Robert Lanctôt

[Government Contracts, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Renaud's defence is that he was used as a kind of front, that he was merely a cog in the wheel in an affair that culminated in a $63,000 donation to the Liberal Party of Canada slush fund.

Who in the government ordered a $63,000 kickback to the Liberal Party of Canada as a result of the awarding of a contract to Groupe Everest without any bidding process?

[Government Contracts, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, someone in the government would appear to have ordered a financial contribution in excess of $63,000 to the Liberal Party of Canada slush fund, according to Mr. Renaud, who says he was involved unwittingly in a system put in place to take advantage of the advertising and sponsorship program. The government does not have the right to hide behind an RCMP investigation that will just disappear, as was the case with the Human Resources Development Canada scandal.

Given the serious nature of these allegations, I am asking the minister the identity of these important people Mr. Renaud refers to.

[Government Contracts, May 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this is why we are calling for a public inquiry.

How is it that federal officials were able to negotiate the details of a subcontract for promotional materials with the company belonging to Mr. Renaud's brother on April 16, 1999, when the main contract was not authorized until May 3, 1999, some 18 days later?

[Government Contracts, May 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, a small Montreal company located in a residential basement and headed by Mr. Renaud donated $63,000 to the Liberal Party of Canada, which puts the company at number seven of the top ten contributors to the Liberals.

How can the Prime Minister justify the fact that another small company located in the same building as the first and headed by Mr. Renaud's brother just so happened, a few months later, to end up with a $390,000 contract with the federal government through Groupe Everest, without there being any call for tenders at any step in the contracting process?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, May 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, as you see, all things come to those who wait. I am pleased to speak today, albeit a little later than I expected, to share my opinion on Bill C-28, on implementation of certain provisions in the budget.

I could summarize my speech by saying that the federal government has a lot of money at its disposal, compared to what it needs. That is shocking, but also and particularly, unacceptable. Financially, the federal government has a lot of room to maneuver; $18.2 billion over two years, according to the present Minister of Finance, and $25.8 billion over two years, according to our calculations.

What is more, despite the fact that there is an 11% rise in expenditures, which is enormous, the Bloc Quebecois is of the opinion that the federal Liberal government is going to have a surplus of $14.7 over the next two years. This clearly illustrates the extent of the fiscal imbalance and clearly points to what I have already said in my summary.

I could also summarize what I have to say as this: the federal government is responding more to the needs of a Prime Minister in waiting than to the true needs of the public. It is doing nothing to correct fiscal imbalance, nothing to help the victims of the softwood lumber crisis, nothing to put an end to the pillaging of the EI fund.

The regions, which are dependent on the softwood lumber industry, the self-employed workers, whose existence is not recognized by the federal government, the aboriginal people, the unemployed, the workers paying EI premiums, are all part of the great forgotten as far as this budget is concerned. Middle-income taxpayers are totally forgotten as well.

Unions and employers are frustrated by the diversion of the EI fund, and are demanding an independent fund to stop the federal government from pillaging it, as well as for the contribution rate to be set by the contributors. This, of course, is what the Bloc Quebecois has been demanding for years now. We had even hoped that the federal government would create a stand-alone fund before the former finance minster becomes the future Prime Minister.

In addition to failing to create a stand-alone employment insurance fund, the budget announced a delay of nearly two years in the implementation of a new mechanism for calculating premium rates. However, employment insurance could generate a $3 billion surplus over the next fiscal year, according to our estimates, while the current Minister of Finance is promising, in the future, to strike a balance between employment insurance premiums and program expenditures. What a balance: $3 billion.

With regard to infrastructure projects, we had asked that the appropriate funds be released so essential projects could get underway in Quebec. We had asked for substantial long-term commitments. However the increase in infrastructure expenditures is insufficient, and the government is delaying in allocating the needed funds. I will repeat here that the federal budget meets the needs of an outgoing Prime Minister and a future Prime Minister better than the real needs of the people.

The budget provides for additional investments of $3 billion over 10 years. These investments have resulted in an additional $2 billion for the strategic infrastructure fund. This fund is increasing from $2 billion to $4 billion. Although we demanded massive investments in infrastructure, only $100 million, of the additional $3 billion announced in this budget, has been allocated in fiscal 2003-04. This nowhere near meets the needs.

This amount is clearly inadequate, given all the needs. We might have expected, at the very least, that a fair part of this investment, or $300 million, would be allocated in fiscal 2004-05. However, after the next two fiscal years, only $250 million of the $3 billion will be provided. This is disappointing, but I said this at the beginning of my speech: the federal government has a lot of money at its disposal, compared to what it needs. The simple conclusion is, therefore, that the federal Liberal government is not taking infrastructure needs seriously.

We have indicated that the Government of Quebec must remain in charge of the projects and allocating funds. However, the budget indicates the projects related to climate change will be eligible for funding through these infrastructure initiatives. Yet, it is very clear from the funding criteria for the Canadian strategic infrastructure fund that it is the Government of Quebec or the provincial and territorial governments that are responsible. Let us hope that the fund, bolstered by an additional $2 billion, will continue to operate in this way.

Another disturbing fact is that the budget mentions that $1 billion will go to municipal infrastructure. It is important to note that the federal government cannot provide money directly to municipalities. The Government of Canada must keep in mind that it must deal with the Government of Quebec, and not municipalities. Obviously, in counting on this $1 billion, Quebec will be able to better plan and coordinate spending on its own.

Even the Coalition pour le renouvellement des infrastructures du Québec was disappointed by this budget. According to the coalition:

It is unfortunate to note that, despite the intentions laid out in the Speech from the Throne, the priority given to repairing our infrastructure for roads, sewers and water is dangerously low. What is the point of investing in health if we are going to have less and less confidence in the drinking water infrastructure and roads? We are putting off repairs to basic infrastructure and what is worse, we are compromising quality of life for citizens and competitivity for business.

It is also important to mention the reaction from the office of the mayor of Montreal and the executive committee of the City of Montreal, which feel that the 2003 budget brought down by the government is disappointing. The chair of the executive committee said that the Liberal federal government's proposal was clearly insufficient, considering the needs of the City of Montreal to renew its infrastructure. The same is true for all municipalities in Quebec.

Once again, I submit that the federal government has a lot of money at its disposal, compared ito its needs. The Bloc Quebecois is not the only one to say so, it is being said by many stakeholders every day.

Another cause for concern is that there is no mention in the budget of any form of assistance for self-employed workers. From day one, they have been the forgotten ones in connection with the EI fund, since they are uninsurable under the act. Yet self-employed workers account for 16% of the active labour force. The Liberal federal government should have taken advantage of this budget to establish a framework to extend the application of the EI system, with respect to both regular and special benefits, to self-employed workers. Once again, this clearly shows that the objectives of this budget do not reflect the needs of the people of Quebec and Canada.

We must not forget the latest health negotiations. An agreement was reached whereby $800 million was transferred to Quebec. After this amount was reinvested by the previous PQ government, the media, hospitals, and the health care community in general, are already reporting noticeable improvement with this $800 million received. This amount is only about half the $2 billion originally requested. Now imagine what could have been done with $2 billion, as confirmed by the report on health care; it would not be so difficult to make ends meet and Quebeckers and Canadians would have the kind of health care system they need.

It is wrong to blame the problem on a government, be it in Quebec or elsewhere.

There are huge surpluses which contribute to the fiscal imbalance. All the provinces in Canada agree on this, starting with Quebec, which is spearheading the demonstration that a fiscal imbalance exists, and all the provinces agree with the Séguin report. Moreover, every opposition party in this House also agrees.

In addition, I am convinced that many on the government side are aware of the existence of a fiscal imbalance. But we know how it is: the executive claims that there is no such thing, and everyone remains silent. These were my comments.

[Canadian Firearms Control Program, May 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the motion put forward by the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert states, and I quote:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately suspend application of the Canadian Firearms Programme in order to hold a public inquiry into the reasons for the Programme's extraordinary cost overruns, and to submit a structured and detailed strategic plan that would have to be approved in advance by this House.

I rise today as the Bloc Quebecois critic on issues relating to the Solicitor General, to inform hon. members of the position of the Bloc Quebecois on the motion put forward by the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.

I have been following with great interest the development of firearms program for quite a while, in my capacity as the Bloc Quebecois critic for justice. First, I wish to point out that we oppose the motion as it stands. I could eventually receive our support. I will discuss later the amendment I would like to propose.

We oppose the motion, as it stands, despite the fact that we do believe light has to be shed on the mismanagement of the firearms program.

We want to make it clear that we still believe in the program. It is essential, and we support its implementation. Like the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, we feel the need for an independent public inquiry to shed light on what happened during the implementation of this program that resulted in a financial fiasco. However, this program must not be suspended for any reason.

While the Bloc Quebecois supports the program, we find it regrettable that those in charge of the program did such a sloppy job implementing it, with disastrous results. We must admit that this program is a managerial disaster.

The Minister of Justice recently tabled reports designed to determine the financial integrity of the program and to improve its poor management. At the time of their tabling, we expressed skepticism about the relevance of these reports.

We were skeptical, and disappointed with how long it took to release them. Since then, we have naturally become distrustful of any explanation provided by a minister on anything having to do with the so-called transparency of this centralizing government. How are we be expected to believe any explanation regarding this government's incompetence? Let me just cite the sponsorships scandal, which opened our eyes about the reliability of ministers' explanations.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, the Bloc Quebecois disagrees with the current wording of the motion, because it asks that the program be suspended. This would undo completely all that has been done so far by Quebeckers under this program, and this would be very unfortunate.

I think that it is important to preserve all the work done by Quebec experts. I am thinking specifically about the expert work done by the officers and members of the Sûreté du Québec. It is important to mention that this work is recognized by all stakeholders in this issue, including the Liberal federal government. So we would be in favour of the motion, of course with an amendment that would not specify suspension, but that would call for a public inquiry. It would be very good if the wording of the motion were amended accordingly.

The Bloc Quebecois has always supported the principle behind the firearms program and we will continue to do so. However, we also believe that we must know the full details of the reasons that have led to this intrusion into the management of the program.

Consequently, we cannot support the request that the firearms program be suspended, because we do not know how long such an inquiry might last, which may well jeopardize the program.

As I said earlier, we believe that this program must continue. It must certainly be reviewed, corrected and studied, but it must absolutely not be abolished or even suspended.

Consequently, we would be in favour of an independent public inquiry that would allow us to get to the bottom of what led to these uncontrollable cost overruns, provided of course that the program continues during this inquiry.

It is a concern to see that this problem was only discovered because of the insistence of opposition members. It is also a concern to realize that it would appear that the government was not aware of the disastrous situation. How could this be? It is also a concern to realize that if it were aware of it, it waited that long to inquire into the problem. I find it inconceivable that no one at the Department of Justice saw fit to deal with the crisis before it got out of control. However, this is exactly what happened. We cannot accept it.

This is a blatant example of the laissez-faire attitude of the federal government , which preferred to take advantage of its position of power, free from any public oversight, and, what is more, free from any parliamentary oversight. Once more, elected representatives were kept in the dark, and this too is unacceptable.

All this is very indicative of the attitude of the federal government toward the public. It would appear that public interest is no longer at the heart of its policies, something the Bloc Quebecois has been criticizing for quite a long time.

It is becoming increasingly obvious that the government is losing touch with the public to whom it is accountable by preventing parliamentarians from properly playing their role of elected representatives. True, this program is worthwhile and necessary, and must be maintained. However, we are being kept in the dark as to its implementation and this is why we believe it is time to an independent public inquiry were held, without shutting the program down.

Yes, the thrust of the program is good, and this is why the Bloc Quebecois is also asking that it be implemented provided of course that we get to the bottom of this fiasco. It is high time to put an end to the unacceptable behaviour of the federal government, which is delighted with the inept and flawed management of such an important and necessary program.

I find it very sad that the legitimacy of this program is threatened by such systemic mismanagement. In spite of what the minister said in trying to justify this financial fiasco, this program is necessary. We must get to the bottom of this administrative mess in order to deal with the root causes of this inept management.

The Bloc Quebecois emphasizes that this government needs to assume responsibility and speak out against those responsible for this administrative fiasco so that the necessary sanctions may be applied. The time for keeping silent is past. Our role as parliamentarians is to represent our fellow citizens and to take action.

The public has had enough of secrecy. The public has had enough of feeble excuses from this government for its mistakes. The time has come to do something. It is time to have a clear explanation of what happened in this administrative and financial disaster.

Parliamentarians are entitled to ask any and all questions of this central government in order to find out all the details about how this useful and necessary program turned into a questionable undertaking.

As I have said, we are opposed to any suspension, regardless of duration. We might be able to support an independent public inquiry if that could help cast some light on what lies behind the financial disaster of the Firearms Control Program, provided this does not affect its continuation.

We are therefore opposed to the motion as it is now worded, and as I have said, I will be proposing an amendment immediately after I speak. As it stands, this would endanger the very existence of the program, and its purpose of protecting the public.

Firearms control is surrounded by numerous myths, it is true, but concealing the details surrounding the financial fiasco will only create some real concerns about the federal government's credibility, concerns that are wholly justified.

In closing, I move:

That the motion be amendedby deleting the word “suspend” and substituting the following:“study the”.

[International Transfer of Offenders Act, April 29th, 2003]

I was well aware of that, Mr. Speaker, but it was disrespectful to us.

Now, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-33, An Act to implement treaties and administrative arrangements on the international transfer of persons found guilty of criminal offences. I am pleased to speak as the Bloc Quebecois critic on matters relating to the solicitor general.

We are in favour of this bill—in principle, and I emphasize “in principle”. The aim of the bill is to establish procedures for transferring offenders to Canadian correctional institutions for humanitarian purposes, and we agree with this.

Nevertheless, we have reservations when it comes to implementing the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Despite the recent opinions of the Quebec Court of Appeal in this matter, the federal government has decided to sentence young people of 14 and 15 as adults. I will take a closer look at this a little later in my speech.

Naturally, we are in favour of bringing criminal offenders back here, when one considers the prison conditions in some parts of this planet. These transfers, therefore, should take place in a spirit of close cooperation among the countries signatory to the treaties and administrative agreements. These transfers take place within a specific and comprehensive administrative framework. The guidelines for implementation are specified in the present bill.

A standard agreement would be set up, with a quick, simple administrative framework for transferring persons found guilty of criminal offences in a foreign country. The same would be true for foreign nationals in Canada.

The aim of the bill is to facilitate the transfer of foreign offenders to their country of origin, and Canadians imprisoned abroad back to Canada, in a quick and simple way.

Modern means of communication and transportation clearly make it easier to set up an efficient administrative framework in order to achieve the humanitarian objectives of this bill. As access to means of communication and transportation become easier, crime also becomes more international and that is why we must find transborder methods to meet these specific needs.

Increasingly, criminal policy refers to social reintegration as the key factor in offence resolution, and that is why it is increasingly necessary and essential to transfer offenders to achieve this goal.

There are also humanitarian considerations when transferring an offender. So, the parties will take into account communication difficulties resulting from linguistic barriers, alienation from culture and local customs and the lack of family contact. All these factors have a negative effect on offenders with regard to their sentence.

We can, therefore, conclude that repatriating offenders holds a certain interest for both offenders and the government, as well as for society.

Respect for the sovereign rights of states must take precedence. That is why the consent of the parties is required under the bill. Convicted offenders must also consent to being transferred. Bill C-33 is therefore solely a procedural instrument. Furthermore, much of the bill deals with the congruency of sentences handed down abroad and those handed down in Canada. The Council of Europe adopted its Convention on the Transfer of Convicted Persons, in 1983, in Strasbourg.

There are various parallels between the Council of Europe's convention and the bill before us. First, there is the need for states to collaborate and, second, the need to ensure the social reintegration of offenders. I should add that the convention fully respects the national laws of each member state.

In fact, article 13 of the convention states that the sentencing state alone shall have the right to decide on any application for review of the judgment.

Earlier I mentioned that the Bloc Quebecois has some concerns about certain provisions of the bill. I am thinking of clause 18, which stipulates:

A Canadian offender is deemed to be serving an adult sentence within the meaning of the Youth Criminal Justice Act if

(a) the Canadian offender was, at the time the offence was committed, from 14 to 17 years old; and

(b) their sentence is longer than the maximum youth sentence that could have been imposed under that Act for an equivalent offence.

We do not support this provision. We believe that the chances are high that 14- and 15-year old adolescents are serving sentences that are far too heavy.

I mentioned that the Court of Appeal of Quebec gave its opinion in the case of the Government of Quebec's order regarding the reference concerning Bill C-7 on the youth criminal justice system. According to Quebec's Attorney General, the breaches of freedom and psychological welfare that result from criminal charges against a minor are exacerbated by the system that presumes subjecting youth to adult sentencing.

This procedure violates that presumption of innocence, guaranteed under paragraph 11( d ) of the Charter and recognized by the Supreme Court as a fundamental principle that is protected by section 7.

Paragraph 11( d ) of the Charter establishes the right:

to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.

Quebec's Attorney General also argued that the procedures involved would be similar to those used in declaring someone a dangerous offender, in that they cause similar harm.

The Youth Criminal Justice Act therefore violates the freedom and safety of adolescents, which contravenes the principles of fundamental justice because it does not specifically require that the factors that the court must weigh when determining whether an adolescent should be subject to adult sentencing must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. This is found in subsection 73(1) of the act.

The Attorney General of Canada argued that the new legislation, which is an exception to the adult criminal system, is in line with an approach that balances the interests of society and those of adolescents in such a way as to make the taking into account of the specific situation of adolescents a major consideration. In response to the question raised by the Attorney General of Quebec, whether the elements set out are indeed principles of fundamental justice, the five judges of Quebec's Court of Appeal agreed that they were.

On page 63 of this opinion, we read that the expression fundamental justice in the context of section 7 is not limited to rules of procedure, but includes substantial principles. This means that to withstand Charter scrutiny any psychological security violation must be fundamentally warranted not only procedurally but also in relation to the objective, in accordance with the basic tenets of our legal system.

The Quebec Court of Appeal judges added that there is a wide consensus about these elements because of the essential role they play in the Canadian legal system. Their vital importance has been recognized ever since the very first legislation on the subject-matter. Over time, the details were worked out to meet the particular situation and needs of adolescents more and more specifically.

I also want to draw attention to what Justice L'Heureux-Dubé wrote in the 1989 Supreme Court decision in R. v. M. (S.H.), 2 S.C.R., on page 446:

[This brief legislative history of] the provisions of the Young Offenders Act amply demonstrates that for nearly one hundred years Parliament has committed itself to the separate treatment and rehabilitation of young persons involved in the criminal process.

I read further:

The underlying philosophy has been from the beginning that it is in society's interest to assist young offenders “to strengthen their better instincts”. An attempt is made through the legislation to “prevent these juveniles to become prospective criminals and to assist them to be law-abiding citizens”.

Unfortunately, this government has chosen to ignore this legacy and expertise by doing away with the Young Offenders Act and replacing it with a piece of legislation that is pretty shaky in terms of its wording, as demonstrated by the Court of Appeal of Quebec, and questionable where its rehabilitation objectives are concerned.

The Bloc Quebecois took a clear stand against this new legislation, which disregards nearly 100 years of history and practice, and opens the door to challenges.

The Bloc Quebecois opposed the Youth Criminal Justice Act, and the Court of Appeal of Quebec recently proved us right. We will continue to be vocal opponents of this poorly worded legislation whose sole purpose was to clumsily reassure the public.

In the reference in question, the Court of Appeal of Quebec reviewed the provisions giving effect to the presumption of adult sentences for designated offences.

It is clear that the provisions of the new legislation on youth offenders broaden this assumption, in that it will now apply to adolescents aged 14 and 15. On page 67, the court said:

Although the presumption may be set aside and the court may retain greater discretionary powers with respect to the appropriateness of imposing such a sentence rather than an adult sentence, it is no less true that the legislator has clearly indicated in sections 62 and 72 that the usual sentence applicable to designated offences is that imposed on adults guilty of the same offences. It also sends a clear message to the population as a whole that, in general, adolescents are dangerous criminals if they are 14 years of age or older when they commit certain offences. In other words, applying adult sentences has the effect of stigmatizing the adolescent guilty of a designated offence.

I still remember my remarks on Bill C-7 on young offenders, when I wondered about the real purpose of the bill. I remember that I said the bill was clear on one issue, that Canada did not want young people any more, only adults.

They were presenting us with a bill that completely eliminated one segment of our population in order to comfort society and give it a false sense of security, by saying that there is no more juvenile delinquency, because it would be transformed into adult delinquency, much tougher and much more punitive.

I also asked myself why society was the intended target of this bill, when the true client group for the bill ought to have been young offenders. Did the government really believe that it could deal with juvenile crime by giving the public a false sense of security, when the real issue was to lower the crime rate among young people?

Bill C-7 had its objectives backwards. The government had completely forgotten whom this bill was for. Should we rehabilitate young offenders or should we give an illusion of protection to society by lowering the age at which adult law applies?

Now, in reading this bill, and clause 18 in particular, I realize that my questions are still valid.

The Quebec Court of Appeal has provided us with several responses that, it must be said, clearly rankle the Liberal government. The Court of Appeal was categorical. The imposition of an adult sentence is not essential to achieving the goal of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

On page 69 of the opinion, the Court of Appeal judges analyzed these provisions and concluded that, in this respect, clearly, the new legislation presumes that adult sentences be applied as a general rule. From now on, this legislation places upon minors the onus of demonstrating why an adult sentence should not be imposed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal added that Supreme Court case law is, however, clear. Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that, during sentencing, the onus is on the Crown to establish beyond all reasonable doubt the aggravating circumstances surrounding the commission of an offence. Paragraph 724(3)( e ) of the Criminal Code requires the prosecutor to establish, by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the existence of any aggravating fact or any previous conviction by the offender.

Subsection 72(2) of the new Youth Criminal Justice Act, therefore, violates the rights guaranteed under section 7 of the Canadian charter in that it places on the young offender the onus of proving the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence, the lack of a previous record at the time of the exemption, as well as the other factors listed in subsection 72(1).

The onus should instead be placed on the prosecutor who wants the court to impose an adult sentence to show the fitness of such claims in terms of the factors set out in subsection 72(1), once a request has been made. The prosecutor should also have to prove the existence of facts justifying the imposition of an adult sentence. Once this has been done, the courts could decide whether to impose such a sentence on a young offender.

The judges add that even the presumption of this imposition is a violation of the rights to freedom and the psychological freedom of adolescents, which does not conform to the principles of basic justice.

However, the problem posed by various provisions of Bill C-33, under debate, is that the 14-year-old or 15-year-old adolescent who has been sentenced abroad automatically falls under this imposition provision, no matter what the circumstances.

Not only does the adolescent fall under the adult sentencing system, he cannot even propose any evidence to the contrary that would limit application of this presumption.

Automatic application of this presumption is discriminatory in that it creates different categories of adolescents. Some will therefore feel the effects of the presumption, and will present evidence to the contrary, and others will not be able to do so, since they were convicted in another country.

There is one interesting point to which I would draw your attention. At the time of the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City, the Government of Quebec followed the minimal rules for detention according to the rules adopted by the first United Nations Congress on the prevention of crime and the treatment of offenders, held in Geneva in 1955, and approved by the Economic and Social Council in Resolutions 663 C (XXIV) of July 31, 1957 and 2076 (LXII) of May 13, 1977.

Among the preliminary observationswe read:

The following rules are not intended to describe in detail a model system of penal institutions. They seek only, on the basis of the general consensus of contemporary thought and the essential elements of the most adequate systems of today, to set out what is generally accepted as being good principle and practice in the treatment of prisoners and the management of institutions.

As well:

In view of the great variety of legal, social, economic and geographical conditions of the world, it is evident that not all of the rules are capable of application in all places and at all times.

They should, however, serve to stimulate a constant endeavour to overcome practical difficulties in the way of their application, in the knowledge that they represent, as a whole, the minimum conditions which are accepted as suitable by the United Nations

I would also draw your attention to one specific rule which addresses the treatment for children, It is 5.2, which reads:

The category of young prisoners should include at least all young persons who come within the jurisdiction of juvenile courts. As a rule, such young persons should not be sentenced to imprisonment.

This in an international principle we are in the process of reshaping to suit ourselves, in order to be able to work around it. It is inconceivable that someone could not be aware that this was what was being done. We must not lose sight of the fact that we are all answerable to the public.

I would like to know how the Liberal government could justify such a discriminatory and harmful application of these provisions regarding adolescents, without feeling any public backlash.

We cannot pull the wool over the eyes of the public like this just to please the government. The impact is far too great to be ignored. I would therefore ask the government to review certain provisions of Bill C-33 to allow for a fair and equitable application for everyone, including adolescents aged 14 or 15.

We have an established principle here whereby everyone is equal in the eyes of the law. Yet, this principle of equality before the law would not apply in the present case. How would sentencing be determined when some of the criteria are not admissible?

Members must carefully study all of the provisions contained in Bill C-33 in committee. The scope of some of these provisions is enormous and they must be paid careful attention, which is what we will do in committee.

As I mentioned at the outset, we support the humanitarian principle of this bill, and as I have just demonstrated, we need to make the necessary amendments to ensure it is applied fairly and equitably and that it respects the principles of fundamental justice set out in the charter.

A second aspect that concerns me is that of the availability of resources. Individuals must not be refused a transfer simply because the entity that will hold them does not have the money needed for transportation and to accommodate them in a correctional centre.

Like the firearms program, we believe that the federal government must make a clear funding commitment that is appropriate, so that Quebec and the provinces can act accordingly when it comes to carrying out transfers.

Not only does the presumption that we are denouncing not meet the requirements of fundamental justice, it has negative consequences when it comes to reintegration. Clearly all legislative provisions from now on must respect the requirements of the charter, both in their implementation and in setting goals.

We must not wait for the courts to correct this glaring shortcoming. The decision must be a legislative one, and it is up to us as parliamentarians to rectify the situation before it gets any worse. This is one aspect of the issue that we can discuss in more detail in committee.

The bill proposes substantial amendments to current legislation in that it clearly states in clause 3 that the first objective is to contribute to the administration of justice and the rehabilitation of offenders and their reintegration into the community by enabling offenders to serve their sentences in the country of which they are citizens or nationals.

Bill C-33 then lists the conditions of application and mechanisms of application for this worthwhile objective.

I have had occasion to handle requests from constituents in connection with this purely administrative operation. In each case, the motivation behind their requests was humanitarian, health-related, or harsh conditions of detention.

The fact that this bill is directed towards facilitating of this administrative procedure is totally desirable and the Bloc Quebecois will be supporting the guiding principle. I must reiterate that we plan to study this bill thoroughly in order to make the essential adjustments to bring it in line with charter requirements, in compliance with the recent Quebec Appeal Court opinion.

Clauses 4 and 5 list the criteria for eligibility to make a request for transfer.

We feel the consent requirement set out in clause 8 is essential to the smooth operation of this procedure if it is to respect the principles of fundamental justice.

It is clearly stipulated that the transfer requires the consent of the foreign entity, Canada and the offender. Clause 9 sets out the rules governing the consent of Quebec and the provinces. It is specifically stated that consent must be given before any transfer for which Quebec and the provinces will be responsible.

I am returning to the necessity of having sufficient financial and human resources to make this transfer procedure efficient and timely. We will be addressing this in committee but we hope the minister responsible will commit to eliminating that uncertainty before long.

The assessment criteria are set out in clause 10 of Bill C-33. It is up to the minister to assess the factors related to the transfer. The primary one is whether the offender's return would constitute a threat to the security of Canada. The minister will also take into consideration the offender's intentions of residence, and finally whether family ties are sufficiently strong to warrant granting the request for transfer.

If a foreigner has been found guilty of an offence in Canada, the minister must also take into account the likelihood of the offender's subsequently committing acts of terrorism.

Subclauses 3 and 4 of this clause address factors relating to assessing requests from young offenders.

Clause 11 stipulates that consent or refusal of consent must be justified. The minister is responsible, under clause 12, for ensuring that the consent was given voluntarily.

Clauses 13 to 15 deal with the continued enforcement of offenders' sentences, with the purpose of complying with the criminal law of foreign countries.

Clause 16 sets out conditions for probation and the related equivalency.

As for clauses 17 to 20, they deal more specifically with the terms and conditions for the transfer of young people. The Bloc Quebecois is of the opinion that special attention ought to be paid to these, as I demonstrated earlier in my presentation. Expert advice can certainly enlighten us, especially in the context of the opinion of the Court of Appeal of Quebec.

The Bloc Quebecois will be vigilant when these clauses are considered at committee stage. We hope the minister responsible will make the necessary changes to ensure these provisions reflect charter requirements.

Clauses 21 to 29 have a more technical and mathematical side, in the sense that they set out the criteria for determining equivalent sentences for Canadian nationals abroad who wish to serve their sentences in Canada.

I am quite amazed that only one clause in this bill addresses humanitarian considerations. I would have liked such considerations to be at the heart of this bill. Once again, I think that at committee we will be able to determine the full scope of this clause.

Clauses 31 to 36 deal with procedures for increasing the number of entities participating in these exchanges. The final clauses amend other acts affected by the bill's provisions.

There is one more aspect that ought to receive our full attention. A number of provisions in the present bill deal with implementation of the transfer procedures in cases where a person has been declared not criminally responsible because of mental disorder.

I took an active part in the work of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights when it studied the Criminal Code provisions respecting such persons. The witnesses made it clear that these persons should receive particular attention in that their cases should be dealt with appropriately, and especially in a timely manner.

I believe that the provisions in the present bill ought to reflect the distinctive character of everything having to do with persons who have been declared not criminally responsible because of mental disorder.

I conclude by repeating our agreement in principle with this bill, especially with respect to the humanitarian motivation behind decisions to make a transfer.

However, I emphasize that the Bloc Quebecois will be closely following the work of the House and the committee, in order to ensure that there will be changes made in the provisions relating to adolescents.

These provisions must satisfy the requirements clearly set out by the Quebec Court of Appeal in its opinion on the reference concerning Bill C-7 on the youth criminal justice system.

As I mentioned earlier, offenders must be returned to Canada when the conditions in prisons in some parts of the planet are examined. These transfers must, therefore, be done in a spirit of close collaboration with the states that are signatories of administrative treaties and agreements.

In closing, I would remind the members that, according to the Quebec Court of Appeal, imposing adult sentencing is not necessary to achieve the purpose of the Youth Criminal Justice Act; for this reason, each provision of Bill C-33 must be carefully reviewed, which the committee will duly undertake to do.

The Bloc Quebecois will represent the interests of Quebeckers and Canadians, and especially the interests of our young people, during consideration in committee of Bill C-33.

We support the humanitarian principle behind this bill, but we have serious reservations about the specific applications of some of its provisions. We believe that the bill's humanitarian objective can be accomplished during consideration in committee, while protecting the rights of all individuals, in particular, obviously, of our young people.

[International Transfer of Offenders Act, April 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I will start my speech the same way my Canadian Alliance colleague did. How can the government be so lacking in respect? On top of the meagre legislative menu, we have been forced to prepare for second reading of a bill that was introduced yesterday in the late afternoon. This, to my mind, shows an enormous lack of respect.

As well, although I know it is not customary to speak this way in the House, the Solicitor General ought to listen to what the Canadian Alliance and we have to say. I find it unfortunate, and feel obliged to say so, that he is not here to listen to what we have to say.

I understand the situation very well, but this makes two instances of lack of respect, one—

[Pension Act, April 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak today on Bill C-31, an act to amend the Pension Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act.

First, I want to say that the Bloc Quebecois supports the principle of Bill C-31. We recognize the commendable work done by our veterans and RCMP officers. Their commitment goes far beyond their job requirements, and we are grateful to them for this.

The purpose of Bill C-31 is to make the necessary amendments to the aforementioned legislation so that members of the armed forces or the RCMP who have taken part in special service operations, particularly ones under the Charter of the United Nations or search and rescue operations would, from this day forward, be entitled to a pension. So, this change recognizes the high risk of such operations.

Both these groups have impressive records. Since the Korean War, the largest deployment of military personnel abroad took place in 1999 with over 4,400 members of the armed forces, mostly on peace support operations.

These interventions are predicated on our legal and constitutional role. Thus, cabinet usually makes special orders allowing troop deployments for UN operations.

Of course, cabinet must inform Parliament of such decisions and it is up to parliamentarians to support or reject these decisions. The nature and scope of these deployments are significant elements in any government decision. We must also point out that in some cases the participation of armed forces or the RCMP in foreign operations moves rapidly beyond the control of the central government, as in the case of a United Nations operation.

In other words, the central government loses its right to act independently and becomes solely a service provider.

The Bloc Quebecois position has always been that such operations should be subject to debate in the House. Thus, on April 19, 1999, a motion by the Bloc Quebecois was debated. That motion concerned the armed conflict in Kosovo and the Balkans. The Bloc's intention was that any deployment of soldiers who may be involved in military or peacekeeping operations should be subject to a debate.

Our position was that the information about this involvement was seriously deficient. The motion was voted down on the pretext that it concerned a purely hypothetical situation. Since then, we have seen over and over that there was nothing hypothetical about it and that the Bloc Quebecois request was clearly justified.

We can regret the fact that, because of the government's refusal, members of our military and RCMP must deal with precarious situations and impossible deadlines, making their activities extremely risky. We must remember that certain missions have been more like military operations than peacekeeping or humanitarian activities, and that is disappointing.

Thus, it is appropriate to meet the needs of those who go on such missions by granting them commensurate pensions.

Canada has taken part in many wars since the Boer War in 1899. In 1918, more than 4,000 men were sent to Siberia during the Russian Civil War. In 1950, during the Korean War, Canada agreed to send troops only if the UN decided it was useful. We should mention that Canada's participation in that conflict was not dependent on a declaration of war.

The same thing happened during the gulf war in 1991. On August 6, 1990, the United Nations adopted resolution 661, which required members to impose sanctions against Iraq. Now, the federal government has invoked the United Nations Act, which states that only after the next session commences shall the orders and regulations made under this act be laid before Parliament. On October 23, 1990, the House of Commons adopted a motion to send troops to the gulf. However, it was not until November 29, 1990, that the United Nations adopted resolution 678 authorizing armed intervention in Iraq.

I find it somewhat ironic that, back then, there was no mention of any hypothetical situation.

Although the House of Commons adopted a motion authorizing the sending of troops to the Arabian Peninsula, the government thought it appropriate to hold an emergency debate to confirm this military support. The opposition questioned the need for such an aggressive reaction, because the UN had not taken such action during other similar conflicts. This entire debate ended when the United States began its armed aggression the following day.

On December 3, 1992, the United Nations Security Council adopted resolution 794 to establish a peace support mission in Somalia. In this resolution, the UN approved the use of force.

At the time, the opposition had asked that a debate be held before the federal government made any decisions. The government responded that it would make its decision first and only then would there be a debate. Furthermore, the government indicated that making such decisions was its responsibility and prerogative. Nevertheless, there was a special debate on the issue.

It was not until 1998 that parliamentarians again raised the need to hold a debate before any decisions were made about Canada's taking part in armed intervention abroad.

On September 30, 1998, a motion was passed in the House of Commons calling upon the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to negotiate a peaceful solution and expressing profound dismay and sorrow concerning the atrocities being suffered by the civilian population in Kosovo. Only a week later did the central government deign to hold a take note debate on this matter, once again relegating parliamentarians to the role of bystanders.

Finally, the war in Iraq has allowed us an opportunity to stress the essential role parliamentarians must play in making decisions that in any way involve participation by Canada in armed interventions.

Once again, the decision-making role of parliamentarians has been shunted aside and the central government has decided to just do as it pleases, which we find regrettable. Our involvement as parliamentarians must be active rather than passive when it comes to making decisions with such impact on the public. I wish to make it clear that the participation by the people of Quebec has been exemplary. Our demonstration in support of peace most certainly played its part.

In addition to combat interventions, we must also think of our involvement in peacekeeping operations. These have become riskier and more complex than before, if not downright dangerous.

Once again, the scope and nature of the situation are significant, but we must add the human side. The duration only complicates matters.

Since 1945 Canada has taken part in more than 40 peace operations or related missions. While the UN charter does not oblige Canada to participate, we have nonetheless established a custom of peacekeeping we want to maintain that dates back to 1954, after the Korean war, when Canada took part in three surveillance missions.

Toward the end of 1954, Canada took part in the Suez Canal peacekeeping mission, and it was only four days after the government made its decision that a special sitting was held.

In February 1964 Canada made a commitment to take part in the peacekeeping mission in Cyprus when Parliament was not sitting. However, the motion authorizing the deployment of troops was not passed until March 13, 1964.

Canada then agreed to act as an observer in Vietnam, reserving the right to send troops before any vote in the House, however. Canadian military personnel were deployed on January 27, 1973 despite the fact that the matter was not debated in the House until February 1, 1973.

The following year, Canada deployed forces to the Golan Heights as part of a United Nations operation. As mentioned before, Canada took part in the gulf war of 1991, but it had also participated in the implementation of the embargo prior to that. There was only one vote to support the UN resolution and no vote on the matter of sending Canadian troops.

In 1992, Canada sent 1,300 troops to Somalia under UNITAF and 750 solders under UNOSOM. There was only a partial debate in the House.

Since 1993, more than 2,000 peacekeeping soldiers have been deployed in the former Yugoslavia under the UN or NATO. These missions have been debated in the House of Commons. There was also the matter of Canada's participation in operations in Haiti and Rwanda.

The result of these debates was that Canada must be more careful in evaluating its participation, because of the costs and resources involved.

On February 9, 1998, there was a debate in the House on the issue of military action in light of Iraq's refusal to allow weapons inspections by the UN. The Prime Minister gave the assurance at that time that Canada would not make a decision without a public debate. However, the United States Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, announced Canada's participation in this operation the day before that debate was to be held.

In conclusion, it is easy to understand that these kinds of interventions in foreign countries are complex and delicate issues, but the fact remains that Canadian troops and RCMP members who take part in these operations should not have to suffer the consequences unjustifiably.

Our peacekeeping missions are commendable, despite the risks involved. However, we must show our gratitude and our appreciation to members of the armed forces and of the RCMP.

Throughout my speech, I mentioned the flagrant lack of debate concerning our participation in military operations or peacekeeping missions. It is clear that parliamentarians and, as a result, those who elected them, are excluded from the process. This is inconceivable. Our role must not be limited to approving executive decisions. We are the voice of our constituents.

We need to debate any issue that affects Quebeckers and Canadians. We are elected representatives and we take our role very seriously. The deployment of troops is a serious issue. We must change our bad habits and be accountable to our constituents.

In closing, I will say that members of the armed forces and of the RCMP who fulfill their mission deserve our appreciation, and so do our constituents. Obviously, we support the principle of this bill.

[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, April 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, there are clearly two separate things: the need for this type of a registry and how it is administered and set up.

Our problem is not with the registry as such, but with how it is being set up and the costs involved. Clearly, to respond to my colleague from the Canadian Alliance, we are not about to stop asking for information, whether from the Department of Justice, for issues related to the past, and maybe, in future, to the Solicitor General. Because now, we do not know exactly when this transfer is going to happen. It was supposed to have been done already, and now we do not know if it is going to happen.

I would respond to my colleague from the Canadian Alliance that obviously the Bloc Quebecois will be vigilant in trying to ascertain the costs and the benefits that are to be had, and to see whether it is necessary. I am certain that a tool such as a firearms registry is important. That is clearly the case if you ask police officers, be they in Quebec or elsewhere, and probably even in the west. The problem is that the member is saying this money could be spent elsewhere. That is not what is important. We must put the money needed into a tool as important as this to protect people. It is often women, children and the disadvantaged who are affected by criminals who use guns.

The more tools like this firearms registry—provided it is well managed, of course—are available, the better. Poor management should not be a reason to reject a principle. I want the Canadian Alliance to understand that, while support is expressed for this registry—and will no doubt continue to be expressed—there is a need for costs, including past costs, to be determined. We know that several million dollars were spent on ads. I said so last time. Once again, the money went to a firm called Groupaction. We have to check where the money went.

To set up a computerized registration system is one thing, but efforts must be made to ensure that it does not turn into a fiasco. What firms are involved? Why did it take so long? Why are one third of the people still not registered? I ask the government this: How is it that, after several years and investments of more than $778 million, now close to $1 billion, there are still people who are not on the firearms registry? The government has a serious administration problem.