Jacques Saada

[Organized Crime, May 1st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague seems to forget a little too quickly that the report released after this affair was released jointly by the RCMP and CSIS. Therefore, this is an illustration of the co-operation between these two agencies.

I must also point out that the Security Intelligence Review Committee, SIRC, is currently reviewing the matter. Once it hands in its report, we will be delighted to examine it together.

[Rcmp Investigations, April 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to reaffirm two fundamental points. The first is that the RCMP is doing an exceptional job of fulfilling its wide range of responsibilities.

The second thing I want to remind the member is that the RCMP budget was increased in the last budget and that allocations for all investigation-related items went up.

The RCMP has the resources it needs to do its job and I have the utmost confidence in the results it achieves.

[Official Languages, April 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is a fundamental principle of this government to preserve official bilingualism, and to preserve the status of French as well as that of English throughout the country, or from coast to coast to coast as we say.

Our government is committed not only to protect this principle, but to promote it energetically.

[International Organizations, April 6th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the motion we are debating today calls on the government to convene a meeting of like-minded nations in order to develop a multilateral plan of action to reform international organizations in order to encourage them to play a more effective role in the prevention of conflict.

During the earlier debate on this motion, the hon. member spoke about the importance of strengthening the ability of international organizations to prevent conflict. He presented a number of ideas, such as creating an early warning centre at the Royal Roads Military College in Victoria, the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs in Ottawa, or the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development in Montreal. Another idea was the formation of a diplomatic rapid reaction force.

The hon. member also spoke about the problem of war economies in conflict zones, particularly the present situation in Angola, and the need to address the problem of the destabilizing effect of the accumulation of small arms.

These ideas are laudable and they reflect Canada's concern for the affected populations. The fact is that Canada is already working actively to equip the international community with the right tools to prevent and, if necessary, manage conflict.

I would like to speak about some of the initiatives already under way, to show that a new process aimed at increasing the number of means of conflict prevention available to the international community would really not be useful at this time.

There are several early warning mechanisms already in place to give the international community notice of potential violent conflicts. Canada has supported international efforts aimed at bolstering the international community's early warning capacity. For example, Canada has contributed $500,000 to the training of UN personnel, through CIDA's peacebuilding fund.

A course on early warning and conflict prevention is given at the United Nations Staff College. UN staff involved in this field learn how to interpret available data.

We have also provided assistance to regional organizations such as the Organization of African Unity, or OAU, in order to improve its information-gathering capacity. Canada will continue to provide support to enhance the capacity of existing organizations and systems.

In order to prevent a conflict from breaking out, early warning must be followed up with early intervention. Unfortunately, the creation of additional early warning centres will not solve the problem of divergent approaches to conflict prevention. These differences sometimes make it hard to mobilize political will, and make the process of reaching a decision on where the rapid intervention will be focussed a painstaking and time consuming one.

Before determining where early intervention will take place, the states need to reach agreement on what constitutes legitimate objectives for preventive actions by neighbouring states and on the nature of such actions.

Experience has taught us that there will be no sudden improvement in the capacity to intervene in response to an early warning; instead, it will be gradually enhanced through the creation and reinforcement of international humanitarian standards.

The role played by diplomats in prevention and conflict resolution is undeniably important. Canada supports the appointment of special representatives and other envoys by the UN Secretary General, and is very pleased to see such appointments made. These representatives can play a significant role in preventing conflict and in securing peace.

In July 1998, Canada co-sponsored a high level seminar to improve the effectiveness of the secretary general's envoys. Special representatives, past and present, met to examine and develop strategic options for their role and responsibilities.

More recently, the secretary general and the security council expressed their grave concern to Indonesian authorities over the violence that broke out following the independence vote in East Timor. We will recall how closely we followed these unfortunate developments in this part of the world.

A security council mission travelled to Jakarta and Dili in September. By acting in co-operation with the secretary general, it succeeded, and I would say succeeded well, in obtaining Indonesia's agreement to the sending of a multinational force to restore peace and security in the region and to facilitate humanitarian assistance operations.

We will continue to encourage the use of special representatives and missions like the one to East Timor, and we believe this function of envoy incorporates the member's proposal to establish a rapid diplomat intervention force.

Naturally, like the hon. member, the government is concerned about the development of war economies, which feed violent conflict. We are especially concerned by the endless conflict in Angola, fed by the illicit diamond trade.

In 1993, the security council established sanctions with the aim of stopping the UNITA rebel troops from funding its military operations in Angola. The aim of these sanctions is to prevent UNITA from attaining its objectives through military means by targeting the illicit diamond trade and other sources of financial support for the UNITA war.

This means reducing deliveries of arms to UNITA and its access to petroleum products. It also means limiting the opportunities of the UNITA leaders to travel and be represented abroad.

Canada currently chairs the security council's committee responsible for implementing the sanctions against UNITA. Council members are united in their commitment to make current sanctions a more effective tool to restrict UNITA's ability to engage in war activities.

In so doing, we hope to foster the conditions necessary to resume negotiations and thus facilitate a lasting resolution of this civil war, which has been raging for 20 years, has claimed the lives of more than one million people and resulted in an even greater number of people being displaced, of course, and injured.

In addition to these energetic measures to develop public awareness, Canada also worked to strengthen the sanctions. Ambassador Fowler, who chairs the security council's Angola sanction committee, made visits to the region and to Europe to promote a stricter implementation of the sanctions.

A task force of ten was asked to recommend practical measures to improve the implementation of the sanctions and their compliance. The task force submitted its recommendations to the council on March 15, 2000.

Canada is not alone in looking for ways to strengthen the sanctions against UNITA. The European Union, the OAU and other organizations have adopted resolutions and made other public statements to promote a strict application of the sanctions.

The leading diamond mining company, De Beers, and other companies have taken measures to ensure full compliance—and I would ask the House to please listen—with the sanctions. Moreover, the international association of diamond makers promised to support the sanctions by pushing for zero tolerance for any violation of the sanctions within the industry.

I could go on and on, but I want to stress the fact that we sit on the security council—we will be chairing it—, Canada is a member of the G-8, and most G-8 members also sit on the security council, and we have great opportunities to intervene effectively to prevent conflicts.

But the best way for Canada to strengthen the international community's ability in that respect is to support existing initiatives. We intend to participate very actively. Engaging in another process at this point would not be very useful.

[Canadian Economy, April 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's economic upturn is indeed a reality.

According to a recent Statistics Canada report, the gross domestic product rose 0.5% in January. This is the 18th month in a row in which there has been an increase, the longest uninterrupted series since 1961, when the GDP began to be measured.

The economic and budgetary choices made by the Liberal government are now bearing fruit. Despite the opposition raised, of course, by the opposition, we have done the job. There are now some truly concrete results.

Everyone, including the opposition parties, is clearly forced to acknowledge that we have come a long way from the distressing situation of 1993.

The results are great, but what is still more important is that they are so full of promise and of hope for everyone in Canada.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, March 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, on March 8, the government announced that the RCMP would be keeping all its detachments in Quebec open.

I wish to tell RCMP authorities how satisfied I am with this decision.

It confirms the RCMP's determination to maintain quality services, but we already knew that. The important thing is that the RCMP is adapting its services in order to give officers more flexibility so that they can better wage their fight against crime.

The decision also confirms the RCMP's desire to pursue its partnerships with other police forces in order to carry out the very difficult work of gathering and analysing data in the regions.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the RCMP and thank it for its excellent partnership with the Sûreté du Québec, in particular in Opération Cisaille to eradicate the cultivation of marijuana by organized crime.

All the stakeholders in the region—it is my region also—including farmers, the UPA and members of all political parties recognize how valuable and effective this co-operation is.

[House Of Commons, March 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, we are currently debating a motion of non-confidence in the Chair. This motion was introduced by the Bloc Quebecois.

A number of statements by my Bloc colleagues lead me to believe that this is just an excuse to keep on debating a bill the House has already disposed of, a bill I believe is strengthening my rights, my prerogatives and my duties as an elected member of parliament, a highly democratic bill, contrary to what my colleagues across the way might think.

Only seconds ago, the Bloc Quebecois whip claimed he is here to defend the interests of Quebecers. What a coincidence, so am I.

I do not intend to reopen a debate that has already taken place in full compliance with our democratic and parliamentary rules, but rather to tie this political issue with the motion before us today.

I will explain. In the speech he gave this morning, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois said “The Prime Minister wants to arrive to the convention of his party with Bill C-20, the clarity act, in his pocket, not with scandals floating around”. I thought the issue was the Chair, not the Prime Minister.

This same member also said, referring to the Chair, “I am not saying there was malice, but that there is a problem”. To introduce a motion of non-confidence in the Chair does suggest that the Chair has lacked integrity and acted with malice. It is a blatant contradiction of terms by the leader of the Bloc.

The reason behind the motion is not the quality of the work of the Chair, but rather a political fight. The non-confidence motion in the Chair is a means being used for a political cause.

How can anyone pretend to be a democrat while at the same time being prepared to use for political purposes the very symbol of democracy, the Parliament of Canada and its Chair?

This morning, the hon. member for Joliette reinforced the extremely unpleasant feeling that, for the Bloc, the end justifies the means. He said in so many words that the issue was not a lack of confidence in the Speaker.

It may not be a matter of lack of confidence, but a motion of non-confidence in the Speaker has been moved. This is inconsistency at its best.

Obviously, Speaker's rulings may be challenged, but I do not think this a valid reason to question the Speaker's integrity. Our Parliament is an eminently respectable institution, but it was created by human beings. It is managed by human beings. This means that it is fallible. By essence, it can be improved.

When we have the privilege of being elected, we inherit many responsibilities, one of which is to constantly strive to improve this institution with due respect for all its members, with dignity, and by rising above partisanship.

We have just spent almost 40 hours straight voting on amendments. Regardless of the content of these amendments, the process itself is totally absurd. This is the second time in a few months that all members have been held hostage. Surely the operation of our institution could be improved.

The right of all parliamentarians to debate is a fundamental right. But systematically obstructing the business of the House is not a right. It is a practice that reflects great weaknesses, a practice, not a right, which should be more tightly controlled.

Should a suggestion be made that we try to improve the operation of the House, I would go for that. If the suggestion is to find new ways to protect the democratic rights of all members of Parliament, again, I agree. But I would not agree to withdraw the confidence of the House in the Chair.

This morning, the hon. member for Roberval expressed his respect for the Canadian institution. In that spirit, I urge him to withdraw this motion, which serves no one and does not contribute to the respect and dignity of the House and its Chair. Failing that, in the name of integrity and out of respect for our institution, I will have no choice but to vote against this motion.

[Community Access Program, February 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, on February 17, the Government of Canada announced the results of the most recent Community Access Program competition, which will help establish public Internet access sites in 71 rural Quebec communities.

The Government of Canada is committed to equipping Canadians with the tools to gain the skills they need for today's knowledge-based economy.

This announcement is an important one for Quebec. The CAP sites will give the selected rural areas residents affordable convenient access to the Internet and thus to communication.

The Government of Canada aims to help establish up to 10,000 access sites in remote, rural and urban settings nationwide by March 31, 2001.

What is involved is, of course, economic development and communication, but primarily the quality of life of all Canadians.

[Criminal Records Act, February 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Records Act.

Hon. members will remember an identical bill received unanimous support from all parties, as Bill C-69, in the previous session of parliament. I am happy to report that Bill C-7 received unanimous support at third reading in the other place.

Moreover, and I feel it is important to stress it, every justice minister and General Solicitor in the federal, provincial and territorial governments have supported the thrust of this document. In the long run, Bill C-7 will help us ensure the security of our children and other vulnerable persons.

Bill C-7 will help us to better protect our children by authorizing the use of a special notation in the Canadian police information centre system, also known as CPIC, to indicate to a police force doing a check that a pardoned person has already been found guilty of a sexual offence. It will then be possible to ask the CPIC management to make the sealed records available.

Thus, organizations responsible for taking care of children that are considering hiring an applicant or using a volunteer will have a better way to determine if that person received a pardon for a sexual offence conviction. The special notation will ensure that such records are not overlooked during the criminal records check for screening purposes.

My distinguished colleagues will probably remember that the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs had expressed some reserves about the bill. Consequently, the honourable senators adopted some motions to amend it.

Without prejudice to the thrust of the text adopted by the members in this House, the motions resulted in four amendments that change the structure of the bill to improve its implementation.

The first amendment specifies that the notation system only applies to sexual offences. Indeed, it has always been very clear that this bill was aimed at this type of offences, not others.

The second amendment takes the list of sexual offences out of the regulations and incorporates it in the legislation as a schedule to the act. This being said, the list of offences has not been amended as such since it was reviewed by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

The third amendment takes the definitions of “children” and “vulnerable persons” out of the regulations to incorporate them into the act.

Finally, the fourth amendment changes the wording, but not the substance, of the definition of “vulnerable persons” by removing the word “handicap”, but keeping the word “disability”.

I would like to thank the members of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for their judicious comments. I am convinced my distinguished colleagues will be pleased with the proposed amendments which, I say it again, have to do with the wording and not the substance of the bill passed by the members of this House.

I want to thank all my colleagues in this House and the other one for their invaluable contribution to and support of Bill C-7.

Passing Bill C-7 will result in significant changes based on efficient measures already put in place by the current government, on the unanimous recommendation of the provincial and territorial justice ministers.

These changes have been endorsed by every party and I believe they are consistent with our common concern and commitment to do everything we can to protect our children and other vulnerable persons against sexual predators who might be out to harm them.

On this side of the House, we encourage the members of the other parties to express interest and support for this essential piece of legislation. I therefore ask the House to concur in these amendments.

[Correctional Service Canada, December 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, since it will be Christmas very shortly, I would like to take advantage of this question to deplore once again the overtones of the lack of confidence from my colleagues toward the civil service in Canada. It is one of the most trained and dedicated civil services in the world. It is one of the most loyal civil services in the world.

I wish them and their families the very, very best for the Christmas season and next year.