Gilbert Fillion

[Young Offenders Act, February 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, right off the bang, I am going to tell you that the Bloc Quebecois' position on Bill C-37 is that it is repressive and loses sight of the ultimate goal of all criminal laws: crime prevention and the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders.

The bill will in no way contribute to stopping young people from committing criminal acts. Ottawa is going down a dead-end street, as far as Quebec is concerned. Quebec is to assume responsibility for administering the system. Our recommendations have once again been overlooked. This is yet another good example of the struggle between the legitimate goals of Quebec and those of the rest of Canada. Once again, the bill demonstrates that the federal regime has failed.

As I already said in this House when speaking about the same issue last June, I am very concerned about the situation our young people find themselves in. I am sure that many of us are also concerned, but I am less sure of what we want to do to help them.

For over 34 years, I worked with young people as a teacher in a comprehensive school. I got to know many thousands of young people, and I can assure you that the image we tend to have of them is not always true to life.

Of course, there are a few who stick out from the others because of the way they dress, because their hair is the colour of the rainbow, or unfortunately because they commit reprehensible acts.

I think it is important to remember that the current Young Offenders Act has a very special philosophy. This policy is to help and supervise young offenders, unlike Bill C-37, which tells us that young offenders must be punished. This bill caters to the feelings aroused by extreme cases, while the notion of educating, helping and supervising young people is totally forgotten.

The policy statement behind this bill refers to rehabilitation and social reintegration, but what about prevention? Where, in this bill, is the word "prevention"? This is a repressive bill. One of the things that strike me the most is that 16 and 17-year olds who commit serious crimes will now have the burden of proof as to whether they will be tried in adult or youth court. This makes all the difference.

I really wonder why we should favour such an extreme solution and whether it is really necessary. Under the existing legislation, a young person charged with a serious crime may be tried in adult court. This provision is used by crown attorneys when a thorough review of the young person's record by several people shows that he must be tried in adult court.

Do we really need to amend the existing legislation, when it already allows us to transfer records from youth court to adult court? We cannot afford to move toward automatism. By virtue of his age alone, a young person may now face trial in adult court. This bill raises many questions, including the following: Is a 17-year-old first time offender who injures someone while committing a robbery more of a criminal than a 15-year-old who has committed close to 100 burglaries? It is a question.

Please, let us be a little realistic. Again, it is not a matter of age. It is a matter of prevention and education. I will tell you that in my riding, for example, in January, a young man was sentenced to imprisonment for incest. His own father had gone to jail before him for the same offence. As incredible as it may sound, for this young man, incest was a normal thing. Would you not say, Mr. Speaker, it is high time we take our responsibilities as adults and as a society?

Let us stop burying our heads in the sand and delude ourselves into believing that by offloading on the judiciary, we will resolve the youth crime issue. What I mean by taking our responsibilities is giving our young people reason to have faith in the future, because we know full well that the causes of youth crime are many.

The example I gave earlier is but one of many. Other factors are drugs, movies where violence is pervasive and so on. Again, let us take our responsibilities and unite against poverty and dropping-out. Yes, let us fight together against poverty and dropping-out. Furthermore, let us provide parents and, in their absence for whatever reason, the various officials involved with means to show young people that there is nothing wrong with being young.

When a young person has the misfortune of committing a crime, our reaction must certainly not be to throw him or her in jail, because we all know-and no one can deny it-that jail is a breeding ground for criminals. Moreover, it is clear that custody has no deterrent effect.

Our youth should have rights, including the right to be better provided, better provided with the services of experts and better provided with shelters if need be, but certainly not with adult jail as the only alternative.

The Young Offenders Act, as it stands, contains very strict guidelines relating to the maintenance of records on teenage offenders. Access to these records is restricted. However, in this

bill, the confidentiality aspect has been set aside completely. What is this supposed to achieve? I have no idea.

Bill C-37 proposes to disclose information on a young offender to representatives of the school system and other unspecified persons. I find this part of the bill very disturbing as well.

Last week, Newsweek reported that the U.S. justice system was using shame as a deterrent. Young people who had committed a crime had to ask their parents and their victims for forgiveness in front of the television cameras, to show they really felt remorse. Furthermore, the nature of the offences and identity of young offenders could also be disclosed in church.

Bill C-37 mentions revealing the identity of young offenders. It proposes to disclose information on young offenders to representatives of the school system and other persons concerned.

Again, who are these other persons? Are we going to follow the American model? Will announcements during high mass be next? This is absurd.

We can hardly expect a young person who has committed a crime to rehabilitate himself when he is acutely aware that so many people know his identity and what he did.

How will young people react when they see their privacy invaded and their record made public knowledge? We must stop punishing and looking down on people, and we must try to help our young people who, need I repeat, are the future of our society. Give them a job, because that is how they will regain their self-esteem.

On May 5, the Liberal Party of Quebec-yes, the Liberal Party of Quebec-and the Parti Quebecois agreed to move a motion in the Quebec National Assembly demanding that the federal legislation on young offenders comply with the laws and policies of Quebec with respect to youth protection.

This agreement was possible because Quebecers are aware of the need to protect the rights of the child.

In Quebec, the experience of the last fifteen years has shown that prevention, rehabilitation and readjustment are far more effective than repression.

We are trying to find out the causes of delinquency instead of using custody as the only deterrent. Of course, this will not solve all problems. There are a number of obstacles. The system is not perfect. Sometimes prevention and rehabilitation are not enough. On the whole, however, the approach taken by Quebec is more effective in protecting young people. How could a bill like the one before the House today ignore this fact? Should the minister not take advantage of Quebec's experience and show the rest of Canada that repression and intolerance will undoubtedly aggravate problems instead of solving them? I repeat: Young people are the future of our society. It is up to us to help them.

In concluding, you may recall that we as adults have certain responsibilities. One of our poets, Paul Piché, explains how we have an impact on the next generation. If I may, I would like to quote a passage from one of his songs: "Children are not really, really bad. They may misbehave, from time to time. They can spit, lie or steal, but after all, they can do everything they are taught".

[Referendum On Quebec Sovereignty, February 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention and that of all Quebecers to additional moneys in the amount of $5.9 million granted to the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs last autumn.

We now know what this taxpayers' money is being used for: to fund the federal government group on the referendum.

We understand why these civil servants shun the cameras, why their offices are all unmarked and why their names do not appear in the government telephone directory. They do not want people to know that they are working on federal strategy for the no side.

Yes, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs prefers to have his civil servants engage in a partisan struggle against the official opposition rather than work on eliminating costly duplication and overlap and on restructuring the federal public service.

[Income Tax Act, February 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have a duty to rise today to speak to Bill C-59, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, since this bill includes several tax provisions that were announced in the last budget almost a year ago. Consequently, I will support the amendment moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Mercier.

This bill reflects an effort to correct certain shortcomings in the tax provisions, but I am not sure that the goal will be achieved since this government managed to divide Canadians and Quebecers into several categories: the rich, the poor, and the disadvantaged.

Once again, the government is going after the most disadvantaged in society. It wants to take half a billion dollars from the pockets of seniors by reducing their age credit. That is really outrageous. A lack of money precludes any kind of participation in community life. Take off your masks and tell us clearly what you have in store for our seniors, a growing number of whom live in poverty.

Is this the kind of life the Liberal government has in mind for our seniors? As you know, in 1992, the average income for seniors was $18,000 a year. Furthermore, 21 per cent of seniors are low income earners living at or below the poverty level. The government now thinks that a senior with a $25,000 income is rich. The provision in this bill is based on these people's low income. It would be unconscionable to collect such amounts when there are so many ways to get more money elsewhere.

Seniors are now eligible for non-refundable tax credits. Many of them-from across Canada, I think-are very concerned that this credit might be cut or eliminated altogether. The Liberal government decided to reduce this tax credit. This amendment is aimed at reducing, for seniors with a net income of $25,921 or over, the tax credit by 15 per cent of the amount by which the individual's net income exceeds $25,900. This credit will be completely eliminated when individual income reaches $49,000.

The government wants to implement this measure gradually over two years. In other words, half of the amount calculated will be eliminated in 1994 and the other half in 1995. This measure will affect about 250,000 senior citizens. Of that number, 170,000 are considered to be on low incomes. This verges on outright injustice to seniors on average incomes, and all for the sake of an estimated savings of $20 million in 1994-95, $170 million in 1995-96 and $300 million in 1996-97. It is outrageous, when we realize that this money will come directly out of the pockets of our senior citizens.

Need I recall that the Liberals were the first off the mark to criticize the Conservatives for cuts affecting senior citizens? In fact, on June 18, 1985, when the Minister of Human Resources Development was in the opposition, he said: "The fact of the matter is that the government has substantially reduced in a regressive way the purchasing power of senior citizens. Not only has their direct income support been taken away, but their purchasing power has been taken away. As if that were not enough, a third whammy is added through reductions in transfer payments to the provinces by $2 billion between now and 1990. The Budget is clearly a multifaceted attack on the income base of senior citizens".

And where is the Minister of Human Resources Development, now that he has changed his tune? Now that his party is in power, the minister's policies are right in step with the same policies he used to criticize so roundly, and I am referring to the reductions in transfer payments and the purchasing power of senior citizens. This government was all about promises and a red book, but now they are in power, the red book is fading fast.

The Prime Minister is a good example. After promising he would not raise taxes, he is now leaning towards taxing RRSPs, another way to increase the tax burden on the middle class. This will lead people to put less money in their RRSPs, at a time when public pension funds are showing signs that they will be unable to meet the needs of an ageing population.

The government can get its half billion dollars somewhere else. Do something about tax evasion! Many hundreds of millions of dollars are locked up in family trusts because of tax treaties with foreign countries. The perfect tax haven.

This government has a funny way of showing its recognition to people who have worked hard all their lives. What does it want? Let senior citizens enjoy their well-deserved retirement in dignity.

Unemployment is over 10 per cent. Youth unemployment is close to 17 per cent. In Quebec, more than one million people are on unemployment insurance or welfare. The government should be doing something about unemployment, for a change. Let us restore the pride of Canadians and Quebecers by putting them back to work. The government should stop taking money from the poor, but Bill C-59 is one more step in that direction, with its measures against senior citizens.

The Bloc Quebecois condemns this bill which does nothing to help this section of our population and will merely add to the number of poor people in our society. In concluding, I want to ask the following question: Is this flexible federalism? If so, this is one more reason to get out.

[Social Program Review, December 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the eastern region gliding school at the Chicoutimi-Saint-Honoré airport in the Saguenay has been in operation since 1978.

Sixteen years of operation during which the school was assessed yearly by the authorities of the Royal Canadian Air Cadets and given full marks. Also sixteen years of operation at a location that is considered ideal. The Chicoutimi-Saint-Honoré airport is located in a truly outstanding site, in a rural area offering numerous advantages in terms of room to maneuver and safety.

In September, authorities in charge of the cadets asked for a feasibility study with a view to moving the gliding school from Chicoutimi-Saint-Honoré, in the Saguenay, to Saint-Jean.

Last Wednesday, socio-economic stakeholders in the region presented Major Dumontet and Lieutenant-Colonel Chartrand with an analysis of the Chicoutimi-Saint-Honoré site. Besides stating advantages of the Chicoutimi-Saint-Honoré site that were never disputed, the study emphasized major security problems at Saint-Jean. We have proof and aviation experts agree that our concerns are justified.

Nothing came out of the meeting with the people in charge of the cadets. Quite the contrary, the answers they gave us added to our concern. Therefore, because the decision appeared imminent, I asked the Minister of National Defence to impose a moratorium long enough to leave the Cadet headquarters sufficient time to address the concerns of the Chicoutimi-Saint-Honoré committee and, in particular, to make the best decision.

Since the survival of a school which has been operating in our area for 16 years and which has generated substantial economic spin-off is at stake, we repeat our request for the feasibility study to justify the move to Saint-Jean.

We also ask for a second evaluation by Transport Canada of both airport sites, mainly from a security point of view.

The evasive answer the minister gave us led us to believe that everything was done behind closed doors and that he was not even advised. My question enabled him to learn that this whole reorganization was being planned in dark back rooms, away from the scrutiny of those concerned, and, therefore, without any consultation.

The people of Saguenay-Lac Saint-Jean do not want to have to put up with the same bungling as the people of Saint-Jean, when the military college was closed. There should be greater transparency when consulting with the committee, for the preservation of eastern region gliding school. Why rob Peter to pay Paul? This is the question.

[Access To Information, December 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak on the motion from the member for Red Deer, since the very essence of this motion is in line with what the Bloc Quebecois has been asking for and I should say that it is also what my constituents in Chicoutimi expect.

The objectives of the Bloc and the official opposition are clear and precise. We want greater transparency and openness in the management of public affairs and respect for the taxpayers' acquired right to know what the government is doing with public funds.

This motion says that Parliament and crown agencies should be subject to scrutiny under the Access to Information Act. At present, the Access to Information Act, passed in 1982, gives access only to federal government documents. Under this law, therefore, government institutions must make their documents available.

Nevertheless, there are exceptions. Some of the 112 federal crown corporations and several government agencies, including the House of Commons, the Senate, the Library of Parliament and officers of Parliament are not subject to this law.

The Bloc Quebecois believes that the Access to Information Act must be extended to any government institution financed with public funds. In a democratic system like ours, public affairs must be run as openly as possible. That is what our constituents want. Openness, yes, but it is a word which frightens my colleagues opposite.

We see it in the way they have run the affairs of state for a little over a year. Need we mind you of their reticence and great lack of openness on many issues? First, on Bill C-52, concerning the Department of Public Works and Government Services, the Liberal government persists in blocking any amendment which would make this department's awarding of government contracts more open. It is hard for members of this Parliament to obtain relevant information on their riding from this department.

Members of Parliament are the last to find out about the reorganizations going on in their riding. In Chicoutimi, a reorganization of post offices was announced to the public after the fact. Moreover, firms of consulting engineers or architects were never told why they could not bid on certain contracts.

A public inquiry might shed some light on how these contracts are awarded, but I imagine they are reserved for friends of the regime. You will also remember this whole episode when the Minister of Canadian Heritage wrote to the CRTC about an application. Some said it was a lack of ethics, others talked about a lack of transparency, while others concluded that it was patronage. The government did not follow the principle of transparency, and was caught in the act. It is Bloc Quebecois members who dared to reveal that the Minister of Canadian Heritage got personally involved in issuing a broadcasting licence.

And the Prime Minister did not even take any sanction against that minister, who had intervened. The Prime Minister even had the nerve to excuse his minister by saying that other Cabinet members had also been involved in similar patronage activities. The government also objected to the bill on public financing for political parties. That speaks volumes about their desire to ensure transparency. Past experience tells us that the main financial backers of political parties are usually the ones who get lucrative government contracts. These people are called friends of the regime.

Then there are the reports of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, which are submitted to the Solicitor General. However, the solicitor refuses to let the parliamentary subcommittee on national security have access to these documents. Why was that subcommittee set up if it cannot have access to the reports tabled by the agency responsible for monitoring intelligence activity?

Given this lack of transparency, which is becoming more and more prevalent, the Access to Information Act remains one of the only means for elected members of this House, and Canadian taxpayers, to obtain information on the operations of departments and government agencies, including crown corporations.

Thanks to that act, MPs were able to have access to the findings contained in a SIRC report. SIRC concluded that the inquiries conducted by one of the branches of CSIS are not related to threats to Canada's security, as defined in the act but, rather, to threats to the security of private businesses. In conducting such inquiries, CSIS duplicates the operations of the federal and provincial police forces.

As my colleague from Bellechasse pointed out a few days ago in this House, it is unfortunate that parliamentarians are the last ones to be informed of such allegations. Without the Access to Information Act, this government would not reveal anything, either to the official opposition or the citizens of this country.

This time around, the government cannot deny the public its right to scrutinize the management of public affairs, which are financed in large part through the taxes it pays.

The Bloc Quebecois supports the objective of making the whole federal administration accessible and transparent, for the sake of fairness and equity.

We have been elected by our fellow citizens; our mandate is to report to them on the activities and functions of the public administration.

Moreover, the Access to Information Act should also apply to the Senate, an institution which is appointed, not elected.

However, the act should not apply to government agencies and crown corporations which hold confidential information for the purpose of competition, insofar as that information is concerned, but the act should apply to them in the case of general information such as expenditures, budgets, trade practices and personnel management.

In view of the many examples I have just listed, the Bloc Quebecois will vote in favour of this motion since it promotes more transparency. Let us hope that our friends opposite will know enough to take advantage of this opportunity.

[Petitions, December 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, on behalf of over 10,000 residents of the riding of Chicoutimi, I would like to present a petition on the military base in Bagotville, which is one of the main employers

in the region, providing work to more than 1,500 military and 250 civilian employees. The strategic function of the base is air defence and airspace control in eastern Canada, international contingencies and support for land and sea forces.

The base's responsibilities extend beyond its confines, as it also provides support for local recruiting centres and militia units. Finally, over the summer, the base hosted the air cadet camp attended by some 3,000 young men and women. CFB Bagotville has been a major player in our region, both socially and economically, for over 50 years.

[Employment Equity Act, December 13th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak on Bill C-64. The purpose of this bill is to achieve equality in the workplace and to correct conditions of disadvantage experienced by certain groups, including women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities.

This new act will replace the existing act, which was passed in 1986. It will apply to federally regulated employers and Crown corporations that employ one hundred or more employees.

The bill will extend the scope of the legislation to include the public service of Canada. It is a good idea to extend the scope of such a major piece of legislation. Perhaps it should be extended to all employers in the private sector, all employers in the public service of Canada and all portions of the public sector that employ not 100, but 75 employees, including the Canadian Armed Forces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Parliament and every federally regulated agency, commission and board.

The legislation requires the employer to implement employment equity by either eliminating barriers against persons in designated groups or by making such reasonable accommodations as will ensure that these persons achieve a degree of representation that reflects their representation in the Canadian workforce.

However, the obligation to implement employment equity does not require an employer to take measures that would cause him or her undue hardship.

This means that the employer is free to comply or not. With the help of legal counsel, the employer can easily demonstrate that hiring a person with a disability, for example, will cause undue hardship. The onus will rest with the employee. Who will dare challenge an employer who does not comply with the act?

We cannot say that much progress have been made in terms of employment equity since 1970, after the Commission of Inquiry on the Status of Women in Canada tabled its report. In fact, hardly any progress has been made.

Later attempts, in 1984 and 1986, were scarcely more successful. In 1993, aboriginal people accounted for some 2 per cent of the federal public service workforce; persons with disabilities, 3 per cent; members of visible minorities, 3 per cent, and women, 46 per cent, but were confined in lower-paid and precarious jobs.

Women account for only 17 per cent of the executive group, while the disabled, Natives and visible minorities have not yet reached the executive level. Representation is almost nil. The majority of them hold office, sales or service jobs.

It is too little too late, as the new legislation does not set any specific objectives for the department. Everything is left to the minister's discretion. This is a government panicked by unemployment, an increasingly challenged social program reform, phoney pre-budget consultations, casual budget preparation, cuts in essential services instead of fat-trimming, a caucus divided on several issues, including the Young Offenders Act, the firearms registration legislation, the amendment to the Canadian Charter prohibiting any form of discrimination based on sexual orientation, whether or not Quebec members should get involved in Quebec's referendum debate, the next Cabinet shuffle where many are called but few are chosen, and an anti-scab bill which is not forthcoming. I could go on and on about the differences of opinion within the Liberal caucus only a year after they came to office.

So the government tried to regain its prestige by introducing a bill. This employment equity bill, however, still creates dissension, the minister aiming for the status quo while other members join the Bloc Quebecois in asking the government to broaden the scope of the Employment Equity Act.

The guiding principle of the bill should be that anyone working for, subsidized by or doing business with the federal government or one of its boards, agencies or commissions is subject to the bill. We must go further. Employment equity policies should have been adopted a long time ago.

The minister thinks he can meet his objectives while the federal government is cutting its workforce. He will have trouble carrying out his plans in this era of cutbacks and hiring freezes. The minister's pensive expression in this morning's newspapers explains everything. In addition to the reform being

challenged, he is now faced with a bill showing his intention to maintain the status quo.

A sovereign Quebec will defend vigorously equal opportunities for women, disabled, natives, visible minorities and men.

These groups are still far from occupying their rightful places and enjoying the same conditions in most areas of public life. A higher proportion of these groups live in poverty. Their income remains lower than that of men, in general.

A sovereign Quebec will resolutely fight poverty by going to the root of the problem. Yes, it is possible to break the vicious circle of poverty and dependency, provided we increase employability without making distinctions between categories of people.

Why do we have to implement an act to restore a natural right? These people are victims of the current political system, with its inconsistent tax measures affecting the groups targeted by this bill, and duplication, because two levels of government operate in fields such as manpower training and family support.

Through sovereignty, Quebec will be able to patriate and restructure programs, so as to develop an efficient and consistent policy for these groups, namely women, aboriginal and disabled people, as well as visible minorities.

It goes without saying that the scope of the act must be extended. The federal government must really take concrete action regarding this depressing climate of discrimination experienced by women and the other groups targeted in the legislation. This part of our labour force has the right to take its place. We must strive to achieve equality and social justice. This is why the Bloc will introduce amendments to this bill, when it is examined in committee.

[Gliding School, December 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

In September, cadet staff asked for a feasibility study on moving the Saint-Honoré gliding school in the Saguenay region to Saint-Jean. At a meeting on Wednesday, cadet leadership confirmed to me and to the safeguard committee that the requested study had been completed and that it could be sent to us if permission was given.

Since a decision on this move must be made in the next few days, can the minister declare an appropriate moratorium, ask the department to provide a second assessment of the two sites, especially with respect to safety, from the Department of Transport so that the best possible decision can be made, and have the feasibility study sent to us?

[Supply, December 8th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member's speech. I must tell him that, contrary to what he said, the Official Opposition is playing its role of watchdog regarding the government's activities and the legislation tabled in this House.

So far, that is for a year now, the Bloc Quebecois has done all that was necessary to provide the government with the necessary tools to stimulate employment, but the government did nothing. I think that we do play our role very effectively.

Also, after 35 years of constitutional failures, do you not believe that the time has come for Quebec to get the powers it needs to control its destiny? This is what Mr. Parizeau is inviting us to do with his bill. He is inviting all Quebecers, including people in my riding of Chicoutimi and in my region of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, young and old, regardless of their political affiliation, to participate in this debate, which is as important for the rest of Canada as it is for Quebec.

I must recognize that the hon. member was the only one this morning, from the government side, who did not question the legality of the proposed draft bill, and he deserves credit for that.

The member referred to the federation of European countries. I should point out that these countries are also sovereign nations. Quebec simply wants to have the powers it needs to become the country Quebecers want.

I have a question for the hon. member. Some Liberal MPs from Quebec said that the federal government should abstain from holding its own referendum in Quebec.

The hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine told us that, in his opinion, this was a Quebec referendum and that it was up to Quebecers to decide their constitutional future within the federation.

Does the hon. member agree with these two views?

[Budgetary Policy, November 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I am quite pleased with the comment that my colleague just made. He is ready to transfer programs to the provincial governments. They are analyzing them and want to disperse them either to the provincial or to the municipal level.

That is what Quebec has been asking for for a long time; that is what Quebec has been telling you for a long time, to eliminate duplication and return jurisdiction to Quebec and also to the other provinces. We quite agree on that.

Except that this government is not facing up to its responsibilities. Why? Because it is not making any decisions in this area. It is indecisive. Make some decisions and tell us what field of jurisdiction you want to return to Quebec and to the other provinces. That is what we want to do here.

The Liberal government should table a list of programs where overlapping is very expensive so that these programs can be administered directly by the provinces concerned. Do it and table it so that we can discuss it as soon as possible. Quebec could save $3.3 billion as a result. That is one reason we want a sovereign country.