House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 57% of the vote.
Lobbyists September 26th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I consider the reply to be a negation of my statement, and I ask the Prime Minister again, in light of this reply, how he can say that this bill has not been influenced by lobbyists, given the noticeable absence of provisions to force lobbyists to divulge their fees as well as provisions to eliminate the tax deduction for expenses incurred by businesses to engage the services of lobbyists, provisions they were demanding when they formed the opposition.
Lobbyists September 26th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, lobbyists have just shown how effective they are. According to documents obtained under the Access to Information Act, they have apparently managed to influence the very legislation that was to limit their influence.
Does the Prime Minister admit that, once again, lobbyists have demonstrated their effectiveness by extensively watering down the red book's commitment to limit their sphere of influence?
Canadian Security Intelligence Service September 20th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, does the Solicitor General know that a creature of this Parliament already committed illegal acts in Quebec, in particular by stealing the membership lists of political parties, by burning barns and by planting bombs?
Does the minister realize that by refusing a royal commission of inquiry, he is helping to recreate the same scenario as in 1970 and thus failing in his duty as minister?
Canadian Security Intelligence Service September 20th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House, the Solicitor General rejected the opposition's request to establish a royal commission to investigate the very serious allegations concerning the infiltration activities of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
My question is for the Solicitor General. Is he giving us to understand that by setting up CSIS, a monster was created that no one, including Parliament, can control anymore, although it was created for the express purpose of ending the RCMP's illegal activities in Quebec in the 1970s?
Canadian Security Intelligence Service September 19th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, the minister is obviously on the same wavelength as Jacques Courtois as he does not answer yes or no, even in this House. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister. By answering this way, does the minister not lend a little support to CSIS's way of operating and prevent the Sub-Committee on National Security from doing its job in this matter?
Canadian Security Intelligence Service September 19th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I will rephrase my question: Can the Solicitor General of Canada assure this House that this matter will be clarified once and for all and that the review committee will give clear and precise answers to the questions we asked during committee meetings?
Canadian Security Intelligence Service September 19th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, last week the chairman of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, Jacques Courtois, appeared before the Sub-Committee on National Security. When committee members asked Mr. Courtois about the allegations relating to the infiltration of the Reform Party, he refused to answer, saying that at CSIS he had learned to never say yes or no. That is a fine example of the transparency awaiting the parliamentary sub-committee responsible for shedding light on these allegations.
My question is for the Solicitor General of Canada. Does he consider as acceptable Mr. Courtois's deliberate refusal to answer the parliamentary sub-committee's questions relating to the allegations involving CSIS?
Young Offenders Act June 20th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, on June 6, when I rose to support the amendment tabled by the Bloc Quebecois regarding the Young Offenders Act, I asked the Minister of Justice to say who, in Quebec, had hoped for such amendments.
I am still waiting for an answer, but I know that it will never come, because nobody in Quebec was in favour of such repressive changes as those proposed by the Minister of Justice. If there are people in favour of such changes, it has to really be a small minority. In fact, when I see the minister remain silent, I
think that it must be an extremely small minority, otherwise I would have heard from him.
As for me, I did not waste my time. I checked with those who are really concerned by this issue to find out what they thought of those amendments. I am referring to those who will have to implement the legislation. I consulted these people and no one, absolutely no one agreed with the bill. On the contrary, they all rejected it.
On May 5, 1994, before Bill C-37 was tabled, Quebec's National Assembly voted almost unanimously in favour of asking the federal government to ensure that any amendment to the Young Offenders Act is in compliance with Quebec's laws and policies regarding youth protection.
After reading the report released by the Minister of Justice, the Quebec Liberal minister disapproved of the decisions made by its big brother and stated that he was concerned and disappointed by the position taken by the federal government on this issue. He is not the only one. Whether it is the official justice critic for Quebec, the Association des centres jeunesse du Québec, the Maison Bosco, the CUM Director, some Quebec police associations, renowned criminologists like Jean Trépanier and Marc Leblanc, and many more, all agree that the bill introduced by the minister is counterproductive and goes against the educational direction Quebec has been trying to follow for at least 15 years.
We must realize that reactionary measures will not help us to overcome these problems. Things are far from perfect, but the direction taken by the province of Quebec is far more worthy than that chosen by the Minister of Justice. Despite some horrendous crimes that have been committed, this is not the time to blindly opt for repression and intolerance, which will only add to the problems instead of solving them. We should not use this issue to play petty politics, which the government seems to be doing by trying to pull a fast one on Reform members on the one hand and silencing the minority advocacy groups on the other hand.
Yes, we must realize that the praiseworthy efforts made by the province of Quebec on this issue reaffirm once again its special status. Yes, from the debate on this issue and many others addressed here in this House, we can see that there are two countries within this country. The federal government is responsible for creating a greater gulf between our two people. It is slowly but surely helping us on our way to separation.
It will all be explained in due course to Quebecers. Till then, however, I remind my constituents and Quebecers who almost unanimously opposed this bill that Ottawa just gave in to the mass hysteria that mainly took over western Canada and those hooked on televised information and isolated but sensational cases.
The minister gave in this time and it is legitimate to ask ourselves if and when he will give in again. Will he do it when some members from western Canada ask to legalize corporal punishment against the young or to lower the age at which one can be indicted pursuant to the law or to return to capital punishment? What will the Minister do then? His actual stand worries me. Will he give in again? Unfortunately, if it can bring some temporary and irrealist glory, this heir apparent of the Liberal Party of Canada will undoubtedly do it.
This issue is too important to put the interest of a politician or a party before that of society and especially that of the young. Should I remind the Minister that today's young are tomorrow's society? Even if they are given a prison sentence, they will come out some day. That is why education, social reintegration and rehabilitation are so important.
More prisoners become real bandits than rehabilitated citizens. We must not fall into this trap. As I said, this bill does not solve anything and reflects a purely repressive philosophy. The government should understand this and withdraw the bill. Those national standards forced on Quebec, which does not want them, give its courts less flexibility in sentencing.
As a Quebecer, I understand that the federal government imposes standards that are divorced from reality. In the end, these standards will fill up prisons, increase court costs and add to the legal red tape-all areas of Quebec's jurisdiction. That gives us another good reason to free ourselves from this constitutional straitjacket, where the federal government always did what it pleased while ignoring Quebec's demands and imposing national standards without any consideration for our legitimate wishes. But the time for that is almost past.
I confess, I believed that the federal Minister of Justice was a progressive man who listens to those responsible for administering justice. Unfortunately, I was wrong; that is what I confess. I made a mistake, because had he been such a man, he would not have proposed such amendments. He could have tried to correct some problems in the enforcement of the law, within his own jurisdiction.
We heard many members say in this House that the problem is not the act itself, but its application. Everybody knows that. Neither Quebec nor Ontario now for the last few years seems to have understood the intent of the Young Offenders Act. The rest of English Canada uses this act to put away problem teenagers. That is not the intent of the YOA.
Do people really think that increasing sentences from 5 to 10 years or even from 7 to 10 years will help us achieve the aims of the act? Do people really think that reversing the onus to force the young offenders to demonstrate that they should be proceeded against in youth court instead of adult court will solve the problem and help us achieve the aims of the act? Do members opposite think that? Are Reform Party members of this opinion? Does the government think that increasing the period of time that a young offender who has received a life sentence must serve before being eligible for parole will help us achieve the aims of the act?
I have to believe that the minister did not ask himself these questions. The Liberal federal government, through its Minister of Justice, made a point of stating in clause 1 of the bill that crime prevention is essential to the protection of society and that a multi-disciplinary approach is needed to deal with this problem.
It is even stated in clause 15 that an order of custody is not the solution. However, the bill provides absolutely nothing to strengthen what is stated. Finally, they try to put on a smoke screen, to put everybody to sleep, saying that it will pass without a hitch. Well, no, it will not pass without a hitch. In Quebec, we do not want this bill. We feel unanimously that this bill is harmful to youth and that is not the solution. The solution lies in the implementation of the act as it now stands. The solution lies in social rehabilitation.
What I ask the Minister of Justice to do is simply to postpone this piece of legislation, not to have it given second reading in order that the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs can properly analyze the issue and report to this House. We will then see whether or not the act should be changed.
For the moment, the minister is saying: I am bringing changes to it and you go and study it. This is not the way things are supposed to work. That is not the way to improve legislation.
I would simply ask the minister to backtrack as common sense would require.
Young Offenders Act June 16th, 1994
Madam Speaker, I would like to rectify what the member said regarding the case in Aylmer. I do not know if he read the same papers as I did, but this young person did not threaten anyone, he was going to practice shooting in a field with some friends. That is no excuse for the parents, though, but it is quite different from what the member said. It is misinformation of that kind that needlessly scares people.
This being said, I know now-I already knew it, but it was confirmed by a member from western Canada-that there is no mechanism in Western Canada to deal with young offenders and their problems.
Now that it has been confirmed, could the member tell me what his province will do the day young offenders are released, following the amendments to the Young Offenders Act, after spending seven to ten years in jail? What is the province going to do with them, if during all that time, there were no specialists to work with and treat them? If during their time in jail, nobody helped them, what is the province going to do with them once they are released after seven or ten years?
Young Offenders Act June 16th, 1994
I listened to the member, and he sounds as if he no longer belongs to the Reform Party, but rather to the nostalgia party. These problems are today's problems, and I think that they cannot be solved the way the member suggested. I think that the problem of young offenders is much deeper than it appears at first glance. When young people turn the TV on, what do they see? Violence. In today's papers, we can read that a father seems to have left his firearms unattended since a 10-year old brought army revolvers to school. I think that there is a problem with educating parents and making them aware of potential problems with their children. I believe it to be a much deeper problem.
I would like to hear from the member who comes from western Canada if in his province they have a mechanism to deal with these young offenders.
Is there some mechanism to decriminalize their cases, to steer them towards rehabilitation and social reintegration or is it an area, in this great and beautiful country, where they put young offenders in block A, and the adults in block B? Do they send them to the best crime school to turn them into real outlaws later on?