House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was federal.

Last in Parliament April 1997, as Bloc MP for Ahuntsic (Québec)

Won his last election, in 1993, with 44% of the vote.

Statements in the House

The Budget March 3rd, 1995

Mr. Speaker, given the current employment situation, how can the Acting Prime Minister justify the fact that the only program introduced to stimulate employment, the infrastructure program, has been extended until just before the next election campaign, thus cutting federal job creation funds by $200 million this year?

The Budget March 3rd, 1995

Mr. Speaker, after getting themselves elected on a promise to create jobs and restore hope, the Liberals have literally broken their promises in the 1995 budget and, like the Tories, they feel that the unemployment problem will only be solved by eliminating the deficit. There are no jobs in the finance minister's two small clouds.

Since we still need over 800,000 jobs in Canada to reach the pre-recession employment rate, how can the Acting Prime Minister justify the total lack of active job creation measures in the budget?

Young Offenders Act February 27th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak again on this bill to amend the Young Offenders Act, enacted in 1984 to replace the Juvenile Delinquents Act, and the existing federal legislation governing matters related to juvenile crime and justice in Canada.

This bill sets a new legal framework to guide society's response to young people who contravene criminal law, basically. Many of its provisions are based on a legalistic approach with an emphasis on fair application of the law and the necessity for young persons to assume responsibility for their actions. However, because of their age and degree of maturity, young offenders obviously have special needs that require a level of assistance that just does not exist in the adult system. But the bill does not reinforce this aspect of assistance to young offenders.

In this bill, a young person is no longer a person between the ages of 12 and 18 but one between the ages of 10 and 15, which means that anyone over sixteen will now be tried in adult court, while it will still be possible to transfer a young offender under sixteen to adult court.

Essentially, this bill is driven by an arbitrary and unjustified wave of repression, promoting more heavy-handed judicial measures against young offenders, rather than effective preventive and rehabilitation measures.

On this subject, like my colleagues, I will quote from the conclusions set out in the brief presented to the standing committee on justice by the Quebec Bar Association. In essence, it said: "It is very clear that Bill C-37 was introduced in response to pressures by citizens demanding to be better protected through a more effective fight against serious crimes but repression did not appear to be the solution, and for good

reasons we might add. Quebec found its own way of dealing with the problem and wants to continue using the successful approach of rehabilitation, or reorientation. All we are asking for is to be able to maintain the good results we have achieved so far with respect to juvenile crime".

Since 1984, the Young Offenders Act was amended twice, that is in 1986 and in 1992.

In 1986, amendments were made to allow public disclosure of the identity of a young person accused or found guilty of a crime, when that person is a threat to the public, and when such disclosure is necessary to facilitate the arrest of that person.

In 1992, the act was amended to increase the maximum sentence for murder from three to five years, that is three years in detention and two under mandatory supervision. However, if the young offender is considered to be a threat to public safety, he can be kept in custody for a period longer than three years.

Also in 1992, the provisions regarding referrals to an adult court, in the case of serious crimes, were clarified. A young offender aged 14 or more must be referred to an adult court when the penalty that can be imposed by the youth court no longer ensures public safety, nor the rehabilitation of the offender.

Consequently, since 1984, the provisions of the act have become stiffer.

However, since the increase in crime rate for the year 1992 only went up two per cent, compared to an average of five per cent in previous years, does this not confirm that the current act is sufficiently harsh and that there is no need to make it more repressive?

Why not wait to see the results of the amendments made in 1992? Since these amendments are relatively recent and also because of the statistical lag, it is difficult to evaluate their impact.

In its brief, the Quebec Bar Association deplored this decision to proceed, first with the amendments and only then with a thorough review of the legislation and a study of the youth crime rate. Reversing the procedure would have made it possible, in addition to what Quebec has been able to bring to this area, to identify the mechanisms needed to make the system efficient and effective. Furthermore, a preliminary study of the youth crime rate would have made it possible to establish the impact of the amendments adopted in 1992 and find out whether their objective had been achieved, as would seem to be the case according to the latest judgments of the Appeal Court.

The bar association concluded that Bill C-37 should be withdrawn. It goes on to say that if this is not politically feasible, the minister should at least postpone his review until he has examined the youth crime rate.

Bill C-37 does nothing to deal with the problem of youth crime, and I think that is the crux of this debate. Until effective measures are put in place to prevent crime, we will go on amending our laws to make them more severe and repressive. We must look at the whole picture. Of course, penal laws are necessary, but they cannot deal with the factors that lie at the root of crimes against persons and property.

Dealing with crime is not just a matter of sanctions but above all a matter of prevention and effective social reintegration.

In a study for the Research Branch of the Library of Parliament, Patricia Bégin writes that it is becoming increasingly obvious that the methods traditionally used to keep crime in check do not suffice to eliminate crime and the fear it inspires. There is growing support for the concept that considers the social and economic environment that leads to criminal behaviour and for implementing programs and social development measures aimed at eliminating situations that are conducive to crime.

In fact, the problem lies with the administration of justice and the application of the provisions of the Act. It seems that most violent crimes covered by the Young Offenders Act can be dealt with effectively under the existing legislation.

Everything is in place: the provisions and the means to apply them. But the persons in charge either refuse to use them or get bogged down in unacceptable backlogs.

In a story run by La Presse on June 8, 1994, Normand Bastien of the youth section at the Montreal community legal centre said that the long wait until sentencing is what really causes the problems. In Valleyfield, the average is 266 days, in Montreal, 180, in Joliette, 163. Another major contributor to the problem is that only 29 per cent of the cases are resolved.

Mr. Doob from the University of Toronto published a report called "Beyond the Red Book" following a workshop to identify amendments which should be made to the Young Offenders Act. In it he stated that there is no crisis among youth that would warrant fundamental or immediate changes to the Young Offenders Act. Amending the Young Offenders Act would probably have no significant effect on crime, he said.

Furthermore, he implied that if the federal and provincial governments really were serious about protecting the public, they would invest more in crime prevention and in public awareness of juvenile delinquency. According to him it is cheaper and more effective to prevent crime than to keep young offenders in custody.

Lastly, I would like to comment on the part of the bill on divulging information on young offenders. One of the underly-

ing principles of the Young Offenders Act is that any information connecting a young offender to a crime is not to be divulged.

This reflects a desire to prevent an individual from being labelled as a habitual offender at an age when he does not possess adult judgement. Repeated breaches in confidentiality in respect of a young offender's record will make it more difficult for him to be rehabilitated and reintegrated into society.

In closing, I would like to point out that the former Quebec justice minister would have preferred the status quo and expressed concern and disappointment over Bill C-37. This reaction clearly shows that overlaps in the area of justice carry a high price, both administratively and in respect of the system's efficiency.

In fact, Ottawa is venturing into a dead end for Quebec, but Quebec will be responsible for administering the system. Once again, the recommendations made by Quebec and by the bar association have been wholly forgotten.

Recent statistics concerning average daily incarceration records for young offenders in 1992 appearing in the Statistics Canada publication Juristat indicate a rate of incarceration of 10.4 per 10,000 young persons in Quebec. This is much lower than the average Canadian rate of 21.3. At 32 per 10,000 young persons, Saskatchewan has the highest rate of incarceration. What do these disparities mean?

Similarly, in regard to cases heard before youth court ending in convictions, broken down by type of custody for 1992-93, the March 1994 issue of Juristat reports a total of 10,259 cases in Quebec with its population of nearly seven million, and 19,882 in Alberta with a population one sixth the size. What can account for such a great difference, almost twice as many as in Quebec?

As for cases before youth courts with guilty verdicts, broken down by province and territory, the January 1994 issue of Juristat reports a rate of 83.1 per cent in Quebec. In Yukon, the rate is 53 per cent, in Manitoba, 54 per cent and in Ontario, 61.2 per cent. Are these provinces too eager to go to trial? I think this issue merits further reflection before new amendments to the act are passed into law. We will vote against this bill.

Aids November 29th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, this does not make things any clearer. The Prime Minister referred to a commitment over five years. If the government is unable to give a clear answer for this year, does that mean it has decided to cut funding for AIDS?

Aids November 29th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister, who will be leaving shortly for the Paris Summit on AIDS. Yesterday, the Prime Minister showed his complete ignorance of the subject. Unfortunate, but true. Let us hope he will be better informed today. The Prime Minister answered in the House yesterday that the amounts allocated for the fight against AIDS would be reviewed, as would all other government programs.

Will the Prime Minister confirm, as he is about to leave for Paris, that his government is preparing to cut funding for the fight against AIDS, contrary to the position he took when he was in the opposition?

Fight Against Aids November 28th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, that is not sure, but he can also take note of my supplementary question.

Are we to understand that the Prime Minister's government was not able to use the allocated resources because there is no master plan for the implementation of phase 2 of the national strategy on AIDS?

Fight Against Aids November 28th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. When Phase 2 of the Canadian strategy against AIDS was approved, it was agreed that $1.5 million would be allocated for unplanned requirements. Consequently, after proposals are made by national partners, the minister has discretionary power regarding the use of these funds.

How can the government justify that, four months before the end of the fiscal year, researchers and organizations fighting AIDS still have no guarantee that they will get the promised $1.5 million?

Post-Secondary Education November 24th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is stepping up its attack on our higher education system, under the pretext of reducing government spending.

After trying to dismantle the Royal Military College in Saint-Jean, the government is now going after universities in Quebec and Canada. In this regard, the Quebec federation of university professors is concerned about social reform trends affecting the financing of post-secondary education.

The Minister of Human Resources Development is trying to make the people believe that his reform will benefit learning. On the contrary, the minister is sabotaging higher education at a time when, in an increasingly competitive international market, economic competitiveness clearly depends on the quality of human resources.

Department Of Canadian Heritage Act November 16th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I realize I have only a few minutes. I have the pleasure to rise to speak for the second time on Bill C-53, An Act to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage.

When I first spoke on this bill, I pointed out that this department was a "grab bag" with a hodge-podge of programs, as a result of dividing up responsibilities and bringing together parts of federal departments.

I also stressed the very relative political say of the Minister of Canadian Heritage as compared to the real power of the Minister of Industry who would hold the purse strings.

I ended my remarks by denouncing the fact that the existence of Quebec's culture was completely ignored since the bill was totally silent on it. And finally, I noted the unfair treatment given by management to the French network of the CBC as compared to its English counterpart, mentioning that many regional stations had to shut down.

In this respect, in a brief submitted to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, Mrs. France Dauphin, from the coalition for the defence of the French network of the CBC, raised a number of issues. For example, investment in programs per hour of broadcast time has increased by approximately $7,000 as far as the English network is concerned, but only marginally in the case of the French network. In just five years, from 1987 to 1992, investment rose from $30,500 to $37,500 at the CBC while rising from $17,500 to $18,300 at SRC. In other words, a mere five per cent increase for the French network, as compared to a 20 per cent increase for the English network.

I want to go back to an important aspect of this bill, namely the sharing of responsibilities. In our opinion, this legislation reflects a firm desire to make this department a tool of promotion, if not propaganda, for Canadian multiculturalism.

As for the management of this new department, I agree with the comments made by the member for Calgary Southeast to the effect that there is no management strategy or plan. However, I would say that the Liberals are "seemingly" giving the Department of Canadian Heritage very extensive powers, and in that sense we have every reason to question the rather mysterious mandate of this new department.

For example, why maintain this artificial sharing of culture and communications technology? This dichotomy was created by the Conservatives with culture and the management of the cultural industry.

The fact is that the Minister of Canadian Heritage is only left with responsibility for cultural content, while the Minister of Industry is responsible for the means of communication. In other words, he is the one who has real control.

Moreover, the Minister of Industry managed to set up a consultative committee on the electronic highway. This is another example of overlapping, duplication and lack of co-ordination within the federal administration itself. The telecommunications and cable television industries are converging on this new department of Industry and this is a source of concern to us because it may have a bearing on the Canadian content, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

The fact is that real power over Canadian culture is in the hands of the Minister of Industry. Moreover, by granting the CRTC exclusive power to set the rules governing telecommunications in Canada, Ottawa downplays Quebec's interests and puts them on a par with those of the industry and consumer groups, which goes totally against Quebec's traditional claims.

Finally, let us not forget that Quebec was excluded from the broadcasting and cable television sector in 1974, and then the telephony sector in June 1993, at the expense of the CRTC which was granted extensive regulatory powers, thus confirming Ottawa's control over the whole telecommunications industry.

His Eminence Jean-Claude Cardinal Turcotte October 31st, 1994

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for the entire Catholic community of Quebec to learn today that the archbishop of Montreal, the Most Reverend Jean-Claude Turcotte, was named cardinal.

Monsignor Turcotte, third cardinal from Montreal in Quebec's history, is joining the Sacred College of cardinals responsible for electing a new pope when the Holy Father dies. Aged 58, Monsignor Turcotte will be able to influence the direction of the Church in Montreal and Quebec for many years to come.

The Bloc Quebecois wishes to congratulate warmly His Eminence Cardinal Turcotte. He will no doubt manage to convey to the higher levels of the Church's hierarchy the concerns and values of openness, mutual help and tolerance of Quebec society. Monsignor Turcotte's dedication to the poorest of the poor is widely recognized.