Pierrette Venne

[Research And Development, October 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, how can the minister claim that Quebec was treated fairly by the federal government regarding federal research centres, considering that these centres employ only 3,000 people in Quebec, compared to 11,000, or almost four times more, in Ontario? Is this not another good reason to vote Yes?

[Research And Development, October 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for regional development in Quebec.

When it was first announced that the Canadian space agency would be located in Saint-Hubert, we were told that federal aerospace research would be conducted in Quebec. However, aerospace research centres, which have a combined budget of close to $45 million, have remained in Ottawa.

Does the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for regional development in Quebec, agree that maintaining space research activities in Ottawa, rather than centralizing them in Saint-Hubert, close to the space agency, favours Ontario at the expense of Quebec?

[Criminal Code, October 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, let me ask you this question: If the justice minister were a woman, do you not think that we would already have a bill amending the Criminal Code and explicitly prohibiting the genital mutilation of female persons?

Were it not for the initiative of the hon. member for Québec, women would still be waiting for a bill to protect the victims of such a barbaric and cruel practice. Genital mutilation of female persons is one of the most harmful forms of violence against young girls and it is a terrible violation of their fundamental right to physical integrity.

Just thinking of such an atrocity totally overwhelms me with horror and disgust and I must warn the Minister of Justice that he is likely to find the description I am about to give extremely disturbing. Perhaps after hearing it he will better understand the kind of butchery being practiced throughout the world, including Canada and Quebec.

There are three forms of mutilation carried out. I will present them in order of degree. The first, removal of the prepuce of the clitoris; the second, excision, which involves removing the entire clitoris and often the adjacent portions of the labia minora; the third, infibulation, which involves excising the entire clitoris, the labia minora and a portion of the labia majora.

When infibulation is performed, both sides of the vulva are closed over the vagina, leaving a small opening for the passage of urine and menstrual blood. In infibulation, the vaginal orifice is closed either with thorns or catgut sutures. The gaping raw edges of the labia majora are held together until scar tissue forms, thus closing up the vagina except for a narrow orifice which is kept open with a small piece of wood or reed.

The child's legs are then bound together. The little girl is immobilized for several weeks or until the tissues have healed. To enable infibulated women to have sexual relations, it is necessary to open the orifice with an incision which is further enlarged when they give birth. Often they are sewn up again afterwards, at the husband's request.

There is none so deaf as those who will not hear. The Minister of Justice was definitely not listening when in December 1994, on the tragic anniversary of the massacre at the École Polytechnique, I and several of my colleagues emphatically condemned this odious practice.

This barbaric procedure has now been imported to Canada and Quebec. Our doctors are seeing an increasing number of young girls with health problems related to genital mutilation. It will soon be one year since we last discussed this in the House, and so far the Minister of Justice has done nothing to stop this practice. I hope that he will at least support the representations of my colleague, the hon. member for Québec, who has taken the trouble to table a bill prohibiting genital mutilation.

The Minister of Justice lately mentioned a series of bills tabled by his government to help victims, and the list goes: C-37, C-41, C-42 and C-45, and so forth. An impressive body of legislation, whose effectiveness remains to be seen.

The agenda of the Department of Justice is quite full. But I warn the minister that: "Grasp all, lose all". Some of the legislative measures are so far off the goal set by the government that we might be led to believe that the Minister of Justice has undertaken a Sisyphean task.

In November 1994, the Quebec Minister of Justice, Paul Bégin, demanded that his federal counterpart prohibit genital mutilation and amend the Criminal Code accordingly. Sweden, Belgium, Norway, the United Kingdom and some American States have already passed legislation prohibiting genital mutilation.

The Minister of Justice had the gall to answer that the sections of the Criminal Code dealing with assault were sufficient to condemn a person guilty of practising excision. Genital mutilation is much more than just assault, it is torture, butchery and an unqualifiable violation of a human person.

The House managed to pass on the double a bill to protect victims and facilitate the arrest of the guilty parties. Thanks to the support of the official opposition, Bill C-104 on DNA passed through all stages on the same day, June 22 of this year. The Minister of Justice is always willing to play Lancelot when he knows that a bill will get unanimous support. It is easy to preach for virtue. It is something else to make political hay out of it.

Where is the fearless Lancelot in today's debate? He is dragging his feet, he is consulting. Last summer our Don Quixote of public security thought that it would be useful to organize an information session on mutilation of women's genital organs for interested members. Guests of the Minister of Justice were Eunadie Johnson and Fadumo Dirie, cochairpersons of the Ontario task force on the prevention of genital mutilation of female persons.

The minister expected that Mrs. Johnson and Mrs. Dirie would concur with his views on the risk of unilateral legislation dealing specifically with genital mutilation. He was reluctant to introduce a bill because he thought such an action would push that practice further underground.

But, lo and behold, both guests answered yes to the question of whether a specific piece of legislation would send a clear message to communities which practice mutilation. A criminal code amendment would demonstrate that our society considers that practice unacceptable and that if it is deemed acceptable in other countries, it is not so in Canada or in Quebec.

After the meeting, the Minister of Justice admitted he was not so sure any more about his position. Today, the bill before the House is not a government bill, but a bill introduced by one of my Bloc Quebecois colleagues. That speaks for itself. On this side of the House, we dare to act according to our beliefs. I urged the Minister of Justice to at least support the bill presented by the hon. member

for Québec, if he did not have the courage to introduce an amendment to the Criminal Code.

I request the same thing from all members. We should rise above partisanship and indeed do as we say, as we began to do some time ago with private members' bills.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, last spring in this House we debated Bill C-41 on sentencing. That bill was given royal assent on July 13. Bill C-45 is the legislative cousin of Bill C-41; it is a logical continuation to the bill on sentencing. One cannot function without the other, without placing the cohesion of our penal justice system in jeopardy.

Bill C-41 has now become a sort of road map for judges in determining sentences. Bill C-45 attempts to do likewise for the members of parole boards. It lays out the path to take, the modus operandi to be followed.

Today, we begin third reading of Bill C-45, a new step toward its passage by this House. This bill is wide-reaching in that it modifies the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Criminal Code, the Criminal Records Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act, and the Transfer of Offenders Act.

Bill C-45 does not reform the key principles underlying the detention of offenders, and that is a great pity. Despite its obvious shortcomings, however, Bill C-45 represents at least a baby step in the right direction. The Bloc Quebecois has always had protection of the public at heart, particularly the protection of child victims of sexual offenders.

That protection requires a more rigid approach to parole, to the calculation of eligibility in consecutive or concurrent sentences, and to the conditions for release. A totally new tack is needed, but Bill C-45 veers only slightly off in a new direction, far too little.

Public safety must no longer be jeopardized by efforts to rehabilitate offenders. The solicitor general has caught the germ of compromise from his colleague at justice.

In its red book, the Liberal government promised to enhance public safety. Bill C-45, however, remains silent on protecting a specific category of victims.

Let me explain. The bill will change the criteria used to determine whether the perpetrator of a sexual offence involving a child should serve his full sentence. At the present time, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act permits the National Parole Board to detain, until the end of their sentence, sex offenders and other high-risk offenders who are likely to commit an offence causing death or serious harm after their release.

When the victims are children, the serious harm may not become apparent for a number of years. The victim may be too young to express the impact of what was done. It is therefore difficult for the Parole Board to prove that a child has suffered serious harm, to justify keeping an offender in detention.

Clause 42 of Bill C-45 would, in the case of a sexual offence involving a child, relieve the National Parole Board of the need to establish the presence or likelihood of serious harm. It would be enough for the Board to be convinced of the likelihood of a further sexual offence involving a child before the expiration of the sentence according to law.

In other words, if the Board is convinced that the risk is too great, the offender is kept behind bars. The burden of proof is substantially reduced.

As I said earlier, this is a small step in the right direction. However, this measure only affects sexual offenders whose victims are children.

What about adult women who are sexually assaulted? Are they not entitled to the same protection? When we talk about harm assessment, could the real harm possibly not become apparent until many years later in the case of women as well? If the individual assaulted a woman, it will be easier for him to get parole than if he assaulted a child.

The entire public needs protection, children of course, but also women, the other victims of sexual abuse. The solicitor general should reread the preamble to Bill C-72 which is about the problem created by the use of self-induced intoxication as a defence in cases of sexual assault, for instance. The victim in the Daviault case was 67 at the time of the assault.

For the benefit of the minister and those who have again overlooked women as victims of sexual assault, this is what it says in the preamble of what is now Chapter 32 of the Statutes of Canada, 1995, and I quote: "Whereas the Parliament of Canada is gravely concerned about the incidence of violence in Canadian society; whereas the Parliament of Canada recognizes that violence has a particularly disadvantaging impact on the equal participation of women and children in society and on the rights of women and children to security of the person and to the equal protection and benefit of the law as guaranteed by sections 7, 15 and 28 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ; -whereas the Parliament of Canada desires to promote and help to ensure the full protection of the rights guaranteed under sections 7, 11, 15 and 28 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for all Canadians, including those who are or may be victims of violence''.

That is what this government has to offer the public. Hollow sounding words that mean nothing except to Liberals suffering from acute navel-gazing.

The Liberal government says it wants to protect victims and potential victims, but when we look at the means it proposes to achieve this, we see the government still does not take this seriously.

I ask the solicitor general to go and recite this magnificent preamble to women who are victims of sexual aggression. I think he would have very attentive listeners.

What victims of sexual aggression should be getting from the solicitor general is the assurance that their aggressors will remain behind bars as long as possible and not return to haunt them through premature release.

What the solicitor general is telling them today is that they will not enjoy the protection the law should be giving them, because they were adults at the time the sexual aggression took place.

In 1994, 31,690 cases of sexual aggression were reported in this country. The victims may be divided as follows: approximately one third of them were under 12 years of age; another third were between the ages of 12 and 17. This leaves us with more than 10,000 adult victims. Are they not entitled to the same protection? Will the solicitor general finally have the courage to say that his promise of safer homes and safer streets applies to only one category of victim and not to others?

The solicitor general confided to this House on September 20, 1994, and I quote: "Turning to the bill itself, I believe it is important because it addresses significant issues of public protection in the area of corrections and parole. These are issues on which this government promised action in that same red book as part of its agenda to bring about safe homes and safe streets for Canadians. With this bill we are delivering on these promises".

When the solicitor general said his government was delivering on its promises, I wonder what promises he is referring to. Certainly not the one about everyone being entitled to the same protection at home and in the street. The government did not deliver on this promise. Bill C-45 is merely the beginnings of a solution.

I will give the solicitor general only a passing grade, because this is not the only failing of the bill.

The solicitor general promised on September 20, 1994 as well, and I quote: "We will also be making other improvements in the availability of treatment for sex offenders in the community and in prison".

In theory, gradual supervised reintegration into the community and the provision of help and support services constitute, according to some, the safest way for criminals to be released. I say in theory because, unless he agrees to undergo treatment, the offender may be a time-bomb just waiting for an early release to explode.

Another major flaw of Bill C-45 is that it says absolutely nothing about the kind of treatment individuals found guilty of a sexual offence involving not only a child but any adult victim should be given. It is wrong to say that the mere fact of making treatment more easily available will automatically reduce the risk of repeat offences.

Let me explain. At present, section 88 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act states that treatment shall be conditional and dependent upon the inmate voluntarily giving an informed consent thereto and "an inmate has the right to refuse treatment or withdraw from treatment at any time".

The treatment referred to includes the care of a disorder of thought, mood, perception, orientation or memory that significantly impairs judgment, behaviour, the capacity to recognize reality or the ability to meet the ordinary demands of life.

In most cases, this treatment is for the very behaviour disorders that have landed the offender in prison.

If treatment remains elective and dependent upon the good will of inmates, those who refuse treatment are in fact refusing to change their behaviour and will not have changed a single bit by the time they are released.

The fact that Bill C-45 remains silent on this subject is disquieting to say the least. Remaining silent when it comes to tackling the real problem and boasting about keeping promises is the kind of attitude that is the trademark of this government. With respect to public safety, the solicitor general certainly did not deliver.

We have every right to wonder why Bill C-45, whose provisions affect thousands of inmates who are released into our communities, remains silent in this respect.

For example, in 1993, 10,317 inmates were granted full parole by national and provincial parole boards. Full parole is a form of conditional release, granted at the discretion of parole authorities that allows an offender to serve part of his sentence in the community.

Parole boards are administrative tribunals with powers to grant, refuse, amend, end or revoke parole for inmates.

Bill C-45 corrects a shortcoming that I have denounced several times in this House. The Federal Court has a general power of supervision over the National Parole Board. This is not enough. There was a need to develop some safeguard mechanisms within the framework of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

Bill C-45 provides for disciplinary or remedial measures against commissioners who do not follow good practices with competence and diligence.

Under new clause 155.2, the chairperson may recommend that a member of the board be investigated. The investigator reports to the solicitor general and may recommend removal or suspension without pay if he thinks that the member in question is unable to do

the job properly, for example, because he or she is guilty of misconduct or has failed in the performance of his or her duties.

The National Parole Board is an administrative tribunal with significant discretionary powers; the solicitor general had a duty to act on our repeated demands. For once, we got our message across to the other side of this House.

As for the Reform members, it does not augur well. They continue to swagger about and think of themselves as gladiators in the parliamentary arena.

It is easy to behave like a cowboy when discussing parole and conditional release. Our western cowboys do so every day with their thundering comments on sad cases which, I agree, still affect too many victims and their families. But it is easy to make political mileage at the expense of these people.

We realize that our criminal justice system is not perfect and that there will always be room for improvement. Bill C-45 is flawed in certain respects, but it is nevertheless a step in the direction which the Bloc has always advocated.

However, our reform cowboys would rather get rid of the whole system to bring justice to the victims. The wild west has a way of its own. The member for Wild Rose best exemplifies that way of doing things. During the debate at report stage, he invited the solicitor general's parliamentary secretary to visit his riding and to explain the government's ideas regarding Bill C-45. The member for Wild Rose said, and I quote: "You want to sell my people in Wild Rose all your wonderful solutions to crime? You are welcome and good luck. If you think I am loud, wait until you get out there".

As you can see, Reform members have innate knowledge and they know what is good for Canada. This is yet another reason for Quebecers to distance themselves. Quebec uses a different approach because it does not deal with the same type of criminals. The results conclusively show that we are on the right track and that our system should serve as an example.

In 1994, Quebec had the lowest rate in Canada for violent crimes of any category, including sexual assault, assault and kidnapping. Quebec also has the best record for other types of offence to the Criminal Code, including the violation of conditions for release on bail, crimes against public order, arson, prostitution and use of offensive weapons.

Western solutions are not adequate for Quebec. Quebecers are peaceful people. They advocate civic-mindedness, tolerance and balanced solutions to their legitimate concerns regarding public safety. Although not perfect, Bill C-45 deserves the support of the Bloc Quebecois.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 21st, 1995]

moved:

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-45, in Clause 72, be amended a ) by replacing line 16, on page 44, with the following:

"741.2 Notwithstanding subsection"; and b ) by deleting lines 7 to 12, on page 45.

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-45, in Clause 83, be amended a ) by replacing line 14, on page 52, with the following:

"743.6 Notwithstanding subsection"; and b ) by deleting lines 34 to 39, on page 52.

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-45, in Clause 83, be amended

(a) by replacing line 45, on page 52, with the following:

"743.6 Notwithstanding subsection"; and b ) by deleting lines 17 to 22, on page 53.

Madam Speaker, the motions I am submitting to this House for approval are simply aimed at repealing subsection 2 in section 741.2 of the Criminal Code as amended by Bill C-45.

It is surprising to say the least to see that incarceration is the preferred way to deal with delinquency. But it is ridiculous to suggest that society's denunciation and deterrence should be the only guiding principle for sentencing.

To understand Motions Nos. 24 through 26, one must first understand the guidelines set out by legislators to help judges decide whether or not to suspend application of the usual parole regulations.

In 1992, legislators gave extraordinary powers to judges imposing prison sentences of two years or more. In fact, section 741.2 of the Criminal Code as it now stands makes it possible to disregard section 120(1) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. Section 120 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act sets the usual period after which an individual becomes eligible for parole. This period usually amounts to a third of the sentence. Thus, if the judge is convinced by the circumstances of the offence, the character and specifics of the criminal and the degree of denunciation by society, he may order the criminal to serve half of the detention time imposed before being eligible for full parole.

It may seem normal for inmates to have to serve half of their sentence before being eligible for parole. It must be kept in mind, however, that the sentencing judge has already taken into consideration all of the circumstances surrounding the offence and the criminal's individual and social characteristics, as well as a presentencing report with a victim impact statement.

Thus, if he sets a four year sentence for sexual assault for example, he has already weighed the aggravating and attenuating circumstances in imposing this four year rating. Judges know very well when they sentence an individual that he will become eligible for parole after a third of the sentence has been served.

This factor is therefore taken into consideration by the judge. He does a little mathematical calculation before sentencing, in order to know how much real penitentiary time the accused who has been found guilty will serve. If he considers that the real time might be ridiculous in light of the offence committed, he will increase the period of incarceration imposed and thus the length of time actually spent behind bars.

In giving greater powers to trial judges, the legislator has provided them with an important tool for setting a dissuasive example. That tool must, however, be used with discretion and on an exceptional basis. Section 741.2 should not be used as a matter of course, as a sop to the frustration felt by most people when they see individuals released on parole who are not ready for rehabilitation.

By expanding the role of the trial judge and letting him go beyond the procedure that is customary in dealing with the inmate, the legislator is trying, and I say trying, to strike a balance between the judicial power to judge and sentence and the powers of the Board in the parole process.

The exceptional character of section 741.2 has been pointed out a number of times by the Quebec Court of Appeal. In 1993, in the Dankyi judgment, the judges of the highest court of the province stated that the range of sentences for trafficking and possession for the purposes of trafficking was normally adequate to cover both minor and more serious cases. The trial judge did not have to resort to section 741.2 of the Criminal Code to hand down an exemplary sentence. Ordering the inmate to serve half of his sentence can only be justified in exceptional circumstances.

In the Leblanc judgment in 1995, the Appeal Court maintained its position and said this was an exceptional measure, to be used only in specific cases that warranted such measures.

Not long ago, in February 7, 1995, the Quebec Court of Appeal reiterated its position, stating that the trial judge should have formulated separate and distinct grounds for imposing a severe but fair sentence while ordering the inmate to serve at least half of the sentence before being eligible for full parole. The judges of the Appeal Court decided that the trial judge's reasons for imposing a sentence of 13 years in the penitentiary for robbery were based on the same grounds as his order that at least half the sentence was to be served. According to the judges, this was an error in law. Grounds and reasons should be distinct, which is what the legislator had in mind in section 741.2.

In Bill C-45, as amended and reported by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, the present section 741.2 appears on page 44, where the committee added subsection (2) which reads as follows: "For greater certainty, the paramount principles which are to guide the court under this section are denunciation and

specific or general deterrence, with rehabilitation of the offender, in all cases, being subordinate to these paramount principles".

The Bloc Quebecois could never support such principles. The Bloc members on the committee did not support them, and today, I wish to reiterate our position on the use of these archaic principles to deal with crime.

On the whole, Bill C-45 formulates principles and objectives for sentencing that are supported by the Bloc. Nowhere in the bill does it say that society's denunciation and deterrents are the paramount principles which are to guide our courts. On the contrary, Bill C-45 tries to strike a balance between rehabilitation of the offender and protecting society.

If new section 741.2 remains in its present form, Bill C-45 will no longer be consistent. On the one hand, the legislator asks the judge to consider the rehabilitation of the offender, while on the other hand, he tells him to ignore it.

If this House sends ambiguous signals to the courts, we should not be surprised to see a number of absurd decisions that will become part of our jurisprudence. Therefore, subsection (2) of section 741.2 should be repealed, and I ask this House to support motions 24, 25 and 26.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 21st, 1995]

Motions Nos. 14 and 15 deal with a very important clause of Bill C-45. Clause 45(3) of the bill amends section 132 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act by adding subsection (1.1) regarding the determining by the Correctional Service and the National Parole Board of the likelihood of the offender committing a sexual offence involving a child.

Under the current legislation, a dangerous sexual offender who is likely to commit, at the expiration of his sentence according to the law, an offence causing death or harm to another person, harm

being described as serious physical or emotional injury, can be maintained in detention.

With Bill C-45, clause 42, the National Parole Board would not be required to establish the existence or likelihood of injury, in the case of a sexual offence involving a child. It would need only be satisfied of the likelihood of the commission of a sexual offence involving a child before the expiration of the sentence according to the law.

In other words, where the board believes the risk is too high, the prisoner remains behind bars. The onus is substantially reduced.

The message is clear: when in doubt, do nothing.

In the case of sexual offenders in particular, it seems to me that the rule is sometimes applied in reverse. Release should not be statutory; it should always be based on the absence of any likelihood that a prisoner convicted of a sexual offence involving a child will commit a further offence.

There is no sexual crime more contemptible and loathsome than one involving a child. The very thought of it disgusts me.

Bear in mind that an individual who is eligible for parole or statutory release was properly tried and found guilty by a court of law and has exhausted all possible grounds of appeals.

This is an offender who has been jailed for the monstrous things he has done. We are not talking about a defendant at this stage. This is an individual serving time for the crimes he has committed. He is paying his debt to society and to his young victim. As far as I am concerned, this is not high enough a price to pay; he could rot in jail.

The role of the parole board was questioned on several occasions. I myself disputed in this House the validity of certain decisions made by commissioners.

Repeat offenses must be denounced as unacceptable. The board is duty-bound to make the right decision concerning those convicted of sexual offenses involving children who are likely to re-offend: keep them in jail. The safety of the public, and children in particular, prevails over any right a prisoner may have if he or she poses too great a threat.

However, and this is the reason I tabled Motions Nos. 14 and 15, it is necessary to specify the admissible sources of "reliable information" which can be taken into consideration by the Correctional Service and which are referred to in clause 45 of the bill.

Police forces, prosecutors and probation services are examples of "recognized and dependable sources", as suggested in Motions Nos. 14 and 15. If the bill is not specific in that regard, there is a risk that mere allegations could turn into conclusive evidence and create a despotic regime or, conversely, and this is what I fear most, encourage an interpretation which greatly favours the suspect and which could therefore result in a premature release. This is why I ask the House to support Motions Nos. 14 and 15.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 21st, 1995]

moved:

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-45, in Clause 45, be amended by replacing line 36, on page 27, with the following:

"(iii) reliable information from recognized and dependable sources demonstrating".

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-45, in Clause 45, be amended by replacing line 1, on page 28, with the following: b ) reliable information from recognized and dependable sources about the offend-''.

Before we start debating Motions Nos. 14 and 15 as part of Group No. 5, Madam Speaker, I think that you would find unanimous consent to debate Group No. 8 immediately after Group No. 5.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 21st, 1995]

To continue, Madam Speaker, it is we who are the legislators. In answer to my colleague who wonders where we are up to-I imagine he had had to absent himself-we are indeed still in group No. 4. It is our duty therefore to see that our intentions are respected. The best way to do this is to make them intelligible.

In conclusion, I have a piece of advice to give those drafting texts: they should take a look at the Quebec civil code and our code of criminal procedure in order to learn how to write in French. These are both bold pieces of legislation, the Quebec civil code in particular, whose legislative texts have been able to stand the test of Quebec's changing times, customs and habits without becoming outmoded, ever since 1866. If only out of respect for the francophones of this country, I am therefore requesting that this House support Motion No. 9.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 21st, 1995]

moved:

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-45, in Clause 43, be amended by replacing lines 27 to 29, on page 24, with the following:

"an offence causing the death of or serious harm to another person or a sexual offence involving a child".

Madam Speaker, we keep hearing that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Still it should be intelligible. Bill C-45 is already a very complex piece of legislation as far as calculating the period of sentence and eligibility for parole is concerned. So if even the drafters stumble over words and sentence structure, it will take a clever person indeed to understand.

As the Barreau du Québec indicated in its brief on Bill C-45 submitted to the Standing Committee on Justice, and I quote: "In fact, although we brought together the varied expertise of a number of professionals from academia, the prisons and private practice, they were not able to conduct an exhaustive review of clause 34 of the Bill and the related provisions because both the methods of calculation adopted and the wording used seemed so recondite".

Clause 34 of the bill is the key element of the methods for calculating sentence and eligibility for parole. If experts have a hard time making out what it means, how is a judge expected to benefit from a reform that is far from being as crystal clear as requested?

Motion No. 9, which I just moved, is not designed to amend clause 34, which will serve as an example however, but to complete in clause 43 of Bill C-45 the information that is missing in the French version. I do not know if the drafters were making fun of us or not, but there is a limit.

Francophone readers must refer to the subsections listed in order to know what it is all about, while the English version mentions the subsections and goes on to describe the offences in extenso.

Either the drafters assumed that francophone readers know by heart the sections referred to in Bill C-45 and their content or they were trying to make the clause difficult to understand in the French version.

Either way, this is adding insult to injury. I will not stand for this kind of abuse any longer, for myself or francophones in general. There is a plethora of instances where federal legislation makes a mockery of the language of Molière. Drafters are misusing the French language under the pretext of simplifying.

The new section 120.1 proposed in the bill is another example. In English, this section sets a basis for the computation of the prescribed time, yet this information is missing in the French version. It will be easier for an anglophone judge to understand what it is all about. At any rate, in either language, the bench is not likely to be able to make head nor tail of it.

That is why is important to set a start point, this point being the day on which the additional sentence was imposed. This correction is essential. However, this will only be a partial solution to an endemic problem.

The following is typical of Bill C-45, and I am referring to the wording of clause 34. Let me first get my breath, because there are no commas in the next paragraph, which is a simple sentence. And I quote:

Le délinquant dont la peine d'emprisonnement n'est pas expirée et qui est condamné à une peine d'emprisonnement supplémentaire à purger à la suite de l'autre n'est admissible à la libération conditionnelle totale qu'à la date à laquelle il a accompli le temps d'épreuve requis à la fois sur la partie de la peine non encore exécutée au moment de la condamnation et sur la peine supplémentaire.

If you understand this, Madam Speaker, congratulations. The point is that the additional sentence was consecutive. In the English version, however, we read:

-"commencing on the day on which the additional sentence was imposed".

We do not find these words in the French text. So in English, an individual can find out when he is eligible for parole, while a Francophone cannot because he does not know where to start counting.

A judge who cannot interpret a legal text will have to judge in equity and ignore the text, which is so convoluted that the results would be absurd. That is how the rule of law ends up at the bottom of the culture gap.

Another striking example may be found in clause 45 of the English version, and I quote:

-"any factor that is relevant"-

The French version says, and I quote: "tous les facteurs utiles". This must be corrected. The use of the word "utiles" in the French version is not appropriate. This is about the relevance of the information concerned, not about its usefulness.

For years I have tried to tell this House that respect for Francophones starts with respect for their language. I find this bad habit editors have of making their French translation a carbon copy of the English extremely annoying. When will they realize that the French language is not well served by a translation from a text originally written in English? When can I expect to see federal legislation drafted in correct French? Certainly not before October 30.

I have been a member of this House for nearly seven years, and there have been few occasions when I could say that both the English and the French versions of a bill were drafted with the same care. Aside from awkward syntax or grammatical errors, there is also the fact that the law may be interpreted in such a way

that the intent of the legislator is obscured by semantics and our work here in the House will be for naught.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 21st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I was not here but I imagine we are still debating Group No. 2.

I wish to repeat that the Bloc Quebecois understands and shares the solicitor general's goal of reassuring the public about conditional release, given the enduring climate of public scepticism toward the federal parole system.

In particular, Motion No. 6 tabled by the government is aimed at correcting a drafting error. This provision deals with the calculation of the automatic release date of an offender sentenced to a jail term in a provincial correctional facility who is then transferred to a federal penitentiary.

As it now reads, clause 40 of the bill excludes those offenders who were serving prison sentences on or before November 1, 1992. The government's motion is aimed at correcting this oversight and we support this motion.