Lost his last election, in 2006, with 35% of the vote.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police June 11th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is a bit out of touch. In the budget just brought down, an additional $37 million was set aside for the RCMP. The British Columbia division received an additional $10 million and $115 million was earmarked for the CPIC.
A study is under way to ensure that the RCMP's funding levels are adequate. An independent firm is helping us carry out this study. The member opposite is fearmongering and he does not have a leg to stand on.
Justice June 11th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to point out briefly that the inmates who tried to bring drugs into the penitentiary were prevented from doing so by the institution, which is a tribute to the work that has been done to keep drugs out of the penitentiary.
Second, I thank my hon. colleague for raising the issue of drugs in prison, because I would like to bring something important to his attention. The following are currently in place to try to eliminate the drug problem in prisons: prerelease program for addicts, random urine testing, the ALTO program in Quebec, the CHOICES program pretty well all over the country, the national awareness program designed—
Airbus June 11th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite has a hard time understanding the answers we give day after day to his questions, which are always the same.
I will repeat for the 51st or 52nd time the same answer: the federal government has no intention of meddling in the decisions of the RCMP, of conducting an inquiry or of stopping an inquiry. It is not our role. Ours is a legislative role. The RCMP's is an investigative role.
We have no business meddling, especially since this investigation was recognized in the agreement reached with Mr. Mulroney at the time. I really do not understand why my colleague opposite cannot comprehend that.
Canadian Security Intelligence Service June 9th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service for 1998. I ask that it be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
Workplace Safety June 1st, 1999
—if he allows me to speak.
For the public, I would explain just what is happening.
At the moment, considerable effort, and this is recognized by the auditor general in his report, is going into improving the way inmates to be paroled will be reintegrated into society. All this effort is based on very solid programs, which are science based. The programs are not extemporaneous.
The commissioner of correctional services referred to 16 criteria that ought to be used to evaluate the way inmates will be paroled and so on.
There are no quotas. There have never been quotas. There will never be quotas. All that for one very simple reason: what counts first and foremost is not the quota figures, but public safety. He does not have exclusive prerogative on public safety.
Workplace Safety June 1st, 1999
Mr. Speaker, my colleague referred to things that he called distressing.
What I found particularly distressing is seeing that my colleague, who got the answers he was seeking from all those he put the questions to, is back in the House today putting the same questions, because what interests him is not the content of the response, but rather the show he wants to put on in the House.
He has put his question to the current solicitor general and his predecessor. He has put his question to the commissioner of correctional services and to me as parliamentary secretary. Everyone gave him the same answer.
Everyone tried to explain to him, and I will do so again, not for him, because he does not need it, but for the public—
Criminal Code May 28th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, this bill has some extremely important human implications.
I would like to begin by reading a very short quote from a brief presented to the committee studying Bill C-251. It says, in substance:
“We cannot rely exclusively on the sentence in finding just the right number of years to satisfy what can never be satisfied fully and certainly not in a courtroom or a penitentiary. No number of years, be they 25, 50 or 150 or more can return a loved one nor restore innocence”.
This quote is from the Church Council on Justice and Corrections.
Having said that, the amendments we are discussing today came along very late, and we could have done with a little more time to examine them in depth in order to make informed decisions.
I would prefer to speak, if I may, of the underlying principles that guide me, as well as of certain myths that need to be done away with. Then at the end I shall indicate my support or non-support of this bill.
First of all, let us deal with the myths. We often hear it said that life sentences are not life sentences. This is false. A life sentence means that the inmate will never again be free in his entire lifetime.
There is much reference made to the Bernardo and Olson cases. People seem to forget that there have already been amendments made to the Criminal Code to deal with this type of problem. Section 745.6 of the Criminal Code does not authorize a judicial review for such cases.
Obviously, the present Criminal Code allows judges to impose consecutive sentences. They have that latitude. Judges already take recidivism into account. Do they take it sufficiently into account? Should they accord more importance to it? Are there messages that should be sent? All this is possible, but, technically, these tools are already in the hands of the judiciary.
Another popular myth is that the Canadian justice system is not very tough. Our justice system is the toughest, after the United States, of all comparable nations. I am thinking of France, Great Britain, Japan, Australia, and so on. We have the second toughest justice system of all these countries.
For example, the average time someone sentenced to life spends incarcerated—meaning behind bars—is over 28 years. This puts us second behind the United States.
I am not passing a value judgment. I am not saying that this is good or bad. I am merely pointing out the facts. This is how it is.
In the United States, mandatory consecutive sentencing is not working. Like me, members have probably read the article in Time magazine. This was not for sex-related crimes. It was for drugs in particular. The principle was the same.
The title in question is “A get tough policy that failed”. Mandatory sentencing was once America's law and order panacea. Here is why it is not working.
I am pleased to see that the amendments proposed today include a return to judicial discretion and a departure from this kind of automatism. I would like to explain why I think this is important.
First, I will speak to judicial discretion. Canada's first Criminal Code, in 1892, already gave judges discretionary power. This power still exists today. I am referring to section 718.3(4) of the Criminal Code.
Judges must give reasons for their decisions. This means that the public has access to the reasons on which the judge based his or her decision whether or not to impose consecutive sentences. It is important to maintain judiciary discretion because, if judges do not want to do it, it will be done by the crown attorneys, who are not required to make their reasons public. Therefore, it is important that judiciary discretion be maintained.
Automatic sentences would be more or less like having the sentence determined by a computer. A person would feed all the data regarding the circumstances of a crime into the computer and it would indicate what sentence must be imposed. That is why I am against automatic sentences. I believe an amendment was put forward to change that. I am looking forward to reviewing it in detail.
Before deciding whether I will support this new version, I will need to make sure that nothing will get in the way of judiciary discretion.
I will need to make sure that nothing in this bill will perpetuate the myths I mentioned a few moments ago.
I will need to make sure that this bill is consistent with the charter as well as with the decisions already handed down by the supreme court with regard to offences to which this bill applies.
In short, I will need to make sure that this bill is consistent and that it is fair to victims while recognizing the fact that justice does not mean revenge, but correction and justice.
Canadian Security Intelligence Service May 28th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the inspector general is appointed by the governor in council. The governor in council will make a decision in due course.
Justice May 28th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the only cases that I am aware of where the legislative branch tells the judicial branch what to do are in banana republics. I do not think Canada qualifies as a banana republic.
Jacques Duchesneau May 14th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, this is such an off the wall allegation that I have no idea what to say. If the member would agree, I will wait till the next sitting of the House to give him an answer.