Ghislain Fournier

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, December 3rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-43, an act to establish the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. This bill establishes an agency that will enforce and administer the Income Tax Act instead of Revenue Canada.

This bill, which was introduced by the government last June, is a result of the Speech from the Throne in the previous Parliament. At the time, the government announced its intention to set up a national revenue recovery agency.

The government has followed up on this and proposes in Bill C-43 to establish a semi-independent agency that will be responsible for collecting all taxes in Canada.

The agency would administer all forms of taxes, from provincial sales taxes to taxes on gas and liquor, on a country-wide basis. There is, to say the least, cause for concern when a single agency is given so much power, specially in an area of such importance as taxes. I believe we are justified in asking if the real interests of citizens can be protected by the private sector.

Moreover, this superagency will be able to expand its powers even more if provinces and municipalities accept. Indeed, according to the bill, this agency will be responsible for negotiating with interested parties to collect all forms of taxes in Canada.

Yet, the numerous efforts of senior officials of Revenue Canada convince the provinces to allow Ottawa to administer their tax programs have failed.

When the government tabled its bill, not a single new tax administration agreement with any province was in sight, and not even a single letter of intent had been signed by a province to be part of an agreement. Quebec and Ontario categorically refused to even consider the possibility of dealing with the agency. Even P.E.I. has indicated that it is not ready to transfer further tax powers.

One of the reasons for creating this agency is doomed to failure from the outset.

Provinces simply do not want to relinquish to the federal government what little taxation power they have left. Quebec is no exception. The creation of a huge tax collection agency through which the governments hopes to extend its powers flies in the face of Quebec's position and demands.

Naturally, the Quebec government is all for improving tax legislation administration, which should be streamlined, but not at the expense of its own administrative authority. One way of making the system more efficient would be to have all tax collection operations, both provincial and federal, concentrated in Quebec.

The Quebec revenue department already collects the income tax and other taxes in Quebec, as well as the GST. It could also collect the federal income tax.

Quebec's proposal is to have the Quebec revenue department collect all taxes in Quebec. Unlike the proposed federal agency, this department is fully accountable.

I find profoundly disturbing the concept of an agency not reporting directly to a government being responsible for all tax collection activities. How can we make sure such an agency will give priority to the public interest rather than to its own interests?

Also, in this era of computers and e-mail, many companies buy and sell confidential data. It is normal to wonder whether an agency, which will be less accountable than a department such as Revenue Canada, will be able to adequately protect people's privacy. It is easy to imagine the wealth of personal and financial information that could be concentrated in the hands of this body.

As well, with the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, we are talking about 40,000 employees, that is 20 per cent of the whole public service that from now on will be at the mercy of the agency's board of management.

Clause 30(1) of the bill states that “The Agency has authority over all matters relating to general administrative policy in the Agency; the organization of the Agency; Agency real property; and personnel management, including the determination of the terms and conditions of employment of persons employed by the Agency.” Therefore, the Agency will have the power to raise or lower salaries, hire and fire employees and improve the managerial staff's terms and conditions of employment.

As we know, there is a very different salary scale in the private sector. Just think of the large banks' CEOs, for example. Everything in the current market suggests that officials and managers will be very well paid, whereas the working conditions of support staff, processing officers and so on will not be as good. This is hardly reassuring.

The government said it wanted to modernize the public service and improve the way fiscal legislation is implemented. But it is on the wrong track with the establishment of this agency. Modernization and privatization are not synonymous. It is unfortunate that the government did not try instead to work together with the public service unions in order to find ways to improve the system. There is nothing to suggest that the agency, as defined in Bill C-43, will improve anything. Quite the contrary.

As a matter of fact, according to a study by the Public Policy Forum, 40% of the businesses surveyed saw no advantage to this agency, and more than two thirds felt that it would increase or maintain their costs and, therefore, would have no positive effect in that sense.

Moreover, the structure proposed in Bill C-43 adds another level of bureaucracy in the form of an appointed board of management, which would only have a supervisory role, or so the Liberals say. Nevertheless, this board will require time, money and additional staff, and the agency will still be accountable to Treasury Board for administrative issues.

So the government is keeping all the old mechanisms in place while adding this new board. This means that we end up with yet another level of bureaucracy that makes the system even more cumbersome.

I just do not understand. If the mechanisms are the same and if, as the government says, the minister and his staff will still have control and will make sure the agency is transparent, then we certainly have good reason to wonder what purpose this agency will serve.

Is the government saying these things to ease our concerns and is it planning to eventually give more latitude to this agency, or is it simply trying to shirk its responsibilities and to distance itself, among other things, from negotiations with the provinces on tax administration issues?

It is always easier to blame an agency and to establish commissions of inquiry than to be accountable.

With what I just said, no one will be surprised to learn that I too am strongly opposed to this bill.

Like my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois, I think that a task as fundamental as enforcing the Income Tax Act cannot be performed by an agency such as the one proposed in Bill C-43. This is not the way to modernize and simplify the administration of our tax system.

[First Nations Land Management Act, November 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I had reached the point of discussing the rights of aboriginal women. I was saying that these were treated as secondary.

The main problem, of course, is not with the bill per se, but with the 1986 Indian Act.

Canadian courts have decided that provincial legislation would have no precedence where property on reserves was concerned, and that the Indian Act would govern everything. Unfortunately, that legislation has nothing to say about matrimonial property when a marriage breaks down. There is a serious problem, therefore, a legal vacuum, which places women's status in a precarious position.

Family legislation in the various provinces does not apply on reserves. In other words, aboriginal women find themselves in a precarious situation, one which does not allow them to aspire to the same protection as all other women in Canada, because provincial legislation governing property division does not apply on reserves, as the Indian Act takes precedence. This is a source of considerable concern, in my opinion.

While there is a will to look at the issue and to try to find ways to fill the legal vacuum, nothing has been done yet.

We should look at the possibility of including a clause providing minimal protection to women under this agreement on first nation land management.

It is clearly indicated that the standards and penalties relating to the environment that will be set or amended by the 14 first nations must be at least as effective and as tough as those of the province in which the first nation lives.

We should consider providing similar minimal protection to women, in case of marriage breakdown. Issues relating to marriage and marriage breakdown are always sensitive, since they directly relate to the cultural values and the structure of the societies concerned.

It is the same for basic environmental issues. The environment and natural resources are integral parts of native culture. Still, this should not prevent us from legislating to make sure that minimum standards are recognized, with the approval of all the parties concerned.

We must find a way to ensure that the protection afforded native women in case of marriage breakdown is at least equivalent to that enjoyed by other Canadian women.

I am not in favour of interfering and I believe that the community consultation process will give very positive results. However, should major disagreements occur, we must make sure that native women enjoy a minimum of protection, like other Canadian women. Along with the first nations, it would certainly be possible to find a way to legislate and provide some form of legal recourse for these women in case of injustice.

In fact, knowing how long it often takes to amend legislation such as the Indian Act, I am concerned about passing a bill that regulates land management without a more direct reference to the problem.

I think it is important that we look at whether the legislation provides us with means of legally protecting aboriginal women, as required by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And if it does not, a remedy should be introduced now, while we are at this stage of the proceedings.

A minimal guarantee of protection is required, in my view, so that aboriginal women, like all other Canadian women, can enjoy certain fundamental rights ensuring their well-being and the well-being of their children.

It is important that the position of first nations on this issue be examined in committee and that possible ways of ensuring a minimum guarantee be studied further. It is not a question of interfering in first nations' efforts to achieve self-government. On the contrary, we are merely trying to raise the issue of the legal vacuum when it comes to the division of property and to give thought to the best way of protecting all citizens.

If aboriginal women, represented by credible organizations like the British Columbia native women's association, are of the opinion that such an agreement is a threat to their well-being, we must at least take this into account and give the matter serious consideration.

Of course, the different provisions in each province complicate the already very complex issue of division of property in cases of marriage breakdown, but precautions can nonetheless be taken.

The community process within the first nations that signed the agreement will certainly suffice, like their various decisions on the whole of the land code. However, once again, in order to ensure minimum protection, solutions must be provided.

In closing, I say once again that the Bloc Quebecois will support Bill C-49. I would however point out that we have questions on the possibility of making amendments to respond more directly to the problem of the division of marriage property, with priority given to the community process and to the decisions of the first nations.

There are avenues to be explored and we will explore them, my colleagues and I, in order to prepare for the meetings of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

[First Nations Land Management Act, November 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as an associate member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs for the Bloc Quebecois, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-49 and to share my comments.

The aim of this bill is to ratify and implement a framework agreement signed on February 12, 1996 by a group of first nations and the federal government. This agreement concerns the management of first nations' lands and is intended to enable them to establish their own land code to manage the lands and resources.

This agreement is necessary to permit the first nations that are party to the agreement to withdraw from the application of the sections of the Indian Act governing the management of lands.

First nations and governments all agree that the Indian Act gives the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development discretionary power. It also gives public servants too much leeway, thus preventing aboriginals from exercising direct control over the management of the lands within their reserves. It is in order to rectify this situation that a bill to ratify the framework agreement was introduced.

We tried to introduce legislation addressing this issue in the previous Parliament. Bill C-75, as it was then called, was passed at second reading, but the process came to an abrupt end when Parliament was dissolved. Last year, my party pushed to have this bill put back on the agenda. It was introduced in its new form as Bill C-49. I am pleased that we are prepared to go ahead with second reading today.

It is vital that the signatories to the agreement be given the tools they need for their cultural and economic development. This bill recognizes the fundamental right of 14 first nations to manage their lands and their resources and constitutes another important element in their self-government.

The first nations are also glad to have the opportunity to exercise greater control over the lands and resources within their respective reserves and say that these changes will enable them to react more rapidly to opportunities for stimulating their economy. Control of the decision-making process will therefore enable them to improve management of reserves. In other words, we feel that Bill C-49 is essential and very consistent with the recommendations for self-government made by the royal commission on aboriginal peoples and self-government.

Furthermore, several native leaders have supported the bill and indicated that they are in favour of its speedy passage through the House. Being of the same opinion and wanting to see first nations exempted from the sections of the Indian Act concerning land management, the Bloc Quebecois and myself therefore support Bill C-49 in principle.

Second reading of this bill nonetheless provides me with an opportunity to address certain aspects that we feel pose problems. We are worried about one aspect in particular, and it concerns protection of aboriginal women.

Naturally we support the principle of giving back to first nations control over the management of lands that until now have been under federal jurisdiction and governed by sections of the Indian Act. It is essential that first nations be able to manage the lands and natural resources within their reserves themselves. The requirement for a community process to establish land codes is also an important and promising one.

The bill provides that rules on use, possession and occupation of lands will be arrived at through a community consultation process. In theory, all the members of a first nation living on or off reserve will be able to take part in the decision-making process through this community mechanism. However, certain groups of aboriginal women are opposed to Bill C-49, saying that it would be disastrous for them. Their fears have to do with the bill's wording with respect to the division of interests in cases of breakdown of marriage.

They say that the clauses on this issue do not protect them at all, that the framework agreement contains no provision on the division of property in the case of separation, apart from the community consultation process mentioned in clauses 6 and 17.

The British Columbia Native Women's Society is lobbying vigorously to show the weaknesses of the bill in the area of the division of marriage property. They criticize the government for not having done its homework in this matter, despite the gross injustices criticized more than 12 years ago.

They add that no effort has been made to resolve the problem even after the establishment of the charter of rights and freedoms to ensure equality for all. This is why last year they asked the federal court to issue an injunction against this framework agreement on land management.

Even though the bill comes from their own department, the minister of indian affairs and her officials also seem to think there may be an injustice. In June, the minister appointed an investigator to examine the impact of marriage breakdown on property rights. An independent inquiry is therefore set to study the matter.

In other words, the government recognizes the existence of a legal void in the matter and the negative consequences it may have on the protection of women.

However, the government says it has changed the former C-75 so that the new C-49 requires a community process to manage the division following the breakdown of a marriage, which, in their view, resolves the problem. According to clause 6, a community process is one of the requirements associated with the adoption of the land code, which is to be defined collectively by each of the 14 first nations.

However, a closer examination of the matter reveals that, despite this clause, native women have no protection whatsoever.

[Fisheries, October 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

Fishers in Quebec and on the Lower North Shore are hurting because of the federal government's mismanagement of fish stocks. Will the minister travel to the Lower North Shore to meet with the fishers and try to work out some real solutions for the future?

[Nunavut Act, October 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development for the Bloc Quebecois, I am pleased to rise today and speak to Bill C-57, an act to amend the Nunavut Act with respect to the Nunavut Court of Justice and to amend other Acts in consequence.

The purpose of this bill is to amend the Criminal Code so that it reflects the realities of the new territory of Nunavut and to make it possible to establish an operational government before April 1, 1999, the territory's official launch date.

Bill C-57 is part of the process that began in 1992 with the territorial land agreement setting out the legal and political framework of the new territory of Nunavut. Approved in June 1993, the creation of Nunavut is a result of passage of Bill C-39, which we debated in the House last year and which provides for the holding of a legislative election, while facilitating the transition and legitimizing the process.

The bill before us this afternoon is part of this ongoing process. It is the last building block, as it were, in the political and legal structure that will allow the inhabitants of this territory to at last be ready for April 1999 and the challenges then to follow.

I can only express my satisfaction that legislation is being introduced in order to give the inhabitants of Nunavut all the political, and more particularly in the case before us today, all the legislative instruments they will need.

This will enable them to have a court that meets their needs and that is closer to them. We know that the establishment of institutions of law is vital to government autonomy. Bill C-57 will permit this to happen.

Everything indicates that the creation of Nunavut set for April 1, 1999 is well on its way. I recall that Bill C-39 on Nunavut and the Constitution Act of 1867 passed at third reading in June, changes the map of Canada's north with the creation of this immense territory.

Since Newfoundland joined Confederation in 1949, Canada's borders have not been changed. This indicates clearly just what a historic moment the creation of Nunavut represents and also explains the importance of its creation to the people living there.

The Northwest Territories will therefore, with the creation of this territory, be divided into two separate entities. Nunavut includes the lands in the centre and east of the Northwest Territories, above the 60th parallel. It therefore covers some 2 million square kilometres, one fifth of Canada's land mass.

This immense territory is divided into three regions and includes 28 communities. The most southeasterly point of Nunavut meets northern Labrador. Nunavut is also bordered by water. Its most northerly part touches the shores of the Arctic Ocean. On the east, Baffin Bay divides Nunavut. In the south, Nunavut joins the waters of Hudson's Bay and Ungava Bay.

Eighty per cent of the population of Nunavut is Inuit, that is, some 17,500 persons of the 22,000 total population. So the Inuit are in the majority. In fact, the word Nunavut means our land in Inuktitut, the language of the Inuit.

Before I go any further, I want to say that the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of the principle of Bill C-57, which takes thousands of aboriginal people one step closer to strong, viable self-government. To put this bill into perspective, let me outline a number of element of Bill C-39 passed last year.

Bill C-39 enables the Inuit in the Nunavut to administer 1,9 million kilometres of their land through a legislative assembly elected by universal suffrage. It amends the Nunavut Act passed by Parliament in 1993. It provides for a transition period and for the powers of the federal and territorial governments to be devolved to the Nunavut territorial government.

This legislation provides, by amending the Constitutional Act, 1867, that the people of this territory will be represented in the House of Commons and the Senate. The primary purpose of Bill C-39 was to allow elections to be held so that the Nunavut Legislative Assembly would be established before April 1, 1999, so that representatives of the Inuit of Nunavut could to serve their constituents in an operational legislature when their territory was officially created.

In addition, Bill C-39 amends the Constitutional Act, 1867, to ensure Nunavut is represented in the House of Commons and the Senate, as are the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. It also authorises the transfer of governmental services from the Northwest Territories and Ottawa to Nunavut during the transition period.

The transfer of services and programs in culture, health and public housing should be completed by the year 2009. As members can imagine, much work has to be done by April 1, 1999. That is why I am pleased to notice that Bill C-57 is the final element in the legal and administrative component of the establishment of the Inuit territory of Nunavut.

A brief reminder before getting into Bill C-57: the Bloc Quebecois did not oppose Bill C-39. In fact, we voted for this bill, which was the outcome of years of negotiations in which the organization representing the Inuit of Canada, Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, took part. This organization has been involved in the negotiation process since the 1970s.

I would point out that it took two referendums—in 1982 and in 1992—to establish the boundaries of the territory and for all to agree on them. The Bloc Quebecois did not oppose legislation that gives substance to over 25 years of negotiation and that permits the Inuit, one of Canada's great peoples, to assume its rightful place on this continent and to take its destiny in hand. In becoming masters of their own house, the Inuit will have all the political, economic and legal tools they need to grow and govern themselves.

In June, my colleague, the Bloc Quebecois critic on native affairs said in this House “Thanks to Bill C-39, the Inuit will be in control and they will have all the necessary economic, political, social and cultural levers to look after their development and government on their own. This way, they will be able to act in their own best interest, for the good of their community, ensuring the harmonious development of their territory”. I support and share these remarks.

We did however raise a cautionary note in June, that of Nunavut representation in the Senate. The Bloc Quebecois has nothing against that fact that the Inuit want representation. However, in the preceding parliament, we in the Bloc took steps to abolish this outdated and ineffective institution known as the Senate. It is needlessly costly to Quebeckers and Canadians. It is archaic. The Senate functions thanks to political paybacks. Political appointments take away all the credibility and objectivity need in the processes of legislating and sanctioning legislation. This objectivity is vital. However, despite these reservations, we proposed no amendment, unlike the Reformers, who tried to get a Senate reform through an amendment to this bill.

I might mention another point we raised last year, which continues to concern me. It involves the coastal islands in James Bay, at the southern end of Hudson's Bay and north of Nunavik, Quebec. Since 1977, the James Bay Cree and the Nunavik Inuit have been wanting to negotiate with Indian and Northern Affairs Canada the recognition of their rights over the waters, the surrounding ice and resources.

Negotiations were broken off in 1977. It appears this was because of a dispute concerning compensation and the status of the regions. With the creation of Nunavut in the works, the Crees and Inuit of northern Quebec would like to resume their dialogue with the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs.

The September 24 announcement by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs that a chief federal negotiator had been appointed to deal with the offshore claims of the Grand Council of the Crees of Quebec is a good sign. Let us hope that negotiations will indeed resume and that, this time, they will lead to constructive decisions.

Representatives of the Grand Council of the Crees of Quebec appeared before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development last spring, during consideration of the Nunavut bill. They expressed their concerns regarding this bill, as it affected their own claims.

Although they say they support the creation of Nunavut, they would like the Indian Affairs minister to demonstrate a serious commitment to the resumption of negotiations designed to recognize their rights within the boundaries of the new territory.

I therefore hope that this appointment represents a clear undertaking by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and her officials to negotiate with the Crees of Quebec.

Let us now return more specifically to Bill C-57. In order to be ready by April 1999, Nunavut must have at its disposal all the necessary legislative instruments now. This is what Bill C-57 is all about.

The transfer of certain jurisdictions of territorial and federal governments to Nunavut is not a simple matter. This transfer is nonetheless vital and responds to the needs of the far north.

Indeed, Bill C-57 responds to a request made to the Minister of Justice by those who worked to ensure self-government, with the support of Inuit organizations in Nunavut. The bill establishes a single-level trial court system for the territory of Nunavut.

This tribunal, to be known as the Nunavut Court of Justice, is created to provide an efficient and accessible court structure capable of responding to the unique needs of Nunavut while, at the same time, maintaining rights equivalent to those enjoyed elsewhere in Canada.

So, we will have the Nunavut Court of Justice in the new Nunavut territory. This tribunal will replace the existing Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories as the superior court, and the territorial court as the lower court. Bill C-57 amends once again the Nunavut Act, which was passed in 1993, under the Progressive Conservative government.

The bill also amends the Judges Act to provide for three superior court judges on the Nunavut Court of Justice and also to provide for full membership in the Canadian Judicial Council for the senior judge of each of the territories.

Indeed, given the expanded jurisdiction of that tribunal, it is important to make sure that the judges will be competent to hear cases from the lower and superior courts, with the exception of those cases that come under the jurisdiction of specialized and administrative tribunals.

The bill also amends the Criminal Code to provide for new structures and procedures for the Nunavut Court of Justice in the following areas: jurisdiction of the judges; summary conviction appeals; a new statutory form of review; judicial interim release; and elections as to mode of trial.

Bill C-57 also amends the Young Offenders Act to ensure adequate structures and procedures for a single-level trial court, consistent with those in the Criminal Code and with various other federal statutes.

The creation of this court of justice will ensure a flexible and efficient legal process for the whole territory of Nunavut. By making the court competent to hear any case, whether it involves a minor wrongdoing or a serious criminal offence, we give the people of the territory access to a service that is more consistent with its reality.

From now on, when a judge travels to some small community in Nunavut, he will have broader powers. It must be understood that the multiplicity of jurisdictions, in other words a multi-faceted court system, useful in high density urban centres, is not necessarily useful in the proper administration of justice in a territory such as Nunavut.

This is why legislation must be passed on this issue and to permit the necessary changes to be made to the various laws that, up to now, have granted various jurisdictions authority to hear various cases. Bill C-57 provides the changes needed for the establishment and operation of this court of justice.

The structure of the court reflects the peculiarities of the eastern Arctic. The judges of the Nunavut Court of Justice will therefore be able to hear all criminal, family and civil cases. In other words, this new court structure is simpler and better suits the needs of the people of the new territory.

In closing, I would like to add that we will, in the coming weeks, study in greater depth this bill, which appeared suddenly on the legislative menu. A meeting with the officials of the Department of Justice would be most appreciated once we have started the process of examining the bill. It would enable us to better target the issues in this legislation and the many implications for existing legislation.

We would be further enlightened by meetings with the principle stakeholders. The law establishing Nunavut and subsequent legislation permitting good political, administrative and legal management of the territory, are the product of 25 years of effort and struggle by the Inuit to regain control over their land.

We can only praise these efforts, and like my colleague who is the Bloc Quebecois critic in this area, I wish them success in meeting the challenges that they will face.

In conclusion, I repeat that we support this bill and that we will continue to support the principle of action that, like Bill C-57, enables peoples to acquire what they need to enable their identity to grow to its fullest.

[The Environment, October 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Transport Canada has admitted that it was responsible for the contamination of the water table in the Sept-Îles beach area. In order to correct the situation, the government has decided to distribute bottled water to the families affected, until the year 2007 if necessary.

The people in my riding want to be supplied again with drinking water. What does the Minister of Transport intend to do to solve the problem caused by his department?

[Port-Cartier Penitentiary, June 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that, in Port-Cartier, relations are much improved between management, employees and the union. It is also true, however, that this motion is six months old and that the events it refers to took place six months ago.

What I like about this motion is that it allows us to discuss the judicial system as a whole, a system that I question. Canadians pay high taxes. Fathers with working children like myself are still paying school taxes, and I am happy to do so because we have a responsibility to pay for the education of our children and grandchildren. It is our civic duty.

While we have a responsibility to pay taxes, a reasonable quality of life and a safe environment must be provided for our children and our families. It is the government's responsibility to protect society.

When I see the justice system releasing inmates before they have served their full sentence, when I see that it takes years for cases to get to trial and then they are dropped for lack of a case, I tell myself that we are not fulfilling our mandate of protecting society.

The notion is promoted, and the public, whose tax bill is high, is told “You pay your taxes to have a good quality of life; we are looking after the public, those who are ill, children, seniors, the disabled, the mentally ill, and hoodlums as well”.

But they must be looked after in such a way that our society can again live in freedom, that people are not afraid to go out at night. I therefore call on the government to overhaul the entire justice system. When it does that, it will be serving decent folk.

In my riding I have seen people whose lives were changed by crimes, such as a child or woman who has been raped. These people will be marked forever. We cannot ignore these problems. The system must be reformed and our society protected.

I call on the government to examine the justice system, which is now in need of reform.

[Port-Cartier Penitentiary, June 5th, 1998]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should institute a public inquiry on the administration of the maximum-security penitentiary at Port-Cartier.

Mr. Speaker, I speak to you today on a matter that has, unfortunately, taken a long time to reach the attention of this House.

Six months ago, I moved a motion calling for a public inquiry into events that were occurring at the Port-Cartier detention centre, which is a maximum security facility and therefore under the jurisdiction of this government.

Six months have passed since then, and the motion has just resurfaced today. This motion calling for a public inquiry is, in my opinion, self-evident.

The public inquiry called for would cast light on the past events, which forced the guards to work under intense stress for some days. I have met with mamagement, the unions and the workers in the detention centre on two occasions since the incidents, and they have told me directly that everything possible would be done to try to find solutions to the problem experienced. Today, all committees that were struck have presented reports and, fortunately, the tension appears to have dissipated somewhat.

It is, however, most fortunate that management decided to take the bull by the horns. Judging by the length of time it took for my request to be responded too, it is a good thing no lives were at risk. If that had been the case, I trust that the government would have reacted more promptly. This long delay between the events and the consideration of this motion makes me wonder, however.

When the motion was moved the Port-Cartier penitentiary, a maximum security institution, was facing a crisis. The guards, men and women, had worked long periods in a highly charged atmosphere. They and all the personnel in the institution know necessarily that everyone aware of it when the inmates are up to something.

This very tense situation could have ended in violence. The inmates threatened the corrections officers and their families as well. The corrections officers know when they start working in these institutions that they can expect rough talk from the inmates at times.

Nevertheless, patience has its limits, and when insults and threats are directed at those dear to us it really hurts. A number of corrections officers at the time were obliged to take days off to distance themselves from the unhealthy atmosphere in the institution.

I am not sure any member of this House would agree to work in such circumstances and be treated the way guards often are in detention centres. There are always ups and downs in these institutions. The situation varies from one to another, depending on the type of inmate.

When I made the motion in September, calling for a public inquiry into the events at the Port-Cartier detention centre, the situation was critical. There had been threats to the life of certain guards, and some inmates had been violent.

It took six months for the matter to be brought before the House. Six months in which, fortunately, the situation improved, it appears. Six months in which the management of the institution worked with all departments, including the union and workers to find solutions.

But do we have to wait for the situation to arise again before we intervene? Could we not take appropriate measures now to make sure that all security guards, regardless of where they work, can do their work safely without putting their health or even their life in danger?

There are workers in these institutions who have nervous breakdowns, anxiety attacks and all kinds of physical problems related to stress. Guards know all these problems. It is quite understandable. Corrections officers in maximum security institutions, like the one in Port-Cartier for example, have to deal everyday with hardened criminals who are serving a life sentence in most cases.

The inmate population in institutions like the Port-Cartier and Donnacona penitentiaries, for example, is very similar. However, Port-Cartier will also receive inmates facing serious accusations or those who need protection from other inmates.

Let us not kid ourselves, these are tough guys who fear nothing, especially not a guard who is asking them to go back to their cell because it is late. These inmates are dangerous and violent when they are alone. Imagine having to face them as a group.

Violence does not stop when the door of the cell is closed. It often goes on inside in many different forms. That is exactly why penitentiaries have the infamous hole, which is feared by all inmates, the place where an inmate will be kept alone for a certain period of time, where he will have to eat and sleep alone with very few opportunities to get out.

An inmate is not sent to the hole because he decided to give flowers to his cellmate. The hole is used for rebels or for those who need to be protected against violence from other inmates.

Violence in penitentiaries is a reality, and immediate action must be taken when a difficult situation is reported. We must not wait for guards to lose their lives before we react. Otherwise, why would we put criminals behind bars if guards are to become the victims of their violence? If guards are killed on duty, I think it means that there is surely something wrong with the system.

In any event, I think the judicial system as a whole needs to be scrutinized, reviewed and adjusted where appropriate. Many inmates who are behind bars in 1998 have done time before. They served a first sentence and were released on good behaviour two thirds of the way through their sentence. In many cases, former inmates quickly fell back into their old criminal habits and offended again.

If an individual of any age mercilessly takes away someone else's freedom or life, or significantly reduces their quality of life, and if the justice system finds him guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, it should also deny him all privileges, at least the freedom he has taken away from innocent victims.

I fully understand that one is innocent until proven guilty. I agree this is a very important concept. However, I am not clear about how specific the evidence to the contrary must be. Must one have witnessed the crime in order to be able to give proof or will rational analysis be sufficient?

When the spouse of a woman whose child was found dead is acquitted and, to boot, part of the deposition is dismissed, I have grave concerns. Does it have to be one or the other? In granting parole to an individual who has taken the life of a child, is any consideration whatsoever given for instance to the full impact of his action?

If, at the time of sentencing, the judge decided he should serve 25 years, why then does he serve only about half his sentence? Why should an inmate be released earlier than his sentence calls for, when his victims may have to live with the consequences of his violent actions for the rest of their lives?

When it is not the victims themselves who have to live with the memory, it is their relatives and friends who must live every day without the presence of a loved one. While their lives will forever be changed, the murderer may be set free after 10 or 12 years.

I find it absurd and I have not yet talked about how the trial is conducted. When it takes a whole year to produce a report, it is only normal to forget some elements and to end up producing a document that is not as clear as if it would have been, had it been written in the days following the events.

Similarly, when a case takes months before going to trial, because it keeps being postponed or adjourned, the same thing occurs. In some cases, it took years before some people finally got their day in court. All the while, the victim and his or her close ones were constantly reliving the tragedy.

Finally, the trial takes place and a verdict is rendered. Imagine the pain of the members of a family following an acquittal, or even when a jail sentence is imposed, since they know full well that the offender will not serve out his full sentence.

Is it the whole judicial system that needs to be reviewed? One thing is certain: we must review the rules governing parole for serious offenders who, once released, committed the same crimes again. While it is true that, in many cases, time spent behind bars is beneficial and can be a form of therapy, it is not the case for every inmate.

Going back to the motion before us, the atmosphere that prevails in certain penal institutions is so bad that an inmate cannot be rehabilitated. If verbal, psychological and even physical violence is as prevalent inside the institution as it is outside, how can we expect to rehabilitate these people?

If it is the case, we must do so before other innocent victims fall prey to a criminal.

[Employment Insurance, June 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

In view of his reply to my earlier question, how can the minister explain that it is the postman travelling from village to village in the middle and lower North Shore who is the employment insurance expert? How can he explain that?

[Employment Insurance, June 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

In the riding of Manicouagan, not only do we have to deal with a shortage of steady jobs and a large number of unemployed, but the minister has decided to eliminate all specialized resources in employment insurance for the middle and lower North Shore.

How can the minister justify abandoning the unemployed of the middle and lower North Shore, when his new reform is creating an increasing number of problems for these people? Will the minister answer my question, yes or no?