Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, April 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as I have already indicated in my speech, the figures I used come from Statistics Canada. It is very clear that in speaking of overall crime rates, we are of course referring to Canada. And in order to state that the youth crime rate is lower in Quebec than in the rest of Canada, we are of necessity still using the same criteria.

This is totally logical, and I believe the people at Statistics Canada to be professional, even if the name of their organization is Statistics Canada. We are capable of recognizing that.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, April 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the problem of suicide among young people is a serious one. In Quebec we realize it is a fact we cannot avoid.

I will nevertheless point out to my colleague that fear may lie behind the suicide of a young person. It is possible, I am no expert. I simply want to say to him that the society with the highest rate of incarceration is no doubt that of our neighbours to the south, the United States. And yet their crime rate is the highest.

I do not think that incarcerating young people will be a panacea and that, suddenly, because we are putting everyone in jail, we will no longer be afraid. There are real fears. The ones we feel inside us. I think the problem of suicide cannot be treated only by saying “We will make a rigid law, a demanding one, and there will be no more problem”. That is simplistic.

The day the federal government decides to give $67 million back to Quebec, the money could go to helping our young people struggling with deep personal problems. This money could go to helping them, to giving them psychological support in situations that are often difficult.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, April 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that Bill C-68 goes too far for Quebec and not far enough for the Reform Party.

In response to your question, I will read from the Jasmin report. Members will see that, indeed, society has a responsibility to provide an environment that will foster individual growth. It reads:

It is often easier to change a law than to change practices of intervention. It may be tempting to think that tougher legislation is the answer to the problems of delinquency. Simplistic responses blind us to the full extent of complex problems and create the false impression that we are doing what is necessary to resolve them. One such simplistic response is substituting get-tough measures for educational approaches. This, however, overlooks the fact that adolescents are still in the process of learning, and it means they are being saddled with full responsibility for delinquency, as if the society and environment they live in had nothing to do with it.

Here we have a statement of Quebec's values on the role of society in helping young people to become law-abiding adults, full-fledged citizens who are capable of assuming their responsibilities in a world which, we must acknowledge, is becoming a more and more complicated one, which does not make things any easier for them.

I do not believe that Bill C-68 as it now stands fits the bill as legislation making life easier for our young people.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, April 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today at second reading of Bill C-68, an act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other acts. In more simple terms, this bill will replace the current legislation on young offenders.

We will recall that the bill was tabled for first reading on March 11. It is a product of the strategy to renew the justice system for young people introduced last May, nearly a year ago.

This strategy and the bill have already received a lot of comment in Canada, with the greatest opposition coming from those involved in Quebec in youth crime.

I will return a little later to the position of both the Government of Quebec and the organizations involved in managing the Young Offenders Act.

It is blatantly clear that, in making the Young Offenders Act more repressive as juvenile crime declines, the Minister of Justice has caved in to the Reform Party lobby.

Since the principles underlying this reform go back to the strategy of renewing the youth justice system, it might be interesting to know what the Minister of Justice thinks of the present Young Offenders Act.

With a straight face, the minister says that the legislation is lacking in clarity and contains a number of contradictory principles. In her view, the present legislation has three weaknesses: the first is that prevention programs and alternative measures are inadequate; the second is that violent young offenders are not being properly sentenced and rehabilitated; the third and final weakness is that there is too great an emphasis on custody for non-violent offenders.

Yet, between 1991 and 1997, this same legislation was responsible for a 23% drop in youth crime. Since 1995, the number of young people charged with violent crimes has gone down by 3.2%.

Interestingly, in 1997 the national crime rate for all age groups had dropped 5% according to the police. And that was the fifth year in a row that the crime rate had dropped, and the year with the lowest crime rate since 1980.

These are not imaginary statistics. These figures are from Statistics Canada's Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. They are not just a product of wishful thinking by the Bloc Quebecois. The facts are there, despite what the minister says, and the legislation she wants to reform has, nevertheless, proven itself.

Getting back to the drop in youth crime, it is noteworthy that this decrease also applies to violent crime, which also decreased in 1997 for the fifth consecutive year.

I could go on for some time giving statistics like these, but what is clear is that youth crime has been on the downturn for several years, thus confirming that the present legislation is fulfilling its objectives of protecting society and rehabilitating young offenders.

The former Minister of Justice and current Minister of Health, whom I have the pleasure of seeing before me right now, spoke out on a number of occasions on the present legislation, which the government wants to reform, describing it as fulfilling its objectives well. On June 2, 1994 for instance, in response to a question in the House, he declared that “the government continues to believe the youth justice system is fundamentally sound, and we support it”. I see he persists with that.

He has also said, in response to another question, that no one can imagine that society can resolve the problem of violent crime by reworking its legislation. In fact, the criminal justice system cannot put an end to violent crime all on its own. It merely addresses the consequences of underlying social problems. The House of Commons must devote at least equal time to preventing crime.

However, the bill introduced by the minister focuses more on the repression aspect than on rehabilitation. For example, the bill extends the list of offences subjecting an adolescent to an adult sentence.

The bill under consideration decrees that, at age 14, a young offender may be sentenced as an adult. That is two years sooner than under the current legislation.

In a number of instances, the bill provides that the identity of an adolescent found guilty of a criminal offence will no longer be kept secret.

This measure, specifically, raises a number of doubts. How could it not be seen that, with the increased media attention given crimes committed by young people, the publication of names might become a positive thing, particularly among the young involved in street gangs.

These are but a few examples of the more repressive measures in the bill. With the drop in crime among young people, this reform is totally unnecessary in our opinion. It is socially dangerous, because its negative effects could well yield the opposite of what we are seeking.

The current Young Offenders Act as applied by Quebec is an example for the rest of Canada, and the minister will surely not contradict me on this, having so acknowledged on a number of occasions. So why did she focus on repression in amending her law instead of taking the approach Quebec takes with the Young Offenders Act, which is to focus on rehabilitation?

We still do not have an answer. The only one I can think of, and I did not find it in my crystal ball, is that it was critical to silence the Reform lobby.

The legislation as it stands is serving its purpose very well in Quebec. The proof is that we have the lowest rate of youth crime in Canada.

Although youth crime is still a troubling phenomenon and is receiving increasing media attention, it is also on the decrease in Canada. In 1997, it dropped by 7%, thus contributing to the drop in the overall crime rate and confirming a trend observed since 1991.

Therefore, rather than rushing into a reform that will favour a repressive approach to youth crime, why was Quebec's model not used? It is no surprise that stakeholders in Quebec have reacted so strongly to Bill C-68.

In a March 11 press release, Quebec's Minister of Justice was critical of the fact that Quebec had not been consulted before the bill was tabled, despite the assurances given at the last meeting of justice ministers.

She said, and I quote:

In my opinion, it is unnecessary to change a system that is working and that already protects society very well, while helping rehabilitate young offenders.

On March 19, a coalition of Quebec agencies interested in the new Young Offenders Act had the following reaction at a press conference:

—the provinces' supposed flexibility in enforcing the legislation is no more than a series of limited powers dependent on the crown attorneys. Nowhere in this bill is it stated that the provinces may implement their own model.

For the benefit of those listening and for the minister's benefit as well, I will list the Quebec stakeholders that took part in this press conference.

I will begin with the Association des chefs de police et de pompiers du Québec. Clearly, the police do not all think alike. There was also the Commission des services juridiques, the Conseil permanent de la jeunesse, respected Université de Montréal criminologist Jean Trépanier, Aide communautaire juridique de Montréal, the Fondation québécoise pour les jeunes contravenants, Institut Philippe Pinel, the Conférénce de Régies régionales, the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, the Bureau des substituts du procureur général du Québec, the Association des CLSCs et des CHSLD du Québec, Marc Leblanc of the École de psycho-éducation de l'Université de Montréal, the Regroupement des organismes de justice alternative du Québec, the Child Welfare League of Canada, and the Canadian Criminal Justice Association.

All professionals concerned with the rehabilitation of young people were present at this press conference, sending a very clear signal.

The consensus in Quebec on the issue of young offenders is clear.

This bill which is even more repressive cannot help but have an impact on the Quebec model. What will happen to our model if sentences have to harmonize coast to coast? Will Quebec judges be required to adjust their sentences to those being handed out by their colleagues in other provinces? If this is the case, one might wonder just how flexible this new act really is.

The Government of Ontario has already stated that it is very much in favour of tougher treatment for young offenders. That will not surprise anyone. That province can therefore be expected to opt for young people to be sent before adult courts more often, and is thus favouring prison sentences.

According to the Quebec Bar, “the real effects of these provisions could well increase both the number and seriousness of recidivism among young people”. This is why the Quebec model does not advocate incarceration.

The minister should also review the entire question of financial compensation to the provinces with respect to the application of the existing legislation. In fact, the latest budget provides $343 million more over three years for crime prevention, including $206 million for reforming the Young Offenders Act to permit the provinces to absorb the costs of applying the proposed legislation.

The Government of Quebec considers that the lengthening of sentences and the increased number of young people on trial in adult court will cost it an additional $23 million annually.

When the Young Offenders Act became law in 1984, the federal government paid 50% of the costs of applying the alternative and the legal measures. As is its custom, the federal government backed off a bit. In 1996-97, its share of the funding represented no more than 36%.

Further ineptitude. In addition to the government's backing off, its funding formula does not take into account the percentage of Quebec's population of young people. Although Quebec has nearly 25% of young people between the ages of 12 and 17, it receives only 18.28% of federal funding in this area. This is not the first time Quebec has not received its fair share.

Since 1989, therefore, Quebec has lost out on $77.4 million. Furthermore, the former Minister of Justice and the present Minister of Health promised to do something about this lack of funding, but this promise went up in smoke—at the same time as the former minister, apparently—because this promise was never kept by the former minister and the present minister seems not to have heard about it or is washing her hands of it.

Quebec is therefore still waiting for a specific proposal from the Minister of Justice concerning repayment of this $77 million shortfall. We do not know, however, how long Quebec's patience, on this issue as on many others, will be tested.

To sum up, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to this bill because the consensus in Quebec with respect to young offenders is that the bill's measures are unnecessary, ill-advised and even threaten the continued existence of Quebec's rehabilitation-based model.

Ultimately, the federal government should hand over to Quebec full responsibility for administering the youth justice system along with the associated funding. This would be the best way of ensuring that a system that works for Quebec's youth, a system that gives them a chance to become full-fledged members of society, is allowed to continue.

It is distressing that the Minister of Justice has been unable to convince the rest of Canada of the effectiveness of Quebec's approach and that she has taken the path of least resistance.

For all these reasons, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“Bill C-68, An Act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other Acts, be not now read a second time but that the Order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject-matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.”

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, April 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what my colleague from Erie-Lincoln had to say. I must admit that I find him particularly enthusiastic and really highly optimistic about the consequences of Bill C-68, which we are discussing today.

Does he really think it is an exceptional approach promoting rehabilitation to put our 14-year old offenders in front of adult courts, with adult sentences served in adult prisons?

Can he tell me whether, for example, revealing the name of young people who are having problems and have committed crimes—but who are having the problems—in the papers is a help to the young person? We know adolescents often feel it is a big deal to have their name in the paper

I am sure my colleague from Erie—Lincoln can answer these serious questions.

[The Late Edmund Tobin Asselin, April 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on behalf of my Bloc Quebecois colleagues to pay tribute to a former member of the House, Mr. Edmund Tobin Asselin, who died at the age of 78 on March 24.

Born in Bromptonville in 1920, Mr. Asselin studied at Loyola College and the University of Montreal. In 1924, during the second world war, he became an aviator and was taken prisoner of war. On his return he became a businessman.

His political career began in 1950 when he became a city councilor in Montreal where he remained until 1962. That same year he was elected member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, a riding he represented until 1965. On his return to private life he practised law and served as a judge on the municipal court of Montreal.

On behalf of my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois and myself, I offer my condolences to his family and friends.

[Montfort Hospital, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in this Année canadienne de la francophonie, Gisèle Lalonde and SOS Montfort are in court today to achieve recognition of the rights of Ontario francophones to their health institutions, and to the maintenance of the only francophone hospital west of the Ottawa River.

The Bloc Quebecois has been pleased to provide its support to the efforts of Ontario francophones on behalf of the survival of this health care facility, which is also a French language teaching hospital.

It is unacceptable that francophones in the rest of Canada must go to court in order to gain recognition of their most essential rights, to receive an education and health care in their language, at a time when the French speaking community in Canada is more fragile than ever, as the latest census data prove.

The Bloc Quebecois wishes to assure Gisèle Lalonde, the Montfort Hospital board, and the franco-Ontarian community, of Quebeckers' support in their efforts to gain respect for their fundamental rights.

[People With Disabilities, March 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Human Rights Commission just released its annual report.

In that document, the commission's chair, Michelle Falardeau-Ramsey, says: “Unfortunately, the actual situation of people with disabilities has again deteriorated in 1998”.

Could the Deputy Prime Minister tell us how his government intends to remedy the situation of people with disabilities?

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

Mr. Speaker, I take no pleasure in rising today to speak to Motion No. 21 by the government house leader, introducing the President of Treasury Board's Bill C-76.

I would like to begin by pointing out that the result of the motion in question, which has been debated since around 11 o'clock this morning, and will be voted on later tonight, is that we are discussing this bill within a closure motion. This means that the government has restricted the time of debate, thus preventing all members of this House from voicing their concerns about this bill.

This way of proceeding is far from exceptional. It has become a habit with this government. It crops up as soon as there is any opposition to steps taken by this government. By refusing to allow the House to debate freely, by restricting debate, the government is denying the role the House must play in the legislative process.

This closure motion on the motion by the Government Leader is the 50th time this government has gagged the opposition members. It is an unfortunate reality that this is the 50th time the government of that little guy from Shawinagan has taken the House hostage by preventing it from debating.

Once again, this is a blatant denial of parliamentary democracy. It is not surprising that more and more people are questioning the real power MPs have in this House. By acting this way, the government shows it uses Parliament as it pleases, setting aside the usual rules of debate and preventing members from doing their job properly. It is with the same kind of logic that the President of the Treasury Board introduced Bill C-76.

This bill entitled an act to provide for the resumption and continuation of government services is special back to work legislation affecting two categories of workers, namely those in the operational services group, the federal government's blue collar workers, also known as table 2, and corrections officers, also known as table 4.

With this bill, not only does the government want to force the hand of the unions involved, but it also wants to set the rules and impose working conditions without negotiating in good faith.

This lack of good faith is nothing new; negotiations between the two parties have been dragging on for too long. The federal government's blue collar workers have been without a collective agreement for about two years and their salaries have been frozen for six years. The same goes for corrections officers.

And yet, these workers, like so many others, have done their share to help the Minister of Finance table a balanced budget. Like the unemployed, they helped eliminate the deficit. Unfortunately, these workers do not seem to deserve the generosity of the government, which prefers to invade provincial jurisdictions with their money.

It is interesting to illustrate the bad faith of the employer in the case of the blue collar workers, the famous table 2. At the start, the federal government offered them a 2.75% increase. It changed its mind however. Figuring that the offer was too generous, it reduced its offer to 2.5% for the first year in this bill.

In the negotiations over the past two years, it is understandable that table 2 union members had no hesitation using their right to strike, which they had obtained on December 16, 1998. So, in a perfectly legal context, the union is exercising its means of pressure by holding rotating strikes across the country since January 18.

That is permitted under the rules of bargaining. According to the government, the union's demands are unreasonable. If that is true, why is the government refusing arbitration in order to establish the merits of these demands? A party outside the two bargaining parties could decide on the merits of the union demands.

The reason is very simple, and the problem is a big one. The fact is that, as of February 15, the government, in its infinite wisdom decided to suspend the binding arbitration provided under the Public Service Staff Relations Act until 2001.

The attitude of the government leaves workers no option but to strike. The special legislation, in addition to denying the blue collar workers means of pressure will impose a collective agreement. How ironic, given that the expression “collective agreement” means an agreement between employees and employers governing working conditions.

The government could have resolved this dispute by negotiating in good faith, but it preferred to drag its heels and in the end impose its views and upset the balance between the parties. Naturally, it is easier to be both judge and judged. Under the false pretence of protecting the economy, the President of the Treasury Board is taking federal public servants hostage.

If we are to believe the government, the die is cast and this legislation is the final recourse. Yet, surprisingly, federal blue collar workers are not on a general strike. As for correctional officers, they committed the irreparable error of announcing their intention to use pressure tactics.

And yes, that is right, table 4 workers are not even on strike. They will be in a strike position on March 26. The government will force them to return to work when they have not even gone out, and will impose a collective agreement despite the fact that the union approved a majority conciliation report.

This is another edifying example of negotiation. In effect, the government is telling these workers to accept the offers it is making or have working conditions imposed through special legislation.

One wonders whether this government is aware of the working atmosphere it will be helping to create with such tactics. Respect for the principle of bargaining in good faith is a far better alternative than unilaterally imposing working conditions.

When a union applies pressure, it is true that the public can be inconvenienced. But the public is smart; it too understands that these workers are not getting their fair share. The government could end this situation by simply negotiating in good faith.

We demand that the government withdraw this undemocratic bill and get back to the bargaining table, this time with the intention of negotiating in earnest. Thus Quebeckers and Canadians will receive the services they are entitled to, and government employees will be able to provide these services under good working conditions negotiated between two partners respectful of each other.

It is obvious to me that beating workers into submission with back to work legislation will have very real consequences. We might see the labour climate degenerate without necessarily ensuring that services to the public are provided adequately.

This is not the first time that the government, with the little guy from Shawinigan and the President of the Treasury Board at its head, has raised arms against workers.

Let us mention among others that this same government is refusing to abide by the ruling on pay equity, which involves mainly women. Similarly, it is refusing to discuss the issue of orphan clauses which discriminate against young people, it is refusing to include antiscab provisions in the Canada Labour Code, while such a measure has proven to be very effective in Quebec. Let us remember the back to work legislation regarding postal services.

I could go on for ever. I have the feeling people opposite are listening, this is extraordinary. The examples of unfair action on the part of this government are increasing. One thing remains constant though: when it comes to depriving workers of their most fundamental rights, the government acts like grease lightning.

We should also point out that the right to negotiate has been abrogated for 8 of the last 15 years, and for 11 of those years, ships' crews and hospital personnel have worked under a non-negotiated regime imposed by the federal government.

There have been many such laws pushed through by both Conservative and Liberal governments in this House. 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. With Bill C-29 in October 1991, the employer threatened unilateral imposition of its offer if it was not accepted.

It is noteworthy that the Labour Relations Board characterized this latter approach to negotiations as unethical. It is curious that the portion of Bill C-76 that applies to correction services officers smacks of the same thing.

In 1992, we had Bill C-113, which imposed a wage freeze for two years, as well as working conditions. In 1993, Bill C-101 entitled the government to require unions to vote on offers. In 1994, Bill C-17 imposed two more years of salary freeze. Enough is enough.

Bill C-76 clearly demonstrates that the Liberal government denies its employees' and all unionized workers' right to negotiate. Since the right to negotiate of necessity goes along with the right to strike if negotiations reach an impasse, what the government is in fact also denying is the right to strike.

This is a striking conclusion to reach in a democratic society where the right to strike is an integral part of the right of association. In the case of the federal blue collar workers, the government is refusing binding arbitration and is preparing to pass back to work legislation which imposes a collective agreement, if one dares to call it that.

For these employees and their union, this is a dead end. It is in fact the denial of their freedom of association—after a six year salary freeze.

The only solution is for the government to bargain in good faith. These negotiations have been going on for two years, without an agreement. The blue collar workers have been using pressure tactics, rotating strikes, since January 18, about two months. It is now up to the government to show its good faith. It is high time indeed the government, which dragged its feet at the bargaining table, got down to serious business.

Georges Clémenceau, the great French statesman, said—listen carefully, this is a real eye opener—and I quote “Parliament is the greatest organization we ever invented for committing political errors, which have the great advantage of being reparable, whenever the country wants to repair them”.

There is a lot of wisdom in this quote from Clémenceau. It is not too late to prevent the occurrence of the political error the government is preparing to vote on. The conciliation report approved by the workers at table 4 need only be implemented and the arbitration involving workers at table 2 requires approval only. In choosing instead to suspend the sword of Damocles over the head of his employees, the President of the Treasury Board will clearly prove the claim of Machiavelli “Politics has nothing to do with morals”.

[Mental Impairment, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, during the Semaine québécoise de la déficience intellectuelle, from March 14 to 20, Quebeckers were urged to forget their biases toward mentally impaired people. In Quebec, many organizations are helping change attitudes and perceptions toward these people.

I wish to salute the exceptional commitment of groups from Laval, including the ALDI, the centre de réadaptation Normand-Laramée, the CAFGRAF, and the Ludothèque, which strive every day to promote the social integration of mentally impaired people.

I also want to stress the vitality, professionalism and perseverance of the educational team of the Centre le Tremplin.

Thanks to that group, the choir La différence , led by Anne-Marie Gohier and made up of some 40 men and women, made us experience unforgettable moments, on March 16.

Thank you for contributing so generously to help each and everyone become a citizen in his or her own right.