Nick Discepola

[Petitions, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today on behalf of Canadians who are very concerned about Canadian unity.

The petition calls for Parliament to confirm immediately that Canada is indivisible, that the boundaries of Canada, its provinces, territories and territorial waters be modified only by (a) a free vote by all Canadian citizens as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or (b) through the amending formula as stipulated in the Canadian Constitution.

[Bombardier, June 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the mere evocation of the name Bombardier reminds us, and for good reason, of the humble beginnings of this international company in the workshop of a young Valcourt designer.

On Bombardier's drawing boards, we can now find plans of Seadoos, high speed trains and business aircraft lying next to plans for the Skidoo that made Bombardier famous.

At the stockholders' meeting held in Montreal yesterday, participants found out for themselves that vitality and innovation are indeed the driving force of this business, which brought in $7.1 billion in revenues for fiscal year 1995.

Company executives are working very hard to secure a contract worth $1 billion to build 50 regional aircraft.

We wish Bombardier good luck in securing this contract that will ensure that important high technology jobs are created and maintained in Canada.

[Status Of Women, June 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, thousands of women and men came together on Parliament Hill to celebrate the incredible undertaking of several dozen women who crossed this country to deliver an important message to our government.

The march started in Vancouver on May 14 to raise the awareness of all governments in this country about the importance of taking concrete action to put an end to the social and economic problems which affect women in particular.

A number of measures taken by us since our election are focussed on that objective. We are determined to do everything necessary to raise the awareness of provincial governments and to invite them to work along with us in meeting the legitimate expectations these Canadian women have made known to us during this great march.

Bravo to all the participants!

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, June 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this week Canada's national public broadcaster, the CBC, announced its new fall programming schedule for English television. I am pleased to see that Canadians will now have access to an all-Canadian programming schedule during prime time on CBC.

Working with the best and the brightest talent in our country, the CBC will be offering more dramatic productions highlighting issues and topics that focus on Canadian stories; children's programming that is educational, non-violent and entertaining; and current affairs programs that will tell Canadians about their country and its remarkable people.

Last December, the CBC formally pledged to canadianize its regular programming. The corporation kept its word and I congratulate it for doing so.

I also want to praise the CBC for its remarkable contribution to Canadian identity. I urge all Canadians to show their support of our

national broadcaster by watching its Canadian programs, which were created by and for Canadians.

[Trade Missions, June 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, major newspapers were reporting this morning that, next September, the "Team Quebec" trade mission to South America will be led by Bernard Landry, the PQ finance minister and minister responsible for economic development.

This is great news and we are pleased to see that the PQ government finally decided to follow in the footsteps of Team Canada. It is somewhat unfortunate however that, for the sake of political rhetoric, members of the PQ government made the deliberate choice of ignoring previous economic missions led by our Prime Minister.

All economic stakeholders agree that Canada's prosperity is dependent upon its capacity to expand its export markets. Through this decision, the Quebec government is sending investors and financial markets a positive message.

We wish every success to this Team Quebec mission and to its leader, who, this time, will have an opportunity to trade the minivan for a limousine.

[Witness Protection Program Act, June 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the original wording of clause 9(1) of Bill C-13 provided that the commissioner may terminate the protection given to a protectee if, in the opinion of the commissioner, there had been a misrepresentation or a failure on the part of the protectee to disclose information relevant to the admission process or there has been a breach of the protectee's obligations under the protection of the agreement.

The members of the Senate committee had concerns about the word opinion. They felt the word opinion provided the commissioner with too much discretion in the making of the determination on protective services. Instead the committee voted to require the commissioner to have evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the protectee.

The government can support this amendment. The commissioner must base this decision on the facts of the case which would be open to judicial review in any event. In fact under clause 10 of the bill the commissioner must provide his reasons for ending protective services in writing to enable the protectee to understand the basis for this decision.

It was never intended for this serious decision to be made in an arbitrary manner by the government. Using the word evidence instead of the word opinion underlies this objective and therefore is acceptable by our government.

[Federal-Provincial Relations, June 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday the premiers of Quebec and of Canada met in Quebec City for a working session.

This meeting, which had unfortunately been cancelled a few weeks earlier by the premier of Quebec, resulted in progress on a number of issues of importance to both governments.

Originally intended to be brief, the meeting, which lasted two hours, showed once again that it is possible to establish a climate of healthy co-operation between the Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada.

When the meeting ended, there were only winners, and these winners were the people of Quebec and of Canada, who will finally be able to enjoy the positive benefits resulting from the joint projects discussed at the meeting.

[Referendums, June 5th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I had a prepared speech, but after listening to the member for Esquimalt-Juan du Fuca I think I had better throw half of it away because I want to address several of the points he touched on.

I tried desperately during his presentation to extract the positive elements of his intervention.

If we are to solve the Canadian unity problem, it will not be by adopting such a motion. It will be by having dialogue. I would like to have a dialogue with the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca.

One positive element of his speech, despite the Reform Party's lack of understanding of Quebec's needs and problems, was the language the distinctive culture in Quebec. He touched on the valuable contribution that Quebecers have made to the creation of this country. However, I still have serious doubts because when it came time for the Reform Party to recognize that great language and culture that make Canada unique and the efforts of Prime Minister in response to the passionate plea we made on October 27, the member and his party voted against the government's efforts to recognize Quebec's distinct society and the regional veto.

We are on a dangerous treadmill. This is what I want to point out to the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. When he uses words like intolerance and violence they preoccupy me immensely. The member from the Bloc Quebecois implied the motion is provocative and may induce violence, that is exactly what I fear.

The member also said his province is fed up with pandering to Quebec, again another form of intolerance, another form of showing we are not open to dialogue.

Prior to the referendum premiers were begging Quebecers passionately, saying "we will work hand in hand with you, your aspirations and concerns are our concerns". However, the member today measured his province by how much we benefit in economic terms from the federation and how Quebec is being pandered to and how people are fed up with always responding to Quebec's demands.

I remind the hon. member we made concessions to accommodate provinces when they joined Confederation. We made a concession for his province of British Columbia. We promised British Columbians: "Join our family and we will build you a national railway". That dream was realized in 1892, contributed to by the many immigrants who came to this country to help build that dream.

I ask the hon. member where would British Columbians be if that national dream had not been realized. Would the prosperity the province realizes today have been realized? I doubt it.

We made concessions for P.E.I., the smallest province of Confederation. We said: "Join our family and we will make sure you are represented in the House of Commons and the Senate and we will build you a fixed link". Quebecers paid for that national railway and for the fixed link. Quebecers did not say "where is our fair share"?

I am disappointed the member is not here. I believe if we are to solve the Canadian unity problem we must show respect for each other and have dialogue and understanding. I ask Reform Party members, who are now suddenly showing up in Quebec, being political opportunists, receiving petitions in my riding and other ridings, that if they are sincere why were they not involved in the unity debate during the entire referendum? Where were they?

They talk about their 20-20 vision. I think this motion is unfounded, very dangerous and very intimidating.

Therefore, our government supports co-operation with the provinces and all our partners in order to develop new approaches and find constructive solutions.

The Government of Canada does not intend in the slightest to promote confrontation, as is suggested in this motion, because it could undermine the renewal of federalism and especially our social harmony.

We want to unite Canadians, not divide them. We have launched a process of national reconciliation and federation renewal. We have taken some concrete measures by implementing initiatives to restore the balance within our federation, to reinforce our economic union and enhance our social solidarity and to further define the devolution of powers, just like the hon. member himself wanted us to do.

Canadians outside Quebec are open-minded and try to draw closer to their fellow citizens in Quebec, by recognizing that their differences are what makes our country's strength. If we work together to ensure our federation goes forward and meets the expectations of Canadians, we will have reached our goal without having to hold another referendum on secession.

We believe we can work constructively with the Government of Quebec, given the open-mindedness shown by Premier Lucien Bouchard, as we do with all the other provincial and territorial governments. It is our duty, our responsibility.

The next first ministers conference will deal with restoring the balance within our federation. It will give the federal and provincial governments the opportunity to discuss the priorities Canadians want us to set. This is why the motion put forward by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca seems inconsistent with our government's action plan. And this is why I do not support this motion and I urge my colleagues not to support it either.

[Criminal Code, June 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to commend the hon. member for Mississauga East for her efforts in tackling these criminal justice issues that are of concern to us and indeed to all Canadians. My comments will be directed to those provisions in this bill aimed at changing the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

The proposals would alter section 120 of that act, which in large part sets out the current sentence calculation scheme. Specifically, the proposed amendments relating to section 120 would provide two things. First, that offenders sentenced for first or second degree murder would serve the full parole ineligibility period on that sentence, which is a maximum of 25 years, plus one-third or a maximum of seven years of a sentence, whichever is less, for an offence arising out of the same event or series of events.

For an offender already serving a sentence when the sentence for murder is imposed, he or she would serve one-third or seven years of that sentence, again whichever is less.

The second point is that offenders would serve consecutively all the full parole ineligibility periods for sentences for multiple first or second degree murder convictions not arising of the same event or series of events.

The thrust of the hon. member's proposals is to deal more stringently with repeat offenders, especially those convicted of first or second degree murder.

Who could not agree with the notion that a new sentence for first or second degree murder and for offences arising out of the same event or series of events committed by an offender, including an offender who is already under sentence, should result in a clear, meaningful consequence? The government agrees with the intent of these proposals. That is why we have already moved to provide an effective and balanced remedy to this problem.

Last January Bill C-45, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and related statutes, came into force. The sentence calculation reforms brought about by Bill C-45 were devout with the intent of ensuring that offenders who get new sentences feel the effect of those sentences.

It is important at this point to outline the main elements of the reforms which will help restore confidence in the sentence calculation process.

In the case of a consecutive sentence, the offender will have to serve the parole ineligibility portion of the new sentence before becoming eligible again for parole. This means a third of the new sentence, or one-half of the sentence in cases where the court has made an order that this would have to be served. However, except in cases of murder, an offender's parole eligibility date cannot be later than 15 years from the date the last sentence was imposed.

In addition, the sentence calculation reforms brought about by Bill C-45 include the principle of adding parole ineligibility periods, where a lifer receives an additional definite sentence.

For example, a lifer with 10 years of parole ineligibility who receives an additional 15 year sentence will have five years of ineligibility added on, for a total of 15 years.

As I said earlier, the exception to this 15 year rule are sentences imposed as a result of a first or second degree murder conviction. In such cases, the maximum parole ineligibility period is 25 years.

The sentence calculation reforms brought about by Bill C-45 were developed on the basis of extensive consultations with a broad range of groups and individuals. The reforms in Bill C-45 were developed after a long process of consultation and scrutiny by the standing committee during both the last and the current Parliaments. The standing committee heard from over 60 witnesses representing 32 different organizations. During its clause-by-clause review, the committee debated the sentence calculation reforms set out in Bill C-45, and endorsed them in their entirety.

The amendments in Bill C-45 strike a fair and reasonable balance between punishment, respect for the court-imposed sentence, and effective rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders.

Striking such a crucial balance is achieved through a combination of basic automatic features, such as the automatic return to custody of a parolee who receives a new sentence, and discretionary measures that allow individual circumstances to be taken into consideration so that once the punitive portion of the sentence has been served, the offender is not kept in custody beyond the point when he or she can be safely released under community supervision. This is what the current sentence calculation scheme is designed to do.

While I believe that the hon. member's proposals are well-intentioned, I am also concerned that they fall short of the impact intended by Bill C-45. The amendments proposed by the hon. member would maximize punishment, and no one disagrees with this objective. But they would also reduce the discretion of the courts and the Parole Board and make the system more arbitrary and no more effective in terms of public safety.

The proposals could introduce new anomalous situations that could lead to serious Charter challenges. For example, the proposals would have a retroactive effect on concurrent sentences an offender is serving when convicted of murder. For all intents and purposes, sentences that were initially concurrent would become consecutive because the ineligibility period on each and every sentence would be added.

Not only would this rule undermine the role of the sentencing court and render sentence calculation uncertain and difficult to administer, but its impact on the amount of time to be served, and particularly its retroactive application, would certainly give rise to serious charter challenges.

Another difficulty posed by this bill is the rule regarding the addition of all of the full parole ineligibility periods sentences for additional first or second degree murder convictions not arising out of the same event or series of events.

Not only would this further reduce the scope of the National Parole Board's discretion, but it would also mean that offenders who could safely be released would remain in costly custody well beyond the point that is necessary or in society's interest, and this at great public expense.

Lengthy incarceration beyond the point that is necessary for public safety is not the answer. We cannot afford to lose sight of the other important objectives of the C-45 reforms, particularly with respect to the courts' and the National Parole Board's discretion and the offender's rehabilitation and safe reintegration into society.

This governement supports the principle that repeat criminal behavior should be dealt with more stringently, and that is precisely why the mandatory 25 year parole ineligibility period for additional murder conviction is provided for in the Criminal Code.

I would also point out to the members of this House that being eligible for parole does not mean that a lifer will automatically be released. It is up to the National Parole Board to grant parole only after careful consideration of all relevant information, including the level of risk to the community.

The reforms brought about by Bill C-45, which was passed in January of this year, provide a comprehensive response that is proportionate to the sentence handed down by the court in any individual case.

The government has brought in a tough, fair, and balanced sentence calculation scheme that makes sure offenders feel the effect of their repeat offences, respects the sentences imposed by the courts and limits but still allows for discretionary conditional release when safe to do so in the judgement of the National Parole Board.

I submit that the issue raised by the hon. member is a worthy one. The sentence calculation reforms recently introduced by the government address this and other concerns of Canadians in the most effective and efficient manner, particularly with respect to public safety.

[Quebec Premier, June 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, do you know who is the new godfather of Quebec politics? This new francophone Michael Corleone made his first appearance in New York City yesterday with a lot of hoopla.

Unfortunately for movie lovers, it was not for the launching of the fourth film in the prestigious series, but for the casting of Lucien Bouchard, the Pequist leader, in the new role he is taking on.

Comparing himself to the main character in the "Godfather", the Pequist leader tried to convince his audience that it was the Canadian government, not he, who wanted to keep on talking about the Constitution and Quebec sovereignty.

Lucien Bouchard probably chose the best possible character, when he compared himself to the infamous godfather. After all, is he not the one who thought he was making "an offer Canada could not refuse", with his project of sovereignty-association?

Canadians will not be hoodwinked into accepting offers from Don Bouchardo.