Nick Discepola

[The Montreal Economy, September 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec separatists seem determined to do away with Montreal and its people, whom they hold responsible for the successive referendum reverses they have suffered.

Besides appointing the token minister responsible for Montreal and making vague commitments to work toward national reconciliation, the Parti Quebecois has not done a thing for Montreal. It is standing by as the city slowly but inexorably loses its investors, its jobs and its brains.

As if to speed up Montreal's collapse, Quebec separatists have decided to unilaterally re-open the language debate to please a handful of radical militants.

In terms of a strategy for Montreal's recovery, we have seen better, we have never seen worse. The Parti Quebecois and its separatist allies are deluding themselves and other Quebecers with this idea that Montreal has to be weakened for their plan to achieve independence to succeed.

[Prisons And Reformatories Act, September 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about rhetoric. I heard nothing but rhetoric from the last speaker.

If he wants to consult Hansard of last week he will note that even his colleague from Fraser Valley is almost about to support the bill. I question whether the hon. member has even taken the time to read the bill.

We are not talking about a bill which addresses criminal justice issues. We are talking about a bill which allows provinces and territories to address the severe problems they have with the administering of inmates within their jurisdictions. That is people of less than two years and a day. We are not talking about hard core criminals.

In the federal system there is a procedure in place for us to administer the penitentiary system called the National Parole Board. Some provinces have that mechanism in their jurisdiction. The majority of them do not have that privilege in their legislation. The temporary absence system is then used in place of parole to administer those prisoners who are in for an average of less than six months.

When I hear the member say this applies to hard core criminals, we are going to let them out and we are going to endanger the public security, I have a hard time. I doubt if he even read the bill.

This bill is an initiative which has been discussed by federal, provincial and territorial leaders, all ministers responsible for justice in their territories since May 1996. They have asked our government to give them the same leverage and the same latitude to deal with the administration of their justice system. It has nothing to do with what the hon. member was talking about.

The provincial-territorial actions program will allow the provinces to control offenders in their jurisdictions. It will allow provincial prisoners leave for a specified period of time, with or without an escort, for medical, humanitarian or rehabilitative purposes. It is designed to help offenders reintegrate into the community. They are going to serve their two years less a day sooner or later.

I ask the hon. member, if all the federal and provincial ministers are in agreement with the bill, if the Bloc Quebecois is in agreement with the bill, if members on this side of the House are in agreement with the bill, what is his concern?

This bill will allow the provinces and territories the flexibility to tailor their temporary absence programs according to their needs in their provinces and in their communities. That is all we are dealing with. We are not dealing with all the issues the hon. member raised.

[The Leader Of The Bloc Quebecois, September 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as time passes, the position of the Leader of the Bloc Quebecois seems increasingly uncomfortable.

He was obliged to campaign for the leadership because part of his caucus threatened to abandon ship if the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie became master of this vessel, and he was elected at the end of a leadership race that was not a real race. Following the referendum defeat, he face the need to justify the very existence of his party, which an increasing number of members seem anxious to leave, and now, according to Le Devoir , apparently part of his caucus has been pressing the former Premier, Mr. Parizeau, to take up the leadership of the Bloc Quebecois.

Faced with this challenge to his leadership, will the hon. member for Roberval remain at the helm of a ship that has become rudderless or will he do as others have done who dream of pursuing their careers under the more clement skies of Quebec City?

[Federal Public Servants, September 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, federal public servants working in Quebec are again seeing what price those who do not share the PQ's separatist obsession have to pay.

We all recall that, in the last election campaign, the separatists promised that all federal employees in Quebec would have jobs should Quebec become independent. After the majority voted no in the last referendum, federal public servants are now being told that, if and when there is another referendum, they should go and see the federal government if they want to keep their jobs.

How do you like that? The PQ and BQ want Quebec to separate from Canada but would have the Canadian government keep federal employees living in Quebec on its payroll after Quebec becomes independent. Federal employees have seen through the separatists' little game. Next time, an even stronger majority will vote no.

[Bloc Quebecois Leader, September 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, between now and the next election, the Bloc leader and his advisers intend to show Canadians, and I quote from their report, "that sovereignty and an offer of partnership are the best path toward a solution to the future of Quebec and Canada".

How can the Bloc leader be taken seriously when he said exactly the reverse, on December 22, and I quote again: "Mrs. Lalonde wants to convince Canada of the benefits of an economic partnership with Quebec. For my part, I believe it is more important to be in Ottawa to defend Quebec's interests and show to its people that federalism as it stands is not in their best interest, so that they will vote yes at the next referendum".

Who is telling the truth now? The member for Roberval who wanted to become leader of the Bloc Quebecois or the member for Roberval who is trying to get re-elected?

[Prisons And Reformatories Act, September 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to answer the concerns of the member for Fraser Valley West about the extension from 15 to 60 days since he directed his comments at me two or three times.

I think the member is aware that a temporary absence is usually used by provincial authorities to manage the inmate population. It is usually used for medical reasons such as when an inmate has to seek medical treatment outside the institution. It is also used for humanitarian related purposes. In going from 15 to 60 days we have consulted the people who are front line.

Quite often as politicians we are criticized because we legislate and do not take into consideration those aspects of the legislation that affect the front line people. They have asked us to increase it from 15 to 60 days for several reasons. First, when somebody is sentenced to a longer period of time there is a mechanism in place called the National Parole Board which most provinces have. They usually use that as the mechanism with which to administer the release of the inmate population. However, when we have a smaller period of time, a six month sentence for example, that process is too cumbersome. As a result they have asked for modifications in the law.

The 60 days would be required, for example, for an inmate to seek treatment outside or follow programs that might have a finite period of time exceeding the 15 days which seems to be very restrictive.

I want to reassure the hon. member for Fraser Valley West that there is an added safeguard in the legislation. There is a new provision that will require a reassessment of the offender's case prior to any renewal of any temporary absence. I hope that is the reassurance the member is seeking. Hopefully we can convince him later on to vote in favour of the bill.

[Prisons And Reformatories Act, September 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-53 at second reading.

This bill proposes amendments to the current Prisons and Reformatories Act that would strengthen and modernize the statutory framework that governs temporary absence programs for offenders in provincial and territorial custody.

I think the hon. member for Calgary Northeast did not understand this. I hope Reform members will follow the example of their Bloc colleagues and support this bill.

The bill would benefit the provinces and territories by providing them with a more flexible legislative framework to meet the diverse circumstances of their individual jurisdictions. It is a balanced response to growing concerns by provinces and territories that the existing temporary absence legal framework for offenders in provincial and territorial custody is too limited and outdated.

It should be noted that many of the same issues such as the expansion of the types of temporary absences and their duration were addressed for penitentiary inmates in 1992 when the new Corrections and Conditional Release Act was enacted.

Now we have once again the member of Parliament from Calgary Northeast saying we should remodernize the whole correctional system. It was done in 1992. The provinces and the territories have recognized that similar changes are required for provincial and territorial inmates. That is what Bill C-53 addresses. It does not address the panoply of concerns the member raised. I think he is confusing the issue.

These amendments were developed in full consultation with provincial and territorial governments. They were approved by the federal-provincial-territorial ministers responsible for justice in May of this year. I might add that they are an excellent illustration of federal, provincial and territorial co-operation.

As hon. members will know, the Prisons and Reformatories Act is a federal statute which governs how sentences under the Criminal Code and other statutes will be administered.

This stems from the federal responsibility for criminal law. However, it is our provincial and territorial partners who must implement this legislation. It is therefore incumbent upon us to ensure that there is adequate flexibility for them to meet their own unique circumstances as they see fit, without undue limitation.

Consequently, a joint federal-provincial-territorial task force was convened to develop the amendments we see before us today.

As I said, the bill would make amendments to key areas governed by the Prisons and Reformatories Act.

First, there is the addition of a statement of purpose and principle for temporary absence programs. This is something new for provincial temporary absences. It is modelled on the statement of purpose and principle which was created in 1992 in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, which applies to parole and penitentiary temporary absences.

From our federal experience, this statement of purpose and principles has been extremely useful in terms of adding both real and perceived consistency and integrity to conditional release programs. In this day of increased scrutiny and accountability of

release decision-makers, such statements provide valuable guidance to both the system and the public.

Second, the amendments would increase the maximum duration of temporary absences from 15 days to 60 days. This change is intended to reflect modern realities and give correctional authorities the necessary flexibility to manage their inmate populations. There is an express provision in the bill allowing for the renewal of temporary absences. But there is also an important safeguard, and it is this: where a temporary absence is being renewed, there must be a reassessment of the case prior to so doing.

Third, the bill would set out explicit authority for individual jurisdictions to create additional types of temporary absences beyond those for the basic medical, humanitarian and rehabilitative reasons, so long as they are consistent with the overall purpose and principle of temporary absence programs as stated in the bill. This will give individual jurisdictions the flexibility required to fully administer their particular programs according to their unique circumstances.

Fourth, the reforms would give individual jurisdictions authority to restrict concurrent eligibility for some types of temporary absences and parole. This authority is intended to prevent "conditional release shopping", that is to say, to reduce opportunities for offenders to play parole off against temporary absence programs and vice-versa.

Lastly, the bill would add other important safeguards that would enhance public safety. The amendments would set out explicit grounds for cancelling, terminating, or revoking a temporary absence and authority to apprehend and return the offender to custody. The bill would also allow for the electronic transmission of a warrant of apprehension anywhere in Canada.

Another key feature of the reforms is that a peace officer who believes on reasonable grounds that a warrant of apprehension has been issued against an offender on a temporary absence would be able to arrest that offender without a warrant and hold him or her for up to 48 hours until the warrant is forwarded and executed. These measures will ensure that there is no question about the authority to return offenders to custody when required.

It is important to emphasize that the legislative enhancement of the temporary absence program which this bill would introduce should not be viewed as minimizing the importance of parole. The provinces and the territories rely on both parole and temporary absences as important tools for assisting in the reintegration of offenders. The changes that we are proposing would allow each jurisdiction to decide where the balance should be between these two forms of conditional release. It gives them the flexibility which they have been demanding.

It is also important to point out that parole can sometimes be a time consuming process which is appropriate for qualified offenders serving sentences for six months or more. Temporary absences, on the other hand, are appropriate for the management of shorter sentences, that is to say, less than six months.

Temporary absences are particularly appropriate in those jurisdictions without their own parole boards. Many provinces do not have access to parole boards. In those situations it is vital that jurisdictions establish a strong and credible temporary absence program. That is exactly what the bill does. It will enable the provinces and territories to do that.

Some critics may say that the reforms will make the system more lenient, as members of the Reform Party have alluded, at a time when public sentiment is pushing for greater restrictions. I would like to respond by saying that the reforms provide stricter parameters and tighter controls for the temporary absence program.

At the risk of repeating myself, the amendments set out clear criteria for ending a release and returning the offender to custody. They also impose the reassessment of the case as a precondition to any renewal of a temporary absence.

I cannot emphasize enough that these changes are being introduced with the protection of the public in mind.

The reforms are an effort to modernize the legislation as was done for federal inmates in 1992, and bring it into line with current practices in most provinces.

The amendments will provide a more coherent system, in that certain important elements-such as the statement of purpose and principles of temporary absence programs-will for the first time be specified in statute.

In closing, I would like to reiterate my earlier comments on the need to effectively address the gaps and rigidities in the existing legislation. The proposed reforms are an effective response to the concerns of all jurisdictions. This initiative is a thoughtful reflection of federal-provincial-territorial co-operation on a matter of mutual interest.

It is a sound and balanced set of reforms which will allow flexibility to individual jurisdictions to tailor temporary absence programs to their needs while still maintaining national consensus around key elements, particularly public safety.

All members of Parliament have an interest in ensuring that the concerns of Canadians are addressed in the most efficient and effective manner. This is so for matters concerning public safety. And this is what this bill does.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Bloc members for supporting this bill and I would also like to take the time, if I may, to respond to the hon. member for Calgary Northeast, who, in his speech, asked the following question:

"Why is this bill being brought forward at this time?" He led the public to believe that it was for budgetary reasons. If the member has been following the work of the provincial-territorial task force he would know that this group was established by the heads of corrections and is recommending changes to legislation governing temporary absences under provincial jurisdiction, which has been traditionally those convicted criminals serving a sentence of less than two years. The changes were approved by the federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for justice last May. Similar changes were been made in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act in November 1992.

It is at the request of the first ministers who are responsible for justice in their provinces that we are today introducing the required changes. They will help to add safeguards to the system to improve public safety.

For example, the new legislation would establish clear criteria to be used by provincial authorities for cancelling, terminating or revoking temporary absences and returning the offender to custody. The provincial prisons hold offenders, as I have said, for less than two years.

The member for Calgary Northwest was helter skelter, all over the map in his presentation. It shows that Reformers are not focused then it comes to criminal justice issues. I would ask them to reconsider and support Bill C-53 today.

[Criminal Code, September 17th, 1996]

Only Reformers are connected.

[Défi-Emploi Program, September 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to emphasize the remarkable work and success of the organizers of the Défi-Emploi program, last weekend.

This program, jointly run by the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre, the income security department and the federal human resources development department, will help over 15,000 people have access to specialized workshops designed to help them find work.

It is very encouraging for our government to see that so many people have elected to take advantage of the services provided through the Défi-Emploi program to improve their chances of finding a job.

The Government of Canada is proud of this initiative and is fully willing to continue to work in close co-operation with the Quebec government to promote better professional and personal training for those who are looking for work.

[The Senate, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, first I wish to remind the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup that, as members of Parliament, we have a responsibility to work for the common good of our country. We have a responsibility to adequately represent the public and to serve its interests as best as we can.

The interests of Canadians have to do with economic prosperity, jobs, equality, justice, safety within their community and national reconciliation. The issue of whether or not the Senate should be abolished is not a priority for them right now.

The government listens to Canadians. Its response is clearly reflected in the measures announced in the throne speech and in the budget. These measures seek to improve relations between governments and to meet the concerns of Canadians. According to a Gallup poll, unemployment has been at the top of the list of concerns for Canadians, including Quebecers, for 10 years already. This is the issue they want their government to tackle.

During the first half of its mandate, our government took measures to create conditions promoting sustained economic growth and job creation. It launched a major administrative reform, reduced the deficit and took initiatives regarding trade and international investments.

However, these achievements do not tell the whole story. They do not tell that over half a million jobs were created in the Canadian economy since we took office, that the unemployment rate went down 2 percentage points and is now under the 10 per cent mark for the first time in five years. Our government also undertook to put public finances on a healthy footing.

As you know, since its election, our government has followed a pragmatic approach regarding the renewal of the federation. It remains focused, as always, on issues of interest for Canadians, namely the economy, jobs and social programs.

However, it is hard to believe this is the case for the official opposition. Instead of making a constructive contribution to help Quebecers join their fellow Canadians from the other provinces, the Bloc Quebecois disregards Quebecers' true interests.

It is clearly stated in both the speech from the throne and the budget that our focus will be on preparing Canada to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

In fact, the first ministers' conference that will start in just a few hours fits in with our commitments, as a step toward renewing the federation.

The first ministers will be discussing how governments could better work at creating jobs in Canada, preserving our social safety net and developing a joint program of changes aimed at renewing our federation. Those are the issues that concern the people of Canada. Those are this government's priorities. These should also be the official opposition's priorities, because what do Canadians from all provinces want if not for their governments to work in co-operation to bring in changes that will have a direct and positive impact.

First of all, we have promised to limit the federal government's spending power in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. The government will no longer use its spending power to develop new shared-cost programs in areas of provincial jurisdiction. It is the first time in our history that the federal government offers to limit its own powers outside a formal constitutional negotiations setting. This is a milestone in the evolution of federalism. We believe that it

is through this spirit of co-operation with and respect for the provinces that we will promote Canadian unity.

At the social level, the government promised to ensure that Canadians can continue to rely on a secure and sustainable social safety net. Again, we will work in co-operation with the provinces to preserve the kind of social programs Canada is famous for. That is what our government's commitment to social solidarity is all about.

The government also made a commitment to clarify, in co-operation with the provinces, the respective responsibilities of the various levels of government. We are withdrawing from areas for which responsibility lies more appropriately with the provinces, the municipalities or other stakeholders, areas like occupational training, certain sectors of transportation, forestry, mining and recreation.

Three weeks ago, our government announced it was completely withdrawing from the area of manpower training. This is a fine example of allowing the provinces to adapt programs to their specific needs. This is an important step toward a federalism that better meets the needs and aspirations of Canadians.

At the economic level, the government will continue to work in co-operation with the provinces to reduce barriers to domestic trade and manpower mobility.

This is how our government is renewing the Canadian federation: by proposing constructive and practical solutions to the issues concerning Canadians, moving step by step in a climate of dialogue and respect.

I urge my colleagues in the official opposition to co-operate with our government in helping Canada, and especially Quebec, move forward.

Ever since I started my speech, Bloc members have been asking me: What does this have to do with the motion before us? I would like to quote from an editorial by Pierre Gravel that appeared in the June 5 edition of La Presse . This editorial, headlined ``Temps perdu'', ends like this:

-the harshest critics of the Senate finally realized that attacking this institution is totally futile under the current Constitution, which requires unanimous approval for any change at that level, something that is not going to happen tomorrow in Canada. Any member who tries to revive this debate must have nothing better to do. But the most troubling in all this is that his leader is letting him go ahead.

That is why I chose to use my time to show Canadians that we have a lot of work to do and that abolishing the Senate would not help us in any way to renew federalism. What Canadians really care about is employment and social security.