House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 57% of the vote.
The Constitution February 12th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is still for the Minister of Justice, a real lawyer, who knows about the Canadian Constitution.
Given what he said yesterday in the scrum, will the Minister of Justice confirm his objection to anglophone Quebecers obtaining protection above and beyond that already accorded under section 23 of the 1982 Constitution?
The Constitution February 12th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
On June 20, 1996, the Minister of Justice told the Senate committee on legal and constitutional affairs that the bilateral amendment of term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada did not apply as clearly in the case of section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
Would the Minister of Justice, the protector of Canada's Constitution, confirm the remarks of his colleague, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, and that section 93 may be amended bilaterally by the Quebec and federal governments according to the proposal Quebec made last Friday?
Distinct Society Concept February 11th, 1997
No, Mr. Speaker, I only know one case where the concept of distinct society, as the Prime Minister understands it, has been applied and that is harmonization of the GST.
The maritimes have been paid $1 billion to harmonize it, but the federal government still will not compensate Quebec, which agreed three years ago to harmonize its provincial sales tax with the federal GST. For the Prime Minister, Quebec is a distinct society when it does not make any difference.
Will the Prime Minister not recognize that breaking so many promises has made him an embarrassing ally for Quebec federalists and all those who once thought it possible to reform the Canadian federation?
Distinct Society Concept February 11th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the leader of the official opposition asked the Prime Minister when, in its decision making or legislative process, the government had taken into account the meaningless resolution that was passed by this House last year. This was a quite simple question that the Leader of the Opposition asked, but the Prime Minister did not answer.
Let me ask him the same question today. If indeed this resolution is as important as he claims it is, could the Prime Minister give us one example, one clear case where the concept of distinct society has been used to give Quebec more power or to give legislation an interpretation favouring the interests of the people of Quebec?
Saint-Côme Ice Sculpture Festival February 10th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, on the weekend, the fifth ice sculpture festival in Saint-Côme drew to a close.
This year again, the village of Saint-Côme was literally turned into an ice sculpture museum, to the delight of tens of thousands of visitors who came from all over Quebec and beyond to admire the works of local artists.
This year again, the festival was a success, thanks to the solidarity, co-operation and team work of the organizers, the chamber of commerce, many volunteers and the sculptors themselves.
After two weeks of outdoor events and games, I want to congratulate all those who contributed to the immense success of this young but promising festival.
As honourary president of the fifth festival, I would like to thank the people of Saint-Côme for their warm reception, a tradition in this region.
Yes, Gilles Vigneault was right: "Mon pays, ce n'est pas un pays, c'est l'hiver". In Saint-Côme, we are proud of that, and we celebrate that pride.
Bill C-46 February 7th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, since June 1996, the Supreme Court has had time to hand down two decisions against victims. I can assure the minister of the full co-operation of the official opposition in passing Bill C-46 as quickly as possible.
Will the minister undertake to have Bill C-46 passed before the next election to ensure victims of sexual crimes enjoy full protection?
Bill C-46 February 7th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court gave its decision on the disclosure of the victim's records in sexual cases. In a five to four decision, the majority of the justices ordered a stay of proceedings in a case of sexual assault, because a rape crisis centre had destroyed the records of the victim, which the accused had requested in his defence.
How is it that the bill introduced in June 1996, which was intended to severely limit access to victims' records, has not yet been passed? This bill was introduced in June 1996, and still today the minister has done nothing to move it along. Will the minister do anything to hasten the passing of this bill?
Airbus Affair February 4th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, what is left of the Liberals' wishful thinking, of this government's accountability, when a senior bureaucrat supposedly in charge of the RCMP can make mistakes costing taxpayers millions of dollars and yet continue to hold the respect and trust of this government and this Prime Minister?
Airbus Affair February 4th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister refused to question the integrity of his ministers, who obviously goofed in the Airbus affair. Perhaps he might be less forgiving of the obvious incompetence of the RCMP Commissioner, Philip Murray, who took two years to realize that his men were investigating a former Prime Minister.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Everyone agrees that it makes no sense for the top man at the RCMP not to be aware of the famous letter to Switzerland. Under the circumstances, does the Prime Minister continue to have faith in the RCMP Commissioner?
Prisons And Reformatories Act February 4th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the government member really stressed that Bill C-53 was an example of good co-operation and showed that the federal, provincial and territorial jurisdictions work well together, but I think this bill is a prime example of the complexity of Canada: a federal act that is implemented by the provinces. In order to reach agreements, the provincial, federal and territorial authorities must negotiate. They must discuss the issue of costs. The federal government is throwing the ball to the provinces and asking them to implement the legislation.
I did not want to talk about this because we basically agree with Bill C-53. However, the hon. member just provided me with an opportunity to point out that this is a striking example of how cumbersome the administration of this country called Canada really is. This is why Bloc Quebecois members are telling Canadians that the current system just does not make any sense.
Bill C-53, a simple piece of legislation on which everyone in this House agrees, is a striking example. Do not use Bill C-53 as an example of how well things work in Canada. This bill is just the opposite: it is a frightening example of how money is being wasted.
Everyone can agree on temporary absences to facilitate reintegration into the community, to make the system more humane, and so on. Everyone can agree on that. But it took years before an agreement was reached, because the provincial, federal and territorial jurisdictions had to negotiate.
The hon. member also had the nerve to claim that his government deserves the credit for this agreement. In 1993, the Conservatives were in office. It is the Conservatives who started looking at this bill. This government takes credit for a lot of things, but this time it is going too far. In May of 1993, the Liberals were not in office. They were only elected in October of that year.
I did not want to get upset, because this is an ordinary bill. However, I think that it is a good thing if the truth is told, to set the record straight, but it hurts to hear it.
As for Bill C-53, yes, we are in agreement. One thing that we agree with, in light of the remarks I have just made, is that it will be up to the Quebec National Assembly to determine how the legislation will be implemented. If there is anything good about this bill, it is the flexibility Quebec and the other provinces will have in implementing it.
I also have a very brief comment on the bill, because we are in agreement with almost everything. The statement of principles says that the purpose of the program is to contribute to the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by facilitating the rehabilitation of prisoners and their reintegration into the community. If there is one place where people have been working on such matters for years, it is surely Quebec.
We have looked at various bills, and Quebec's programs are often held up as models of successful rehabilitation and reintegration. You will therefore understand that we are in agreement with a statement of purpose and principles such as that contained in Bill C-53. It is consistent with Quebec's way of thinking.
Since protection is needed, this is mentioned in the bill. Quebec has always said that, while offenders can be given certain rights, they also have obligations. If there is to be good supervision, all this must be carefully monitored, and the bill also covers this.
The bill says that, yes, we want to give flexibility to those who will be applying it, and yes, details can be included, such as why offenders can obtain passes for durations of up to 60 days. Certain criteria are given, but the bill also says that a temporary absence may be suspended, cancelled or revoked for humanitarian, family or other reasons given in the bill.
This protection is found in clause 7.5.
It reads:
7.5 A designated authority may suspend, cancel or revoke a temporary absence, before or after it begins, if
(a) it is considered necessary and justified to prevent a breach of a condition of the absence or where a breach has occurred;
(b) the grounds for authorizing the absence have changed or no longer exist; or
Because some things can change during the 60 day period, and protection of the public could require revocation or cancellation of the offender's right.
(c) the case has been reassessed, based on information that could not reasonably have been provided when the absence was authorized.
Clause 7.5 contains the elements aimed at protecting the public when this act is implemented. This is all very well and we have no complaiants. Everything is done under the aegis of the provinces and territories. In the present system, this is a matter under federal jurisdiction, but provincial and territorial administration. Therefore, the provinces and territories will apply this act. They will be able to determine the eligibility criteria very precisely.
There were reservations on the extension of temporary absences from 15 to 60 days. After questioning certain witnesses who came before the committee, we realized this was not a problem. It was understood that there were often special requests requiring an additional 15 days, and that this period could be extended. There does not seem to be any problem with absences of 60 days. Our concerns were allayed during examination by the committee.
In short, we agree with Bill C-53. What must not be lost sight of is the important element, with which we are in agreement for as long as we are part of the present system: the respect of areas of jurisdiction.
The provinces and territories were given full responsibility for this area. The bill gives them all the flexibility they need to put in place their own rules for parole.
Since Quebec's approach to parole, re-entry into the community and rehabilitation differs from that of Ontario or western Canada as well as its experience in the matter, it will be able to adjust the rules accordingly.
I only want to warn the government against doing what it did in the case of the Young Offenders Act. When the Young Offenders Act was passed, it allowed the provinces to implement the legislation and establish certain services according to need. Quebec is 25 years ahead of nearly all other provinces on the implementation of this type of legislation. Everybody says so. Once Quebec got its system up and running, put in place all its institutions and established its philosophy of the Young Offenders Act and its implementation, the federal government started to tinker with the legislation.
The Liberal government makes a habit of changing the rules of the game after the game has started. Why? Because it caved in to pressure from the western Canadian right wing. They are distorting the Young Offenders Act.
This morning, we agree on how Bill C-53 should be implemented, and I would urge the government not to make the same mistake. I hope that later on there will be no interference from federalists who want to change the rules of the game in this bill. It is high time the Liberal government showed respect for the bills it introduces, never mind how Quebec implements them, with its flexible approach or how Ontario or the other provinces will do it.
The official opposition agrees with Bill C-53, and that is why we did not propose any amendments. This bill was developed by a task force that was appointed well before the Liberals came to power. This task force managed to establish a consensus, although it was far from easy, among the federal, provincial and territorial governments regarding the administration of a federal act by the provinces. That is why we agree with Bill C-53.