Michel Bellehumeur

[Program For Older Workers Adjustment, February 21st, 1997]

Unemployment insurance does not concern you?

[The Constitution, February 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, in light of the 180 degree turnabout and the glaring inconsistency of his friend and ally, Daniel Johnson, is the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs telling us that, until the leader of the Liberal Party in Quebec sees the light and stops putting partisanship before the interests of Quebec as a whole, he will consider that there is no consensus in Quebec to proceed bilaterally?

[The Constitution, February 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

This week, Quebec's Liberal Party leader Daniel Johnson said he would not support the amendment to section 93 of the Constitution sought by the Quebec government, because, in his opinion, the fact that up to four other provinces could be involved increases the likelihood of failure.

Just yesterday, however, the minister stated unequivocally that section 93 could be amended bilaterally on the basis of the proposal made by the Quebec government.

Who are we to believe, the minister across the way or the leader of the Liberal Party in Quebec?

[The Budget, February 20th, 1997]

It is outrageous, 500,000 more poor children since you have been in power.

[The Budget, February 20th, 1997]

The tables of the rich, a few crumbs.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, February 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, to really understand Bill C-296 introduced by the hon. member, we must remember what it says in the mission statement of the Correctional Service of Canada.

To be able to analyse and understand the hon. member's bill, we must know what this mission is. The mission, and I will read it to you from a very official document of the Correctional Service of Canada, says the following: "The Correctional Service of Canada, as part of the criminal justice system, contributes to the protection of society by actively encouraging and assisting offenders to become law abiding citizens, while exercising reasonable, safe, secure and humane control".

And we in the Bloc Quebecois want to say right away that the system may not be perfect, but it certainly is not the disaster implied by Reform members. In Canada, the correctional system works. However, there are some shortcomings. There are a number of questions, and perhaps I could get back to this later on.

When we look at the mission of the correctional service and the purpose of this bill, we see that the summary of the hon. member's bill reads as follows:

The purpose of this bill is to require federal inmates to complete programs that will assist in their rehabilitation and make their release on parole contingent upon their successful completion of such programs.

Immediately, I see something that is pretty obvious as regards the mission of the correctional service and the hon. member's bill. It is pretty obvious to me that the hon. member-and I am astonished that this should come from the government benches-is introducing a bill which is an admission of failure. That is what the bill says, because it will be necessary to require inmates to do such and such, while if we know how the Correctional Service Canada works, this is being done.

The correctional service proposes such and such, it does follow up, it assists inmates with psychological problems, problems with social reintegration, sexual problems or whatever. They will be helped in such a way that when an inmate leaves the institution, he again becomes part of the community and no one will notice the difference. That is the mission the correctional service has with respect to parole, but the bill seems to say the system has failed and that inmates will be required to do such and such that will assist in their release, to be contingent on the inmates completing the programs already available to them.

This is all very well, but I think it is dangerous to proceed this way because the government member seems to be saying there is a problem. Now, either the statistics we get from the department on repeat offenders are correct or they are not. I assume they are correct, unless the parole figures and the whole question of repeat offenders, unless the figures the Solicitor General gives us every year are not correct. However, if they are, this means the failure rate is minimal and the system works. It means that inmates are making good use of the programs available to them.

However, the hon. member's bill implies the statistics are not correct, because the hon. member has looked into this. He wants to oblige inmates to start and follow through with this process.

So the bill is not bad in itself, but I wonder whether it is worthwhile adopting this bill.

I know there are two versions with respect to recidivism. Apparently the police seem to be saying that the department's figures may not be accurate. As far as early parole is concerned-and I was very surprised to read this in L'Express , a magazine dealing with the judiciary system-we are told there is a failure rate of about 80 per cent for early parole. If this is true, there is a problem. The problem concerns early rehabilitation, or maybe there is a problem with the figures the Solicitor General gives us annually.

One thing is sure. From sitting on the Standing Committee on Justice, from considering legal issues and from questioning witnesses who have come before the committee, I know that one thing is sure. While things have not yet reached catastrophic proportions, if the cuts of the past continue, and schooling, computer training or other programs for the purposes of rehabilitation or reintegration into society are eliminated, because the prison system is obliged to cut certain programs for lack of funding, we will have a problem, whatever bill the member opposite proposes, because we will have no money to implement it.

One thing is sure, the more the cuts, the fewer programs there are for inmates, the greater the chance inmates will find themselves really unprepared on their release and back within the prison system in no time.

The bill is indeed praiseworthy, however, it is quite distressing that it comes from a member opposite and that it is conditional, because I think that, in the long run, the outcome may be affected. It is not true that the result is better in the end if we legislate someone to do something. I think that, even inside, even having prisoners do time, we could encourage them from within and not force them.

People who are in prison are not law abiding people like the general public. Sometimes they have a bit of a revolt inside. You just have to tell them they have to do it for them to not want to. I think we have to continue, focus more on existing programs and ask them to take the programs, not spontaneously, but encourage them and not force them. I think we would be asking for real trouble if we made it mandatory.

I will conclude by saying that, in the past few weeks, months and years, there have been all sorts of issues concerning the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, and so forth. Recent events have shown us that there are great gaps in the system. They have also shown us that a lot of things work well.

The government opposite does not seem to have a global view of the problem society faces with inmates and their release. There are members, here and there, who introduce private bills to change the law. Even the government, which occasionally makes changes to the law, will do so piecemeal, in an effort to find a band-aid solution. That is not how to solve the problem once and for all.

We have seen really human cases of late, in which even the father of a young girl killed by someone on parole took part in the debate, saying: "There are gaps in the correctional system. It is good in some respects, but perhaps society ought to be involved

more". Far from condemning the system, he said it needed improving. I am referring to the Bolduc case.

Instead of changing things bit by bit, instead of making minor changes to please voters, instead of tilting totally right, like the Reformers, why will the government opposite not act on the request of the official opposition? In recent weeks and months, we have been calling for a thorough examination of the entire problem by a commission of inquiry or a parliamentary commission, which would report to us. Then we would really see what works, what does not work and what needs to be changed or not. We would not be doing it bit by bit.

[Criminal Code, February 13th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-353, whose purpose is to amend the Criminal Code with respect to Internet lotteries.

I think the hon. member was right to talk about co-operation, because we intend to co-operate fully on this bill, considering the very significant proliferation nowadays of gambling, lotteries, betting, and so forth.

Internet and computer games are also coming increasingly widespread. As the hon. member said earlier, more than two million people a day surf on the Internet. This is a little like letting two million people into a casino, since these computer games include gambling, lotteries and betting.

Considering the easy access and the total absence of regulation of this sphere of activity at present, and also considering that Internet users may be minors and can get into the net at any time, it is important to take the time to study this bill. We must find out whether this bill does what it is intended to do, which is provide adequate legislation to regulate gambling, lotteries and betting on the Internet.

For the time being, as I told the hon. member, and I say it again here in this House, there is no problem with the principle: we will co-operate. Where I do have a problem, and I hope we can settle this in committee, is about the games of chance the federal government will want to control on the Internet.

I realize that Internet represents communications and that is a federal jurisdiction. However, lotteries are a provincial matter. I am thinking of the casinos in Hull and Montreal, in Ontario and in western Canada. These casinos are operated and managed by the provinces but are also subject to the Criminal Code and existing legislation.

What bothers me in the bill is that it allows the Government of Canada to establish or operate a lottery on the Internet, in accordance with the regulations. It allows the Government of Canada to grant a licence to an Internet service supplier, with everything that entails. Of course we are in favour of a bill that provides a legislative and regulatory framework to protect the public and deal with this whole new field, this new way of dealing with the Internet and lotteries on the Internet. However, I would have liked to see this done with due respect for the jurisdictions of Quebec and the other provinces.

So yes, we are prepared to give this bill the attention it deserves, because it is a very interesting bill. We pledge our support on second reading so the bill can go to committee, where it can eventually be examined with a view to improving it and, above all, to bring it in line with the jurisdictions of the provinces and Canada.

[Nuclear Safety And Control Act, February 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata be now heard.

[Nuclear Safety And Control Act, February 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt the member again, but it is once again about quorum. The Liberals are absent from the House. It is not only up to the members of the Bloc to listen-

[Nuclear Safety And Control Act, February 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening carefully to the hon. member, but I realize I am about the only one here. We do not have a quorum. I am asking for a quorum count, Mr. Speaker.