Réal Ménard

[Criminal Code, April 16th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, without taking too much of the time of the House, might I ask a question, with the unanimous consent of the House, on a point of order?

I do not understand the government's position on the bill we are debating. Could the member for Peace River simply state, yes or no, if he intends to support the measure before the House?

[Justice, April 16th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the fact that inmates can be released almost automatically after serving only one sixth of their sentence is shocking for Quebeckers. The case of Hugo Bernier, who murdered Julie Boisvenu after serving only one sixth of his sentence, clearly illustrates the system's aberrations. The victim's father, Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu has spoken out against this situation.

Does the Minister of Justice intend to abolish accelerated parole review, which is undermining the justice system, as the Bloc Québécois has been demanding for many years, yes or no?

[Justice, April 16th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the National Parole Board has just released a drug trafficker sentenced to 50 months in jail after serving only two years. Because of the practice of giving double the amount of credit for time spent in custody awaiting trial, this trafficker is leaving jail almost one year before having actually served two thirds of his sentence.

Does the Minister of Justice intend to put an end to the double credit practice, which undermines the administration of justice, as demanded by the Bloc Québécois?

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, April 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be taking part in this debate on Bill C-26. The Bloc Québécois wants to see the bill sent back to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights but the committee chair must be able to fulfill his responsibilities properly. The Bloc Québécois wants to see the bill sent back to the committee once it returns to normal. Even then, that does not mean that we will automatically support this bill after studying it more closely. We want to hear witnesses and do a comprehensive and thorough job because we obviously have questions.

Let us put all this in context for our fellow citizens. Bill C-26 introduces a minimum one-year prison sentence for trafficking of drugs, particularly marijuana, when undertaken as part of organized crime and involving the use of a weapon or violence. Certainly we agree that drug-related activities, especially those that profit organized crime, deserve a penalty. The Bloc Québécois has not changed its mind about minimum mandatory sentences.

I have said it many times, just as a number of my colleagues have: there are no conclusive studies showing that a minimum mandatory sentence in a bill necessarily works as a deterrent. Quite the opposite, a minimum mandatory sentence can lead to plea bargaining, a game of negotiation between the defence counsel and the Crown where they agree to other charges that are not subject to minimum mandatory sentences.

A second offence is contained in this bill. A minimum sentence of two years will be imposed for trafficking drugs such as cocaine, heroin and amphetamines to young people and, of course, for trafficking drugs near a school or near any other public place usually frequented by young people, like a youth centre.

We are in favour in principle of the legislator taking a closer look at people wanting to traffic drugs in places frequented by young people. In fact, that was a recommendation of the special committee created in 2002 in which I took part. I will come back to that later. Nonetheless, we are not convinced that this offence requires a mandatory minimum sentence.

Third, this bill contains a minimum sentence of two years for the cultivation of more than 500 marijuana plants.

Fourth, the maximum sentence for the production of cannabis will go from 7 to 14 years imprisonment. The Bloc Québécois does not have a problem with the maximum sentences, as this respects the judicial discretion that judges hearing witnesses should be afforded. They are aware of the circumstances and are well placed to determine the best sentence for each individual case. The Bloc Québécois has always defended the idea that sentences should be handed down on a case-by-case basis. A judge must receive and look at each case by bearing every factor in mind.

Finally, punishment will be more severe for trafficking in GHB, which is commonly known as the date rape drug. We do not have any particular problem with that provision.

There is another aspect of the bill that is a little more on the positive side. Clause 5 states that if the offender successfully completes a drug treatment program—and every one of our provinces and communities offers one—the court is not required to impose the minimum sentence, as the treatment will be seen as a mitigating factor in sentencing.

I understand that a government member has already introduced a similar bill.

We are in favour of clause 5 of the bill, but we have a number of concerns about the rest of the bill.

I would also like to mention that the bill establishes a list of aggravating circumstances that would rule out the possibility of a minimum sentence. These factors are considered serious enough to encourage judges to lean towards harsher sentences, rather than more lenient ones.

This bill addresses offences committed for the benefit or at the direction of a criminal organization. These provisions already exist, since they were passed when we dealt with the whole issue of organized crime. The House will recall that there are three offences under sections 467, 468 and 469, I believe. Committing an offence for the benefit of a criminal organization, whether drug related or under other circumstances, is still considered an aggravating circumstance.

Also, when violence is used in the commission of an offence, naturally, that is considered an aggravating circumstance. The same is true for offences committed in a school or on school grounds, offences committed in a prison and offences committed using the services of a person under the age of 18 years. Those are all examples of aggravating circumstances that would rule out the possibility of a minimum sentence.

The drug issue is very worrisome, of course. We in the Bloc Québécois are aware that drugs can destroy families, have a profoundly negative impact on communities, contribute to the formation of criminal networks and lead to violence. Thus, we are not complacent about the issue of drugs.

We can be somewhat critical of the bill. In 2002, I participated in a study on drug use. At the time, there was a member by the name of Randy White. I can mention his name because he is no longer a member in this House. I am sure you will remember him because he held office for three terms. He was a staunch Conservative. We could use more colourful language to describe him but I will refrain. He was a fairly opinionated Conservative. He had introduced a motion that the House establish a committee to study the non-medical use of drugs.

We worked for about two years on this committee, together with the former member for Burlington, Ms. Torsney, who was the chair. Other members who are still in this House were also on the committee and we invested about two years travelling around Canada and Quebec to hear testimony.

I was very surprised at the time—it was the early 2000s—when we were informed that the Canadian government was allocating $500 million to the drug issue. Of this $500 million, $380 million—which is not small change—went to the RCMP and Correctional Services Canada, organizations responsible for enforcing the law.

These organizations are not very likely to engage in prevention or early intervention. They do not work with the youth in our communities and inform them of the terrible consequences of drug use in order to deter them.

It is very worrisome that, as recently as the early 2000s, we picked a prohibitionist approach and one that was very clearly and predominantly associated with elements of repression.

It is even more troubling—and we need to think about this—that for at least 80 years, Canada has had provisions in the Criminal Code that prohibit the use, import, export, possession and trafficking of drugs. Anything to do with these five things has been prohibited in the Criminal Code for decades. Obviously, this was moved into the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act a few years ago, but the Criminal Code has been used for a very long time to deter people from taking drugs.

I say this with complete detachment: I have never taken drugs in my life. Anyone who knows me will know this, and even those people who find me hopelessly relaxed. Nevertheless, I have to wonder something. For 80 years, we have had a prohibitionist strategy, and in survey after survey, after examining the realities and the current situation, we find that one quarter of Canadians take drugs. I should clarify that, of course: 80% of those people use marijuana.

Should we invest as much in social resources to deter young people as we invest in the Criminal Code? We should allocate $500 million to explain to young people that marijuana, although it is perhaps less harmful than other drugs, is not part of Canada's food guide. A person does not need to use marijuana to be happy in life or to be successful. This is not to pass judgment on those who do use marijuana, but it is certainly not something that should be encouraged.

Conversely, does society really want this system, in which a young person gets a criminal record for using marijuana? When we examined this in committee, we realized that there were very serious consequences to having a criminal record, affecting many things, from bail hearings to job searches. In fact, when a person declares to a potential employer that he has a criminal record, it is still quite a stigma.

Is this the right strategy when we know that, despite the prohibitionist approach that has been in place since the creation of the Criminal Code in Canada, one quarter of Canadians report using marijuana or other drugs more or less regularly? We need a more nuanced approach. Is the Criminal Code the best way to achieve these goals?

Let me go over the list of stigmas associated with having a criminal record. First, it can influence a police officer's behaviour during an arrest because it creates a negative prejudice. Of course, it justifies denying bail and can influence the crown prosecutor's decision to proceed with an indictable offence—which means fingerprinting and so on—or by summary conviction. It also undermines the credibility of testimony given in court. Having a criminal record makes it difficult, if not impossible, to cross borders—certainly the American border. It compromises access to citizenship and, as I said, can have a detrimental effect when job-seekers get to the interview stage.

This does not mean that we should not pass the bill. I am not suggesting that the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act should not include provisions for drug traffickers, particularly for those who get young people involved, who profit from it and, by the same token, make money for organized crime. However, does cannabis really deserve such a hard-line approach?

When the committee studied this issue, I was surprised to learn that Canada produces about 800 tonnes of marijuana per year. That is a lot; Canada is known as a marijuana producer. This phenomenon has been on the rise in British Columbia, where growers use hydroponic greenhouses.

Do you know approximately how much the RCMP and law enforcement agencies seize each year? According to the latest statistics presented to the committee in 2002—more recent statistics would be better—of the 800 tonnes produced in Canada, 1.2 tonnes were seized. Some $500 million was spent. One thousand RCMP officers in Canada are policing the borders and taking part in drug investigations. Despite all of these resources, this law enforcement infrastructure and all of the money that we invest in that infrastructure, 1.2 tonnes out of 800 tonnes was the total seized.

It is therefore not obvious that repression is the way to go. It is not obvious that it is good to insist on giving law enforcement organizations more resources. As a society, would it not make more sense for us to turn to the school system, youth centres, adults who play a significant role in the lives of children or youth? We need to explain the negative effects of marijuana and try to understand why people use these substances.

By the way, when we studied marijuana and the non-medical use of drugs in committee—Senator Pierre Claude Nolin also headed a task force that spent several years looking at this—no one concluded that marijuana was a gateway drug. People are not going to get hooked on heroin or other drugs because they use marijuana regularly. I am not promoting marijuana use. What I am saying is that when we heard the witnesses and did our work, no one was able to provide scientific evidence to back the claim we sometimes hear that marijuana is a gateway drug that inevitably leads to hard drug use. That is what we need to say about marijuana.

The Bloc Québécois will work seriously. Once again, I want to remind this House that my committee chair has unfortunately dug in his heels and is refusing to do his duty and hold a vote on a motion by our colleague from Beauséjour that would allow us to hold a hearing concerning the Cadman affair. Regretfully, I must say that my chair is refusing to comply with the rules.

Mr. Speaker, you and the table officers could attest that when a motion is introduced in a committee and we do not accept the chair's ruling, all the members of that committee have the prerogative to challenge that ruling. Ordinarily, a vote without debate should automatically follow. But my chair is refusing to comply with the rules, and that is creating an unusually tense situation in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Everyone has worked collegially. We have done quite a lot of work. Hon. members can imagine the uncomfortable situation we are in. I urge my chair to come to his senses and regain his sense of fairness.

I believe I have a minute left, so I will conclude by saying that the Bloc Québécois will examine this bill seriously in committee. We have some concerns about the scope of the bill, but we will be happy to hear witnesses and to invite the committee chair to report to the House on Bill C-26 in due course.

[Criminal Code, April 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Leeds—Grenville on having taken the initiative to introduce this bill. I am among those who, in all of the caucuses that I have been a part of since being elected, believe that we have to restore the true role of members of Parliament. I would like to see two hours a day allocated to private members' business. That would be a good way to air the demands of our constituents.

I really sympathize with the family our colleague talked about, the Moffitt family. He talked about what happened 10 years ago over Christmas. Unfortunately, we have to make the House aware of fundamental problems with the wording of the bill. I do not think that the Bloc Québécois will be able to support it in its current form.

First, when a bill is introduced, it has to relate to a shared point of view. Our motivation can certainly arise from an example that our fellow citizens have brought to our attention, but we cannot generalize based on one example. It seems to me that members of the Bloc Québécois have often pointed out to the government and all members of the House that adding minimum sentences to bills is not a good solution.

Section 90 of the Criminal Code sets out a maximum 10-year sentence for individuals who commit crimes involving concealed weapons, whether knives or guns. A maximum sentence has been established. Of course, the judge is free to consider the circumstances and the individual's record. In some cases, a minimum sentence might be enough, but in others, there has to be more than a minimum sentence.

We do not think it is a good idea to tie judges' hands. Here is an example from a study that Julian Roberts conducted in 1997 for the Department of Justice. Julian Roberts is a criminal lawyer with the University of Ottawa, but I believe he is now pursuing his career in Great Britain. Regardless, Julian Roberts appeared before the committee when we were studying Bill C-2. He pointed out that mandatory minimum sentences are not deterrents. Quite the contrary. Here is what he said to the parliamentary committee and what he wrote in 1997 when he was working for the Government of Canada's Department of Justice.

In this study done for Justice Canada, he found that, “mandatory prison sentences—which our colleague from Leeds—Grenville is proposing—had been introduced by many western countries.” He gave examples such as Australia, New Zealand and the United States. He continued by saying, “the studies that reviewed the impact of those laws showed variable results in terms of the prison population and no discernable effect on the crime rate.”

There is a reason for that. First, people do not read the Criminal Code before they commit a crime. Second, when there are mandatory minimum sentences, crown attorneys and defence attorneys start a whole round of negotiation. That negotiation often results in plea bargains in order to avoid mandatory minimum sentences.

The realities I am speaking of are well documented. It is not true that we are giving our constituents accurate information by leading them to believe that by applying a mandatory minimum sentence for an offence we will be living in safer communities.

We would prefer that the bill did not refer to mandatory minimum sentences, but rather establish a maximum sentence, as set out in the Criminal Code.

Subsection 90(1) of the Criminal Code stipulates that every person commits an offence who carries a weapon, a prohibited device or any prohibited ammunition concealed, unless the person is authorized under the Firearms Act to carry it concealed. That person could be found guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, if that person is criminally prosecuted, or found guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Provisions already exist in the Criminal Code and there is no reason to think that judges faced with the reality described by our colleague will not apply the Criminal Code. If the sentence provided or issued by a judge is not satisfactory, there is an appeal process. That is what the crown or defence attorneys must do.

Therefore, the Bloc Québécois does not support bills that set out mandatory minimum sentences for offences. I think that our NDP colleague's question deserves due consideration. He asked our colleague to provide other examples. Of course, we all know of incidents involving knives or guns. But there are provisions in the Criminal Code, and we should use them.

As an aside, rising in the House to condemn gun crimes, while allowing guns to circulate freely and criticizing the public gun registry, is very inconsistent. When law enforcement officials, peace agents or police officers have to intervene, it is useful for them to know whether there are firearms in the house in question. This government wants to dismantle the public gun registry and has indeed dismantled much of it. I think we should all view that as an inconsistency.

Having said that, we support two other aspects of our colleague's bill. The Bloc Québécois made proposals in June 2007 and I will come back to that if I have the time.

Since I only have two minutes left, I will continue by saying that in considering the issue of eligibility for parole, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the idea that we must consider the interests of victims and provide a forum for them. This principle must be weighed against many others, but we believe that it is worthwhile.

The Bloc Québécois is also in favour of the idea that, when a judge determines a sentence, the amount of time spent in custody will be taken into consideration. We are certainly in favour of that.

In fact last June the Bloc Québécois presented ten or so proposals to reform our justice system. We were concerned with, amongst others, section 719 of the Criminal Code, under which a judge, before sentencing, may subtract two days from the final sentence for each day in custody before the trial began.

We believe that in some cases this could lead to an abuse of the system. That could be difficult for our citizens to understand. I myself have had a bill written that would allow the proposals presented by the Bloc Québécois last June to be submitted to the House. I still have to decide if I will introduce this bill or not, but the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the principle.

And that is my input on the bill. I wish my colleague the best of luck, while warning him against his magical thinking on minimum mandatory sentences.

[Canadian Multiculturalism Act, April 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, could our colleague remind this House of the main components of interculturalism: taking part in democratic institutions, having French as a common public language and believing in the equality of men and women?

Can our colleague remind this House that even though multiculturalism has no real substance, this Parliament adopted a multiculturalism act in 1988? If multiculturalism is not concrete, it is difficult to imagine why there is still a Secretary of State for Multiculturalism. Can he remind the House of this on my behalf?

[Criminal Code, April 9th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my party for allowing me to speak this evening. It is a great privilege.

I must tell my colleague, the member for Palliser, that the Bloc Québécois is not opposed to this bill. We will support it so that it can be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I obviously hope that the committee resumes its work.

As an aside, we are chaired by the very impetuous member for Calgary Northeast, who is a former police officer. He has unfortunately made rulings that do not comply with the Standing Orders. Since then, committee work has come to a stop. On the opposition side, the committee is made up of likeable, reasonable people who want to put in an honest day's work, but unfortunately we are unable to do so because the committee is not sitting.

That said, I think that our fellow citizens need to understand the contents of this bill. In our justice system, there are two types of pre-trial release. In the bill, the member is referring to section 515 of the Criminal Code, which has to do with judicial release, often referred to as release on bail. Bail is a condition that will determine whether or not a person who has yet to go to trial will be released, provided he or she abides by some conditions.

The conditions can be financial. In this case, the individual could be required to deposit a sum of money. The conditions can be related to movements. The justice of the peace can order individuals to stay in the city, to hand over their passport, or can prohibit them from contacting the victim. A justice of the peace can impose all kinds of conditions as part of the judicial release. So, in his bill, the member is referring to section 515 of the Criminal Code.

There are also situations where it is not possible to be released from custody, for example, for an offence set out in section 469 of the Criminal Code. The justice of the peace must keep a person in custody if he or she has been convicted of murder and, obviously, very serious offences. There are also situations which involve reverse onus, for example, when an individual is accused of terrorism or gang-related crimes. The accused must prove that he or she is not a threat to society. Only by proving this to a justice of the peace can the individual be released.

The hon. member for Palliser wishes to include a very clear provision in the Criminal Code stating that in the case of a serious personal injury offence, an individual cannot be released on bail until the justice of the peace has been presented with evidence. We are talking about murder, manslaughter, a number of sexual offences and violent crimes.

To the Bloc Québécois, that does not seem to be unreasonable; it is certainly founded. With his bill, the member is correcting the current situation whereby if the Crown does not oppose releasing the individual, the prosecutor may not have to present evidence or the circumstances under which the offence was committed. The Bloc Québécois is not opposed to this bill.

We did have information according to which, in the case of serious injury, the Crown does not allow individuals to be freed. Very often, we have information stating that the evidence has been presented.

All the same, our colleague from Palliser made statements in this House to illustrate that that was not done in at least one case, and that unfortunately, that case turned out to be fatal for his friend Michel. We fully understand the battle he plans to fight, and we will support him in that. This kind of work certainly gives meaning to the activities of parliamentarians.

We know that we also have to be rigorous in criminal law cases, because criminal law can result in the deprivation of liberty.

I do not know if the Bloc Québécois will support the bill as written. We will be pleased to hear witnesses, but the committee has to do its work, of course. I must tell the House that at least three committees are currently experiencing obstruction because the Conservatives are refusing to follow the Standing Orders. However, I do not hold the member for Palliser responsible. He is a likeable, naturally gregarious man, and a good-natured businessman. Therefore, I do not hold him responsible for the bad behaviour of certain other committee chairs.

For instance, the work of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development and, until very recently, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs was obstructed because, unfortunately, members of the government majority refused to cooperate and enforce the regulations. However, I do not hold the hon. member for Palliser responsible for his colleagues' misdeeds and he will have the support of the Bloc Québécois, so that we can study the bill once the committee reconvenes.

This leads me to emphasize that extreme caution is required when it comes to matters of criminal law. I cannot fully go into it at this time. We must appreciate the witnesses who appear before us and appreciate the testimony of our colleague from Palliser.

The Bloc Québécois has always been extremely cautious when it comes to reverse onus. It can be justified under certain circumstances, but the notion of reverse onus requires considerable caution. As we all know, reverse onus goes against the presumption of innocence.

I must say that in the past, under certain circumstances, the Conservative government asked us for reverse onus. We did not agree because we did not believe it to be necessary. I will reserve judgment until we have completed our work in committee.

The Bloc Québécois, because it is a responsible party and the leading political force in Quebec, also presented recommendations in June 2007. I did so with my colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin and the member for Ahuntsic. At the request of the Leader of the Bloc Québécois, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, I chaired a working group to recommend measures to improve the judicial system.

I have to say that I made a certain number of recommendations. When it is my turn—I am the 123rd member on the list—I may table a bill to implement these measures. Or I may table a bill to fight poverty. I hope that, with the help of my friends, I will have the support of all my colleagues in this House.

To conclude, I congratulate the hon. member for Palliser on his bill. I wish him well in his fight to honour the memory of Michelle. We will be pleased to listen seriously to the witnesses who come before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I wish him all the best in the future.

[Court Challenges Program, April 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the opposition leader. I wish I could have congratulated him on two counts—once for the motion he tabled today—but I cannot congratulate him on voting against the Bloc Québécois motion, which was also about language rights. Well, one out of two is better than nothing.

The Bloc Québécois has always been extremely supportive of the court challenges program. My former colleague from Saint-Lambert, Maka Kotto, put forward a motion in the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to study the issue. I believe that our official languages critic, the member for Gatineau, together with the member for Acadie—Bathurst, also put forward a motion to clarify that pretty unbelievable decision. Such a lack of awareness is unimaginable. How can anyone be that heartless, apathetic, intolerant and out of touch with the needs of official language minority communities?

Philosopher and writer Paul Valéry said that the greatness of a civilization is measured in its treatment of minorities. This government's record on that score is abysmal. One of the first things it did was abolish a program with a proven track record. In the early 1980s and again in 2003, independent experts—not people from Heritage Canada or the Department of Justice or the Official Languages Secretariat—evaluated the program and found that the cost-benefit ratio, that is, the investment of public dollars relative to the benefit obtained, justified keeping the court challenges program, which, I would note, cost about $5.6 million per year.

Imagine how heartless, how lacking in compassion for minorities one would have to be to cut that program. And then the Prime Minister stands up in this House and says that his government will not introduce unconstitutional legislation. How unworthy of a government leader. That a government leader can be that irresponsible is beyond anyone's comprehension for two reasons.

First, it is not because a government believes that an act is constitutional that it will not be invalidated by the courts. I know that when a Memorandum to Cabinet is presented, the Minister of Justice must sign a legal document indicating that the act in question is constitutional, according to the officers and lawyers of his department. That goes without saying, and it is the same with regulations.

However, as we all know, certain acts have been declared unconstitutional because the legal system evolves. A provision can be interpreted in a certain way in 1993, and in a different way in 2003.

Let us consider, for example, the tobacco regulations. I was a member of the House of Commons when the Minister of Health at the time, the current member for Sudbury, tabled the regulations. Of course, when she was defending the provisions for plain-packaged cigarettes, she thought the regulations were constitutional. However, that did not stop the Supreme Court from invalidating part of the regulations.

Second, part of the role of the court challenges program is to establish test cases that will advance the rights of certain minority groups.

Let me give another example.

I was a member of this House back in 1995. I may have a baby face, but I have been sitting in this House for 14 years. I am one of the deans of the House and have much experience, despite my young age.

Back then, the government refused to recognize civil marriage rights for same-sex couples. I tabled a motion that was ultimately defeated. I remember clearly that Mr. Alfonso Gagliano was government whip back then, and that, in an unprecedented move, he had called a vote on a Monday morning. I have only once voted on a Monday morning, and it was on my motion to recognize civil marriage rights for same-sex common-law partners. All the Liberal ministers refused to show up to vote, all but one who, let it be said, was quite brave in her day. It was Sheila Copps, the member for LaSalle—Émard's good friend.

In 1994, any challenge to a law extending civil marriage rights to same-sex couples would have surely succeeded. Yet, in 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized civil marriage rights for same sex couples.

Therefore, a government cannot maintain that it will never bring in unconstitutional legislation, because one never knows how the law will evolve. Indeed, it is the role of the Supreme Court of Canada, and of provincial courts of appeal, to shape the law. That is why the judicial and the legislative branches must interact, so that new law may emerge and that we may influence each other, while still, of course, respecting the autonomy of the courts and the autonomy of parliamentarians.

Without the court challenges program, some battles fought by communities would not have been possible. When people go to court, hundreds of thousands of dollars may be at stake. In the case of the Montfort Hospital, everyone is aware of the courage displayed by Ms. Lalonde, and everyone remembers that the “very conservative” government of Mike Harris was to Ontario what Jurassic Park was to cinema. We are well aware of the fact that the Mike Harris government wanted to deprive the francophone community of access to health care services in French, and had it not been for the public funding of the Montfort Hospital, that facility would have been closed.

We should remember that some current ministers were member of Mike Harris' cabinet, and I am thinking, among others, of the Minister of the Environment who, as we know, performed very poorly as a minister. The current Minister of Finance was also a member of Mike Harris' government.

As we can see, this despicable right wing conservative party has a score to settle with collective rights, and it does so by targeting a tool that has enabled minorities to make considerable progress. This is beginning to look like a vendetta against the court challenges program. Shame on the government! I hope that minorities will remember this insensitive government, which treats them with contempt.

I mentioned the case of the Montfort Hospital, but I could also give the example of handicapped people. We are well aware that it is not easy to structure public services for handicapped people. This situation has made it necessary to organize court challenges that have allowed these people to see their situation improve.

So, I say shame on the government. May voters ensure that this despicable government never gets a majority. They can count on the Bloc Québécois to see that this never happens.

[Business of Supply, April 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, we have not integrated that minority. That minority is a founding minority that all Quebeckers recognize for its contributions throughout the province's history.

The difference is that as far back as 1977, if I am not mistaken, René Lévesque proposed a reciprocity agreement at the St. Andrews conference. During the 1995 referendum, Lucien Bouchard proposed a common institution that would give English Canada and Quebec mutual oversight over their respective minorities—anglophones in Quebec and francophones in the rest of Canada.

However, it is clear that the imbalance is so great as to defy comparison. Unfortunately, some parts of Canada would have suffered if not for the court challenges program that the Conservatives decided to eliminate. Shame on the Conservatives for abolishing the court challenges program, considering all of the anglophone and francophone minorities who have had to go to court to fight for their rights.

That is not how things work in Quebec because the National Assembly and the province's governments have shouldered their responsibilities.

[Business of Supply, April 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I, too, was somewhat surprised by the statement from the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, a parliamentarian whom I respect. She is a very forward-thinking woman who has waged very courageous battles in the past, but I think that she was wrong in her assessment of the dynamics between francophones and anglophones.

Now is the time to bring this up, because the television series recounting the career of René Lévesque has been running on Radio-Canada for the past two weeks. It is important to know that on the very day the Parti québécois was created, René Lévesque battled within that emerging movement to ensure historical recognition, long-lasting recognition, of what he called Quebec’s founding minority, and that tradition continued with Jacques Parizeau. Remember that in the 1995 draft legislation, which was mailed to every household in Quebec, we recognized the historical rights of the anglophone community.

To the MacDonalds, the Browns and the Smiths who worked alongside francophones to build Quebec, we say that they have an historical place from kindergarten to university, that in every aspect of public life, this is their home and it would be impossible to imagine Quebec without them. That was the message conveyed by René Lévesque and Jacques Parizeau, and that is the message conveyed by Pauline Marois and the sovereigntist movement. That is the reason why there is civil rest in Quebec.