Jean H. Leroux

[Tax Reform, September 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Ontario Minister of Finance has suggested that provincial sales taxes be transferred to the federal government, and the provinces be given a larger share of income tax in return. It is ridiculous to think that Quebec would agree to give up the area of taxation and its $5.7 billion in provincial sales taxes.

It is also ridiculous to think that all the provinces share the same economic reality. Blanket solutions will no longer work. Furthermore, some provinces, such as Alberta and Newfoundland, have already pointed out that Ontario's proposal did not reflect their situation. The Bloc Quebecois is proposing a much more flexible solution, which would make it possible to eliminate considerable overlap. They suggest transferring the GST to those provinces who request it, with an equivalent reduction in provincial transfer payments.

[Immigration Act, September 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Québec-Est for his remarks at this point. I think that cases like the one he just described for us occur frequently.

You know, the question of refugees is in federal jurisdiction. We in Quebec have always been open to foreigners. Now, of course, cases can arise, as I just said. Now, even though there are isolated cases, the law must still be applied. The law must be improved, but we must not make a case of it when an immigrant is accused. The law must be clear, but we must not make special cases. I think it is dangerous to make special cases. That is why we will support the bill on second reading; however, we will present amendments to improve it on third reading.

[Immigration Act, September 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Calgary Northeast for his comments. As I said in my speech, there was a steady decline in Canada's crime rate in 1992-93.

I am aware that Quebec's immigration law is different from that in the rest of Canada but it is not so different. As I was saying, I think we must be careful. We, as members of Parliament, have a duty and a responsibility not to rely only on what is written in the newspapers, on some journalists' tendency to sensationalize this issue. The fact remains that there has been a 5 per cent reduction in the crime rate.

It is true that today, some journalists may be tempted to make more of a case than the facts warrant. When a vicious crime is committed in a small town or community, there may be a tendency to exaggerate because it is a highly emotional time. But I think that, as members of Parliament, we must stay above the fray. We must be compassionate but when we make decisions on behalf of all Canadian people, I think me must first look at the facts. As I was saying, the facts show a decline in the crime rate.

[Immigration Act, September 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak in the debate on second reading of Bill C-44, which proposes amendments to the Immigration Act, the Citizenship Act and the Customs Act.

Before getting into the details of this bill, I would like to offer a few observations and comments that should make us think about the impact of the decisions we will be asked to make ask a result of Bill C-44.

In part I of Canada's immigration policy document, when referring to the broad objectives, paragraphs (i) and (j) clearly state the needs, and I quote: i ) to maintain and protect the health, safety and good order of Canadian society; and j ) to promote international order and justice by denying the use of Canadian territory to persons who are likely to engage in criminal activity.

Obviously, the party I represent fully agrees with this position. These are principles and objectives that we support because they reflect a broad consensus in a society that is based on the rule of law.

There are also a number of concerns directly related to Bill C-44 which remain essential to an understanding of the issues.

During the consultations on immigration conducted recently by the minister, someone said that intolerance was the biggest growth industry in Canada. Intolerance produces hysteria, racism and fear, so that reality becomes clouded by one's perception of reality. That is why the public has been led to believe for some time that criminal immigrants are countless in our society. It will soon come to think that crime is a characteristic of immigrants.

So, we must firmly oppose the spreading of deformed and false information about immigration that prevents a trust relationship from being created between the welcoming society and immigrants.

Last year, an in-house study by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration reminded us that there are no links between the ethnic origin and a propensity to crime. Unlike what some popular trend would lead us to believe, Mr. Derek Thomas, a senior researcher with the department, confirms that people born in other countries and now living in Canada are under-represented in our prisons.

While 20.2 per cent of the Canadian population is comprised of newcomers, these same people only represent 11.9 per cent of prisoners or those on probation, that is half of that. Again,

unlike some popular clichés, visible minorities were not over-represented in criminal statistics.

Because of the many questions that are being asked by the public and the concerns that it is showing, it is worth reminding that the crime rate in this country has been reduced by 5 per cent in 1993. According to the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics: "For the second consecutive year, the crime rate reported by police services has dropped in 1993. The 5 per cent reduction has been the most important on a year-to-year basis since criminal statistics were first collected in 1962". These are the facts.

That confirms what I was saying earlier about reality and perceptions. While the public thinks that the overall crime rate has increased, that is not the reality. The same goes for the link that the public is trying to establish between immigration and crime. I do not intend in any way to trivialize criminal activities, because they really do exist in our society and everywhere in Canada.

I know that the public is concerned for its safety. Surveys are showing that. However, let us get things straight. This House has the duty to rely on facts and act accordingly. One also has to wonder about and to denounce the source of these errors and perceptions of the public. This House should not be a reflection of papers like Allô Police or media sensationalism which overexpose individual cases and give the impression that they are now the norm in Canada.

It is unbelievable that after trying to blame young people for every ill under the sun, we are now targeting immigrants. Should we not ask ourselves whether social and economic conditions have more to do with crime than immigration? The difficulties that immigrant families and young people in particular have to face-lack of money, lack of jobs, lack of training-have probably more to do with crime than immigration as such.

I now want to go back to the wording of Bill C-44 introduced by the government on June 17 of this year. Its object is to tighten the provisions of the Immigration Act and the Citizenship Act to reduce the legal recourse of immigrants and refugee claimants found guilty of crimes in Canada.

First, I would like to stress that government has indeed the right and the duty to protect its citizens against crime. In that sense the Official Opposition is not against trying to make sure that dangerous criminals do not prolong their stay or settle in Quebec or Canada. We support the underlying principles of Bill C-44, but we seriously question the nature of some of the proposed measures.

The first question we have is about the rationale for such a bill. Do we have specific reasons to seek to tighten the legislation because of criminal activity, especially among immigrants and refugees? How can we explain the increased opposition to criminal immigrants in the public opinion in English Canada? Could it be that a wave of disinformation has influenced English Canadians, giving rise to fear and almost xenophobic attitudes?

Mr. Speaker, beyond these apprehensions, there are specific provisions in Bill C-44 that we are concerned about. The most important of these provisions is the explicit intent to eliminate the right to appeal for immigrants and refugees charged with an offence punishable by a minimum ten-year jail sentence. This seems to be contrary to the fundamental principles a so-called "just" society should be based on. We all remember who promoted this concept. What we are demanding today is a society as just as when it first became a buzzword. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms must apply to everyone when it comes to fair and equitable proceedings.

There is another element of this bill which causes us some concern; it has to do with sentencing. Bill C-44 only takes into account the maximum sentence for a given crime instead of the particular sentence handed down by the judge. Indeed, even though under the Criminal Code a particular crime is punishable by a ten-year jail sentence, the courts use the sentencing principles to determine the penalty.

For example, break and enter in a private home is punishable by life; offences such as being an accessory to counterfeiting credit cards could justify the deportation of the accused to his country of origin.

As you know, the sentences handed down are generally far less severe than the maximum permitted. In some cases, instead of a fine or a jail term, the sentence may even be suspended or the accused put on probation. As a consequence, an individual who receives a light sentence could still be forced to leave the country.

This provision could contravene the Geneva convention. The handbook of the High Commissioner for Refugees stipulates and I quote: "In evaluating the nature of the crime presumed to have been committed, all the relevant factors-including any mitigating circumstances-must be taken into account".

Bill C-44 should take these comments into consideration.

Another aspect not covered in Bill C-44 is the distinction between a political crime and a crime under common law. We find it disturbing that someone would be removed from Canada for, say, political reasons, without regard for the risks awaiting him in his country of origin. This sort of rule clearly lacks

flexibility and humanity. Should we not weigh the risks involved against the acts committed?

Other important questions come to mind. What will happen to permanent residents who have been living in Canada for several years? In some cases, they came to this country as children. Now adults, they work here, have families here and barely remember their country of origin. They no longer have friends or family there. This is the reality. These people are in fact Quebecers or Canadians. Is returning them to their country of origin a good solution, the right solution?

Other aspects of this bill also deserve our attention. The bill the minister has tabled proposes to grant immigration officers the authority to seize and open all parcels and documents suspected of being used for fraudulent purposes. Is this not contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? I think it is. Under our legal system the accused is presumed innocent. This right must apply to everyone.

The provisions for the seizure of mail reverse the burden of proof. On what basis would a seizure be carried out and how would the nature of the parcels be determined? These questions are weighty ones.

The Bill also provides that certain decisions formerly taken by the Immigration and Refugee Board, the IRB, will henceforth be taken by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and his officials. On the one hand, the minister is being given new authority to appeal decisions made by adjudicators, and on the other hand the board is being denied the right to review cases for humanitarian reasons. Is this a case of the administrative process being politicized? Is it an attack on the independence of the IRB? Would it not be better to try to improve the operation of the board? I think it would.

There are other aspects of this bill I could question. We will have the opportunity to discuss it further in the standing committee dealing with the issue. A study released by Citizenship and Immigration Canada this summer showed that the whereabouts of 1,888 foreign criminals slated for deportation remained unknown. Is there no way of locating these individuals and trying to prevent this kind of thing from happening in the future without putting up yet more entry barriers, and thus risk finding ourselves in embarrassing situations like the ones described earlier?

Do missing foreign criminals constitute a specific problem? In other words, are there more of these criminals than Canadian or Quebec ones? How many Canadians and Quebecers is the police unsuccessfully trying to locate at present? Are their numbers substantially lower than those of immigrants who are sought by police?

To better inform and reassure the public, the elected government, this Liberal government, should release all the information relating to the issue of foreign criminals.

Immigrants and refugee claimants would not be subjected to this witch hunt then. I wish to make it clear that the Bloc Quebecois is aware of the problem created by foreign criminals currently in Canada. We also know that criminal activity causes turmoil and fright in local communities.

We will support the government in its efforts to find a fair and lasting solution to this problem. We entirely agree with immigrants and refugee claimants not being allowed to use our immigration legislation or the reputation of Canada or Quebec to flee their country of origin, where they have committed serious crimes. We are in complete agreement with that.

However, we shall not let ourselves be distracted by unfounded remarks which, as we pointed out, may not reflect the reality. It seems that the Canadian government is presently taking a more radical stance to appeal to a certain constituency. Just think of the young offenders legislation passed this past session. Think also of the stronger and stronger reservations expressed by the Liberal caucus about gun control or concerning Motion M-157 put forward by the Liberal member for Scarborough-Rouge River to reduce immigration levels in times of economic recession.

While on the subject, I might add that Bill C-44 like many other government initiatives does not reflect the Quebec reality. Public opinion in Quebec reacts quite differently from our Canadian neighbours with respect to how crime and immigration should be tied together.

As pointed out quite rightly in the Globe and Mail , last week, the people of Quebec did not let a few sordid cases reported recently in Canada, and which we deplore, influence their attitude or behaviour toward immigration. Perhaps this is another characteristic of Quebec's distinctiveness, is it not? Immigrants are a fundamental addition to the Canadian and Quebec society and they contribute undeniably to its collective wealth. Legislation to deny the right of entry and asylum to criminals should not put us in an awkward position.

There are sometimes discrepancies between the goals set and the measures put forward to achieve them. Bill C-44 as tabled in second reading seems to be so afflicted. In light of the questions and comments raised by the members of this House, we express the wish that the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration improve this legislation and, in so doing, restore the trust of the Canadian and Quebec public in their institutions.

[French-Speaking Soldiers, September 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Commissioner of Official Languages, Victor Goldbloom, admitted again yesterday that the military college in Kingston is not at all ready to receive French-speaking soldiers and give them the training courses they need. According to him, the linguistic record of the Kingston college is markedly worse than that of the Saint-Jean college.

The commissioner also noted that only 6,000 of the 13,000 so-called bilingual positions in the Canadian Forces are held by people with a sufficient knowledge of French. Why are francophones always underrepresented? Why does the federal government insist on closing down the only French-language military college in the country? The Liberals are showing their true colours. The facts are there: the government refuses to make room for francophones.

The reality is that French is an irritant to the Canadian government.

[Young Offenders Act, June 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, whenever I have the honour and pleasure of rising to speak in this House, I always think of my constituents in the riding of Shefford, to whom I owe this privilege.

This evening, I would like to present my views on Bill C-37 to amend the Young Offenders Act.

Because of my own training and education, I tend to favour the rehabilitation of young offenders over repressive measures. I believe that the present Act contains all of the provisions required by courts and prosecutors to adequately protect society.

The real problem lies in enforcing of the provisions of the Young Offenders Act, not in subjecting it to an in-depth review. I understand that certain painful events in recent years have generated public anger and misunderstanding, and have fuelled the debate on how minors found guilty of very serious crimes are treated by the courts.

I can see that the public is deeply concerned about the need to control youth crime, but I cannot tolerate people like the Minister of Justice, my colleagues across the floor-the Liberals-and my colleagues in the Reform Party believing that harsher sentencing is the best way to curb criminal activity among young people.

Basically, the provinces which complain about the present Act do not enforce it rigorously; Quebec and Ontario, on the other hand, have the right attitude and see no problem with the Act. It seems to me, quite obviously, that the justice minister has yielded to the demands of the western provinces and the right-wing faction of the Liberal Party.

I must question the relevance of this bill, since studies indicate that the average number of homicides committed by young people has declined sharply since the 1970s.

Would it not be more accurate to say that the minister is simply trying to keep an election promise from the last campaign, armed with the knowledge that the Canadian Sentencing Commission, in its 1987 report, found that three quarters of the Canadian population believed that 30 per cent of crimes were violent? In reality, according to 1992 statistics, only one of every ten Criminal Code offences reported to police were

violent crimes. From 1982 to 1992, even the number of murders committed in Canada increased only marginally.

This public perception is contrary to the reality as shown by those facts. Is this a sufficient political reason to change the Young Offenders Act? In my humble opinion, the Minister of Justice, by tabling this bill in the House, is only trying to look g

Is this what we want? Is this the effect that the Liberals, who are in power, and the Reform Party want? The Minister of Justice should try to prevent young people from committing criminal acts and should react effectively instead of taking harsher measures like longer sentences, lower age limits for young offenders and stiffer penalties.

As a teacher, I worked for a long time with young people, and I can tell you that the solution is not to punish more harshly, but to help young people through better supervision and better efforts at reintegrating them into the community. I am deeply convinced of that. The deterrent effect of longer and harsher sentences is not supported by the literature and experiments to date.

Crime prevention requires that we examine the economic, educational, social, moral and legal conditions that foster crime, and that we make an effort to correct those conditions. The co-operation of many departments, the private sector, and the community are needed. Developing effective crime prevention programs is a big challenge we have a duty to meet. The result of such programs, namely crime reduction, is much more advantageous to young people and to Quebecers and Canadians, who could otherwise become victims of crime.

However, even the greatest efforts to prevent crime cannot eliminate crime altogether. Social rehabilitation of young offenders must therefore be one of the main objectives of the legislation. It is really a form of long term crime prevention aimed at making young offenders stop their reprehensible behaviour.

The proposed amendments to the bill fly in the face of the objective sought, namely the protection of juveniles and of society.

To conclude, I would like to remind this House that Quebec is a distinct society, not only because of its language and culture, but also because of our beliefs, philosophy and social concerns. In Quebec, we know what are the main principles behind the protection of juveniles and of society. The objective is to avoid, as much as possible, criminalizing cases involving young offenders. First of all we seek the rehabilitation and reintegration into society of young offenders because, in Quebec, we believe that is the way to go. You would be surprised at the results we are getting.

I would like to remind my colleagues that, under certain conditions, these young people can be helped to become productive and responsible adults for the good of society as a whole. Moreover, a cost benefit analysis shows that the money invested by society to rehabilitate a young murderer is paid back in less than five years when he becomes a productive adult.

In conclusion, I would like to remind all my colleagues that it is essential for Quebec to maintain its own approach regarding the reintegration of young offenders. Therefore, I am asking them to take into consideration the fact that any amendments to the federal Young Offenders Act must respect Quebec legislation and policies regarding the protection of juveniles and of society.

[Battle Of Normandy, June 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, fifty years ago today, the Allied Forces reversed the course of history on the beaches of Normandy. The operation that took place on June 6, 1944, marked the beginning of the end of the military and political hegemony of the Nazis and the Axis forces.

Taking part in the invasion on D-Day were units of the Canadian 3rd Infantry Division and the Canadian 2nd Armoured Brigade. Also present at this historic moment in the liberation of Europe by the Allied Forces were more than 50 ships of the Canadian Royal Navy and 37 squadrons of the Royal Canadian Airforce.

This day is dedicated to all those Canadian and Quebec men and women, for the sacrifices they made in the defence of freedom on a day that was finally to lead to the end of the Second World War.

[Quebec Sovereignty, May 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois wishes to congratulate the Government of Ontario for having raised the level of the debate on Quebec sovereignty. Ontario has devised a plan aimed at preserving the major economic links between the two economies in the event of Quebec accession to sovereignty.

The Ontario business community has put pressure on its government to make sure that trade between the two entities is maintained regardless of the political status of Quebec. Bilateral trade between Quebec and Ontario accounts for more $48 billion a year. Obviously, business circles have every reason to try to protect these fruitful economic relations.

This calm and thoughtful reaction on the part of the Government of Ontario is a pleasant change from the recent thunderous and irresponsible statements by Premiers Harcourt and Romanow.

[Budget Implementation Act, May 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on October 25 last, the Canadian people elected a new government. In Quebec, we were in the advantageous position of having the choice between three political parties. Quebecers chose to send Bloc Quebecois members to Ottawa. On October 25 last, the objective, the campaign slogan of the Liberal government was hope. All over Quebec, we heard "Votez libéral pour l'espoir". Whenever I heard that slogan I thought that it did not make much sense, especially knowing the government's background.

The Liberal government is to be blamed for most of the Canadian deficit. All the Conservatives did afterwards was to increase it. The Conservative government, which was in power in the 1980s and early 1990s, increasingly curtailed citizens' rights and now with Bill C-17, this government of ours is going even further.

Since his election as leader of his party and the last campaign, the Prime Minister is forever talking about bread and butter. We now know that those are mere words. What the Prime Minister and his cabinet are doing by amending the Unemployment Insurance Act, is to take away a little bit more bread and butter from the poorest members of our society. I rise today to denounce the irresponsible attitude of a government which is supposed to help economic recovery. A government which is supposed to make Canadians and Quebecers feel better. But what it is doing instead is taking a little bit more from everybody.

The Liberals are hitting the poorest members of our society, those who are the most in need. Losing your job is very sad. Mr. Speaker, you and I are in an advantageous situation. We are elected to serve for a certain period of time during which we do not need to look for a job. You know as well as I do that losing one's job is perhaps one of the saddest thing with which a person must contend.

All our government is doing is merely lowering the benefit rate. People who once were entitled to 57 per cent of their salary will now only be able to collect up to 55 per cent. Minor adjustments have been made, but if we look at the figures, we quickly see that two thirds of recipients will receive fewer benefits than before. This is unacceptable. When a government is given a mandate to govern, it must begin by focusing on the least fortunate members of our society. That is not what this government is currently doing. It is trying to reduce its deficit at the expense of the most disadvantaged and that is unacceptable.

The Liberals have always adopted the liberal attitude whereby the sky is the limit. Today, there no longer appears to be any limit at all, and as a result, the least fortunate are becoming increasingly dependant. What is this government doing? It is lowering UI benefits and, as of result of its actions, provinces will have to pick up a bigger share of the tab for social assistance. Once again, this government is offloading its deficit onto the provinces. This is unacceptable.

As representatives of the people, we have a role to play. We must ensure that all Canadian citizens are treated equally. Parliament must also strive to narrow the inequity gap between the classes. With Bill C-17, the Liberal government is making the gap between rich and poor grow wider and wider. We, in the Bloc Quebecois, cannot accept that. We were elected, Mr. Speaker, you, I and all the hon. members, to protect the interests of the people and, in this case, it would be in the interest of the people to at least maintain UI benefits at the 57 per cent level. This rate cannot be reduced.

The Canadian government seems to be strongly influenced by the United States, where the rate is approximately 50 per cent. But we have always had a slightly higher rate in Canada and Quebec. This government did praise the merits of unemployment insurance. The benefit rate has always been slightly higher in Canada and Quebec and I think it cannot go any lower. Let us not loose sight of those of our constituents who are poor. We have in our ridings less fortunate people who do not have enough to get by. The government has the duty-and the duty of Parliament is to support a government that does so-to do its job and be actively involved in creating employment. But it is not the case here. This government talks about doing many things. It plans to do this, that and the other, but actually does very little. This government has accomplished very little.

As you know, the rate of unemployment in Quebec is about 13 per cent. In Canada, it is around 11 per cent. Some 450,000 Quebecers are presently unemployed, not to mention those who lost their jobs but gave up looking for a new one because there are none available. It is well know that the fishing, forest, tourist and construction industries are seriously affected by the measures contained in Bill C-17. Workers will be required to work 12 weeks to qualify for unemployment insurance. There is a danger that these people will not be able to meet the 12-week requirement and will be forced to request social assistance.

It is humiliating for someone who wants to work to be on welfare. To wrap up, I think that the unemployment insurance reform reflects the contempt of the Liberals for the unemployed.

The Minister of Human Resources Development admits to pursuing the following objective: to force recipients to work longer in order to qualify for the same number of weeks of benefits.

The unemployed in Quebec and Canada did not choose to be out of work and I think the government must do the best it can to help them out.

[Supply, May 5th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the remarks of my colleague and I found them quite cynical. I think both sides of the House will agree that this hon. member's attitude was rather carefree in the past. Contrary to the hon. member, I think that the best that can happen is for Quebec to finally opt for self-determination.

On the other hand, you can quote all the letters from all the company presidents in the world, this will not change the fact that 11,000 jobs were lost in Quebec. Each and every person who was laid off did not necessarily write a letter, but the fact remains that 11,000 jobs were lost. What we want is for the government which was elected to create jobs to roll up its sleeves and finally get things going for the benefit of our country.