example, there was a vote on a Bloc Québécois motion proposing that a percentage of the military contracts awarded to Boeing should correspond to the relative size of Quebec's aerospace industry. In other words, over half of the contracts should be awarded exclusively to Quebec, as befits Quebec's presence in the industry.

At the time, the NDP voted against Quebec. That was a unanimous request, and it had the support of the National Assembly, but the NDP sided with the government on that motion. At the time, the member had not yet been elected to the House. If a vote like that were to come up again and there was a conflict between his party's interests and Quebec's interests, would he vote against his party or against Quebec?

[Prebudget Consultations, February 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the last two speeches by my former colleagues from when I was a member of the Standing Committee on Finance. I do not approve of most of what was said. The only thing I completely agree with in these last two speeches, was the bit about “blah, blah, blah”. That pretty much sums up what was said.

There is a lot of talk of tax cuts as a way to get our economy moving and to help out the manufacturing and forestry industries, which are experiencing difficulties. As the member who just spoke knows very well, companies that are experiencing difficulties do not pay taxes, so tax cuts do nothing to help them get through the crisis.

Similarly, the $1 billion aid plan announced by the government will help communities find other jobs, but will not help save existing jobs. Moreover, this aid plan does not target the problem areas. Quebec and Ontario are the hardest hit, but the aid will be allocated on a per capita basis, so more will be handed out in Alberta, which is not experiencing a manufacturing crisis.

I would like my colleague to take a look at the past. During the mad cow crisis, aid went primarily to beef-producing provinces. It made sense, at the time, to send aid money to the provinces where the mad cow crisis was causing difficulties. If he sees nothing wrong with that, would he not agree, then, that this is the same thing and that the aid should essentially be given to the provinces hurt by the manufacturing crisis?

[Post-secondary Education, February 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the government cannot plead ignorance given that the Bloc Québécois unveiled its proposals for the use of the 2007-08 surplus on November 28 and, more recently, its 2008-09 budget requests on January 24. In terms of eliminating the fiscal imbalance, we asked for, among other things, a $3.5 billion allocation to post-secondary education to restore these transfers to 1994-95 levels.

Now that the minister is aware of our requests, does he intend to include them in his budget?

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, February 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, crime is rooted in well-known societal problems: poverty, the difficulties experienced by youth in taking their place in society, and violence that is passed down through generations. Therefore, this House must attack these problems as well as those of poverty and violence. This House must not waste its time studying this bill, which gives the illusion of security but which focuses on repression and is hypocritical. The NDP should not support it. We must deal with the real issues right away.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, February 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the House on the subject of Bill C-25, which we are debating today.

The Bloc Québécois is totally opposed to this legislation which, once again, is on the wrong track, because it is focusing on repression rather than prevention and rehabilitation. In this regard, it is sad to see a party such as the NDP, which claims to be progressive and which presents itself as such, support the government when it is pushing the Canadian justice system along the path taken by George Bush in the United States.

When I was preparing my presentation, I entitled it “Illusion and Hypocrisy”, because this is what the bill is about. On the one hand, it creates the illusion of increased safety, the illusion that this legislation will solve problems when it is obviously not the case—as can be shown by the statistics. On the other hand, it is also tainted with hypocrisy, because while this government pretends to target crime, it facilitates the use of all kinds of firearms. One wonders about the logic of imposing harsher sentences for the crime, while allowing a larger number of firearms to circulate. It is hard to see any consistency here. My presentation is going to deal with these two issues.

I begin with the illusion aspect. This government, with the support of the NDP, is presenting a whole philosophy based on repression. Under this approach, sentences will be increasingly stiffer and harsher to help reduce crime. However, that will not work.

Why? Because if we put ourselves in the shoes of a criminal, potential criminal or young offender, we realize that the fear of getting caught is a much more effective deterrent than the length of the sentence. Most criminals commit crimes because they are convinced that they will not get caught. If they thought that they were going to get caught, they would try to find other crimes they think they would get away with. That is true for murders, rapes, robberies and any other crime. A criminal never calls the police before committing his crime. He does his deed because he is sure that he will get away with it. He has confidence in himself.

If we want to make a real effort to reduce crime, we must focus our effort on the means at our disposal to catch criminals. They need to know that they will be caught. Of course, that requires money. It is more difficult and demanding than simply passing legislation, but it is a lot more effective.

The perfect example of the principle of deterrence is capital punishment. In the United States, several states use capital punishment. Everyone will agree that it is the ultimate punishment. One cannot imagine a harsher sentence than capital punishment. And yet, in the United States and in several other countries that use capital punishment, the results are unconvincing. Crime rates in the United States are three times higher than in Canada and four times higher than in Quebec. Following the same logic, we would have to find something even more horrible than capital punishment to deter people from committing crimes. Obviously this does not work because this is not what motivates people.

The Quebec model proves that the present government's repressive approach, supported by the NDP, is not the right way to go for Quebec and probably not for Canada either. In Quebec, measures focused on prevention and rehabilitation are yielding results. Indeed, Quebec has better statistics than the rest of Canada for all crime indicators. There is no denying it, the figures speak for themselves.

And we must not forget, particularly in the case of young offenders, that it is all well and good to send them to prison, but is that not the best crime school?

Consider, for example, a young offender who, early on in life, takes a wrong turn and commits minor offences. To send that person to prison with serious offenders, real criminals—is that not the best way to ensure that he or she becomes a hardened criminal? There is something illogical and ineffective about this approach. It would be a much better idea to keep him or her away from criminals doing time in prisons and find ways to encourage rehabilitation.

This bill creates an illusion and will produce no concrete results in terms of reducing crime. Furthermore, this bill is very hypocritical. While this government, supported by the NDP, introduces bills in this House to give the illusion that it is resolving the problem, it is diminishing the gun registry. Since the beginning, it has been trying to weaken the registry to make it less and less effective, less and less relevant. This government pretends to be tough on crime, yet it allows weapons to circulate indiscriminately and would eliminate an extremely useful tool for the police.

Obviously, the gun registry is not perfect. It does not prevent all crimes, but it can help prevent some crimes, as we have seen. It can also help the police when it comes time to go to the scene of a tragedy or hostage taking. It can tell them if there is a weapon on the premises where such an incident is taking place.

Of course, some people plan their crimes, committing premeditated murder, for example. Clearly, those people would not register their weapons before committing such crimes. However, there is another category of murders, those that are more passionate, impulsive, less calculated. In such cases, those people might use guns they have in their homes to commit those crimes. Thus, it would be useful for the police to know what weapons are on the scene.

The registry is relevant. All police forces and stakeholders in Quebec want it to be maintained. Yet, the government is doing everything it can to weaken it.

Recently, we had another example of this government's hypocrisy in a related matter, firearms marking. Regulations to this effect are to be implemented enabling the police to trace the owners of firearms left at the scene of a crime. There is consensus on these regulations. It is something that all police forces are asking for. Yet the government has again delayed implementation of these regulations. It makes you wonder who this government is defending by delaying the implementation of the firearms marking policy.

While nothing is being done to truly prevent crime, they are creating the illusion of attacking the problem by developing an increasingly repressive system. It is not surprising to see the Conservatives, the allies of the United States and of George Bush in particular, adopting this repressive approach. However, it is surprising that the NDP, which claims to be a progressive party, has allied itself with the government and its ways of repression. I am quite disappointed. I hope that the NDP members will come to their senses and that this House will defeat this bill, which is nothing but illusion and hypocrisy.

[Criminal Code, January 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, there is no doubt that seniors, among others, are often the victims of fraud involving the use of credit cards. This type of situation is rather frequent. I have heard about such cases in my riding office.

About a year and a half ago, I bought a house in my constituency. During the open house visits, I often discussed this issue with other future voters. Mortgage fraud is also a major concern for many people. The idea that one can own a house and not know that someone else may have taken a mortgage on that house, withdrawn the money and vanished, leaving the actual owner forced to repay that mortgage or else lose his house, scared a lot of people—

[Criminal Code, January 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question, which dovetails very nicely with my speech.

In fact, she asked two questions, the first of which concerns credit. The world is changing, society is evolving and events can change our lives dramatically. There was a time when, if you needed credit, you could go see the manager of your bank—or your caisse populaire in Quebec—who knew you personally because he knew everyone in the area, the city or the town where he lived. He knew you were solvent and reliable and he would lend you money. That is how things worked.

Obviously, things do not work like that any more. How easily you get credit depends essentially, even solely, on your credit rating, which is available from credit agencies. In addition to the obvious and striking short-term financial losses it causes, identity theft also hurts your credit rating. A damaged credit rating could continue to haunt you even if restitution is made or you are compensated for the offence committed against you.

For example, when someone sends in a false credit card application in your name, uses the card to make purchases and then disappears, the credit card company will call you one day to say you owe a certain amount of money. If you manage to prove you never applied for that credit card and you were the victim of identity theft, even if the credit card company does not require that you pay the money that was stolen fraudulently, you will have a blot on your credit record and will have to deal with that problem when you apply for credit cards in the future.

In fact, Canada does not have the best mechanisms for correcting your credit rating. My colleague is quite right. The United States has introduced provisions that make it extremely easy to correct your credit rating if you have been a victim of identity theft. One of these measures enables people to ask for and obtain their credit record free of charge. In many cases in Canada, you cannot even get your credit record from a credit agency free of charge. People have to spend money to find out whether or not they have a blot on their credit record because of a fraudulent transaction.

As for my colleague's second question on evidentiary rules, I am happy that she asked, since I did not have the chance to talk about this in my speech.

Obviously the Criminal Code imposes stiff penalties, but the evidentiary rules are very challenging. This is a good thing, of course, because when an accused is facing a very serious penalty, we must be confident and ensure that he is convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. That said, in cases where small amounts are at stake and the parties are essentially individuals, it can be very difficult for citizens to fight for their rights and invoke the Criminal Code.

We will have to work with the provinces to ensure that civil regulations are also amended. It would then be easier for a citizen to win their case. In Quebec, for example, a simple trip to small-claims court could resolve an issue. Now, the case must go before a federal court or another appropriate court so a judgment can be rendered in accordance with the Criminal Code.

This is worth pointing out, because I did not really dwell on it. The Bloc Québécois always defends provincial jurisdictions and believes that it is up to the provinces to pass legislation on this issue. However, it is interesting to note that the government is wrong in thinking that this simple bill will sort matters out.

The government is trying to give the public a false sense of security. It is another tool to get things done, but it is not enough. We must continue to work on fighting this scourge.