François Langlois

[Young Offenders Act, February 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes it is almost ironic to listen in this House to my good friend, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, criticize the Reform Party, and especially the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley, as if Bill C-37 had been tabled by the Reform Party. This government whip who made his people rise to vote in favour of Bill C-37 is at the same time criticizing our Reform colleagues for not going far enough. He should find a logical niche to call his own.

Bill C-37 shows us that the Liberals only have a right wing. For a government to remain in the centre, it must have a left wing to balance things out from time to time. The Liberal Party is now siding with Reform, and we see the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell criticizing the Reformers' current position, even though this bill was initiated by the government.

I would like to know what the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce think about the standing committee's proposed amendment to Motion No. 5. The standing committee simply proposes that the admissibility of a statement given to a person in authority or a peace officer be subject to an additional requirement, namely that the person in authority or the peace officer inform the young person that he or she may be dealt with as an adult and could therefore face the same consequences as an adult.

A 15-year-old who gets arrested under a new law does not always know what the consequences may be. However, the person who makes the arrest or who has authority over the young person as far as the statement's admissibility is concerned must know that the young person may be tried in adult court and face extremely harsh sentences. Why not maintain the standing committee's proposed requirement to inform the young person of the seriousness of the charge that may be laid against him or her? This would make the young person think for a moment instead of trying to recant later and having previous statements ruled inadmissible.

The young person may want to consult first his parents and then perhaps a lawyer or another person as provided for in section 56 of the Act before making statements that would be very easy to obtain, as young people are much easier to manipulate and draw confessions from. These statements would not really be made freely and voluntarily, as they would be obtained under false representations or through promises or threats.

I think that the provision proposed by the standing committee should be maintained. Consequently, we will vote against Motion No. 5 aimed at removing this requirement.

As for the other amendments, they are technical in nature, in our opinion.

[Young Offenders Act, February 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Motions Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are indeed rather technical. Their purpose is to improve an ill-conceived bill. By making technical improvements to an ill-conceived bill, we are in fact making it worse.

We will, however, agree to Motions Nos. 2, 3 and 4 on division without a recorded vote.

[Young Offenders Act, February 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, before I start my comments on Motion No. 1, I would like to say once again that the Bloc Quebecois has always been opposed to Bill C-37, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act.

It has always been our position, both in this House and in committee, that Canada, and especially Quebec, where the focus of Bill C-37 has no specific application, do not need this kind of legislation.

Since the Young Offenders Act was first implemented a little over ten years ago, the authorities in Quebec have done a good job of harmonizing provincial legislation with the Young Offenders Act. The Youth Protection Act is a case in point. The same people are responsible for enforcing the same laws. I feel that this particular measure is entirely unnecessary and constitutes an unexpected shift to the right.

However, when we see 70 Liberal members rise to vote on Bill C-226, we realize why this kind of bill was introduced. Our young people need jobs far more than they need sentencing. If they had jobs, if their future was not a dead end, there would be no need for legislation to lock them up and refer them to adult court so they will get longer sentences. What we have here is a society that is running scared and a government that will not admit it.

As for Motion No. 1, since that is our topic, it raises far more questions than it answers. Perhaps I may touch on a few points.

The young person's right to elect is provided in the Act, except in the case of murder charges. However, there is no indication when the right to elect to be judged before a jury or before a judge or a magistrate may be exercised. Will a young person exercise his right when he first appears in court? Will he exercise it at the preliminary hearing? Will he exercise it when he applies for bail or release from custody? There is no indication at all. There is absolutely nothing to go by. Does this mean we go by the jurisprudence already established in adult court? There is no indication where the law stands.

I think the government will have to redo its homework on this one. The steamroller approach may have to be moderated a bit.

One wonders also, in the case of a young person charged with murder, to which court his request would have to be submitted for release on bail while proceedings are pending. Would it be a superior court, as is the case presently for adults, or would it be a youth court? The rules are different.

If a young person must appear before a superior court judge to request release on bail for the duration of the proceedings, there are no safeguards against possible information leaks resulting from the presentation of such a request. It might be covered by a journalist, names might be published, although the Young Offenders Act includes specific provisions to protect the young person's identity, in large measure at least.

So the young person may very well appear before a youth court, but be required to appear before a superior court judge to request a release, just as adults must, and then the matter would be disclosed even though it is maintained that the preliminary inquiry would take place before a youth court. This poses a serious problem. I think this needs to be reworked. I also think it was done in a bit of a rush because it was only in a parliamentary committee that the official opposition pointed out that, with longer sentences, the young person would then acquire the choice of proceeding to trial by judge and jury. This aspect has evidently not been thoroughly investigated.

An attempt was made, of course, to link the right to trial by jury, guaranteed by the Canadian constitution even for young persons liable to a prison term of more than five years and Bill C-37, which, originally, made no reference to it at all. Departmental lawyers will have to look at the question more to avoid having the courts establish jurisprudence on procedure over the years.

I understand that, in substantive law, the courts have considerable power to establish rights, but the procedure should be established by the legislator in as safe and certain a context as possible. Vague provisions such as these cannot be ignored. Provision must be made at least for a ban on the publication of the name of the applicant in an application for release, if the application is to be heard by a justice of the superior court, because this is absolutely not clear.

Currently, appearance is made before a youth court justice, and the preliminary inquiry takes place in a youth court. What happens, though, if a bail application is made in between the two; where is it heard? It could be claimed that, since, at least until this point, proceedings are held in a youth court, all proceedings could take place there, but the legislation does not speak on this. Provision must be made to permit everything to remain in youth court, even the application for release on bail, since it is made generally between the appearance and the preliminary inquiry, which takes place in youth court.

Guidelines must be established and limits set on motions for a referral order by the Crown. When can the Crown make such motions? At any point before the trial? Immediately before appearance is made? Following the preliminary inquiry? Between the time of appearance and the preliminary inquiry? Here again it is vague. We will have to rely on the precedents that will be set to determine at what point the Crown will be able to do it under the new legislation. I think it should occur between the appearance and the preliminary inquiry or very shortly after the appearance. Certainly not any longer than the three days that the Crown already has to request that the release from custody hearing be delayed. The legislation is not specific. This must

absolutely be clarified, and surely the department's jurists could help out in this area.

Since Part XVIII of the Criminal Code is referred to specifically, in relation to Motion No. 1, as much for what it says as for what it fails to say, I ask myself the following question: Does the crown have the right to evoke preferred indictment in cases involving young adolescents or is preferred indictment out of the question?

If preferred indictment can be used, young people will be treated exactly like adults, at each stage. If the crown decides to proceed by preferred indictment, the young person will appear before a justice and then will be sent directly to trial by judge and jury, without any preliminary inquiry.

At the very least, there must be a provision ensuring that preferred indictment cannot be invoked for a young person accused of a criminal act which is punishable by a prison term of over five years, or, if it is used, certain procedures must be put in place for the youth court, otherwise the Young Offenders Act will have lost all meaning. By proceeding by preferred indictment the crown will be able to sidestep the Young Offenders Act and to send the young person directly to criminal court.

I was already of the opinion that bill C-37 was extremely regressive, considering all of the improvements made to criminal law between 1969 and 1980. I believe that Motion No. 1 makes it worse and the opposition will vote against the motion.

[Committees Of The House, February 9th, 1995]

As you can see, this will free a number of seats amounting to about half of those reserved for the opposition from all parties.

There is no need to renovate the House, tear down walls or push back everything to my left or in front of you, Madam Speaker. The House will see a major change after the Quebec referendum, since half our side of the House can be used to make room for bigger desks for the other members, as they see fit. The right to self-determination also applies to Canada. Our Canadian friends will be free to refurbish this House as they see fit.

Quinquennial censuses will, of course, produce data allowing us to make timely changes to the electoral map much more quickly and avoid the major changes required after decennial censuses, which confuse the population. This is also a desirable improvement which was brought by the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Someone said earlier that members would no longer have a say in this. I entirely agree with the fact that members-contrary to what has been the case for the past 30 years-should no longer have the last word on electoral boundaries redistribution, but until now they did have some input-and they still do since the legislation has not been amended-so that commissions were able to consider problems that might be raised by members.

I am not sure whether it is such a good idea to eliminate the right of members to comment, since they may want to make recommendations, which the commissions may or may not consider. I agree that members should not have the last say on electoral boundaries, but I would question the wisdom of not letting them intervene at all.

Of course, members can go before the provincial commissions. But would it not be a good idea to let members intervene specifically as a group, as parliamentarians, either directly or through a committee like the one on procedure and House affairs?

That being said, I simply want to remind the House that the non- partisan approach that was apparent throughout the proceedings of the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is an indication that working through a committee like the one that tabled its report this morning can be very effective. As far as the other committees are concerned, we will have to wait and see. However, I hope we will soon see other standing committees take the same non partisan approach we have seen in the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

[Committees Of The House, February 9th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I will not take the same amount of time as the member for Kingston and the Islands, since, in general, he summarized quite objectively the work of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Apart from the final part of his speech, which was more of an exchange with the Reform Party than a direct statement on the report tabled, the member for Kingston and the Islands provided a very accurate description of the situation and the proposed amendments.

I would point out that the official opposition participated fully in developing the proposal, which will eventually be submitted to the House, once the report is adopted, so that we will end up with the best possible legislation. We have demonstrated the seriousness of the parliamentary work that all members of this House are called on to perform, even though the aim of our

political party is to ensure this act does not apply in Quebec and that we will not be covered by it in the next federal election. However, we took part in the committee's work and we took our job seriously.

I will come back in a few minutes, in order to complete the picture, to one or two items the member for Kingston and the Islands did not mention in his statement.

I too, of course, would like to thank the member for Kingston and the Islands, the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster and the member for Calgary West, who contributed in a generally non-partisan way to the work that, while not without its flaws, produced excellent results.

I would also like to thank those who helped us, particularly people from the office of the chief electoral officer, namely Jean-Pierre Kingsley, himself, as well as Jacques Girard and Carol Lesage, who provided incredible and ongoing assistance whenever we sought their help and cooperation. I would also thank colleagues who came to Ottawa in June and July, in the height of summer, to make representations before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Where I have more of a problem with the bill that will eventually be tabled, the draft prepared by the committee, is that absolutely no discussion of miminum representation for Quebec was permitted. We ran headlong into the great wall of China in trying to discuss the question of a guarantee of 25 per cent of seats, raised by Senator Rivest when he appeared in June. The idea was that Quebec could never have fewer than 25 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons, because it would lose its power of influence over decisions being made.

Needless to say Senator Rivest is not known as a sovereignist, at least not from the old guard. His point of view was to a large extent taken up by my colleague, the hon. member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, when he appeared before the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in July, stating that a constitutional guarantee was required to ensure that Quebec's current 25 per cent of seats be retained regardless of possible fluctuations in its population.

We would of course like to resolve the issue of Quebec's representation in this House in an altogether different manner. But, should Quebec continue to require representation in this House, this critical mass must be recognized, and it is in this sense that all of our colleagues in the House must recognize it, as must Quebec's population in general. While commissions are currently examining Quebec's future, we have not been able to convince our colleagues to subscribe to a proposal guaranteeing 25 per cent of seats to Quebec.

We have a better understanding of the situation in which we find ourselves, that is to say, we are at a juncture where a decision must be made in Quebec between attaining sovereignty, controlling our own laws, creating our own legislation, collecting taxes and signing our own treaties or, on the other hand, becoming a member like any other in the Canadian federation. This will be the true test in the next referendum in Quebec. And Quebecers must know what system will govern them if the outcome of the referendum in Quebec is negative. We can see it already, the slightest request such as this has been denied. The need to guarantee a minimum level of representation for Quebec in the House was not acknowledged. This had to be said at this stage.

Another point made in the report tabled by the member for Kingston and the Islands pertains to so-called special ridings. Under present legislation, provincial commissions may consider special circumstances and allow for greater fluctuations in a riding's population than provincially allowed. Thus if we take the classic example of a riding with 100,000 voters, the number of voters could currently vary from 75,000 to 125,000, given the 25 per cent deviation allowed. But, as it stands, the current legislation grants provincial commissions the discretion to take special circumstances into consideration, for example, the riding of Labrador, which does not meet the electoral quotient, and Îles-de-la-Madeleine, which, as it was mentioned several times in committee, may not meet it.

This will no longer be possible in the future, since a provision stipulates that special cases will have to be listed in a schedule to the bill. For reasons which are debatable, the committee chose to adopt such a schedule blindly, that is to say ridings to be listed in the schedule were not debated in committee. This could be a valid way of doing things; we will see as we go on.

However, what the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs should be doing, in my opinion, is undertaking far-reaching consultations, not just reserved for parliamentarians. It is all well and good that the hon. member for Labrador make representations, for example, that his riding be included in the schedule or that the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine make representations that Îles-de-la-Madeleine recover the independent riding status it enjoyed before 1968.

But in my opinion, the committee should open its consultation process up to the community and allow the local population and others to state their opinions. It seems obvious that the ridings of Labrador and Îles-de-la-Madeleine should be allowed to elect a member although their populations are lower than what the act stipulates, and it may well be that, for very special reasons, people elsewhere in Canada may reasonably argue that their ridings should be listed in the schedule. For the schedule to truly reflect the wishes of the people and for the members of this

House to truly understand those wishes, the consultation process must be opened up.

If it turns out that it is impossible to hold open hearings for all members of the public to air their views-and then we would have to find some other suitable means-I suggest that we revert to the current procedure whereby provincial commissions are granted the discretion to take special circumstances into consideration. And in cases like Labrador, Îles-de-la-Madeleine, maybe Manicouagan and the Gaspé Peninsula, they should be able to allow a deviation of more than the proposed 25 per cent which has been the generally accepted criterion since 1964, when the independent commissions were created and the House stopped drawing up the electoral maps.

At any rate, we will have the opportunity to discuss this issue again before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and to find the best possible solution.

It was mentioned earlier that the population would be consulted more. Yes, there will be more public consultation, and that is normal because the electoral map is designed first and foremost for the people and not for the elected members of Parliament. Everyone agrees with this principle, including myself. Just as electoral laws are designed for the voters and not for the elected parliamentarians. We are the ones who must meet these criteria.

The process for designating provincial commission members was greatly improved. The process now taking place behind closed doors will be replaced with a much more open process in which the members will be appointed jointly by the Speaker of the House and the province's chief justice. There may even be a parliamentary debate if at least 20 members of this House request it. We think that opening up the process is an excellent thing.

The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs discussed for several months the issue of limiting or reducing the number of members in this House. This proposal was particularly favoured by our colleagues from the Reform Party.

Basically, we agree with the proposal to reduce the number of members in this House. However, we do not look at the issue in the same way. Of course, we in the Bloc Quebecois want to cut the number of members in this House from 295 to 220, simply by removing the 75 members from Quebec who will leave this House after the referendum.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, February 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in March 1994, the Federal Court's Appeal Division ruled that by refusing to pay members of the RCMP a bilingualism bonus since 1977, the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had acted unlawfully.

In other words, the commissioner had been acting unlawfully for more than 17 years. Today, members of the RCMP demonstrated on Parliament Hill to claim a fundamental right already enjoyed by other employees in the federal public service: the right to form a union. Members of provincial and city police forces already have that right.

Members of the RCMP see this as a way to stop this abuse of power by the RCMP commissioner, who is their employer and, as far as their grievances are concerned, is both judge and jury. It would be in the best interests of Canada to have an open RCMP, where police officers can do a good job and enjoy full recognition of their basic rights.

[Canadian Security Intelligence Service, December 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, if the government still claims it wants to release the facts about the disturbing allegations in the Bristow case, how can the Solicitor General explain the fact that he has yet to submit the full report to the parliamentary sub-committee on national security for consideration?

[Canadian Security Intelligence Service, December 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. This morning, we heard that the government had decided to remove and not release several parts of the report of the Security Intelligence Review Committee on the disturbing Bristow case, in which CSIS not only infiltrated but actually contributed to the activities of the racist Heritage Front organization.

How can the Solicitor General, who claimed that he wanted to release all the facts on the Bristow case, justify this attempt to conceal several parts of this report? What is he trying to hide from Quebecers and Canadians?

[Canadian Security Intelligence Service, December 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in a report submitted to the Solicitor General in December 1993 the Security Intelligence Review Committee denounced the Canadian Security Intelligence Service for overstepping its mandate.

According to the committee, investigations by the ETT group within CSIS are not for threats to Canada's security as defined in the Act but rather the security of private companies. In so doing, CSIS is duplicating what Canadian police forces do.

Once again, parliamentarians are the last to be informed. It is only thanks to the Access to Information Act that we learned about the committee's serious allegations. The Solicitor General must promise to submit all the review committee's reports to the parliamentary subcommittee on national security and start right now by making public the report on the Grant Bristow affair.

[Budgetary Policy, November 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate what the hon. member for St. Boniface has to say in this House. I would like to ask the hon. member whether, to his dying breath-I was going to say, looking at the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, when it really comes to the crunch-he will objet to any tampering by the government with RRSPs?

For the average Canadian taxpayer, it is practically the only vehicle available, one that was used by our parents and grandparents to save some money for their retirement. Today, however, that feeling of security has vanished because they are concerned government policies may cut into the savings that many have been keeping for their retirement. In view of galloping inflation, they may think this vehicle is no longer a safe one. Has the hon. member for St. Boniface met people in his constituency who have the same concerns? And how did he respond to those concerns?