Michel Bellehumeur

[Budget Implementation Act, 1994, April 14th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, to start with I would like to tell the member for Saint-Laurent-Cartierville how pleased I was to meet her in my riding before the Easter break, for the handing out of a cheque. I hope that the day I run into difficulties, I will be able to count on the government to help me out. I will be happy to meet you in my riding for less auspicious events than the handing out of a cheque. Madam Speaker, I mean that in a very friendly way.

Having said that, I welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-17, an Act to amend certain statutes to implement certain provisions of the Budget tabled in Parliament on February 22, 1994. Under this rather innocuous title, this act has far reaching consequences for nearly everyone in Canada and in Quebec. This bill affects every household, every family and every taxpayer in the country.

When reading this piece of legislation, one can really see how thirsty the government is for money. There is a problem however, the government always digs into the same pockets to take the money it needs. This time, once again, it goes after the unemployed and pensioners and, as I said before, families, more often than not low-income families who can hardly make ends meet as it is.

I think that instead of bringing the unemployed to their knees, the government should have helped them break out of that vicious circle and get back onto the labour market. You do not keep on hitting somebody who has already fallen to the ground, you help him get up. One way to help the unemployed is to agree to Quebec's many requests to decentralize manpower training. This would improve efficiency and help unemployed workers find their way through a maze of 75 programs with different entrance requirements depending on whether they deal with the federal government or Quebec departments. It would also help reduce the cost of overlapping jurisdiction and duplication which is estimated to be around $300,000 in Quebec alone. This figure was not arrived at by the Bloc Quebecois but by a former Quebec minister, a former minister who was a Liberal and a federalist. Three hundred million dollars because of overlapping is not chicken feed, it is a lot of money.

It is mostly because it has been recognized that a greater decentralization, bringing training and re-entry programs closer to the labour force, was more efficient than a strongly centralized policy such as the approach the Canadian government wants to impose on the provinces that the government must meet our expectations regarding manpower training.

According to Statistics Canada and other government bodies such as the Department of Employment and Immigration, each year, there are between 50,000 and 90,000 jobs that go unfilled in Quebec alone. With these figures, it is possible to see that there is a problem with training. Based on these figures alone, in difficult times such as these when everyone is looking for a job and talking about jobs, the need to do something is obvious to anyone who takes a hard look at the situation. In spite of all that, and in spite of the fact that the decentralization of training is unanimously approved in Quebec, we continue to negotiate, to hesitate and to waver, not knowing exactly what to do. As the hon. member for Roberval said yesterday, we discuss and these friendly discussions go on and on between Quebec and Ottawa, but no decision is ever made. I hope that the future will be more promising. I hope that the powers that be in Quebec will wake up and put their foot down once and for all.

Yesterday too, the Leader of the Opposition was right on when he said that in Quebec the issue of training decentralization generates a rare consensus. Indeed, it is not often that you have Gérald Larose and Ghislain Dufour agreeing on something. There is a real consensus and Quebec's position is very clear.

We can never insist too much on the fact that the Martin budget taxes employment and jeopardizes an already weak recovery.

The minister who, not so long ago, so vehemently opposed the Conservative policy, is now pursuing that policy and is doing even more damage than the Conservatives before him. Indeed, the minister pursues the Conservative policy of lowering UI benefits for the vast majority of claimants. To ease its conscience, the government threw in a few goodies in the bill, including the provision concerning low-income earners with dependent children. This is nothing to write home about, but the government put that in the legislation to make it somewhat more palatable. But this is only to save face; this is only to create a diversion.

This policy shifts the emphasis of the problem and makes it worse. I represent the riding of Berthier-Montcalm which extends to Saint-Michel-des-Saints, Saint-Zénon and all the way up to the Indian reserve of Manouane. What did people tell me every time I visited those regions during the election campaign? They said: "Michel, is there a policy to help our young stay here in our regions?" I understand these people because the population of these communities and villages is

dwindling. Those amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act will not keep the young in the regions. On the contrary, they will leave sooner for the city. The shorter the benefits, the faster they will go in order to find a job. They will try to find a job rather than depend on social welfare, and they will head for the city to do so. The problem is they will not find more jobs in the city than they do at home. And they will end up on welfare. The Minister of Finance will be pleased because they will no longer appear in federal statistics but on provincial social welfare rolls. If that was his goal, he did succeed.

Let met give a few figures on the impact of unemployment insurance reform. Eastern Canada and Quebec will be hit particularly hard by the elimination of regional rates of unemployment beyond 13 per cent. The last word I got from UI officials is that the current rate in my riding of Berthier-Montcalm is about 15 per cent. Those amendments will have a severe impact in my area.

When the regional unemployment rate is higher than 13 per cent, the number of weeks of benefits for people having just a few weeks of insurable work will be greatly affected. The impact on Eastern Quebec, where the needs are most acute, will be severe. According to an internal document of the Department of Human Resources Development, we can expect the following reductions in benefits: Atlantic Canada, $630 million; Quebec, $735 million; Ontario, $560 million; western Canada, $430 million.

The Minister of Finance argued that the cuts were fair, saying that Quebec and the Maritime provinces would still get more, per capita, after the reform. If he meant the benefit to population ratio, his argument does not hold water. It is natural for a province with a high unemployment rate to get more than other provinces.

Since I only have one minute left, I will raise another issue which is very dear to me. As you know, 1994 is the International Year of the Family. I think this should be a golden opportunity for the government to do something to help families.

Let me read you an excerpt of a letter I received from one of my constituents. The subject is "The art of being stupid in the extreme". That person wrote: "You know when the new federal policy regarding help to families was released, I was pleased to see that children's benefits were no longer taxable. Unfortunately, the government announced at the same time that my husband and I were too rich to continue receiving such benefits". With an annual salary of $38,000, once daycare and babysitting costs are paid, as well as other expenses, there is only $11,000 left for the year and for the pension fund. Yet, the minister said that these people were too rich and sent them a notice of assessment for a $63 overpayment.

"I have a cute little case containing exactly $46.09 in pennies and nickels from my little girl's piggy bank. I want to send it to the Minister". The person who wrote asked me to table it in the House, but since this is not possible, I will send it directly to the minister. This is a good example of the lack of policy and will to help families raise children.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, 1994, April 12th, 1994]

I am pleased to take part in this debate, Mr. Speaker, all the more so since I did not have a chance to speak at the time of the first debate because the guillotine went down before I could take the floor.

I want to take advantage of the motion moved by the Reform Party to tell you a little about my constituency and explain to you why this amendment by the Reform Party is unenforceable or illogical.

The object of the main motion is to reduce the suspension period of the law from 24 to 12 months and to delete sections 3 and 4 of the said bill. Since it will take more than 24 months to redress the illogical readjustments made to several constituencies, I am against shortening the suspension period of this act.

And I will tell you why. My native constituency was in turn called Berthier-Maskinongé, Berthier-Maskinongé-Lanaudière and, finally, Berthier-Montcalm. It was moved geographically from left to right without ever finding its true niche and it seems to me that following each and every adjustment, the

people most concerned were still making the same complaints and the same comments.

That is why, even though I sincerely hope that the people of Quebec will know where their interests and the best interests of Quebec lie in a possible referendum, I decided to hold a major consultation with my constituents.

Promoting Quebec's sovereignty should not prevent me from doing that since the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act is still in force. I think it is my duty as a member of Parliament to follow the work of a commission which will ultimately cost Canadian taxpayers more that $4 million, of which $1 million will be paid by Quebec taxpayers whom I represent here.

One should also remember that, following a referendum win in Quebec, a referendum or even an election could be called at the national level. Somebody had to keep an eye on things, and to follow the situation closely.

I came to Ottawa to defend Quebec's interests and I think that changes to electoral boundaries are in Quebec's interest. That is why I asked some volunteers in my riding to consult the people.

I think that if a member of Parliament wants to make representations to the commission, he should not base them only on his personal assessment of the situation, but on what his constituents told him. I based my position on those consultations and I will make a few comments in this regard later.

In addition to those consultations, I have known my riding for 30 years. As a lawyer, I was called to the court houses of Terrebonne, Joliette, Trois-Rivières and Shawinigan. The jurisdiction of each one of those courts encompasses a small part of my riding, which is very large.

Since 1986, I have had the chance to study the communities of my riding and get to know them a little. In 1988, my political activities gave me the opportunity to learn more about all those communities. I think that I know the geography, needs, history and characteristics of my riding and its social, economic and political organizations very well. But still, I believe that was not enough to make a fair presentation to the commission.

Despite a member's attachment to the riding that he represents, he cannot decide alone on the representations that he will make to the electoral boundaries commission for Quebec to maintain or to modify the area that he represents.

That is why, as I was saying earlier, I undertook a consultation process with the help of volunteers, and I should take this opportunity to thank people like Ghislaine Guilbault, Raymonde Gaudreault, Jean-Marc Ferland and my staff for their good and loyal services. They all had to work very hard to contact 83 municipalities, RCMs and organizations affected by the new boundaries proposed by the commission for the riding of Berthier-Montcalm.

Of all the parties that were contacted, 25 took the time to write to me and 12 got in touch with me directly to make comments. I think it is important because many of them told me: "Michel, we are taking the time to talk to you because we know, having done so in the past, that it is useless to submit a brief or make proposals to the commission. We think that if a member makes representations on our behalf, he is more likely to be listened to."

I have to say that several municipal politicians have also complained about the commission's reasoning, which they find inconsistent. In trying to solve one problem, the commission is creating another. People say among other things that, in Quebec, boundaries of the RCMs were generally taken into account in the proposed electoral map, but not in the riding of Berthier-Montcalm. In this case, they are being split up to satisfy some mathematical criterion.

It also became evident, through these consultations, that many people are frustrated because they were not able to take part in the process until the new boundaries were almost imposed on Canadians. You will understand that the amendment proposed by the Reform Party does not satisfy them, and I am certainly in a position to tell you so.

Representatives of one municipality even told me that they disagreed completely with the proposals that they saw in the newspapers, but did not intend to submit a brief or make other representations to the commission. The mayor of this municipality told me, and I quote: "The commission must take into account various considerations that cannot be reflected in a single brief. So preparing a brief becomes too arduous a task. My position is based on experience, having submitted briefs to two commissions in the past".

Another mayor pointed out to me on April 8 that the new boundaries were detrimental to his municipality. He wrote: "I want to draw your attention to the drawbacks resulting from such a drastic change for us and our neighbours from Sainte-Lucie and Val-des-Lacs, a population already penalized by the economic situation and absolutely dependent on a social centre with its activities, its schools, its shopping facilities, its social services, the LCSC and the Laurentides General Hospital." He concluded: "It is obvious that the commission is ill-informed about our priorities and our needs".

I contacted this mayor and he told me: "Mr. Bellehumeur, I will not submit a brief because I am sure that I will not be heard, that nobody will listen to me".

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but conclude that reviewing the electoral boundaries is not just a matter of mathematics. There might not be general agreement about this, but I think it is wrong to say that since there are six million people in Quebec, you just have to divide this number by 75 to get the average number of people to be included in each riding. I think there are much more appropriate, fair and accurate criteria that seem not to have been applied.

One of them that comes up often is services provided to the public. Another is administrative regions. It is illogical to split an RCM that has been part of the riding of Berthier-Montcalm, or of Berthier-Maskinongé -Lanaudière since Confederation and to transfer it to the neighbouring riding of Joliette. As I was saying a moment ago, there are many such cases. The criteria the commission seems to have applied in drawing the new boundaries have not been respected in my county. Maybe I am unlucky, but that is a fact!

Then, as for accessibility, is it right that the boundary of a riding run through a neighbouring riding? Is it right to create some kind of doughnut hole in the middle of a federal riding? I do not think so. Has anyone stopped for five minutes to consider whether in terms of geography and accessibility this was viable for taxpayers? I think no one considered that kind of concern for very long.

There are also other criteria that could be examined, but this is not the place to do it. In my capacity as member for Berthier-Montcalm, I intend to submit a brief if the issue is not settled in the House by April 20. Mr. Speaker, any member who wants to represent his riding, as is his duty, should listen to his constituents. But when you want to get things done, it is much better to deal with one member instead of two as the reeve of the D'Autray RCM said. That makes perfect sense and everybody in this House would agree that this should be a consideration.

It is not just a matter of drawing boundaries on a map. The whole context should be examined and consultation should take place before any proposal is made. People should be involved instead of being presented with a fait accompli. We should be listening to the wishes of the people and try to reconcile contradictory views and ideas that do not quite fit. Most of all, we should avoid the traditional practice of forcing new ridings on people.

During the last election campaign, I realized much to my surprise that constituents in the Montcalm area of my riding did not know they were part of the riding of Berthier-Montcalm. They all thought they were part of the Joliette riding and were wondering what I was doing there. Most likely, they did not see much of their former member. True, he needed two terms to get to know the extent of his own riding, so it is easy to understand the confusion the constituents were in.

Mr. Speaker, you will have concluded by now that I oppose the amendment since much more than 24 months would be necessary to correct all those deficiencies. And two years is not that long, after all. Canada may then have only 220 ridings to readjust so that there will be savings there for everybody.

[National Security, April 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, to begin, I would like to thank the Solicitor General of Canada for letting me see and read his statement, his press release and the report he quoted. We were able to become acquainted with it all before he read it and I thank him for that.

That will be the only thanks I extend to the Solicitor General of Canada and to the government in general today, since we were read a statement that I think is completely empty and contains nothing instructive on this area of the jurisdiction of the Solicitor General of Canada.

I think that it raises many more questions than it answers. The Solicitor General acted like his predecessors; that is, he very solemnly read an annual statement. I think that Canadians and

Quebecers want to have more than this very broad information. We want to know to what use the money we give this government and this agency in particular is put.

If the real purpose of this statement and the public report was to provide Canadians with an assessment of the present intelligence and security environment and especially to inform them about what is being done to protect the security of the country, I think that they have missed the boat again; we learn absolutely nothing. A lot of information is scattered left and right as a diversion but there is nothing substantial to show the real value obtained from the $228.7 million spent by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service last year. That is not peanuts-it is a quarter of a billion dollars.

I am sure that the Solicitor General of Canada will answer me that for reasons of national security, the government cannot reveal more.

But would it affect national security to know in which province CSIS spent the most or which province benefited the most from the $228.7 million spent last year?

Would it affect national security to know about inactive files-I hope that CSIS has closed a few files in its ten years of existence-so that we have tangible evidence of what this service has accomplished, in what areas it has conducted investigations? Would it affect national security to know that Quebecers and Canadians have in their hands something tangible to check whether or not they do a good job?

Would it affect national security to know which investigations saved lives or prevented attacks or disasters? Unfortunately, what we now see in the newspapers is only the negative side. I am quite willing to offer constructive criticism but I am not provided with the arguments, the files or anything else I need to do so. We now hear about things like Air India that are not too flattering to CSIS, or about terrorists entering Canada. But if we had something more constructive, more positive in the reports, we could present different arguments.

In ten years of existence, as I was saying earlier, and three public reports, I feel that something more concrete could be said to increase transparency without threatening national security. I think that if the government wants to be more transparent, it should apply this philosophy in these reports.

True, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service itself is watched by the Security Intelligence Review Committee or SIRC, as the Solicitor General said earlier. It is reassuring to know that, Mr. Speaker. I feel comforted by the fact that the Solicitor General of Canada is reassured by SIRC's last report saying that CSIS operations were legal and effective.

But who are the wise people who wrote this report and came to this conclusion? I am going to name them because I think that some members of this hon. House do not know them.

They are Jacques Courtois, a 73-year-old lawyer; Rosemary Brown, a 63-year-old social worker and the first Black woman to be elected in British Columbia; Edwin Goodman, a 75-year-old lawyer; George Vari, 70; and Michel Robert, whose age I do not know, a former national president of the Liberal Party of Canada.

When we see who is overseeing this committee, we may wonder. I am not saying this is not a good group whose members are not qualified, but what right have these people to monitor an organization that we in this House cannot monitor? I think that we must be even more suspicious of and look more closely at an organization such as CSIS. And I think that the recently elected 35th Parliament has the mandate and the capacity to determine if this $228.7 million is well spent. On the contrary, this job has been given to a committee where the average age is about 70. These people are probably friends of the government but are they qualified to present such a report and say that yes, everything is consistent with the law? I have my doubts and that is why I cannot present a very positive report, because we were given a statement almost impossible to verify, general principles, wishful thinking, but nothing more tangible. When we see who monitors CSIS, we realize there may be a problem there also.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the friends of the government who sit on the external review committee may have a definition which is different from that of the legitimate elected members of the 35th Parliament on what the protection of Canadians and Quebecers' lives, as well as of the country's interests, entails.

As for the legitimate Official Opposition, I can tell you that we surely have a definition which is different from that of the Security Intelligence Review Committee. Since the Solicitor General of Canada quoted an excerpt of the report in his statement, I will also refer to a part of this report which raises questions in my mind on just what the protection of life means.

In its report, the committee notes that in a small number of recent cases-identified by the five people I referred to earlier, whose average age is 70-, the intelligence gathered by the Service during these investigations on certain individuals seemed unrelated to the issue of national security. The committee is also of the opinion that even though some investigations were related to law enforcement issues regarding legal protest activities or the expression of dissent, no intelligence information leads it to conclude that activities described in paragraph (c) of the definition of threats to the security of Canada, in section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act had occured.

I wonder about this excerpt. Are we going back to the good old seventies? This could well be the case. I would have liked to know when these investigations were conducted, who was targeted, and in what province they took place. What legitimate protest triggered these investigations?

As long as we have an external review committee with no democratic control over targeted intelligence activities, the risk of bias will always exist.

Members of the external committee are not elected. There is no parliamentary control over intelligence activities and, in spite of what the Solicitor General said earlier in his speech, I find this situation extremely dangerous.

When we have a real report, a report with real questions and real answers, then we may be able to make more constructive criticism. What we have right now is an extremely important organization, important enough not to have to come before elected representatives. We were elected and these people do not even have to come before us to explain what they do exactly. Moreover, in these difficult times when the government keeps saying that we must tighten our belt, it spends $228.7 million and we cannot even see how the money was used.

Until we have a real report with real answers, it will be very difficult for the opposition and for democracy in Canada to come to a conclusion on this.

[Supply, March 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard everything today. Some members on this side want to separate while others seem to want annexation. There are some things that I do not understand.

Still, we have been discussing this Reform Party motion since the morning and many speakers have talked about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I would like the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine to tell me which section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects the rights of victims and whether there is a balance between the rights of victims and those of the accused.

[Supply, March 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member's speech and he said a few things that I do not agree with. I cannot understand how, in 1994, we can still hear such comments.

I said earlier that today's debate should not be limited to repugnant cases that were extensively covered by the press. I too could mention cases showing the opposite, cases where, after a realistic rehabilitation period, young offenders were successfully reintegrated into the system. Some people returned to society after psychiatric evaluation and treatment.

If I understand the logic used by the hon. member from the Reform Party, we should put everybody in jail without treatment. My question is how will we have enough prisons if we put everybody in jail without anything to treat them?

[Supply, March 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the comments and speech of the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys. I would have two questions for him.

First, does the hon. member agree with me that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms puts too much emphasis on the accused and the criminal and not enough on the victim? Does he

agree with me on that? Would he be prepared to add something to the Charter to favour victims, to have the rights of victims supersede those of the accused?

Second, and this is more a clarification than a question, I hope I heard wrong, in the part of the hon. member's speech where he talked about municipalities, community policing and an educational system providing special classes for children at risk. I just want to make sure that the government does not intend to intervene in areas which could not be more under provincial jurisdiction.

I would like the hon. member to confirm that he brought this up in his speech but that the federal government plans no direct intervention in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

[Supply, March 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this debate should not be on specific cases or on a particularly disgusting crime. If you use a specific case where the victim went through hell and the sentence was relatively light, you will obviously come to the same conclusion as the Reform Party. But these cases are a minority and as long as our laws are implemented by judges who are human beings, there will be some personal appreciation involved in their decision, which can lead to differences, as I was saying earlier.

As for the second part of the hon. member's question regarding the judge's comments, I think that a whole set of measures are already in place to compensate victims. I said earlier that in the case of stolen goods, I have seen judges sentence the guilty parties to return or repay the goods or even do community work. In Quebec, a whole series of measures are in place regarding community programs. But the problem is the follow-up. Indeed, the problem lie not in the legislation but rather in the means and how to deal with the whole issue.

We could pass laws which, for example, would provide that for a specific offence, the offender would have to pay a certain amount. However, if that person is on welfare, or is so well organized that he or she does not own anything, what are we going to do? What are we going to seize to recover the equivalent of what was stolen? We will get into proceedings and we will go through trials just to save face, because in the end we will be left with unenforceable sentences. What good will that do? None whatever. I think that we already have the necessary legislation. It is simply a matter of implementing it. Perhaps the judges and those who administer the law should be given additional resources for a follow-up, but it is especially important not to get into specifics, otherwise we will really get bogged down.

The hon. member might want to formulate his question during Oral Question Period and address it to the Minister of Justice in the coming month, so that we have something before us regarding his suggestion.

[Supply, March 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the people facing me were elected to govern and to draft legislation, and that they should do what they feel is useful and necessary, on the basis of their consultations and the principles outlined in their red book.

I would say that in many respects, the changes being requested are unnecessary. Take the bill to amend the Narcotics Control Act and the Food and Drugs Act, which is before the House. We already have a Narcotics Control Act. The government wants to update and amend this legislation, but as was explained in the House, in some very obvious cases this legislation is not even enforced.

We can pass as many bills as we want, but if the legislation we adopt is not enforced, if we do not have the political will to do so, what is the use? I say we should first look at what we already have and see if we can enforce those laws.

Another item that will soon be before Parliament is the Young Offenders Act. I discussed this with judges on several occasions, and they said: Mr. Bellehumeur, the existing legislation is not even enforced. We could refer some young offenders to adult court but we do not, although we are allowed to do so under the Act.

That is my question: why? Because the system does not give us the tools we need. Are we going to send a young offender to a prison for adults, where they learn more about crime than anything else? Judges prefer to hand out a minimum sentence and then release young offenders or make arrangements to have them supervised by someone who will help them get back on the right track.

I think that before we consider extensive changes, we should look at the system we have now, and draw our own conclusions. Are these laws enforced? Do we give judges and the courts enough power to enforce them? Instead of extensive changes, perhaps we should improve the way this legislation is used.

Even if the hon. member wished, I will not go into great detail about extensive federal amendments to Canadian laws. I simply want to say that we already have laws, and we should find out whether they are properly enforced.

[Supply, March 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the motion put forward by the Reform Party is not a simple one. If we are not careful, it could foster an ideology which is not in agreement with who we are as Canadians and Quebecers. What this motion calls for is not approval or disapproval, but a thorough review of the current system.

In my legal practice, I sometimes heard people say, in a fit of anger over a gross injustice in a court of law or an irrational judgement on the part of a judge, that the legal and judicial system protects criminals better than victims.

Let us not jump too quickly to that conclusion. Many extraneous factors, factors outside the legal system, can influence a sentence, a release, the judgement of a lenient judge and even-and we hear of it happening more and more on the news-of a dissident judge or one advocating reform.

We must, however, look at the means at the disposal of the judicial branch to enforce the legislation that we legislators pass in this House. For example-and I shall be brief since I have only 20 minutes-how can a judge send a first-time offender to jail, knowing that our penitentiaries are overcrowded? If the judge finds in favour of the Crown and the victim, the offender will indeed be sentenced to imprisonment. But he will soon be discharged, conditionally. It happens all the time.

When faced with this kind of judgement or finding, people dealing with the judicial system are always left to wonder. But the judge has no other choice.

For years now, there has been a general consensus that violence can take many forms. This is not to say that our society is necessarily more violent than others on the whole, but rather that we are better at recognizing violence and its various manifestations and at doing so more quickly. There has always been violence. It is just that we talk about it more today. Victims are less intimidated by the system and come forward more freely, but violence in itself is nothing new.

The question we have to ask ourselves is this: Do the rights of criminals supersede those of the victim in the present legal framework? If so, what can the government do to correct the situation?

I think that this issue involves competiting rights between victims and criminals and the two members who spoke earlier really put their finger on it. Both Quebec and Canada have passed legislation that brings out this duality.

However, discrepancies between the rights of the parties to a criminal case have existed for a very long time, since the Quebec Act of 1774 clearly addressed these concerns by introducing British criminal law to Canada. Section XI of this act reads in part as follows: "And whereas the Certainty and Lenity of the Criminal Law of England, and the Benefits and Advantages resulting from the Use of it, have been sensibly felt by the Inhabitants, from an Experience of more than nine Years [-]shall continue to be [-]observed as Law in the Province of Quebec, as well in the Description and Quality of the Offence as in the Method of Prosecution and Trial; and the Punishments and Forfeitures thereby inflicted-"

We must not forget that they had capital punishment back then and that the victim's only consolation was the condemned person's last breath.

That said, we must define the issue raised and, in order to resolve it as clearly as possible, we must first determine if this finding is justified and true, or quite simply false in legal and social terms.

What in our current system could help us weigh the pros and cons without being swayed by feelings and sensational cases that quickly stir up the emotions?

Daily newspapers emphasize the system's failures rather than its successes. The press usually focuses on the negative and that is what readers remember.

It must be said that, in recent decades, our society and therefore our legislation have quietly put a particular emphasis-I am not saying that everything is just rosy and that there is nothing left for us to do-on the victims of crime, at the urging of federal and provincial lawmakers.

The laws of Quebec and several other provinces that deal with the victims of crime are a striking example.

We must also be honest and mention that the Criminal Code contains provisions aimed at helping crime victims. There are for instance the provisions on the identification of criminals and the restitution of stolen goods. An hon. member said earlier that there should be such provisions, but I think they already are in the Criminal Code. We would only have to enforce them. We should urge the courts to enforce the current legislation designed to protect witnesses who testify and to award exemplary damages or impose fine surcharges-this principle still exists today. Do the courts apply the law in all cases? That remains to be seen.

Legislators are not here to make laws for the sake of it because they could make a lot that would never be enforced. I think there is a principle that legislators do not act frivolously. If they make changes, it is to make things better and not to leave everything up to a court that would not enforce them anyway.

Is this not enough for victims? Perhaps, but we should not endanger the whole legal system by trying to correct an age-old duality.

Another argument in favour of balancing rights between the victim and the criminal is the release on bail of the accused. It may be where we see an increasing number of reports in the press, which has a field day whenever a judge makes a wrong assessment. Again, society gets a negative impression of the legal system.

Under the Criminal Code's general rules, the police officer responsible for the temporary detention of a person charged with an offence punishable by imprisonment for a maximum of five years must release this person, unless he has reason to believe that it is necessary in the public interest or to ensure that the accused will show up for the trial.

Of course, the decision to release the accused is left to a justice of the peace. As the legal evaluation criteria are very complex, I will not go into them in this debate. One thing is for certain: a presumably impartial judge-and I think it is true in major cases-looks at the facts before deciding to release the accused.

In some cases, in particular in murder and hard-drug trafficking cases, it is up to the accused to prove that he should not be detained while waiting for his trial. In both cases, there is a major reversal of the burden of proof that somehow helps make the victim more secure.

The current code also requires the judge to issue a firearms prohibition order for anyone released on bail who is charged with an offence involving actual, threatened or attempted violence. In many cases, the judge will also ask for a commitment not to disturb the peace.

Of course, the judge can ask any accused person to make certain commitments and you will say that in many cases they are not respected. What little experience I have, although I am not a criminal lawyer, shows me that in most cases, people who are released under certain conditions respect them. We do not see them in the newspapers, because what is interesting about knowing that someone obeys the law; it is much more interesting to know who does not obey it.

You will tell me that is all very well on paper, but that in reality there are injustices and victims who are afraid, victims who are victims of the system. I must reply that unfortunately it is so. A perfect system where everyone would seem to win in a balanced legal system does not exist. The big problem in this question of justice between the victim and the criminal is, I think, one of society's perception.

Yes, the verbal excesses of some judges have damaged the esteem in which the present legal system is held. Fortunately, these verbal excesses are condemned by scathing criticism from society and by the peers of those who commit these excesses. Legal cases which make it to the front pages of the newspapers are not necessarily typical of everyday reality. These articles contribute to the mistaken opinion people have of justice.

I think that the observation we are considering does indeed reflect society's perception, but it should be qualified from the legal point of view. To show why I am saying this, we must refer to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I wish to remind this House that this charter is the same one that Quebec did not have the privilege to endorse when the Constitution was unilaterally repatriated in 1982, as the present Prime Minister surely recalls. So I am in a special position to criticize it.

Let us look for a moment at some provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms regarding the rights and legal guarantees of individuals and of criminals. We are told that the Charter is the highest law in trials and in the legal system, so let us look at what this charter provides both for criminals and for victims.

Section 7 says: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice." Section 8 gives "everyone the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure." Section 9 says: "Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned." Section 10 says: "Everyone has the right on arrest or detention ( a ) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor; ( b ) to retain and instruct counsel without delay -and ( c ) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus .''

In any case, I thought on reading these sections that everyone, criminal or victim, is indeed protected by law. Nevertheless, the legislators felt the need to insert additional sections on the rights of an accused person. That is the whole series of section 11 of this charter, where it says that "any person charged with an offence has the right to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence" -I thought this redundant, given the previous sections-to be tried within a reasonable time, not to be compelled to testify against himself, to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, not to be denied bail without just cause, to the benefit of trial by jury, except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal, not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission, if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again, etc., etc.

Section 11 adds several factors to what was already there for the accused.

I wanted to read this, even though the members of this House are well acquainted with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to highlight the existing imbalance, in my view, in a law which supposedly supersedes all others, between the rights of the accused, the criminal, and the rights of the victim.

The Charter of Rights of which the Prime Minister is so proud clearly brings into focus our negative perception of the justice system. There is absolutely nothing in the Charter to protect the victim, to ensure that he or she benefits from the support of the state throughout the lengthy criminal justice process. And this process is very lengthy indeed. More money needs to be invested in this process. It is not legislation that is lacking. We need to allocate more funding to the administration of justice. It is not by enacting laws that we will strike a better balance between the rights of victims and of criminals.

However, I think it should have been stated clearly in the Charter that victims' rights always take precedence over the rights of the accused, of criminals. Since no mention is made of the need for this kind of balance, those who come before the courts only hear about how the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects the accused, about how it is invoked to obtain the release of an accused person or to quash a ruling by a lower court which convicted a person, or how, as a result, the accused is released following a review on appeal.

Quite often, at the appeal stage, the issue is not whether a crime was committed, but whether all of the provisions of the Charter were upheld. The victim ends up being the one who, quite often, suffers extreme prejudice. Using the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as an example, we can easily demonstrate the apparent imbalance between the rights of the victim and those of the criminal.

However, the public's generally negative perception of the system goes much deeper than its appreciation of a particular piece of legislation. That is why I believe in the justice system given to us by our ancestors. We must not call everything into question for the sake of achieving a punitive, excessive objective. We have to be rational and pursue efforts to modernize the system, while looking to education. A more highly educated society which understands its rights is a society that has a greater appreciation of its justice system.

Since we know what the priorities of the Minister of Justice are in this 35th Parliament, and we heard them again in the House this morning, we will have an opportunity to get some messages across to him. We should seize this occasion to give greater importance to victims and, in the process, improve the perception that those who come before the courts have of our justice system.

In conclusion, it would not necessarily be viable for Quebec and Canada to seek to improve the lot of victims solely at the expense of criminals. We should be focusing our energies on education, prevention and rehabilitation instead of on handing down heavier sentences to criminals. Does Canada want to become a totalitarian country insofar as the treatment of its criminals is concerned?

The members on this side of the House would like to establish a sovereign country, one in which a fair balance will be struck between the rights of victims and the rights of criminals. In my opinion, this balance will not be achieved by pitting the rights of one party against those of another.

[Supply, March 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for sharing with us once again his views on the present legal and judicial system. I can even say that I share the views he espoused in his "philosophical" speech because it touched on broad principles.

However, it remains to be seen whether I will still agree with him after he has put forward the amendments he has in mind. In light of the speech that I just heard, I would ask the minister to proceed with caution, as he seems to want to get involved with local problems that fall under provincial jurisdiction. The minister should take care not to always present bills with a national flavour, as he seems to want to do, because some of Quebec's laws could contradict what he is proposing. Quebec is feeling pressed on certain issues that were raised by the minister.

My question is very concrete. The problem with the motion presented by the Reform Party is primarily one of public perception. In the red book, the government referred to the fact that public perception was very negative, particularly in terms of how battered women and children are treated by the justice system.

In its red book, the government made an undertaking to provide or increase funding for agencies that assist battered women and their children. In my view, this would, be one way of showing the public that the system does in fact consider the rights of victims and not merely those of criminals.

Can the minister tell us what additional funding was allocated to these agencies in the last budget and how these agencies plan to use the funds?