Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois will vote against the motion.
House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2000, with 43% of the vote.
Division No. 460 May 31st, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois will vote against the motion.
Division No. 505 May 31st, 1999
Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members vote yes to the motion.
Division No. 457 May 31st, 1999
Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members will vote against the motion.
Division No. 526 May 31st, 1999
Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members will vote against the motion.
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation May 31st, 1999
Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Canadian Heritage suddenly wants a fully subsidized state television, is it not proof that she is only interested in having full control over the CBC, and that her motto is “Canada my country, the CBC my tool”?
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation May 31st, 1999
Mr. Speaker, in response to a question in this House on Friday, the Minister of Canadian Heritage confirmed that, as far as she was concerned, quality television had nothing to do with advertising revenues, thus suggesting that the CBC could well do without some of the separate revenues generated through advertising.
Are we to understand from the minister's position that, in her opinion, to have quality programming television must be fully subsidized by the government?
Minister Of Human Resources Development May 14th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, four months later in the maritimes.
In the family trust scandal, the Liberals blamed the auditor general. In the Somalia scandal, they blamed Mr. Justice Létourneau. In the tainted blood scandal, they blamed Mr. Justice Krever.
Are we to understand that, in this new scandal about the withholding of information by the office of the Minister of Human Resources Development, the Liberals are blaming the information commissioner for making a tempest in a teapot?
Minister Of Human Resources Development May 14th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the information commissioner is not just any public servant at the service of the Prime Minister. He is accountable to this parliament and his job is to ensure that the Access to Information Act is complied with. The commissioner is now accusing the office of the Minister of Human Resources Development of having defied the act for political protection.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us what the purpose of an information commissioner is, if ministers can ignore him, defy the act and not only get away with it, but even be congratulated for it?
Criminal Records Act May 14th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I am taking part today in this debate at the third reading stage of Bill C-69, an act to amend the Criminal Records Act and to amend another act in consequence.
Before speaking to the bill, I would like, on behalf of my colleague from Charlesbourg, to acknowledge the excellent work done by the Standing Committee on Justice in its study of Bill C-69. I am pleased to lend my voice to the member for Charlesbourg to recognize the exceptional spirit of co-operation shown by all members of this committee, who set aside any partisanship to do a thorough study of this bill. This kind of spirit should always be present in committee work.
Bill C-69 amends the Criminal Records Act and one provision of the Criminal Code. To better understand the meaning of these amendments, one must take a quick look at the current Criminal Records Act, which dates back to 1985.
This act allows those who are convicted of a criminal offence to be granted a pardon after serving their sentence. Such pardon may be granted after a specified period, provided there are no other convictions during that period.
The period is three years for a summary offence and five years for an indictable offence. After having repaid his or her debt to society, a person may apply for a pardon to the National Parole Board.
Pardon eases the rehabilitation of an individual who has served his sentence by removing the negative aspects of sentencing in the case of such things as jobs and travel abroad. The records of pardoned individuals are therefore kept separately from other criminal records and may not be disclosed.
I should also mention that a pardon may be revoked automatically if an individual is convicted on summary conviction or by the parole board if the individual is found guilty of an offence punishable either on indictment or on summary conviction or if the board deems the behaviour of an individual is such that he no longer deserves to be pardoned.
The three main changes proposed by Bill C-69 are the following. The first is the imposition of a waiting period prior to re-application for a pardon following a denial. In the existing legislation, an individual whose pardon application has been denied may re-apply immediately.
Under the second, the pardon will be automatically revoked on sentencing for a hybrid offence, that is, an offence punishable either on indictment or on summary conviction.
Third, and this is the biggest change to the bill, a provision provides for notations in the records of individuals found guilty of sexual crimes and pardoned. This provision will permit disclosure of the records of these individuals when they apply for a job in which they will be in close contact with children or vulnerable groups.
Clause 6.3 of the bill permits the disclosure under certain circumstances of the record of an individual who has been pardoned. This provision is a measure of protection against repeat offences by pardoned sexual offenders. The aim is to prevent a pardoned sexual offender from becoming a playground supervisor or holding some other position putting him in contact with children or other vulnerable groups, such as people with mental handicaps.
The RCMP will therefore be able to separately identify the records of persons who have been pardoned and who have been sentenced for a sexual offence.
Consequently, an agency like Big Brothers, for instance, could ask the RCMP to disclose the record of a convicted sexual offender. Of course, the offender must consent to the content of his record being disclosed.
If the record shows that the individual has previously been convicted of a sexual offence, the solicitor general must break the seal and release the information to the police who would then inform the agency.
This provision is an exception to the pardon principle, which can be justified by the fact that our society wants children to be protected against sexual predators, even those who have been pardoned.
It is important to recognize however that the current legislation meets its objectives. In fact, the recidivism rate of pardoned offenders is about 2%. Since 1971, almost 250,000 pardon applications have been granted and less than 2.4% of pardons have been revoked by the National Parole Board.
During the same period, covering almost 30 years, some 12,000 pardons were granted to sexual offenders and about 700 pardons were revoked because of a subsequent sexual offence.
Even if the current recidivism rate is very low, at about 5.8%, we hope that Bill C-69 will help to reduce it and even provide an incentive to promote and facilitate the pardon process. This is why the Bloc Quebecois will be supporting Bill C-69.
Division No. 423 May 10th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois members will vote in favour of the motion.