Michel Bellehumeur

[Young Offenders Bill, April 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the flexibility of the new young offenders legislation is a myth. In fact, under the legislation, Quebec's courts will have to hand down sentences similar to those given adolescents elsewhere in Canada for the same offence.

When will the Minister of Justice wake up and realize that Quebec's approach is seriously threatened, particularly by the principle of harmonized offences in the bill?

[Young Offenders, April 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on April 23, the supreme court ruled the following in the Gladue judgment, and I quote “In recent years, compared to other countries, sentences of imprisonment in Canada have increased at an alarming rate”.

Will the Minister of Justice admit that, by imposing harsher penalties, her young offenders bill ignores not only the large consensus in Quebec, but also the opinion of the supreme court itself?

[Young Offenders Act, April 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, there is no point in talking about flexibility when, in the opinion of experts, lawyers and everyone else working in the field in Quebec, there is no flexibility.

In that case, I would ask the minister: would she accept amendments ensuring the clear and unambiguous exclusion of Quebec from the application of the young offenders legislation, as proposed?

[Young Offenders Act, April 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, after an exhaustive review of the young offenders bill by the Quebec Minister of Justice, the Quebec Minister of Public Security, and the Minister responsible for Youth, it is quite obvious that the bill will have a negative impact on the Quebec model, which has worked well overall.

Does the Minister of Justice acknowledge that, as the bill stands at present, Ottawa is not leaving Quebec or the provinces any opportunity to withdraw from the adult system the cases of young people they would very much like to exclude from it?

[Criminal Code, April 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to take part in the debate on Bill C-79, an act to amend the Criminal Code (victims of crime) and another act in consequence.

This bill addresses several legitimate public expectations regarding how our criminal justice system should treat the victims of crime.

Criminal justice is defined in various ways. Some will say that the purpose of the justice system is to punish those who have broken the law. In fact, living in society involves respect for certain fundamental values that help maintain social equilibrium. If we do not respect these values, we expose ourselves to the disapproval of our fellow citizens and face a sentence judged appropriate by the community. This sentence must meet various considerations, one of them being to protect society. The sentence imposed must make it possible to decrease, if not eliminate, the probability of a repeat offence, thus lowering the medium and long term social costs of crime.

The criminal justice system therefore has a very significant social dimension. This is shown primarily by the fact that it is the state that brings criminals before the courts. Contrary to civil proceedings, it is the attorney general, representing the community, who must defend our interests by proving the accused's guilt before the courts.

In this context, we see that criminal justice is evaluated basically according to our shared needs. When we pass legislation aimed at fighting crime, we do so in light of an overall analysis of the situation. We avoid legislating based on specific, individual, cases. We ensure that the justice system is properly integrated.

A good body of legislation is described as being consistent, with punishments that match the crimes committed, and as effectively addressing the harmful consequences of these crimes on society in general.

Crimes have always had names associated with them. The suspect's first and last names appear on the court decision. The media pick them up, and associate a face and an identity with them. The suspected perpetrator has not only rights, but also has obligations, freedoms but also constraints.

As we have seen, crime has an adversary: the state. Criminal justice does not just involve us and the crime, us and evil. There are also, above all, those who have been the victims.

Too often we lose sight of the fact that crime, to which we have attached a name, also involves another set of names, the first and last names of the person who has been killed, hurt or otherwise affected, a person with a face and a specific identity. That person might be our friend, our relative, a child we know.

That name imposes the unlooked-for status of victim of crime, with all the suffering, torment, distress and of course anger that entails.

The legal process the victims are required to take part in does nothing to lessen all this suffering. On the contrary, the victim is forced to face the perpetrator and to relive in every last detail an unbearable event he or she wishes to forget as quickly as possible. The criminal justice system is therefore often perceived as more of an irritant than a balm.

The members of the House of Commons must assume their responsibilities and work to reduce the negative effects of criminal proceedings on the victims of criminal acts. They must not only ensure that the victims are not obliged to relive the drama, but they must also enable them to speak out.

Accordingly, in the spring of 1998, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights began to study the role of victims of criminal acts in the criminal justice system. After lengthy consultation, the committee, of which I am a member, tabled a report, some elements of which are reproduced in the bill before us today.

In this regard, we would point out that the amendments proposed by the committee and approved by the minister in her Bill C-79 serve to protect victims and involve them in the criminal justice system and to increase the funding available for the services offered them. We will see briefly how each of them is expressed in the bill.

The so-called protective measures include the fact that the bill recognizes the urgency of better protecting victims as they are cross-examined by a person accused of sexual assault. The Bloc Quebecois has repeatedly asked in recent years that this protection be reinforced, since cross-examination is probably the hardest thing for a victim to face, especially when the accused is doing the questioning.

Unfortunately, sexual offences are regularly committed by people known to the victims. In fact, the statistics and files on these cases indicate that a friend, a parent or someone in a position of trust, an object of affection, not hatred, is often found to be responsible for the sexual aggression.

Since the victim must be very brave to report this sort of offence, even more courage is, understandably, required to face one's aggressor in court. The additional protection provided under Bill C-79, which prohibits cross-examination by the accused of victims under 18 years of age, is therefore a step in the right direction. It will certainly allow the most vulnerable to prepare for the effects of this difficult stage of the process.

This limitation for victims under the age of 18 also ensures that the bill meets the test of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

With respect to the provisions for greater victim participation in the judicial process, there are the amendments regarding victim impact statements.

Once Bill C-79 has been passed, victims will be allowed to read a statement describing the impact of the crime on their life and that of their family. This amendment would have the merit of allowing victims to play a more active role in sentencing mechanisms. In addition, the new wording of the Criminal Code would require judges to ensure that victims were duly informed of the possibility of preparing such a statement.

Parliament has responsibilities towards the victims of crime. However, its role, although extremely important, is linked to the criminal procedures defined in the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. In essence, the role of the Parliament of Canada is limited by the distribution of powers.

In fact, under this distribution of powers, the provinces have primary jurisdiction for coming to the aid of victims of crime. Any legislative measure concerning victims, other than measures set out in criminal law and proceedings, falls exclusively under provincial jurisdiction.

As an example, the Government of Quebec has implemented a system of co-operation between the CSST, the Department of Justice and the Department of Finance in order to provide financial support to victims through the application of its crime victims compensation act.

The Quebec Department of Justice funds a number of programs including those offered by the Quebec crime victims assistance centres.

These provincial program may be numerous, but they are also costly. Maintaining these essential services cannot be assured unless the funding is equal to the demand. Since 1988, part of this funding comes from a victim fine surcharge that is imposed by the courts.

This compensation is a penalty over and above any sentence that is intended to involve the criminal directly in making reparation to the victim. In fact, it goes toward the funding of provincial victim assistance services.

It must be made clear that the victim fine surcharge does not come from any of the resources generated by the federal government. By imposing this surcharge, the court taps into the financial capacity of the offender, not that of the federal government. Thus, in approving any change to the victim fine surcharge system, great care must be taken that the federal government does not play any part whatsoever in the funding of provincial services for victims.

According to the provincial prosecutors involved in the various victim assistance programs, the surcharge authorized and collected under the Criminal Code is not enough for improvements to the victim assistance programs.

By making this subject to a maximum of 15% of the fines imposed on sentencing, or setting it at $35 if there is no fine, the Criminal Code did not guarantee basic services of the financial health they required.

Bill C-79, reflecting the recommendations from the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, makes a substantial change to the victim fine surcharge system, first of all by making it mandatory for all offenders. Unless the court is of the opinion that its imposition would cause undue hardship, the surcharge ought to be paid by all offenders, regardless.

As for the amounts, these would in future be 15% of any fine imposed on the offender for the offence, or if no fine is imposed, $50 in the case of an offence punishable by summary conviction, and $100 in the case of an offence punishable by indictment. As well, the court may order an offender to pay a higher amount if it is satisfied that the offender is able to do so.

It may prove necessary to review the provisions on victim surcharge. The provinces, responsible for managing all direct services for victims of criminal offences, count on this significant contribution the offenders must provide.

The victims of criminal offences deserve attention commensurate to the tragedy they have undergone. Policies on criminal justice can be fair only insofar as they take the victim's interests into account.

So, Bill C-79 is welcome. The measures it contains will gradually rebalance the interests at stake in the criminal justice system. The victims and their families will now be able to count on protection and greater involvement in the criminal proceedings they are thrust into, much against their will.

It is from this perspective, that the Bloc Quebecois welcomes Bill C-79 from the Minister of Justice.

Nevertheless, I would like to conclude by recalling that the role of the federal government with respect to the victims of criminal acts must be limited to jurisdictions relating to criminal procedings and law. The minister cannot, under any pretext, succumb to the temptation to cross into provincial jurisdiction in connection with providing help to victims of criminal acts.

In introducing Bill C-79, on April 15, the minister announced the establishment of a victim strategy centre. In a press release, she stated that the new centre would manage, co-ordinate and increase federal initiatives to victims. Despite the minister's good intentions, we feel that crime victims would be better served if the federal government stopped duplicating existing provincial services.

In fact, the Bloc Quebecois is not only convinced that respect for the distribution of powers serves the interests of crime victims, but it fears that the minister's announcement will lead to additional administrative costs that could be avoided if the tools now available were better used.

The Bloc Quebecois will therefore ensure that the mandate of the Victims' Policy Centre is defined in terms of federal jurisdiction, so that the provinces' constitutional authority with respect to victim assistance is respected.

I would remind the Minister of Justice that, in response to the dissenting report I tabled during consideration of this topic, she said that she would do everything she could, that she agreed with me that this centre should fully respect provincial jurisdictions, and that she would intervene in an area of provincial jurisdiction only with the agreement of the provinces. I am confident that, in such a case, the minister will act in accordance with her response to my dissenting report.

[Augusto Pinochet, March 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Justice said she was waiting for the decision by the House of Lords in England before deciding whether to call for the extradition of General Augusto Pinochet.

Since the House of Lords today refused to give immunity to General Pinochet, does the Minister of Justice now, finally, plan to officially request his extradition on the basis of a complaint by a Montreal nun who was a victim of the Pinochet regime?

[Government Services Act, 1999, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, before Oral Question Period, I was congratulating Flamingo, a company operating in Joliette and in Berthierville, because we are on the topic of labour relations and negotiations. I was saying that, when parties sat down and tried to reach a solution, when parties acted in good faith, something could be done.

The newspapers—to continue with this issue that concerns some of my constituents—reported good news, that an agreement in principle has been reached at the Flamingo abattoirs in Joliette and Berthierville that will, if approved by union members, end a five month dispute. This is concrete and very topical proof that opposing parties can reach an agreement if they act in good faith.

The following questions come to mind: Is the government opposite acting in good faith? Does the government opposite want to resolve the dispute fairly for all parties? In order to answer these questions, we must examine the facts. We must understand what the issues and the facts are.

We know that, since 1991, the federal government has established seven bargaining tables with its employees. It divided all its employees into seven such tables for bargaining purposes. One might say that the federal government divided to conquer, an old principle even Julius Caesar used to use. I dare hope this was not its main motivation, but the fact remains that there are seven bargaining tables.

Two of them, tables 2 and 4, are currently involved in a dispute. Who are the people involved? Table 4 comprises correctional service officers, and table no 2 general labour and trades, ships' crews, hospital services, general services, and firefighters. Clearly, we are not dealing with deputy ministers making twice as much as the minister in charge of the matter, but people at the bottom of the pay scale. They are not highly paid civil servants.

These two tables were bargaining and, since they were not making progress, union members resorted to pressure tactics, including going on strike.

At this point I believe we need to go back over the history of bargaining in the public service to have an overview of the situation and form an opinion on the matter.

Labour relations in the federal public service come under the Public Service Staff Relations Act. This act came into force in 1967. This new negotiating framework removed public servants from the more liberal framework of the Canada Labour Code.

There are many differences between the Canada Labour Code and the Quebec Labour Code. I believe the latter is far more specific, and probably more advantageous for workers. We do have a labour code, but the adoption of the Public Service Staff Relations Act effectively removed public servants from the jurisdiction of the Canada Labour Code.

It is very important to remember that one of the reasons given by the government of the day to justify the removal of public servants from the jurisdiction of the Canada Labour Code was that it considered itself a good employer because it paid its employees well and gave them good working conditions. We were told then that no government would ever abuse the situation and use its size and power to control the market, to muzzle its employees or to bludgeon them into submission, if I may use that expression.

In other words, we were told that since the Canadian government was such a good employer, its employees would be removed from the jurisdiction of the Canada Labour Code and would instead be governed by a law that would apply only to them and over which the government would have total control.

Is that what is really going on? I think history has shown us that it is not the case. Since the adoption of the new legislation, and particularly since the Liberals took office in 1993, those principles have been betrayed in every possible way by the government, especially through its legislative power. The government distorts, undermines and dominates the bargaining process like no other employer can, legally. It has the power to do so.

The government made a series of cuts which impacted heavily on civil servants, and attempted to manipulate the taxpayers with demagoguery and the government's sizeable communications resources. As well as misinforming the public, it has abused the House of Commons. We, the MPs, cannot even debate such a vital matter, thanks to the gags the government keeps using.

I would like to ask a legitimate question, for the sake of those following this debate. Is this the first time the federal government is acting in this way? Is this the first time it is trying to impose its will as heavy-handedly as this?

One would have to look at past legislation to see whether this is a first or not, and if it is true that what goes around comes around, it will surely not be the last time either.

In August 1982, Bill C-124 froze the salaries of some 500,000 public servants. In December 1989, there was the back to work legislation, Bill C-49. Later, in October 1991, there was Bill C-29, with which the employer threatened unilateral imposition of its offer if it were not accepted. “Those are the offers. If you do not accept them, you will end up with them anyway”. That was more or less what Bill C-29 was all about.

But something rather special happened then. The Labour Relations Board characterized this move by the federal government of the time as unethical. Worse yet, the International Labour Organization commented that this action by the federal government imposed serious restrictions on the bargaining process and urged the government to return to free bargainiing. The ILO found the way the federal government was treating its employees shocking.

Members will understand our having a few doubts today about the federal government's statement that it is a good employer. The International Labour Organization had doubts then.

In 1992, there was something else. In 1993, 1994 and 1996, there were in this House a series of laws imposing working conditions on these public servants. One of my Bloc Quebecois colleagues said “We are forced to conclude there is no difference between Conservative and Liberal”.

When we look at labour relations with public servants, both the Conservatives and the Liberals forced their will on their employees using the legislative tools at their disposal.

In conclusion—I will have the opportunity to come back about 11 p.m. or midnight, I am pleased to say—what we want the government to do is sit down and bargain, as they are entitled to do.

[Division No. 354, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that Oral Question Period will still take place at 2 p.m. and that my speech will therefore be interrupted. I will resume after Oral Question Period.

Since this morning, I have been listening to the debate on Bill C-76. I believe Bloc Quebecois members are very well prepared. Our approach to this bill is very well structured. One member I am thinking of is the member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Îles-d'Orléans, whose speech was well researched. Government members opposite would do well to reread the member's remarks very carefully.

It is not surprising that we should come to the defence of workers in such a situation. In our 1997 election campaign, we said that the Bloc Quebecois would be there for the workers and constituents of each of our ridings.

The Bloc Quebecois was left with no choice but to defend the interests of workers in the present affair. As others have said before me, we are not talking about workers earning $100,000 or $150,000 a year. These are people with relatively small salaries. The government wants to take advantage of the situation and beat them down with the bill before us today.

What exactly is being proposed this morning? Unfortunately, we are looking at closure. For those not sure what that means, the Liberal government opposite, not wanting to know every little detail of the negotiations, not wanting to know exactly what the opposition thought, not wanting to hear what the experts had to say, has moved closure, a motion I will read for the benefit of those listening. Each word of this motion is very important.

It reads as follows:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of this House, a bill in the name of the President of the Treasury Board, entitled An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of government services, shall be disposed of as follows:

Commencing when the said bill is read a first time and concluding when the said bill is read a third time, the House shall not adjourn except pursuant to a motion proposed by a Minister of the Crown, and no Private Members' Business shall be taken up;

The said bill may be read twice or thrice in one sitting;

After being read a second time, the said bill shall be referred to a Committee of the Whole; and

During consideration of the said bill, no division shall be deferred.

Mr. Speaker, you know what this means, but the average person might not. What the government wants to do is gag the opposition so that it cannot say too much about this important issue.

This is not a very orthodox procedure, but it does not come as a total surprise, because the government has used it several times. Closure motions on important things such as this are virtually undemocratic, since we are here to represent our constituents and advocate their views.

When an adjournment motion is passed and the opposition is gagged, it is obvious all members of the Bloc cannot stand and support their constituents' views the way they should.

Each time the government uses this kind of motion, closure in this case, I cannot help but remember the nice things they say during election campaigns. In 1993 and 1997, Liberal members came up with nice plans and said they wanted to enhance the work of members of the House. Is this not a good opportunity for the government to enhance the work of members by letting them uphold their views in the House? One of the main roles of members is to make a stand on issues.

Each and every time we have a subject that is in any way controversial or complicated, when members could really score political points and express their views, the government opposite comes in with time allocation or closure. These motions are virtually anti-parliamentary, and above all demeaning to MPs, particularly the government backbenchers who must be getting bored to death with a government like this one, which does not allow them to stand up and defend their views.

I have been listening to this debate since this morning, and I have not seen very many Liberals standing up to defend their views. Is this because they have nothing to say? If they have nothing to say, why did they run in 1997? If they have something to say, this means that closure, the motion to gag the opposition, in a way also gags the Liberal backbenchers, who might have something to say on such an important subject.

I am sure that some of the Liberal MPs from Quebec have something to say. I have not seen one of them rise to defend his point of view, not a single one. I find this extremely strange. With closure, the opposition is being denied the opportunity to consult specialists in this field. They are trying to curtail debate, and thus there will not be time enough for the opposition to set out in any detail the positions they want to bring into the debate.

Fortunately we in the Bloc Quebecois saw this coming, and so we got prepared. We were not caught with our pants down, as they say. We were prepared to intervene in this House and to bring out our point of view, but this may not be the case for all parties.

The government has decided to bring out its heavy artillery. It seems to me, however, that where negotiations on a labour contract are concerned, it is legitimate to allow both parties to defend their points of view, both labour and management. In labour law, there are rules that must be followed. As far as I know, the employees and their union have followed those rules.

Bargaining is a complicated and difficult process. The membership must be properly represented. I believe there is also an obligation for both employees and employer to work for the good of the community, particularly when the employer is the government.

I was a labour lawyer before I became an MP.

Like my colleagues who spoke before me and said they have represented workers or employers in negotiations, during the eight or nine years that I have worked as a lawyer, I have represented employers as well as employees. Therefore, I have no prejudice for one or the other.

However, I have some experience in labour disputes and bargaining. Now, how are things usually done in work contract negotiations? Employees try to negotiate and get as much money—since salaries are at stake—and benefits as possible. Conversely, the employer, who wishes to increase its profits and bottom lines, will try to negotiate lower salaries and fewer benefits. But during all that time, the parties sit at the same table and negotiate in good faith.

When I practised law, I also negotiated out-of-court settlements, which is not an easy task. I negotiated family law agreements, which is not easy either. But if the parties are ready to sit down and negotiate in good faith, they will sooner or later reach an agreement.

During all the years that I practised, the parties had one thing in common: they wanted to negotiate and to reach a negotiated agreement.

While it may not be directly linked to the issue at hand, I am sure you will allow me to mention in passing a similar case relating to collective bargaining. According to this morning's newspapers, an agreement in principle has presumably been reached at the Flamingo slaughterhouses in Berthierville and Joliette. Speaking of negotiations, in that case, the labour dispute had been going on for five months. Apparently the parties found a basis for an agreement because they kept negotiating and the agreement in principle which was reached will be submitted to the approval of the union tonight.

As we can see, through negotiation, agreement in principle can be achieved. This is why—and I will conclude on this and continue after question period—I urge the government to take this time to ponder and, after question period, to listen more carefully to what I say.

[Young Offenders Act, March 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in that case, could the minister state that the Quebec justice minister legally issue a directive to crown attorneys to automatically exclude all 14 and 15 year old Quebeckers from being given adult sentences?

[Young Offenders Act, March 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, a coalition of people in Quebec working with young offenders stated, after a thorough review of Bill C-68, that this legislation is a decoy, in that there is no confirmation anywhere of the right of Quebec and the other provinces to apply their own model.

Will the minister admit that nothing in this bill guarantees the provinces, including Quebec, can maintain and continue their own youth justice programs?