Nick Discepola

[Canadian Security Intelligence Service, April 23rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table two copies, one in each official language, of the 1996 public report of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

I ask that it be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

[Justice, April 23rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the member's allegations are totally unfounded. The government is not considering giving any pay raise to any prisoner.

They are paid the scale that has been established for a long time for work done in the prisons. I do not know where the member is coming from, as usual.

[Justice, April 22nd, 1997]

If they want a response, Mr. Speaker, I think our record on victims rights speaks for itself. This government has acted time and time again to protect the rights of victims

and time and time again it was that party which voted against every single piece of legislation.

[National Parole Board, April 17th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take part in the debate on Motion M-139 before us.

If I understand, the hon. member feels that the government should order the National Parole Board to accord the benefit of the doubt, not to the prisoner, but to the victim, to their family and to public security at parole hearings.

The motion expresses a legitimate concern that both the government and I share with respect to victims, their families and public security. However, we must recognize that a number of government measures already exist to respond to the concerns of crime victims and to ensure public security.

I would begin by pointing out that protection of society is the primary consideration in any decision on parole. The National Parole Board grants parole only if, in its opinion, the offender will not present an unacceptable risk for society at the end of his sentence and that his release will contribute to protecting society by promoting his return to the community as a law abiding citizen.

The Correctional Service of Canada and the National Parole Board are already directing all their efforts at protecting society by controlling offenders and helping them change behaviours and attitudes that have led them to crime in the past.

The transition from imprisonment to freedom can be difficult, and offenders have a better chance of success if they are supervised, have suitable programs, have opportunities for training and are given support in the community to which they will eventually have to adjust.

In helping offenders return to society, the government ensures public security and the security of the victims. The Correctional Service of Canada already directs much of its energy to helping offenders adapt and return to society.

Similarly, the National Parole Board is helping to protect the public by taking judicious decisions in favour of the return of offenders to the community as law abiding citizens.

I would add that the information provided by victims plays a key role in the decisions made by the National Parole Board. A balance

must be struck between the victim's concerns and the need to help the offender return to society without compromising public safety.

The best way to achieve this balance is through risk assessment and management. Certain offenders represent a greater danger than others. In accordance with National Parole Board policies, board members systematically examine the risk an offender would represent for society if released.

They look at all the relevant information they have available in order to conduct an initial risk assessment. They take into account such factors as the offence, prior criminal behaviour, social problems such as addiction and family violence, the individual's mental health and especially his potential to reoffend, behaviour during earlier releases, psychological and psychiatric records, motivation to change, and information provided by the victim.

After this initial assessment, the National Parole Board looks at other, more specific factors such as the individual's behaviour in the institution, the information provided by case management personnel and other professionals that is indicative of changes, and the benefits derived from programs in which the offender has participated, such as detox or cognitive skills programs.

After going over all this information, board members make a decision. If parole is granted, the Board can add conditions, in addition to those required by law, in order to help manage rehabilitation and ensure public safety.

For example, it may require the offender to abstain from alcohol if this is deemed reasonable and necessary for risk management and the protection of society. It is common for an offender to be prohibited from having contact with a victim, if the victim so requests.

The great majority of offenders are serving definite sentences and eventually return to the community. As you know, imprisonment is only a temporary measure that cannot guarantee the safety of the public.

As a result, once an offender has been sentenced, correctional staff begin assessing risk and preparing for the day when the offender can be released. Personnel in the community gather information on the offender from a wide variety of sources: family, police, the court, victims, other members of the public. The information provided by the victim is an integral element of the risk assessment and the decision to release an offender.

What I mean is that, based on all of the information at our disposal in order to make wise decisions about parole, by allowing gradual release and preparing the offender to return to the community, we are protecting the public and the victims at the same time.

For the moment, I would like to talk about the rights our correctional system gives to victims. The year 1992 was a watershed year, when the Corrections and Conditional Release Act was passed. For the first time, victims' rights were officially acknowledged in federal legislation on correctional services.

I would like to discuss the rights of victims as they exist in our correctional system. A significant step was made in 1992 with the enactment of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. From that time, for the first time, the rights of victims were formerly recognized in federal corrections legislation.

The Corrections and Conditional Release Act clearly recognizes the role of the victim in relation to federal corrections. It provides for the sharing of information with victims and enables victims to have access to parole hearings.

Under section 101(b) of the act victims may provide information to the National Parole Board which the board must take into account when reviewing the inmates on any kind of conditional release. This may be done in writing or in an interview with a National Parole Board staff member who makes the recommendation and a record of the discussion for inclusion in the offender's file.

The legislation allows the correctional service and the National Parole Board to share upon request information about offenders with their victims. At the victim's request the correctional service and the National Parole Board have an obligation to disclose certain information about the offender such as the offender's name, the offence for which the offender was convicted, the eligibility dates and review dates of respective temporary absence or parole, the dates the sentence began and the length of the sentence. This information is also made available to the public.

Victims, however, are eligible to receive additional information that is not normally disclosed to the public. Such information may include the location of the penitentiary where the sentence is being served; the date, if any, on which the offender is to be released on escorted or unescorted temporary absence, work release, parole or statutory release; the date of any hearing for the purposes of review; conditions attached to any form of release; the destination of the offender on any form of release; whether the offender is in custody; and, if not, why not; whether or not the offender has appealed a decision of the board; and the outcome of the appeal.

This specific information can be given to victims, provided the Chairman of the National Parole Board or the Commissioner of Corrections deems that the victim's interests clearly outweigh the breech of privacy that will result from disclosure.

The Corrections and Conditional Release Act also takes victims' concerns and needs into consideration by affording them the opportunity to attend parole hearings as observers.

In the past they could do so only with the offender's agreement; now it is the National Parole Board's decision. As I said, victims can also provide information to the Board, and it must take this into consideration during the case study.

The information provided by the victim which the Board must take into consideration during the case study includes the victim impact statement submitted to the Crown prosecutor, the police reports on the nature of the crime, and the information provided directly to the Board or correctional authorities by the victim or the victim's relatives.

The Board also considers any reports of abuse or violence against the offender's family or against people in a relationship of intimacy, dependency or trust with the offender. The information provided by the victim is also important when assessing the relevant conditions in managing a specific risk.

This is also a factor to be taken into consideration when preparing the offender's release plan, particularly if he is related to the victim, or will be living in the vicinity of the victim after release. The Board takes into consideration the victim's requests if he or she feels that certain conditions are necessary for protection.

[Quebec Premier, April 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, under the headline "Federal campaign Bouchard's priority in May", La Presse informed us yesterday morning that the premier of Quebec intended to give the Bloc Quebecois a hand in the upcoming federal election. This was confirmed by his press secretary, who said, and I quote; ``We are waiting to see what the Bloc Quebecois would like and we will accommodate them''.

As a Quebecer, I think Lucien Bouchard has incredible nerve abandoning his responsibilities as premier of Quebec for over one month in order to volunteer his services to help the Bloc Quebecois campaign.

In light of the very difficult social and economic situation in which Quebec finds itself, the premier perhaps has better things to do than warm up crowds for the member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie. Is this how they govern? Or, better yet, if the members of the Bloc Quebecois are looking for a good slogan for the next election, I could suggest this one: "I have a passion for Quebec but Canada is paying my pension".

[Défi-Emploi 18-25, April 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, young people in my riding of Vaudreuil want to find their place on the labour market. Youth unemployment is one of our government's main concerns.

I am therefore pleased to mention a new partnership initiative designed to promote the hiring of young people aged 18 to 25, in the greater Montreal region.

The Défi-Emploi 18-25 program is a partnership between the Department of Human Resources Development, the SQDM, the Quebec department of income security, the chamber of commerce of metropolitan Montreal, and other local stakeholders.

That program was set up to promote the hiring of young people aged 18 to 25 by contacting various businesses. Young people represent the future. Under the program, young people will be able to take part in free seminars on employment, which will include employers, employment experts and other young people.

Given last year's success with the Défi-Emploi program, we are proud that this initiative is being repeated this year.

[Bloc Quebecois, April 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the home page of the new Internet web site of the Bloc Quebecois bears the unfortunate imprint of the double standard of this party and its leader.

French-speaking surfers are welcome to the site, which offers all kinds of information about the party, its members of Parliament and their ridings.

However, if you happen to be English-speaking, be prepared for a rude awakening. First of all, the word welcome applies only to "Dear friends from Quebec". Anglos from the other provinces will please refrain. Second, the tone is brittle and brutal, to say the least. The emphasis is on the mission of the Bloc Quebecois and its ultimate objective, the separation of Quebec.

The new leader of the Bloc has been quick to instil in his party his new philosophy of provocation. Considering the initial results, we will soon think back with regret to what the Bloc Quebecois used to be before his leadership.

[Automobile Industry, March 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to announce that Richard Gauthier was recently named president of the Federation of Automobile Dealer Associations. He replaces Ken Graydon, who decided to retire after 25 years of loyal service.

Mr. Gauthier brings to FADA over 27 years of experience in the automobile industry, including 14 years as president of Gauthier Pontiac Buick, in Montreal. In 1993, Time Magazine named Mr. Gauthier top dealer in the Montreal region.

FADA represents over 3,000 automobile dealers across Canada, 10 of whom are in my riding of Vaudreuil. As small businesses, they provide jobs for over 100,000 Canadians.

On behalf of all members, congratulations and good luck to Mr. Gauthier.

[Bloc Quebecois, March 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, last weekend, having completed the long and tedious process they imposed on themselves, Bloc Quebecois members finally elected a new leader.

In an effort to steer as far away as they could from last year's disappointing experience, when their leader was elected by an electoral conclave, this year, Bloc members went to the other extreme by having their leader selected by universal suffrage.

The sole purpose of the convention that just took place was to confirm what all observers had known for more than four months: that the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie would be elected leader of the Bloc.

Bloc members have just elected a new president. However, as far as the new leader of the Bloc Quebecois is concerned, they will have to be patient, because Lucien Bouchard is clearly not about to give it up.

[National Unity, March 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is as a federalist member of Parliament from Quebec that I rise in the House today to denounce the strategy of the Conservative Party and its leader, the member of Parliament for Sherbrooke.

For some weeks now the leader of the Conservative Party has been travelling through the anglophone provinces promising that a Conservative government would resolve the issue of national unity and put an end to the separatist threat in Quebec.

In Quebec however, and again last Monday in his own riding of Sherbrooke, the Conservative leader has relentlessly attacked Quebec federalists and said almost nothing against the Bloc Quebecois and their separatist allies.

Canadians have not been fooled by this double talk in the past. The Conservative leader had better realize it soon, if he does not want to lose the two seats he has in the next election. He had better start talking the talk.