Nick Discepola

[The Criminal Code, October 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take two minutes to bring the member up to speed on this new technology.

It is called GPS. GPS stands for geographical positioning system. It is based on the positions of satellites. Through technology we can within 15 feet determine where the inmate is at any location on Earth. With the technology we can also determine if that person, who happens to have a special profile whether it be a person out on parole or whatever, is near a school but should not be. We can determine whether the person is near a spouse but should not be. The technology is there. It is a very convenient way of using today's technology economically without further burdening the taxpayers.

I do not understand what is so difficult about understanding that.

[The Criminal Code, October 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have to explain to the member again because he does not seem to understand. Sometimes I wonder if it is a lack of taking the time to read or if it is a lack of taking the time to understand. I will tell him how judicial restraint will work for the third time this afternoon.

I remind him that the crown attorney will be empowered to bring an application where there are reasonable grounds to fear that an individual will commit a serious personal injury offence. These grounds will be heard at official hearings by a judge. The application will be made and the judge will hear it. He will analyse all the information he has at his disposal and will make the decision.

I will ask the member again. If he wants that part of the bill stricken out, would he tell the House how he proposes to prevent innocent women from being stalked by their husbands or their lovers? Do we have to wait until they are victimized before the police can act, as is the current case?

[The Criminal Code, October 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, to the member for Calgary Centre who asked us to name one person in this party who subscribes to the philosophy of lock them up for life, I would like to quote for his benefit Hansard , September 17, page 4316, the Reform member for Calgary Northeast:

We say that for every criminal who is convicted of a violent crime for a second time, he or she should be sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility for early release or parole.

To me that means locking them up and throwing away the key. I hope I have answered the question for the hon. member.

The member who just spoke raised the question of why we are allowing the crown six months to apply for dangerous offender category? It is very simple. During that six months new evidence could arise that would be beneficial to the crown. I refer to recent cases such as the Bernardo case where there was evidence after the fact that tapes were available.

He also referred to the clause on stalking and he agrees that we should take measures to allow correctional services a mechanism to prevent stalking. I know statistics can be played with and some members are very good at that. But when we look at the statistics over 50 per cent of offenders are known to the victims. It is usually the husband or the spouse, a direct member, when sexual abuse and violence occurs. As a result there is no mechanism.

We have heard of a case from the Montreal area where a woman had been stalked by her husband for over a year and the police were helpless, until finally she was murdered. Then the police had the law to intervene.

I ask the hon. member if he believes we should remove this provision from the law. What procedure would he propose that would allow the police jurisdiction to intervene without necessarily infringing on the rights of people? If the member took the time to look at the bill he would know that before a restraining order can obtained, one must apply to a judge. It is not automatic. The judge would review the case and if the judge feels that there is sufficient grounds to justify the restraining order then it is very inexpensive way for us to monitor the movement of that person. With a bracelet for example, we would know at any time where the individual is. I ask the hon. member how he proposes to prevent fear in the women who are stalked night after night.

[The Death Of Robert Bourassa, October 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the death of former Quebec premier Robert Bourassa marks the end of one of the most momentous periods in Quebec history.

The youngest ever premier of Quebec had a dream if not an obsession that led him to devote all of his efforts and energy to Quebec's economic development.

Robert Bourassa saw big for Quebec and, inspired by the wealth of ideas born of the Quiet Revolution, he put in place the conditions needed to turn his province into one of the most prosperous and promising industrial societies ever.

In less than 30 years, this visionary succeeded in getting Quebec to take the giant step separating it from the great economic powers. Today, we pay homage and thank him for his unique contribution to Quebec's economic development.

On behalf of all the people of Quebec, thank you and goodbye, Mr. Bourassa.

[Canada Labour Code, October 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the motion put before the House by the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.

I am sure that the hon. member's motion is prompted by concern for the welfare and well-being of the membership of the RCMP-a concern that I can assure him I and our government share.

We are only too aware of the RCMP's crucial role as Canada's national police service and of the need to support RCMP members in their professional duties and to ensure their personal welfare.

For example, the government recently introduced Bill C-52 in this House. This amendment to the RCMP Superannuation Act will ensure that RCMP members serving outside Canada in "special duty areas" are automatically considered to be on duty 24 hours a day, and therefore will receive complete benefit coverage.

The government introduced this bill because it realizes that RCMP members serving their country in a peacekeeping mission, in hazardous areas, should not have to worry about their own or their families' well-being. This is an example of the kind of practical and meaningful action this government is taking on behalf of the women and men of the RCMP.

Through various initiatives, our government is committed to improving the safety and security of Canadians, and, at the same time, to helping the police, including the RCMP, do a better job. We want to ensure that the police have the tools they need to carry out their professional duties.

Let me give you a few examples. We have instituted tougher measures for sex offenders who victimize children. We have created a national system for screening applicants for paid or volunteer positions where, once again, work with children is involved. We have amended the Young Offenders Act to provide for tougher sentences. We have reformed the sentencing process to

ensure more consistency and to give greater emphasis to public safety and the needs of victims.

The safety and security of Canadians has been a priority of the government since it took office. I have given but a very few examples of its initiatives. However some people, such as the hon. member ask the question: Why has the government not made the unionization of the RCMP a priority? It is a fair question.

The RCMP is our national police service and as such it operates national programs that are used by other law enforcement agencies and police forces in every part of the country. These are special services that no other police service in Canada can provide.

I will give some examples as the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve asked me to do. The RCMP maintains the national crime computers, including the Canadian Police Information Centre that feeds into most other police forces and patrol cars in Canada. The RCMP runs the national forensic crime laboratories and provides forensic services, again to police jurisdictions throughout the country.

The RCMP also operates the source witness protection program which can assist other police jurisdictions with the relocation of witnesses and sources throughout Canada. As we all know, Canada is a signatory to a number of international agreements and conventions and our international reputation depends on the RCMP providing never ending protection to embassies and diplomats across Canada.

The RCMP provides protection for prominent people while visiting Canada, visiting heads of state and governments, the Governor General, supreme court justices and even the Parliament Hill area.

The RCMP given its respected international reputation, has also been called on by the United Nations to provide civilian peacekeeping in various locations around the globe including the former Yugoslavia and Haiti.

Clearly, the RCMP is not just any police force. No other agency could provide all the services that I have just mentioned. Without exaggeration, a work action by the RCMP could become a matter of life or death.

We place great importance on the safety of Canadians who rely on the services of the RCMP. That is not to say that the government ignores the rights of the RCMP membership. Far from it. The government realizes that, where a union does not exist to represent federal employees, then there is a special obligation to listen to those employees and to ensure that there is an effective system for addressing workplace issues.

That is why the RCMP has a system of employee representation. This very progressive system is known as the Division Staff Relations Program. The backbone of the Div-Rep program, as it is known, are the 29 representatives elected by regular and civilian members of the RCMP. The Div-Reps regularly meet with division Commanding Officers and also, on a national basis, with the RCMP Commissioner to represent the membership.

The informal nature of the Div-Rep program promotes access to the top management of the RCMP and even to the Solicitor General. If relations were dominated by a formal and legally binding collective agreement, I wonder if this kind of access could still continue.

Many members strongly believe that the co-operative approach which the Div-Rep program offers has been highly effective in advancing the interests of the membership and in finding workable and practical solutions to the members' concerns. For example, the Div-Reps played a key role in securing new regulations which provide better occupational health and safety protection for members.

The Div-Reps can also take credit for the successful constable reclassification initiative which was of particular importance in addressing pay level concerns of newer members. The initiative was successful, in part, because Div-Reps could take advantage of the present flexible system.

The Div-Rep system allows the RCMP and the government to quickly manage resources to meet new pressures and needs. This type of timely response would be more difficult under a locked-in collective agreement. In short, the Div-Rep program works, and has worked for many years, efficiently and effectively.

The motion put before this House by the hon. member is well-intentioned but it does not take into account the fact that the RCMP, in the Div-Rep program, has a proven system of representation. It is not clear why there is a need to tamper with a system that is already working well.

The government will continue, as in the past, to support the RCMP in their duties and work with them to resolve workplace issues and, where possible, to improve working conditions.

But we will bear in mind the unique nature of the Force and their crucial role in maintaining the safety and security of Canadians. It is for these reasons that we cannot support the motion before us.

[Canada Labour Code, October 2nd, 1996]

Did you read my speech?

[The Parti Quebecois, October 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the language issue continues to rattle the Parti Quebecois.

Yesterday, minister Serge Ménard plunged into the fray, stating: "I would not want this country we will be building to be a country that does not treat its minorities as we wished we had been treated in Canada".

The minister is in no position to teach anyone anything about how francophones should be treated in Canada. In this respect, I remind him that, in Canada, we have two official languages and, although they are few in numbers, francophones have successfully made their presence felt and done well at every level of Canada's social, cultural and political life.

By the way, Mr. Ménard, when will an anglophone from the West Island become premier of Quebec for instance?

[The Leader Of The Bloc Quebecois, September 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, at his party's general council in Beauport during the weekend, the leader of the Bloc once again changed his position on the issue of partnership. He told his supporters on the weekend, and I quote: "Just because a federal minister will not consider partnership does not mean we will stop talking about it."

This is rather surprising, because we all remember that the same leader of the Bloc said a week earlier, and I will quote him again: "As far as I am concerned, we are not going to make it the Bloc's mission to sell partnership in the rest of Canada".

The question that arises today is whether the leader of the Bloc Quebecois believes that to follow in the footsteps of Lucien Bouchard, he will have to make as many quick changes in politics as he did.

[Reference To The Supreme Court, September 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the government of Quebec will not comment on the reference to the Supreme Court by the Minister of Justice.

Yet, last May 29, in connection with the Bertrand case, Lucien Bouchard took quite a different position from that just adopted by his government, and I quote: "I obviously cannot just allow the court to go ahead without saying anything. The lawyers are attacking Quebec's rights".

As for the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, he said on June 5, and I am again quoting: "I have always told Mr. Bouchard, and I told him again recently, that the policy of the empty chair is not appropriate at this time".

Quebecers are entitled to know the separatists' arguments concerning the unilateral declaration of independence. To refuse to take part in the deliberations of the Supreme Court is to deny them this right.

[Quebec's Plan For Sovereignty, September 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec's intergovernmental affairs minister, Jacques Brassard, said yesterday that: "Whether it is the Superior Court, the Appeal Court or the Supreme Court, Quebec's position remains the same. A judge remains a judge. We feel that this is not a matter for judges, regardless of the level of the court".

The PQ government just indicated that its independence project is above the laws and the courts. It tells voters that a separatist government can flout the laws of this country if they do not serve its sovereignist cause.

Quebecers should wonder about the type of society and justice that they can be guaranteed by a government which, in order to justify its independence project, does not hesitate to disregard the fundamental laws of our country.