Richard Marceau

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, April 21st, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am always interested to hear the remarks of my colleague from Crowfoot. Unfortunately, it is the Reform tape playing.

The minister tabled statistics no one disputes, which indicate that crime among young people has dropped by 23%. In addition, they also reveal, and no one disputes this either, that violent crime by young people has also dropped by 3.2% since 1993.

We all know that, when the law is properly applied, as it is in Quebec, it works well and to the satisfaction of all stakeholders in the justice system.

Does my colleague from Crowfoot not think that instead of changing something that works well, we should implement what works well and make whatever changes are necessary after a trial period? At the moment, before changes are proposed, does he not think that the Young Offenders Act should be properly applied throughout Canada, as it is now in Quebec?

[Criminal Records Act, April 21st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to such an important topic, all the more so with you in the Chair.

Such a bill, with the particular objectives it has, exemplifies how all members of this House can work together constructively. In fact, a comparison of Bill C-284 and Bill C-69 will be edifying.

Bill C-69 provides a mechanism for disclosing the contents of an individual's criminal record to the appropriate authorities in cases of sex offences. As my colleagues pointed out earlier, the purpose of this bill is to prevent serious repeat sex offences against children or other vulnerable members of our society.

What would this bill actually do? It would introduce a system to flag sex offences so as to limit the number of situations in which a person found guilty of a sexual offence, indecent assault or whatever, could again come into contact with or take up a position of authority over children or other vulnerable individuals.

Specifically, the purpose of this bill is to prevent a pardoned sex offender from becoming a care provider, a supervisor at a park or a children's recreational facility, or a day care worker, or being in any position where he could take advantage of the innocence of a child.

Bill C-69 could apply to special care facilities for the mentally handicapped or to support services to help them prepare for living on their own.

As a society, we have too often heard of cases of sexual abuse committed by repeat offenders who had officially been pardoned.

The purpose of the bill is to respond to requests by associations promoting the rights of victims of criminal acts and, more importantly, to ensure a safe environment, something we all want as a community, in which our children, our most valuable asset, may grow and develop.

The mechanism I spoke of at the start of my remarks is an indicator, a sort of warning light, that follows the pardoned record of a sexual offender and is activated when a security check is made on the reliability of the individual, who is seeking work that would put him or her in contact with children.

I can already hear the hardline libertarians railing against such a practice, given that a pardoned sexual offender is officially rehabilitated as an individual who respects the law and the ethics guiding our society.

To them, I would say, there are never enough ways to ensure the security and development of our children.

Naturally, Bill C-69 takes account of the guarantee of confidentiality inherent in rehabilitation and for this reason security checks must be done with the approval of the applicant. This check will be done in the national screening system under the Canadian police information centre by individuals duly authorized to consult the register.

Should the famous warning light come on, under the law the record and its contents would be sent to the solicitor general, who would ultimately decide on the relevance of removing the seal from the record.

Here the big question arises. It represents a major concern for the Bloc Quebecois. Should the solicitor general not be obliged to reveal the contents of the record that are of a sexual nature simply as a precautionary measure for children and society?

We think the minister's discretion could apply to the contents of the record where they apply to other issues, except those of a sexual nature. In simpler words, the minister, in the case of sexual offences, must reveal the content of the criminal record; he may do so for all other cases. He would continue to enjoy discretionary powers in all other cases.

If this means we might save a child, who would otherwise be a victim of sexual aggression, I think the bill would have served its purpose.

The wording of the bill indicates that the minister may inform the appropriate authorities of the contents of the record in question. We are, however, of the opinion that there is a moral obligation for the Solicitor General to disclose its contents when it includes a listed offence. As I have said, this moral obligation ought to be translated into a legal one.

Of course, this security check poses a threat to children or other vulnerable individuals. With this adjustment, the government might better attain the objective of its bill. It might even, I believe, benefit from the unanimous support of this House, even that of my colleagues in the Reform Party, who are somewhat unenthusiastic about Bill C-69.

The government would also have to continue to heed our recommendations and proposals, including those the Bloc Quebecois will bring to the committee.

I would like to return briefly to the verification system itself. As I said, these checks would be done via the national screening system administered by the Canadian Police Information Centre.

In an article in this morning's Ottawa Citizen , journalist Jim Bronskill describes the technological obsolescence of the CPIC's data bank computers.

This is, in my opinion, an unacceptable situation, and it is the responsibility of the federal government to ensure proper funding for this body, which provides frontline information to some 13,400 police forces all across Canada.

Early this year, in March, we MPs had the opportunity to learn more about this matter from the Canadian Police Association at its annual legislative conference, held right here in Ottawa. I had an opportunity, as did several of my colleagues in the House, to discuss the issue with Yves Prud'homme, the president of the Fédération québécoise des policiers et policières du Québec, and to actually meet in my office with police officers from all over Quebec and Canada.

The Bloc Quebecois sees Bill C-69 as one more step along the road to ensuring our children's safety, but we must make sure that we have reliable records in the national screening system so that we can implement this political and collective wish.

This brings me to another point. Do we have real and effective guarantees regarding the turnaround for analysing files submitted to the CPIC that could eventually end up in the solicitor general's office?

There is the matter of the time it takes for a file to make it all the way up to the solicitor general's office and back down again. Bloc Quebecois members have some questions and concerns about the speed with which files could be processed.

There is nothing in the bill right now to allay our concerns. However, I hope that the government will take note and introduce specific provisions so as to prevent any loopholes that would threaten the safety of our children.

After this brief overview of the bill, I urge Liberal backbenchers as well to pressure the solicitor general to put more teeth into Bill C-69 and make it more consistent with the problems we are actually facing.

The Bloc Quebecois therefore supports this bill so that it can be referred quickly to committee for consideration. As I said at the very beginning of my speech, a comparison with Bill C-284 will be edifying. Finally, a positive response to our concerns would help to ensure speedy passage of this bill to ensure the well-being and safety of our children and vulnerable members of our society.

[Quebec Bench, April 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that the Bloc Quebecois pays tribute to the appointment of Juanita Westmoreland-Traoré as a judge in the criminal and family divisions of the Quebec Court.

Madame Justice Westmoreland-Traoré was awarded the Ordre national du Québec in 1991 and has been an ardent defender of minority rights. The first black woman to be appointed to the bench in Quebec, she is currently dean of the law faculty at the University of Windsor in Ontario.

The appointment of this talented jurist is a sign of the openness that characterizes our society and marks an important moment in our collective history. Cultural communities are now represented and well represented at the highest level of the Quebec judiciary.

Through her openness, tolerance and generosity, Ms. Westmoreland-Traoré is representative of the Quebec of today and the future.

We offer her our heartiest congratulations.

[Common Currency, March 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on March 15, the House of Commons rejected a motion from the Bloc Quebecois proposing that a special committee of the House be struck in order to consider the possibility of Canada's participation in the creation of a pan-American monetary union.

Far from advocating the immediate adoption of a common currency, our motion sought to provide elected representatives with an opportunity to discuss this issue of the future.

Instead of assuming its responsibilities, the Liberal Party, and the NDP, resorted to acrimonious and falsely patriotic arguments. Liberal backbenchers and NDP members spewed claptrap and bafflegab all day long.

Today, the Senate begins examining this vital issue for the future of Quebeckers and Canadians. This is the direct result of the Liberals' lack of leadership, of the Liberals running out of steam and getting weary.

By abdicating the legitimacy of the House of Commons in favour of an obsolete and archaic institution like the Senate, the Government of Canada is making a very telling demonstration to its partners in the Americas of its lack of leadership and vision, this on the eve of a new millennium.

[Government Services Act, 1999, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am not at all surprised to have been denied unanimous consent.

The government will not allow this house to discuss such an important bill, just like it would not let it examine the possibility of having a pan-American monetary union. This tyrannical, undemocratic, duplessiste government, which is also prone to patronage, continues to operate in its usual fashion.

As for the President of the Treasury Board, it is unfortunate that I only have a minute and a half left, because I could talk about him for a long, long time.

I will conclude, and this unfortunate, because all the members were listening so intently to my comments and I could have gone on for a long time. Freedom of association exists in Canada. When workers have good reason to do so, they go on strike. This is part of a fair balance of power, except when the employer, which happens to be the government, abuses its legislative power, as it is doing in this case.

Back to work legislation should only be a last resort. In the meantime, the government must get back to the bargaining table with an offer acceptable to workers, and it must settle the dispute in a democratic and civilized manner, through negotiation.

I will end on that note. It is unfortunate. I could talk forever about this issue. It is always a pleasure to address this House, through you, Mr. Speaker.

I hope the member for Mississauga West, who is unfortunately not here, and the member for Beauce listened carefully and will be voting with the Bloc Quebecois tonight, for the workers of Quebec and Canada.

[Government Services Act, 1999, March 23rd, 1999]

Before everyone came back, there was unanimous consent.

[Government Services Act, 1999, March 23rd, 1999]

I sought unanimous consent to speak for another 10 minutes.

[Government Services Act, 1999, March 23rd, 1999]

And outdated.

I was also saying that the President of the Treasury Board has refused to pass antiscab legislation. This type of legislation exists in Quebec since 1977, if I am not mistaken.

It is a masterpiece of harmony, an example of the harmony that well-thought out legislation can bring.

Since 1977, this wonderful legislation, which was introduced if I remember correctly by Pierre-Marc Johnson, has been universally acclaimed in Quebec. I think it deserves a try in the rest of Canada. But what did the President of the Treasury Board do? He refused even to consider passing such a bill, although it improved union-management relations tremendously in Quebec.

What did the President of the Treasury Board do in addition? He refused to pass part III of the Canada Labour Code concerning the preventive withdrawal of pregnant workers.

I have two children, who have just turned one. Nothing is more precious than a child, but before we can think about children, we must think about pregnant women. They must be protected. They are often in a vulnerable condition and must be removed from environments that can sometimes be dangerous both to them and to the child they are carrying. What did the President of the Treasury Board do? He refused to pass part III of the Canada Labour Code concerning the preventive withdrawal of pregnant workers.

As I have only two minutes remaining, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to speak for another 10 minutes.

[Government Services Act, 1999, March 23rd, 1999]

I hope my colleague from Beauce will continue to listen carefully to what I have to say because even people from his own riding call me regularly because they are dissatisfied with their member.

I was saying that not only do we know the mentality of government members, of those Liberal backbenchers who are nothing but doormats, but also that of the President of the Treasury Board. All his actions over the last few years have gone against the interests and the rights of workers.

I can give a few examples that will help a lot of people understand what I am talking about. I hope the Liberal members who are here today are listening to me and will see the undemocratic and anti-worker attitude exhibited by the President of the Treasury Board since he took up his duties in 1993.

Now for the examples. He has refused to comply with the ruling on pay equity. My colleague, the member for Longueuil, who has done an extraordinary job on this issue, will be able to attest to that. If I am not mistaken, on this very day, the Canadian Human Rights Commission blamed the President of the Treasury Board for appealing its ruling. The commission has asked the government to withdraw the appeal. How did the government react? Because it lives on another planet and because it is deaf, it has decided to go ahead with the appeal.

I am happy to see that the member for Mississauga West is listening carefully. I am sure he will learn a lot of things from my speech.

I was talking about the President of the Treasury Board, who has refused to discuss the issue of orphan clauses and to recognize the problem.

The consensus in Quebec is almost unanimous, particularly among young people, that orphan clauses are discriminatory for young people who represent the future and to whom totally unfair and discriminatory clauses are applied. And what is the President of the Treasury Board doing while this discrimination is going on? Nothing. He does not even acknowledge the problem.

What is the President of the Treasury Board doing? He is completely reforming, and failing on all counts, the Canada Industrial Relations Board, where appointments are still being made along party lines and smack of patronage instead of being made according to merit.

As I said earlier, in my introduction, this government harks back to the Duplessis era, it is out of touch with reality, behind the times, old-fashioned, undemocratic and despicable.

[Government Services Act, 1999, March 23rd, 1999]

Indeed, les misérables are in front of us, as the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve has pointed out.

In fact, my colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, to whom I pay tribute today, introduced a bill yesterday to fight and almost eliminate poverty. While it may be an impossible dream, we must always aim to do so. It is surely not—and I am sure he will agree with me—by passing such odious and undemocratic legislation that the rights of workers and the poor will be respected.

I was saying then, before paying tribute to my colleague and friend from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, that if the strike of the blue collar workers affects the interests of other Canadians, as was said earlier, with the tax refunds and so on, we have to understand that the exercise of the right to strike inevitably has a direct or an indirect effect on society, because if every strike that affected the interests of the public were prohibited, there would be no more right to strike.

I studied law in Quebec at Laval University and in Ontario at the University of Western Ontario. In all law courses, and especially in the basic labour law course, we learned that one of the basis of a free and democratic society is the right of workers not only to associate freely, but to bargain freely with the employer.

When the government takes this right away from workers, it creates, I would say, a terrible imbalance between the powers of the workers, often the more vulnerable, and the powers of the employer, often the stronger.

So, once again, this government has decided to come down on the side of the stronger. This time, it is coming down on its own side, because it is the employer. There is a terrible imbalance. They are failing to respect the rights of the workers, the ordinary folk, the real people, with whom the government has lost contact. It lives in a bubble, on another planet.

What does it mean, living on another planet? It means imposing regulations and laws that are completely ridiculous. This is a totally hateful attitude, worthy of Duplessis, and we must keep saying that.