Michel Bellehumeur

[Federal-Provincial Relations, June 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as a learned constitutional expert, the minister also said yesterday and I quote: "The Government of Canada has the responsibility of ensuring that these moneys are administered responsibly."

The minister talks about co-operation, but at the same time he questions the provinces' ability to administer the moneys responsibly. Does that mean that the federal government will continue to act as a big brother to the provinces it considers incompetent and totally irresponsible?

[Federal-Provincial Relations, June 13th, 1996]

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

Yesterday, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs was asked about the Charlottetown style model of federal-provincial relations that the government is putting forward and he said, and I quote: "The Government of Quebec has certain responsibilities. It has a hard time assuming them all the time, and we are offering government assistance to ensure that this responsibility is carried out as well as possible."

Are we to understand that the minister believes the provinces are unable to manage the programs from which they want the federal government to withdraw and that that is why the government wants to remain in charge, set the standards and keep the money, simply letting the provinces carry out the orders? That is indeed the way he sees it.

[Petitions, June 12th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table another petition against the planned dredging operation at Pier No. 2 in the port of Sorel, which would involve discharging sludge in open waters.

This petition is signed by more than 300 residents and these signatures are in addition to the many already tabled. I am also pleased to support this petition and to inform the House that, this week, the Quebec Minister of the Environment, who finds this project unacceptable, has given me his support.

[Federal-Provincial Relations, June 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I trust that the Minister of Human Resources Development will educate his colleague, for he is barking up the wrong tree, absolutely.

With the statements made by the minister yesterday, is the government telling us that, when it is announced that the federal government is pulling out of some area of exclusively provincial jurisdiction, this will be only under its conditions, with the provinces having no say in the matter whatsoever?

[Federal-Provincial Relations, June 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House, the Minister of Human Resources Development stated:

If it is only a matter of transferring funds with no strings attached, then they will have to speak to someone other than me, because I am not in the habit of sending money anywhere without making sure the interests of Canadian taxpayers are protected.

My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Are we to understand from what his colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development, says that the government does not trust the provinces to administer the taxpayers' money in areas which are exclusively a provincial jurisdiction, and furthermore has no intention of withdrawing from any areas except those in which it does not have even a cent of financial involvement?

[Oceans Act, June 11th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, there are 11 motions under Group No. 8 now before us, all presented by the Bloc Quebecois, and more specifically by my colleague, the hon. member for Gaspé. Ten concern the part dealing with ocean management strategy and one, the part dealing with the minister's powers. You will see from the motions presented by the member for Gaspé that we are dealing with two very distinct subjects that we would like to see corrected in this bill.

The first is that we find-and we have said so repeatedly in this debate-that the Liberal government has left the provinces out of consultations. Among other things, the provinces are compared to a municipal government, Indian reserves, and other persons and bodies. In the ten amendments to the part dealing with the ocean management strategy, it is extremely important that the government of each province participate.

The final amendment, the eleventh in Group No. 8, focuses specifically on the minister's powers, which we would like to limit as much as possible in order to have considerably more transparence.

So that everyone understands, including hon. members who may not have read or did not bother reading the bill, I add that the act respecting the oceans of Canada is very important and affects many ridings. There are those who might initially think the bill does not affect some ridings, such as my riding of Berthier-Montcalm, at all. But to take the example of my riding, given that the St. Lawrence River flows right through it, there will be an effect on tariffs for pleasure boats and so on. It is therefore a bill that concerns everyone associated in any way with the St. Lawrence and its ports.

Starting with Motion No. 36, we find that its intention is to amend clause 32 to read as follows:

"32. For the purpose of the implementation of integrated management plans, the Minister

(a) with the unanimous approval of the members of the standing committee, shall develop and implement policies and programs with respect to matters assigned by law to the Minister;"

The intent of this amendment is to correct a shortcoming, an aberration in the bill. We wish to involve the MPs who sit on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

I am sure that you recall that one of the Liberal Party's commitments in the famous red book was to improve the perception of MPs, to raise the prestige of what MPs do. How better to do this than to involve the MPs who have accepted parliamentary duties, such as sitting on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans?

The amendment proposed by the member for Gaspé helps the government attain its objectives and meet its campaign promises, which it has had difficulty doing. The hon. member for Gaspé wishes to assist the government in raising the profile of the work of the MPs by empowering the MPs sitting on this committee to approve extremely important elements of the integrated ocean management strategy.

Who can be better placed than the MPs on that standing committee, who receive witnesses and have the opportunity to question specialists, to present positive elements in a bill like this?

That is fine. The minister is advised by officials and bureaucrats in skyscrapers. Sometimes I wonder if they have ever seen such a bill and whether they can tell a panfish from a catfish. These people are advising the minister on a bill as important as this one.

The members who have heard witnesses, done research, studied the ins and outs of such a bill could move the debate along and provide protection to those needing it, that is, those affected by the Oceans Act.

Another extremely important amendment, and I am sure that with all the transparency the Liberal government wants for its administration it will vote in favour of this motion, which is Motion No. 37, introduced by the member for Gaspé. It amends sub-clause ( b ) of clause 32 to read as follows: b ) with the approval of the standing committee, shall recommend and co-ordinate with other ministers, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada the implementation of policies-''

This is exactly the intent of Motion No. 37.

Motions Nos. 40 and 41 will change sub-clause ( d ) of clause 32, which appears in part II entitled ``Oceans Management Strategy'', one of the most important sections of this bill. With the proposed amendments, paragraph ( d ) would read as follows:

"may, with the approval of the standing committee in concert with the provincial governments and in consultation with interested persons and bodies and with other ministers, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada, establish, with respect for the rights and legislative jurisdiction of the provinces, marine environmental quality guidelines, objectives and criteria respecting estuaries, coastal waters and marine waters."

That is true partnership. That is what I call really consulting, listening, participating and inviting colleagues and partners to participate. The federal government, the provincial governments affected as well as federal departments-because more than one department may be affected-and interested persons and bodies are all called upon to participate in a partnership to ensure the best possible regulations are developed.

This is the sole purpose of Motions Nos. 40 and 41. MotionNo. 44, which amends clause 33, seeks to do the same by including the provincial governments in the decision making process, since the issues often come under their jurisdiction and directly affect them.

The purpose of Motion No. 45 is exactly the same. This motion, which affects paragraph ( d ), will certainly be passed, given that it only makes sense and improves the bill. I am convinced that the minister, who is listening carefully to my comments, will ask his government to support this motion.

I will end on that note, since I do not have time to discuss all the motions. However, I wish to point out that, if Motion No. 45 is passed, the provision will read as follows: "( d ) may make grants and contributions on terms and conditions approved by the Treasury Board, after the House of Commons has adopted a resolution confirming the recommendations of the standing committee approving the making of grants and contributions''.

As members can see, this motion seeks to ensure the participation of the members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, and also the members of this House, who were given a mandate by their constituents to represent them and make sure that the legislation passed by this House is as good as can possibly be.

So, the ultimate goal is very simple: it is to promote transparency, to ensure greater provincial government participation, and to take away from the minister some of the powers he is giving himself with this act, something that could eventually be very dangerous.

[First Ministers' Conference, June 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in the letter addressed to its provincial counterparts, the federal government also states its intention to remain present in the social security sector. However, with the Canada social transfer, Ottawa is withdrawing its financial support from that sector. Again, the new federal way of doing things is to establish national standards, while stopping financial contributions to programs, without any compensation.

Will the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs finally recognize that, while he is talking about partnership, his government's true intention is to reduce the role of the provinces to that of mere subcontractors of federal policies?

[First Ministers' Conference, June 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, also regarding the agenda of the first ministers' conference, the government says it is willing to make proposals to create jobs for young people.

How does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs explain that, on the one hand, Ottawa says it is withdrawing from the manpower sector, including for youth, and, on the other hand, it is indicating its intention to remain present in this area?

[Questions On The Order Paper, June 10th, 1996]

In the past five years, has there existed-within the Privy Council, the Department of the Solicitor General of Canada, or elsewhere in the federal government-an emergency measures co-ordinating unit; if so, who and what are its past and present members, budget, meeting dates, and subjects of discussion at each meeting; has this unit drawn up plans for emergency situations or not and, if so, what are those plans?

[Criminal Law Improvement Act, 1996, June 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, right off the bat I am going to make a liar of all those who say that the opposition is here for the sole purpose of criticizing and tearing apart the government's bills because, on the whole, the official opposition is in agreement with the amendments made to Bill C-17.

In effect, this bill amends the Criminal Code and several related acts, such as the Canada Evidence Act, the Customs Act, the Excise Act, the Food and Drugs Act, the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act, the Narcotic Control Act, the National Defence Act, the Seized Property Management Act and the Supreme Court Act. Clearly, this is an extremely broad bill, a bill that brings a breath of fresh air to a number of the aforementioned acts.

The proposed amendments range from a minor correction to the creation of new offences, particularly with respect to fraudulently using credit cards or fraudulently obtaining computer services. They complete the update of the Criminal Code undertaken by Bill C-42, passed on December 15, 1994.

Other measures are designed to modernize the legal system, by allowing general use, under certain conditions, of modern means of communication, such as closed circuit television, the telephone and the telecopier or fax machine. They will also help to reduce the cost of justice and increase the effectiveness of the courts by making it unnecessary to move inmates around, for example, or by making it easier to obtain search warrants.

This bill, as I have already said, creates mixed or hybrid charges, that is to say ones which could involve either summary conviction or indictment. These new hybrids are: break and enter into a place other than a dwelling-house, forceable confinement, unlawful presence in a dwelling house, forgery and uttering. This will have the effect of eliminating the necessity of a preliminary investigation prior to the hearing, when the Attorney General's prosecutor has opted to proceed via summary conviction. This will result in substantial savings of time and money, particularly legal aid fees. Pre-trial delays will also be reduced.

I feel that these are amendments which will be welcomed by all Canadian and Quebec taxpayers, since it is obvious that the longer a procedure takes, the more it will cost. The purpose of this bill is to shorten these delays.

As well, the indictment approach will be reserved for only the most serious crimes, as decided by the crown prosecutor. Thus, jury trials will be less common and the process will be shortened for cases deemed to be of lesser severity.

Some of the proposals, however, immediately raise some questions, but I must point out immediately that these criticisms do not jeopardize our support of this bill, they merely raise certain legitimate concerns. It is, for instance, proposed to amend the provisions of the Criminal Code concerning impaired driving, in

order to make it harder to use a defence that contests breathalyser readings.

From now on, if the amendment is passed by this House, the defence will have to produce evidence to show that the blood alcohol levels of the accused at the time the offence was alleged to have been committed did not exceed 80 milligrams of alcohol in one hundred millilitres of blood. In other words, the reversal of proof as we now know it. This amendment would put the onus on the accused to prove his innocence. This position raises questions about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In his effort to prevent people from driving with a alcohol reading over 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, is the minister not running the risk of having innocent people charged?

It may be impossible for someone charged to establish that his blood alcohol level was below 8o milligrams and thus avoid the consequences of conviction, such as the loss of his driver's permit for a year, as is the case in most provinces. Here again, is this amendment justified?

This provision would certainly be contested in the courts, right up to the Supreme Court, because the consequences are extremely serious. We have only to look at the number of court cases and legal challenges to this provision. If the past is any indication of the future, clearly there will be cases in the lower courts that will go as high as the Supreme Court for clarification of this provision of the bill, if the bill is passed as it stands, of course. Rest assured that we will follow the consequences in law of this amendment with great interest.

Another provision proposed would increase the number of people detained. The court may order an accused to be held during proceedings on additional grounds. It will now be permissible to detain an accused for just cause, when detention is necessary, so as not to undermine the public's confidence in the administration of justice. At the moment, detention pending the end of proceedings is permissible only to ensure the accused's presence in court or to protect the public. As we are trying to keep as few people as possible in prison, I raise the question: Is it warranted to add these additional grounds?

Furthermore, it is up to us members to decide the grounds for detention. The expression "just cause" in the bill, like "public interest", opens the door to court interpretation, to a hundred uncertainties that will not be resolved until the Supreme Court establishes the meaning of these expressions. So, why, with this bill before us, not establish more guidelines to limit interpretation and achieve the objective we are aiming for with this bill?

Another proposed amendment will give police forces additional tools to find out who committed a crime by making it possible to get a warrant allowing a peace officer to obtain any handprint, fingerprint, footprint, foot impression, teeth impression or other print or impression of the body in respect of the person, provided, of course, that certain conditions are met.

The law already allows police to take samples of a bodily substance from someone for genetic analysis. These provisions also make it possible for an individual to prove that he or she is innocent. I think this amendment can help the accused prove his or her innocence just as much as it can help the prosecutor.

We suggest that this provision should be improved by making it possible to photograph a person or part of his or her body. This would help establish whether or not, for example, an accused has a tattoo or other distinguishing marks. In a recent sexual assault case-which, I am sure, hon. members remember-some children claimed that their assailant had certain marks on his body.

One simple way to verify if these children were telling the truth would have been to obtain a warrant to photograph part of the accused's body. This would have made it possible to determine if the young people's accusations were justified and, as I said earlier, it would have helped the accused as much as the prosecutor if the information given by the children in this sexual assault case turned out to be false.

Another amendment in this bill is aimed at making it easier to prove that someone helped launder the proceeds from crime. I must say right away that this is a step forward. We in the opposition have sought and continue to seek a major change, or at least a tougher attitude, in this regard, given that several countries consider Canada as an ideal place to launder money. I think this amendment is a step forward, but we will still need to look very seriously into this issue at some point in time, to ensure that Canada does not keep this unenviable title of crime money laundering paradise.

For the time being however, as far as the bill before us, Bill C-17, is concerned, we suggest adding to the list of ways of participating in the laundering of proceeds of crime the fact that a person accepts that money be deposited in an account under his or her name, while knowing or believing this money was derived from a designated offence.

Recently, several people have received letters requesting permission to deposit certain amounts in their banks accounts. Again, this is a current concern. There was a piece on this in L'Actualité a few months ago. Those who accepted later found their bank accounts to have been emptied out. Certainly, there is an element of voluntary blindness in accepting money from some unknown source abroad, under the mere promise of an eventual profit. But it did not pay off in the end, as the defrauder, who had deposited money in their bank accounts, then took it out, along with all their savings. This may be one of the means used to hide and launder proceeds from crime and, as I said, I think it should be provided for and included in Bill C-17.

Other provisions complement existing provisions regarding credit card forgery and unlawfully obtaining computer services. For instance, it will now be illegal to possess or use a computer password to unlawfully obtain computer services. We must keep up with our times, and I think that the Criminal Code was in great need of updating, from a legal point of view, to be in step with new technologies, such as computer services.

Bill C-17 includes many amendments affecting existing acts. It goes without saying that I cannot discuss all of them in the time allotted to me, but I want to mention the main ones.

If the bill goes through, peace officers will be allowed to release a person arrested with or without a warrant by imposing conditions such as to abstain from possessing a firearm, to report at the times specified in the undertaking to a peace officer or other person, and to abstain from consuming alcohol or other intoxicating substances. These conditions would be in addition to those which peace officers may already impose. This provision will make it possible to release more quickly people who normally had to be taken before a justice of the peace within 24 hours, but who often ended up spending the weekend in jail in areas where justices of the peace and Crown attorneys are not readily available on weekends.

This is a fair measure which will benefit people living in regions, including my riding of Berthier-Montcalm. I was a lawyer before becoming a member of Parliament and I know that people in regions are sometimes penalized in that regard. Bill C-17 will improve the situation regarding weekend court appearances in the regions.

These increased powers for peace officers should almost eliminate the need for justices of the peace and Crown attorneys to hold court appearances on weekends for the release of people, when imposing usual conditions would ensure adequate protection of the public.

This will be greatly appreciated by the justiciable, but also by taxpayers since, in the end, they are the ones paying for the costs related to the legal system.

Another good amendment included in the bill would allow an expert to testify by submitting a report, along with an affidavit or a solemn declaration. This exception to the rule prohibiting written testimonies will certainly be welcomed by expert witnesses, who have a busy schedule and who may even have to testify in two different places at the same time.

It will also be welcomed by taxpayers, given that an expert witness if often asked to testify at a certain place and time and that, for some reasons, the trial is postponed. The expert witness then has to come back again, thus increasing costs. Thanks to this amendment, experts will be allowed to submit their report, along with an affidavit, thus saving time and money.

The bill also includes a provision that will please an accused who fails to appear at the time and place stated in a notice for the purposes of the Identification of Criminals Act. From now on, a justice will be allowed to issue a warrant indicating a period during which proceedings are suspended, to allow the accused to voluntarily appear before a judge, thus avoiding arrest and detention until his or her appearance before a justice of the peace.

This procedure should also apply when an accused fails to appear before the court at any stage of the proceedings. Courts currently take the warrant under advisement when the absence of an accused seems justifiable or the situation could easily be corrected. But the legality of this measure of suspending an order is debatable and has the disadvantage that only the judge who ordered the suspension may take the final decision.

Therefore, you can see that on the whole the official opposition supports Bill C-17 now before us. But we have some concerns about a few minor points. I think that in this bill the government has shown itself to be open minded, that it has listened to those who said the Criminal Code should be modernized.

Since we have gone this far, we could perhaps clarify the points raised in order to prevent too broad an interpretation of the wording used, among other things, so that accused cannot take their case to higher courts, and even all the way to the Supreme Court, claiming Charter violations, as I mentioned earlier. For all these reasons, the official opposition will support the bill at this stage.