Pierrette Venne

[Office Of The Correctional Investigator, May 4th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, following the comments I made earlier about having one hour to debate a bill or a motion that just dies after the hour is over, without even being voted on, I have no further comments to make on my motion.

[Office Of The Correctional Investigator, May 4th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I will conclude by saying that if members have not yet taken advantage of the fact that they are being consulted on whether they want all motions and bills to be made votable, I invite them to do so.

Together, we should succeed in changing this practice that leads us nowhere.

[Office Of The Correctional Investigator, May 4th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to finish my speech. There are only two sentences left.

[Office Of The Correctional Investigator, May 4th, 2000]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should introduce amendments to Part III of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act so that the Office of the Correctional Investigator would report directly to Parliament and that its recommendations would be binding rather than simple recommendations.

Madam Speaker, Motion M-228, which I am putting before the House today, deals with Part III of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, which deals with the correctional investigator.

The Corrections and Conditional Release Act is now being reviewed by a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. While the conditional release procedure seems to capture the interest of the general public and of members of the House, the same is not true of Part III of the act, which deals with the correctional investigator. In my opinion, this is a very important part of the act.

The subcommittee reviewing the Corrections and Conditional Release Act will propose certain improvements to the Office of the Correctional Investigator. These improvements are acceptable, but I believe they are not sufficient to give the correctional investigator the powers he should have, given the importance of his functions.

That is why I have decided to draw the government's attention to that part of the act. I call upon the government to give more powers to the Office of the Correctional Investigator and to introduce the necessary amendments. Allow me to explain why the government should seriously consider my motion and the proposals it contains.

First, I think it is important to remind the House that, as stated in section 3, the purpose of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act is, and I quote:

—the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by ( a ) carrying out sentences imposed by courts through the safe and humane custody and supervision of offenders; and ( b ) assisting the rehabilitation of offenders and their reintegration into the community as law-abiding citizens through the provision of programs in penitentiaries and in the community.

It is the responsibility of the Correctional Service of Canada to look after the custody of offenders and set up programs that contribute to their rehabilitation and successful reintegration into the community. The correctional service must also prepare inmates for their release and supervise conditional and statutory releases, as well as the long term supervision of some offenders.

The commissioner of corrections has the control and management of the service and all matters connected with the service. The commissioner reports to the minister, in this case, the Solicitor General of Canada.

Under the act, the correctional investigator conducts investigations into the problems of offenders related to decisions, recommendations, acts or omissions of the commissioner or any person under the control and management of the commissioner that affect inmates.

I should be noted that the reasons for complaints are many. It could be a transfer or something to do with the special handling unit, access to rehabilitation programs, double bunking, health care and many others.

The main function of the correctional investigator is to conduct investigations and settle the complaints of each offender. The correctional investigator may conduct an investigation either on his own initiative or following a complaint by an inmate or a request by the minister. Unfounded or inappropriate decisions might compromise chances of success of rehabilitation and, in the longer term, they might also affect the public's security.

After having conducted an investigation, if the correctional investigator determines that there actually is a problem regarding one or more offenders, he must submit a report to the commissioner. The correctional investigator adds to his report a motivated opinion if he considers that the commissioner has contravened the law or an established guideline or rendered an unreasonable, unfair, oppressive or unduly discriminatory decision. He will also give a motivated opinion if the commissioner exercised his discretionary power for improper purposes, irrelevant reasons or no reason.

The correctional investigator must also include in his report the recommendations he deems appropriate and which are relevant to complaints from inmates. These recommendations ensure that systemic concerns within penitentiaries are dealt with properly.

For instance, the correctional investigator has jurisdiction over special detention units, grievance procedure, case preparation, access to rehabilitation programs, double bunking, as I mentioned, transfers, the use of force, injuries to inmates, and other matters.

As members can see, the investigator has important duties and he must deal with both sensitive and complicated matters. As mentioned in his departmental performance report for the period ending March 31, 1999, and I quote:

The Office aims to assure the Canadian public that the federal correctional system is managed efficiently, equitably and fairly.

Unfortunately, the recommendations or findings of the correctional investigator following an investigation are not binding on the commissioner of corrections. With the current legislation, when the commissioner of corrections does not take action within a reasonable time after the correctional investigator has presented his report, the latter may inform the solicitor general of the situation and provide him with the information originally provided to the commissioner.

Nothing in the act says that the minister must act on the advice of the correctional investigator. The investigator must submit annually a report of the activities of his office to the solicitor general, who introduces it in the two houses of parliament.

Clearly, the decision-making power of the correctional investigator is quite limited. Furthermore, the appointment process does not guarantee total independence or neutrality. Indeed, the correctional investigator is presently appointed by the governor in council. In other words, the minister is his boss.

Considering the importance of the correctional investigator's role, I believe that changes are in order and that the government must act. Therefore, I submit that, to start with, the government must amend the act to make the correctional investigator accountable to parliament.

That means that he would be appointed by parliament. In legal terms, the provision could read something like this: the incumbent shall be appointed by commission under the Great Seal after approval of the appointment by resolution of the Senate and the House of Commons.

Under this appointment process, the appointee shall report to parliament and, at the end of each year, submit an activity report. This report may include recommendations regarding the changes in legislation that are deemed desirable.

Once tabled, this activity report is referred to a committee designated or established by parliament pursuant to the act to monitor the enforcement of the act and its regulations. This designated committee also oversees the implementation of the reports tabled by the person responsible.

I believe that this change in the correctional investigator appointment process would really improve the role of the investigator, who would be accountable to parliament, which would give the function a more independent and impartial status than it currently has.

Some recommendations of the correctional investigator could be implemented at this level by the committee responsible for monitoring the enforcement of the act. The commissioner of official languages and the information commissioner are two examples of people who are accountable to parliament.

Because of his or her position, the correctional investigator can identify weaknesses in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and see how it impacts on the prisoners and their rehabilitation. Any improvement of the status of the correctional investigator is likely to improve the very complex system provided for in the act. For these reasons, this change in the appointment process of the correctional investigator is desirable.

While the government ought to do more, this, in my opinion, is the first change that should be made to this act. Genuine decision making power must be given to the correctional investigator by making his recommendations binding.

As we have seen, at present, the commissioner is not bound by the recommendations made to him by the correctional investigator after a prisoner's complaint has been investigated. The only recourse, as the case may be, that the correctional investigator has to ensure his conclusions are acted on is to inform the solicitor general that the commissioner failed to act.

Several avenues could be explored by the government to ensure that the recommendations of the correctional investigator are binding. The government could simply change the existing legislation so as to direct the commissioner to follow the recommendations of the correctional investigator.

Between April 1, 1998 and March 31, 1999, the correctional investigator received 4,529 complaints made by inmates or on their behalf. The correctional investigator's workload is considerable. Moreover, the correctional investigator must make sure that custodial provisions are appropriate and look after the rehabilitation of inmates, while ensuring public safety.

That is why I encourage the government to introduce amendments to the appointment process, so as to give the correctional investigator an independent status, as I said earlier. I also say to the government it should introduce amendments to the legislation in order to give some real authority to the correctional investigator. In fact, the correctional investigator knows that I have moved this motion in the House today and he is, in his own words, totally in agreement with this motion.

I want to stress that this motion is absolutely non-partisan. I believe that all parties in the House stand to benefit from the correctional investigator reporting directly to parliament. We want to make sure that this function is real, efficient and independent. I believe this concerns us all as parliamentarians, whatever our political allegiance.

The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has not selected the motion I am submitting to the House this evening as a votable item, even if the issue is of primary importance. I think it is unfortunate that we cannot vote on such a serious issue. In spite of that, I have addressed the House on the subject, and other members may do so for a total of one hour.

What is the use of debating for one hour if the members will never have the opportunity to vote on the issue? My speech tonight will certainly convince several members of the validity of my motion, but no concrete measure will be taken following the debate.

I am tempted to say that we are wasting time and precious resources. Members of parliament work very hard to introduce motions and bills on issues affecting the general public. That is why all members should have the opportunity to vote on such initiatives.

The introduction of motions and bills by private members allows them to speak for their constituents. It is also an opportunity for other members to express the views of their constituents on the issues before the House. To deny members the possibility to vote on these initiatives is to withdraw a basic vehicle for action in our democratic system.

Therefore, I think that out of respect for the voters and for the position of members of parliament, the issues submitted by private members to the House should all be votable items. Do members not believe that talking for the sake of talking is a waste of taxpayers' money? No, that is not why we were elected. I think that the job members of parliament do is a serious one and the motions and bills they introduce should be treated as such.

I admit that I am a little embarrassed to be doing this tonight. I know that I am not alone in this regard. As a matter of fact several other hon. members already expressed their views on votable items in 1996, before the subcommittee on private members' business of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Many of us thought that there were not enough votable bills and motions in spite of the importance of the issues. Many also thought that all the bills and motions by private members should be voted on.

Accordingly, I urge all hon. members who share this view to keep on working to change the way things are done in the House. Furthermore, the subcommittee I mentioned recently sent a questionnaire concerning Private Members' Business, and I hope all hon. members take the opportunity to express their view on this matter.

If it is not the case—

[Cinar, May 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, can the solicitor general provide this House with a guarantee that the officer who did his job by denouncing the lack of co-operation from the revenue department will not be the victim of reprisals?

[Cinar, May 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, according to Pierre-Yves Cartier, an officer of the RCMP, the hands of the RCMP are being tied by Revenue Canada. This situation is unacceptable.

How can the solicitor general explain that the RCMP, for which he is responsible, is reduced to having to go on TV in order to be able to continue with its investigation and to do its job?

[Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, May 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, since I was interrupted right in the middle of a sentence, I will repeat it so that all those who are listening to us can understand it.

As I was saying, there are in Canada measures against money laundering. For example, there are provisions in the criminal code that make it a criminal offence to launder money and provide for the confiscation of the proceeds and property derived from various organized crime drug trafficking activities. Under these provisions, the burden of proof is heavy for crown attorneys. They must prove beyond any reasonable doubt that a crime was committed and then that the seized goods were bought with dirty money. These investigations are extremely lengthy and few lead to prosecution.

In 1991 Canada passed the Proceeds of Crime (Monetary Laundering) Act, which requires several institutions to keep records. Indeed, financial institutions, foreign exchange offices, stockbrokers, life insurance companies and casinos are required to keep a record of transactions over $10,000. However, there is no accountability requirement. This reduces the possibility of investigating and laying charges, since the information collected is not in the hands of the police. If it is passed, Bill C-22 will replace the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act.

These measures are clearly inadequate and do not seem to be effective enough. That is why the Bloc Quebecois views Bill C-22 as an improvement on the existing money laundering legislation. However, Bill C-22 provides for the gathering of information about the movement of money. This will now be obligatory. A number of institutions and individuals will be required to make certain reports on the movement of money, as we mentioned. In addition, this information will be collected and analyzed in order to determine whether investigations or charges are warranted.

Financial institutions, exchange offices, casinos, life insurance companies and stockbrokers, among others, will now be required to report financial transactions that they suspect may be linked to an offence having to do with the laundering of the proceeds of crime. In addition, these institutions will be required to report certain categories of financial transactions described in the regulations and valued at more than C$10,000.

Persons importing or exporting cash or goods valued at more than $10,000 and those crossing the Canadian border with such items will be required to report these amounts to a Canada Customs official.

That concludes my remarks on Bill C-22 for now. We will certainly have an opportunity to continue the debate with the amendments that will be introduced in the course of the afternoon.

[Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, May 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, as we mentioned earlier and as the other members have said, money laundering is a worldwide problem and, because of its nature, is difficult to quantify.

According to the federal government, some $7 billion to $10 billion is laundered in Canada. John Walker, an Australian criminologist and mathematician, has developed a global model at the request of the Australian government to determine the scope of money laundering worldwide. The United States and the UN are interested in his model.

This Australian estimates the money laundering worldwide to be worth about $3 trillion annually. He does not paint a glowing picture of Canada. According to his model, Canada ranks ninth worldwide as a country generating illicit money and eighth worldwide as a favoured destination for money laundering. According to this study, $64 billion in illicit funds from outside the country are laundered in Canada and $21 billion in criminal profits are generated.

Canada is a clearing house for the laundering of money and this news is not good. Canada is the only G-7 country that does not have legislation to fight money laundering. This is why Bill C-22 is welcomed favourably by the Bloc Quebecois. It is another step in the fight against organized crime. The fight against this international scourge must begin at home first. For this reason, the Bloc Quebecois supports this bill.

There are in Canada measures against money laundering. For example, there are provisions in the criminal code that make it a criminal offence to launder money and provide for the confiscation—

[Witness And Spousal Protection Program Act, March 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-223, which seeks to amend the Witness Protection Program Act to include the protection of people whose life is threatened by their spouse.

In practical terms, this bill would provide greater security for women who are victims of domestic violence. We all know that the majority of those victims are in fact women.

Violence often occurs within a domestic relationship. Indeed, 80% of violent crimes against women are committed by a spouse or an ex-spouse. Moreover, domestic violence is rarely reported to the police. The women who are victims of domestic violence feel trapped and often cannot see a way out. They are often stalked and sometimes killed.

Bill C-223 wants to deal with this and avoid such tragedies. To understand the purpose of this bill, it is important to ask ourselves what measures there are to help those women who live in a dangerous domestic situation.

In its initiative against family violence, the federal government has adopted a number of measures to help such women, including shelters for battered women, psychological services and other social measures offering protection and prevention. The criminal code has been amended to provide more ways to protect the victims of domestic violence.

By way of example, the commitment under section 810 of the criminal code makes it possible to order a violent spouse to not enter into communication and to keep the peace with the other spouse on pain of criminal charges. These measures to prevent violence against women are vital and provide long term solutions. However, despite these measures, tragedies continue to occur all too often still. This initiative seems lacking in our opinion therefore and should also provide a safety hatch in the event of extreme and emergency situations.

Some would see the safety hatch in the program for victims of spousal violence called “New Identities”, which is run by officials of National Revenue and the Department of Human Resources Development.

Unfortunately, women and the police do not seem very familiar with this program. In addition, the assistance provided is very limited. It provides a name and social insurance number change, but not all measures are in place to effect an identity change. For instance, cases are cited in which the person benefiting from the program had been located by her spouse because old information had not been destroyed. The program has no specific mandate and no statutory or regulatory basis. For all these reasons, it appears quite inadequate to protect threatened individuals.

We believe Bill C-223 would be an effective way to help these women in difficulty. It will not solve the problem of domestic violence, but it will be an essential measure to deal with the most serious cases. This improvement must be viewed as an indispensable tool within the arsenal of measures available to deal with the problem of violence. This bill will make it possible to gather the resources to help the spouse whose life is in danger in a more structured and effective way than currently.

The Witness Protection Program Act that Bill C-223 would amend provides for the protection of witnesses whose security is threatened because of their involvement in a criminal case. This is what is currently in place. The act sets out the procedure to follow to determine if a person can be admitted to the program. The act says, and I quote:

Protection, in respect of a protectee, may include relocation, accommodation and change of identity as well as counselling and financial support for those or any other purposes in order to ensure the security of the protectee or to facilitate the protectee's re-establishment or becoming self-sufficient.

In short, it provides full protection. Women living in a situation of domestic violence can find themselves in situations as dangerous as witnesses for the prosecution. Therefore, they should benefit from the legislative and regulatory measures under this program.

Bill C-223 adds new criteria to deal with the tragedy of spouses who are victims of violence. The commissioner responsible for determining whether a spouse should be admitted to the program will consider the facts of each situation.

He will take into account the nature of the physical harm and psychological damage caused to the victim and the criminal record of the threatening spouse. The commissioner will also take into consideration a more subjective criterion. In that regard, he will consider the circumstances that make the spouse believe that his or her life is in danger. The commissioner will also consider the nature of the risk and all the other factors that he deems relevant.

It is all these factors together that will allow the commissioner to arrive at a fair and informed decision. The commissioner will also consider other possible forms of protection outside the program.

The measures provided in Bill C-223 are extreme and apply to exceptional circumstances. It is necessary to ensure that the protection provided is offered to those whose life is truly in danger.

The bill also adapted the concept of spouse to contemporary situations, to include a former spouse or any person who has lived with another person for a period of not less than one year in a conjugal relationship.

The exceptional nature of these measures leads us to believe that the adoption of Bill C-223 will not require additional resources. The annual report to be submitted by the commissioner to the solicitor general under the bill will allow the latter to monitor the effectiveness of that extension of the scope of the witness protection program to include women whose life is threatened by their spouse.

The Bloc Quebecois supports Bill C-223. This bill is not the solution to the problem of spousal abuse, but it is an essential measure for cases of extreme conjugal violence. It is an improvement as an effective contemporary tool to protect women who are victims of spousal abuse.

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, March 13th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 406

That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:

“4. (1) On the expiration of three months after the coming into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be referred to such committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.

(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act and shall, within ten months after the review is undertaken submit a report to the House of Commons thereon.”