Paul Devillers

[Supply, February 10th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, the documents the government just submitted to the supreme court mention there would be many people in both Canada and Quebec; however, as I said in response to the member's question, the questions the government put to the supreme court are aimed at clarifying what the consequences would be.

Even the speech my honourable colleague opposite has just criticized mentions there are questions, claims regarding sovereignty that need answering. The Parizeau government set $17 billion aside to try to calm the financial markets.

[Supply, February 10th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, the member emphasizes the point that the government is trying to make sure that Quebec or any other province is not denied the right to determine its own position within Confederation or, for that matter, outside Confederation.

The rule of law is important. This needs to be done in an orderly fashion. I would like to quote from the former justice minister and current health minister when he was in the process of this reference to the supreme court. He made reference to the rule of law by saying:

The rule of law is not an obstacle to change. It permits change to take place in an orderly way. It allows Canadians to alter and adjust institutions that govern our country in a fashion that reflects our values of consensus, dialogue and accommodation.

The government is hoping to have clarification. It is not a question of attempting to deny the right of Quebec or any other province to determine their own future. We trying to guarantee that it is done in an orderly fashion.

[Supply, February 10th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, in response to the Bloc Quebecois motion, I wish to reaffirm the position of the Government of Canada, which acknowledges the right of Quebeckers to decide their future. It is precisely because it believes in that right that the Government of Canada has introduced certain initiatives to ensure that the debate for the possible secession of Quebec is held in an atmosphere of clarity and transparency. It is only then that the right of Quebeckers to determine their future takes on its full meaning.

It is clear that Quebeckers cannot be kept in Canada against their clearly and democratically expressed will, but they must not lose Canada without having renounced it clearly. A clear question, a legal, orderly process acceptable to all, an enlightened decision made by citizens who have all the information they need and a clearly expressed will, these are the essential components for Quebeckers to be able to decide their future. To settle for less would be to deny Quebeckers the exercise of their democratic rights that clarity and transparency are paramount for the Government of Canada.

Some information that has now been made public reveals the true intentions of the Government of Quebec at the time of the 1995 referendum, and the approach it had in mind, even after a weak yes on a nebulous question.

The unilateral declaration of independence, plan O or the big game plan of Jacques Parizeau, as well as the famous political and economic partnership suggested by the referendum question but described now by Mr. Bouchard as just the bare bones, or a summary, clearly demonstrate that the process for taking a decision as serious as separation from Canada must be clear and transparent. The process proposed by the PQ government to achieve sovereignty was irresponsible and unrealistic, and the negative consequences of a vote in favour of secession were not disclosed.

Not only must the process be transparent, but the consequences of a vote in favour of Quebec's separation must be clearly explained to people. The fact that the government was prepared to risk losing over $17 billion in people's savings for the unrealistic purpose of limiting panic on the markets after a victory of the yes side—this after assuring people that the consequences of such a victory would not be alarming—clearly shows that the right of Quebeckers to decide their future must be exercised with full knowledge of the facts. The decision to break up a country must be taken with full knowledge of the consequences.

Quebeckers must be allowed to decide, but they must also know exactly what they may have to give up. The confusion generated by secessionists regarding the consequences of Quebec's separation convinced the Canadian government to ensure the clarity and transparency of the process. Do I have to remind the House that, according to a CROP poll taken in July 1997, 44% of Quebeckers who voted yes thought Quebec would still be part of Canada after a yes victory?

The President of the Queen's Privy Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs reaffirmed the importance, for Quebeckers, to have all the information required to properly exercise their right to decide their future. In a letter dated February 6, addressed to Mr. Ryan and dealing with the reference to the supreme court, the minister wrote “Through this reference, the Government of Canada seeks clarification of an important issue, that of the legal aspects of a unilateral secession. We believe Quebeckers and other Canadians are entitled to that information. Above all, the decision whether or not to secede should not be made on the basis of myths and false theories”.

We could add that the governments of Quebec and Canada alike have a duty to take necessary measures to inform citizens of all the aspects of a possible secession by Quebec. I repeat, only under those conditions does Quebec's right to decide its future take on all its meaning.

The Government of Canada has and will always have the responsibility to respect that duty, to provide information that is incumbent on every government.

The current Quebec government said on a number of occasions that, should the yes side win a referendum, even with a small majority, it could separate Quebec from the rest of Canada by unilaterally declaring its independence, adding that neither the Constitution nor the courts have a role to play in a secession. The Government of Canada is of the opinion that such a statement has no legal foundation.

In fact we rather agree with Lucien Bouchard's statement in his book Mot à Mot , and I quote:

Quebeckers, whatever their stripe, did not and do not agree with living outside the Constitution of Canada, when we live in a society based on the rule of law. And Canadians have to understand this.

Secession within the law would already cause huge problems. While it is true that unilateral secession has no basis in law, it would raise problems that are even more difficult to overcome, as the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs indicated in his letter to Mr. Ryan.

In it he said that one of the consequences of such legal instability could fly back in the face of the secessionist government, and I quote:

Many Quebeckers would claim the right to not lose Canada in the confusion, without a recognized legal framework. The Government of Quebec would have a hard time obliging its citizens to comply with its laws, since it would have moved itself outside the legal framework. We Quebeckers would not want our society plunged into such instability.

No person and no government would benefit from such instability, which would, in turn, create economic uncertainty and threaten peace in society.

The action taken by the Government of Canada for clarification purposes in no way questions the legitimacy of a referendum. The aim is not to prevent Quebeckers from expressing their opinion on their political future, but rather to clarify certain matters of law to enable Quebeckers and other Canadians to better understand the scope of the unilateral action proposed by the current Government of Quebec.

Among other things the principle of the rule of law protects the democratic rights of the population. It ensures that over and above the political choices of the day all democratic principles underlying society and guaranteeing its existence within an orderly and peaceful context are respected.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs went further in his letter to Mr. Ryan, stating that the law is necessary in order for political action to take place democratically and not in anarchy.

The Government of Canada undertook to explain clearly what was at stake in a possible third referendum on Quebec's independence and, in particular, the consequences of unilateral secession.

I agree with the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs when he says that, as a Quebecker, he wants to be sure that neither he nor his fellow citizens will lose their identity or their full rights as Canadians in the confusion, with no legal framework to decide our disputes, in a dangerously unclear state that is democratically unacceptable.

I cannot support the motion introduced by the Bloc Quebecois because this party refuses to recognize the rule of law, as we saw with its refusal to agree to the amendment moved earlier today by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

[Middle East, February 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my speaking time with the hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore.

I am pleased to take part in tonight's debate on a possible Canadian participation in military action against Iraq. I am convinced that my constituents realize the importance of this debate given what is at stake on the international scene.

Let us set this debate in its historical context. The last time Canada had to make a decision about whether or not to take military action in that part of the world was in 1991, in the Gulf war.

In 1991 an international coalition attacked Iraq after it had invaded the neighbouring kingdom of Kuwait. Canada's contribution was three ships, 24 CF-18 fighter bomber planes, one Boeing 707 tanker air craft and 1,830 Canadian Armed Forces personnel. As do many Canadians I believe that conflict was largely a measure to protect the world's supply of oil.

The question is why we are back in the same position as we were in 1991. Why are we contemplating putting our armed forces into Iraq? The answer is clear. Iraq is once again flaunting its disregard for international standards.

Let me make some distinctions. I am as aware as anyone of the political advantages to be gained by the United States in its domestic matters with another armed conflict. I cannot support those political considerations as a unique reason for risking Canadian military personnel and using Canadian military dollars.

We cannot forget that the basis of this situation is Iraq's refusal to co-operate with an agency of the United Nations. This agency was established as a condition for ending the Persian gulf war. Iraq is violating this condition and, worst of all, is endangering lives around the world through its production of biological weapons.

The Toronto Star made an interesting analysis in its coverage. According to the Star Iraq has passed up potential oil revenues totalling more than $100 billion since mid-1991 because it has refused to co-operate with the United Nations sponsored program to destroy its capacity for producing weapons of mass destruction.

Why would a country pass up that kind of revenue, especially a country where according to some organizations a child dies every 10 minutes due to malnutrition and disease? The implication is that the refusal to allow inspection by UN personnel is worth more than millions of dollars and worth more than those children's lives. If that is the case, this is a spine-chilling prospect for everyone on earth.

The United Nations commission charged with the disarmament of Iraq found chilling evidence of Iraq's intention regarding the production and stockpiling of biological weapons. As reported in the Chronique ONU , the special commission found proof that Iraq had obtained or was seeking the equipment and material necessary to produce biological weapons. Iraq was unable to provide a non-military justification for the equipment and materials.

On July 1, 1995 Iraq admitted to having established an offensive program of biological weapons, including the manufacture and stockpiling of large quantities of toxic agents. The commission also found that Iraq had not produced a reliable accounting of its military biological weapons. Until this accounting was provided, UNSCOM was unable to complete the mandate assigned by the security council.

For several months Iraq has refused to allow United Nations inspectors to continue their investigations. Iraq maintains that it has destroyed all the materials necessary to produce biological weapons by dumping them in the desert and has refused to allow UNSCOM inspectors to inspect the sites of suspected illegal weapons programs.

Iraq has couched this refusal in allegations that American members of the UN team were conducting illicit spying activities for the United States. Given the evidence of the special committee this refusal is suspect. That is the historical substantive context of the situation.

Let me move to the political context of Canada's potential role. There are several issues I would like to briefly mention. It is clear that a diplomatic resolution to this conflict is in everyone's best interest. While it is important to show the Iraqi government that the world supports the UN mandated commission, the citizenship of the inspectors is not a reason to risk Canadian personnel or use Canadian military dollars. I suggest that we call the bluff of the Iraqi and the Americans and send in other inspectors.

I understand that the Arab league, the Soviet Union and other influential bodies are working toward a diplomatic solution. I firmly believe that we cannot in all good conscience move any further toward an armed conflict without exhausting all diplomatic avenues.

Second, I would like to briefly discuss the specific mandate of the Canadian armed forces. The United States is asking merely for logistical support from the Canadian forces—nothing more, nothing less. Clearly the United States is trying to legitimize a military intervention. As in 1991, the Canadian contribution will not be innumerable weapons and war machines.

Since the white paper, the Canadian armed forces have bet on their role as peacekeepers. If we take part in this conflict, what kind of message will we be sending? Is this the way we want to spend our defence budget? I have no answer to these questions, but they are certainly relevant in the current debate on Canada's possible participation in the Persian Gulf.

I cannot sufficiently underscore the fact that the community of nations Canada belongs to must wager on a negotiated solution to the current impasse, otherwise we will be facing armed intervention.

I would like to point out that the lack of consensus among the Arab countries on military intervention in Iraq means that Canada must carefully consider its conflict resolution options. Caution is the watchword.

As I said earlier, Canadians are aware that Saddam Hussein's regime is ill-intentioned. Some oppose the production of weapons of mass destruction, biological and others, by Saddam Hussein. The objective is not disputed, but the means to achieve it require some thinking.

Some of my constituents told me of their concerns about the political situation in the Middle East. While they approve the objective, which is to prevent the production and the stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction, some are concerned that a military intervention could trigger a conflict that would go beyond the Middle East region. Others wonder about the effectiveness of the various measures being considered by the international community to stop the production and the stockpiling of such weapons.

I understand these concerns. Again, a military intervention may be necessary, but the current situation requires that we conduct an in-depth review. I hope this debate will help us make the appropriate decisions.

[Canada Train Project, February 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to give its support for the Canada Train national unity project.

In August 1998, 250 young Canadians will begin a cross-country tour to explore Canada. Delegates' responsibilities will include taking part in public debates and forums, and performing community services. Enriched by this experience, they will meet 25 days later to discuss their vision of the country's future.

I would like to congratulate corporate and individual sponsors, particularly the Students' Union of the University of Alberta, on their vision and enthusiasm. I urge young Canadians to take part in the Canada Train project.

I urge all members to support this project now, in its preparatory stages, and in August when the Canada train passes through their ridings. The initiatives of these young people are a reminder to all of us—

[Criminal Code, February 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford has put forward a private member's bill, Bill C-211, to amend the arrest without warrant provisions of the Criminal Code.

I assure members of the House that public safety remains the government's number one priority in the operation of our corrections and conditional release system. To more fully demonstrate the importance we attach to the issue, I would like to mention a bit about our present system of conditional release.

Almost all offenders will return, by law, to the community one day so the best long term protection for society is through the gradual controlled release of offenders that helps them to reintegrate into society as law-abiding citizens. Unfortunately there are some, including some Reform Party members, who dwell on this procedure to exploit the fears of Canadians about the reintegration of offenders into society.

Protection of society is the primary consideration in the decision to release any offender. Only those offenders whose risk has been assessed as manageable in the community are released on parole. The transition from confinement to freedom can be difficult and offenders have a better chance of success if they receive supervision, program opportunities, training and support within the community to which they must readjust.

Offenders who are granted parole are not simply put back on the street with no forethought. Regrettably this is a common misconception that again is exploited by some, including Reform members, for political gain.

Offenders must have a release plan. They must leave prison with a place to live, a plan for gainful employment or education, and a community support system that gives them a chance to change their previous behaviour.

Before granting parole to an offender, board members review all the pertinent information available to make a preliminary risk assessment, namely the nature of the offence, the offender's criminal record, as well as any social or mental problem. After reviewing all this information and, in most cases, interviewing the offender, board members decide whether or not to grant parole.

In order to make this decision, the board relies on a number of partners. The first one is the Correctional Service of Canada, which provides the board with basic information, including the offender's criminal history, his behaviour in prison, his participation in programs, and his parole plan.

Community organizations, police forces, victims and other people also provide information on the offender's ability to re-enter the community.

When the board decides to release an offender into the community a number of standard conditions apply, including reporting regularly to a parole officer and to the police as instructed and carrying at all times the release certificate or identity card. The board can also impose additional conditions such as abstaining from alcohol, staying away from known criminals and no association with victims or their families.

Breaking one of these conditions is a serious matter because an offender risks returning to prison. Offenders are still serving their sentence and they are closely supervised by parole officers employed by Correctional Service Canada working out of local parole offices. These officers play a key role in helping and encouraging the offender to successfully complete the transition from prison to the community.

The parole officer whose powers are considerable can recommend directly to the board that a treatment condition be imposed, for instance for a drug or alcohol abuse problem, and if the offender does not comply he or she can be sent immediately back to prison.

I would like to stress that there are strict measures in place for handling violations and prevention of breaches of parole, statutory release and unescorted temporary absence conditions. In the case of an offender on parole or statutory release a suspension warrant can be issued at any time by Correctional Services Canada and the National Parole Board when there has been a breach of condition, to prevent a breach of condition or when it is believed to be necessary and reasonable in order to protect society.

Execution of this warrant provides sufficient authority to return the offender to custody until the case can be reviewed by the National Parole Board. A network of officers is on duty round the clock to provide for immediate police action by telephone and warrants can be transmitted by facsimile.

In the case of unescorted temporary absences a suspension warrant can be issued for an offender where the grounds for granting the absence have changed or no longer exist or when the new information becomes available that would have altered the original decision.

The Corrections and Conditional Release Act provides ample and clear authority for an offender's conditional release to be suspended by correction officers. This enables police to arrest the offender and bring him or her into custody.

It is also important to realize that police already have full authority to arrest an offender without warrant whenever they find any conditional release offender committing a criminal offence or whenever they have reasonable grounds to believe that a conditionally released offender has committed or is about to commit an indictable offence.

We must also bear in mind that roughly 80% of offenders released on parole and statutory release do not commit any type of offence while under supervision. About 11% are returned to prison following a breach of conditions established at the time of their release. These figures do not include offenders released on unescorted temporary absences where the success rate is close to 99%.

New measures to improve communications between the correctional service and police were taken to ensure better community management of paroled offenders under federal jurisdiction. This includes notifying police in advance every time an offender is released, whether on temporary absence without escort, parole or statutory release, as well as providing police with relevant information when correctional authorities have reason to believe that an offender about to be released at the end of his sentence may pose a threat to others.

More recently, the government passed new legislation to better protect the public against high risk violent offenders, by creating a long term offender designation for repeat sex offenders for supervision and monitoring purposes and introducing indeterminate sentences.

There is also the judicial restraint order requiring anyone to keep the peace or face a term of imprisonment.

Open discussion and debate on issues affecting public safety deserve our foremost attention and utmost scrutiny. We also have a responsibility to ensure that our energies are directed toward implementing new measures that are well researched and well founded and most of all needed. However, we must guard ourselves against the political exploitation of those issues by members such as the Reform Party members who have been interrupting my speech here today.

I believe our current legislation and practices regarding conditional release offenders provide for the right balance and responsibility between police and correctional authorities and that the system we have in place is a sound one.

For those reasons I believe that our common goal of public safety would not be enhanced by the adoption of the measures outlined by Bill C-211.

[Motions For Papers, December 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, similarly, I would be happy to take it under advisement and review it with the leadership of the House and respond to the hon. member.

[Motions For Papers, December 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.

[Questions On The Order Paper, December 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to take that under advisement and review it with the House leadership and then respond to the hon. member.

[Questions On The Order Paper, December 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that all the other questions be allowed to stand.