Réal Ménard

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, June 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a friendly remark before addressing the actual substance of Bill C-15, which is extremely important because it will implement the Conservative government's anti-drug strategy.

When I was first elected to this House, people said that when the Liberals were in power, they governed like the Conservatives, and when they were in opposition, they behaved like the NDP. Today, listening to my colleague talk about Bill C-15, I learned that Conservative policies haunt the Liberals, whether they form the government or the opposition.

That being said, this is an extremely important bill that is very disappointing. First of all, we have been hearing a lot of rhetoric from certain members suggesting that, if we seek some sort of alternative to minimum sentences and misguided crackdowns, it means we are going easy on organized crime in our communities. This kind of insinuation makes it extremely difficult to properly debate the issue.

The Bloc Québécois is against minimum sentences. We have maintained that position from the beginning of our existence, and I will explain why. We oppose such sentences, unlike certain parties who say they are against them but voted in favour of Bill C-268. I imagine my NDP colleague will want to explain that when he gets a chance to speak, which will be soon.

We are opposed to minimum sentences and I will explain why. We do not, however, need any lectures about the need for vigilance against organized crime. I myself was the first member to introduce an anti-gang bill in this House, at a time when bombs were going off in Montreal, there were gang wars going on, and yet the elected representatives and officials of the government of the day were saying that there was no need for any new legislation and that organized crime could be broken up using the provisions on conspiracy.

That said, the Bloc Québécois is also responsible for the successful abolition of the $1000 bill, which was obviously a favourite of major organized crime syndicates. The former Bloc member for Charlesbourg, Richard Marceau, was the one who, in the dying days of the Martin regime, convinced the government to pass legislation reversing the burden of proof in connection with the proceeds of crime. I myself put forward a motion in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that would be instrumental in cracking down on the most criminal groups, one of whom of course is the Hells Angels.

So we have an impressive record that is clear evidence of our commitment, our vigilance and our desire to always foil organized crime and to keep our legislation up to date, since it is well known that organized crime is a constantly evolving phenomenon.

The government's problem is its ideological stubbornness, which is so deeply rooted that it sees everything in black and white. The Liberals, unfortunately, are no different in this respect.

Of course, when it is a matter of major drug trafficking networks, no one in this House would object to tough penalties. I am in favour of them and so, I am sure, are all my colleagues. If an individual gets involved in major organized crime and is involved in drug imports or exports, this has harmful effects on the legitimate economy of our communities and on the members of the community who get involved with these substances. We agree that the penalties need to be as tough as possible.

We do, however, believe that in the administration of these penalties there is a certain phenomenon at play. A judge assesses the context, and then has total freedom to reach his decision after having heard and absorbed all of the evidence, heard the witnesses, and of course examined the text of the law. That phenomenon is called judicial discretion.

The problem with this government is that, for basically ideological reasons, it has embraced mandatory minimum sentences. When the Minister of Justice appeared before the committee, my colleague from Vancouver and I asked him, notwithstanding the fact that mandatory minimum sentences were part of the Conservative election platform, whether anyone from his department had assessed their impact. In other words, is there a correlation between including mandatory minimum sentences in the Criminal Code and the deterrent effect sought and eventually observed? The answer is no. And yet, since becoming Minister of Justice, like his predecessor, he has been unable to provide studies that show conclusive evidence in support of mandatory minimum sentences.

Not only are mandatory minimum sentences an illusory ideology, but they also have an adverse effect on the administration of justice. In what way? Justice Paradis, a former judge from Vancouver who does not speak one word of French, told us that when he was on the bench and had to hear cases, minimum mandatory sentences made him uncomfortable. He also told us that when attorneys have to lay charges involving a mandatory minimum sentence that will tie the judge's hands, they prefer to choose other charges.

It was not the Bloc or the member for Hochelaga or our NDP colleagues who said that, but a retired judge who appeared before the committee.

I hope that we will eventually see the day when the Conservative government does away with its ideological dogma. Why not provide police officers with more tools? Every time our party has had the chance, it has supported putting more police officers in communities, broadening electronic surveillance and giving police forces more sophisticated investigative mandates. We agree that we need to fight organized crime and that we need a number of tools to do it. But we will not win by instituting mandatory minimum sentences.

The bill before us addresses trafficking. One kind of trafficking that is easy to condemn involves networks of people who import and export drugs. Often, seizures produce tens of kilos of cocaine and other controlled substances. The people involved are linked to organized crime, such as the Hells Angels and other similar groups seeking to profit from illegal activity and corrupt our society. But if four students get together to celebrate the end of classes and one of them has a joint that he or she passes on to another, according to the letter of the law, that constitutes a drug trafficking violation.

That can set in motion a mandatory minimum sentencing mechanism. For example, with respect to drug trafficking, thanks to God and the members who supported the amendment, the committee managed to get rid of the mandatory minimum sentence for trafficking in controlled substances if the person charged is in possession of fewer than five plants. A six-month minimum sentence still applies if the person is in possession of between 5 and 201 plants. Clearly, that is excessive. Those of us who are against mandatory minimum sentencing agree that just because three students have a little marijuana, that mechanism does not necessarily have to apply. That does not mean that we are inviting our fellow citizens to use marijuana. The Bloc Québécois is not suggesting that marijuana is part of Canada's food guide.

We know it is a drug, it can create dependency, and this is not desirable in a person’s life. Of course, we hope, and we sincerely call for there to be awareness campaigns to prevent any kind of drug use. However, the prohibition route is really not the one we should be going down.

In fact, in that committee, when we considered Bill C-15, we also heard from law enforcement officials from the United States, and in particular Washington, who offered the example of New York. When we look at the American example, the results we see are striking. In terms of the administration of justice, the United States was the first to go down the mandatory minimum sentence road. But the states that have adopted mandatory minimum sentences are not the states that have won the war on drugs. There is no correlation between mandatory minimum sentences and winning the war on drugs. So as a society, we do better to put our efforts into awareness when we are dealing with something like trafficking in small quantities.

We should remember that on the last day of the Paul Martin government, this Parliament failed to adopt an alternative approach to penalties for marijuana offences. Once again, I would repeat that I have never smoked either cigarettes or marijuana, and that is not something I feel a need for in my life. But as a society, should we be putting offences relating to cannabis and marijuana and offences involving trafficking in large quantities, engaged in by groups like the Hells Angels, on the same plane in the offence scheme? That is where the bill makes no sense. We would have liked to see this distinction made.

For example, on the last day of the Paul Martin government, the Bloc Québécois had introduced this itself in this Chamber, and it was the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie who led the charge. And lead it he did. He is a very active member and he is much loved by his constituents. He is the green conscience of our party, and the connection between his green conscience and all the battles he leads can be seen.

So when we are looking at small quantities of marijuana, we would have hoped to see an offence scheme adopted that favoured fines over criminal penalties. In fact, in a few days, we will be tabling a report by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights about driving while intoxicated. Without disclosing the recommendations, which are confidential, I can say that our committee will be proposing a somewhat less enforcement-oriented approach than is now contained in the Criminal Code.

It is too bad this government did not heed the alarm sounded by extremely knowledgeable witnesses such as Line Beauchesne, a professor of criminology at the University of Ottawa. She reminded us that since the mid-19th century, the federal government has taken a prohibitionist approach. The government thought that the sanctions in the Criminal Code would deter people. That prohibitionist logic has not worked.

Obviously, that does not mean that I hope we legalize drugs and make them widely available. That means that we have to take different approaches to this problem. It is not as though we had a bill that increased the maximum penalties, for example. We have never had a problem with increasing maximum penalties. The government should have gone after major traffickers. Drug imports and exports are worth billions of dollars.

In 2001, the Auditor General determined that even with the whole existing repressive approach, the whole arsenal and all the money for the police—we are talking about millions of dollars—law enforcement authorities were able to seize less than 10% of the drugs on the Canadian market.

We are in favour of going after the major trafficking networks connected with the Hells Angels. That is why I want to mention a motion I have introduced in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I hope that before long, we will be living in a society where membership in the Hells Angels will be an offence in and of itself. I hope that there will be a list. The Bloc Québécois is waging this battle, and I want to acknowledge that we are supported by government members, the Liberals and the NDP.

We will not really address the drug problem with mandatory minimum penalties. The Hells Angels and other criminal groups—there are 38 in Canada—make a living from selling drugs. But if we succeeded in getting rid of these groups, would we not be solving part of the problem?

Another amendment was passed in committee requiring parliamentarians to conduct a review. We will therefore have to review the legislation. I do not know what the composition of the House will be at that point, and I do not know whether I will have the pleasure of taking part. Still, we passed an amendment stipulating that, two years after the section comes into force, there is to be a detailed examination of this legislation and the effects of its application together with a cost-benefit analysis of mandatory minimum sentences by the committee of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament, which Parliament designates for this purpose.

Obviously, this is increasingly common with bills. I recall our adopting such a provision for new reproductive technologies. I think parliamentarians adopted it when the set of regulations on tobacco was either passed or under consideration. It is one way for them to get feedback and verify a law's effectiveness. We could have objectives as lawmakers, but are these objectives met once the bill is passed? That, obviously, is a whole other matter.

We would have been more comfortable with the idea of aggravating circumstances rather than minimum sentences. The Criminal Code—as my colleagues no doubt know—provides in section 718 that a court may take into account a number of circumstances specific to a context and impose a harsher sentence.

We support, of course, the imposition of a harsher sentence when an offence is committed for the benefit or at the direction of a criminal organization. We agree that when an individual committing an offence uses or tries to use violence it should be considered an aggravating circumstance, as should the use of a firearm in the commission of an offence.

We obviously agree that when an offence is committed within a school, in school grounds or in a place frequented by young people it should be considered an aggravating circumstance.

We would, however, not have wanted these specific circumstances to culminate in a mandatory mechanism that leaves no room for legal discretion. I refer of course to mandatory minimum sentences. That seems a mistake to us.

Those are the comments I wanted to make on Bill C-15. We will not support it in the vote at third reading.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, June 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. The member speaking before me was, I believe, the deputy justice and native affairs critic, the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

Unfortunately, I did not listen to his speech, but I believe he pointed out that the abolition of the one sixth of the sentence rule is part of the Bloc's platform, as adopted by the caucus in 2007. Thus, when there is a trial and the rules of justice are applied fairly and the sentence is known and underway, we do not believe that there should be the possibility of release when a sixth of the sentence has been served.

We believe in rehabilitation, we believe in two-thirds of the sentence and we believe that mechanisms must be in place for parole with follow-up in the community. However, we think it somewhat early to permit release when a sixth of the sentence has been served—especially since, when we examined this matter in the Bloc, we understood that this sixth of the sentence is administered sort of automatically. This adds to our concern, and it is certainly what the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue wanted to share with the House in his speech.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, June 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to take the floor on Bill C-15, which we have studied in committee. Even though my natural inclination might be to comment on the political news of the day, I shall refrain from doing so.

I sat on the committee formed early in the year 2000, when Conservative member Randy White was in this House and tabled a motion to allow us as parliamentarians to study the whole issue of the use of drugs for non-medical purposes. Naturally, in the course of this study, we spent many months hearing witnesses. This was going on at about the same time as the study being conducted in the other chamber, led by Senator Nolin, on the whole issue of the legalization of cannabis. Something became obvious to us, and this in a way is the problem with the Conservative government. Of course we do not advocate the use of drugs. I myself have totally abstained from them. I am perfectly aware that drugs can be extremely harmful in people’s lives. Certain drugs can even lead to an escalation phenomenon, that is, to dependence on and increased need for them. However, in this Bill C-15 which is before us, as in many of the Conservative government’s bills, we find this worrying inability to qualitatively distinguish between different phenomena.

We in the Bloc Québécois have no problem, for example, going after the traffickers who organize and maintain large-scale networks, who are involved in the exporting of opium or other types of drugs. If there is one party that has long been working against organized crime, it is indeed the Bloc. I myself was the first member to table an anti-gang bill, in 1997. My former colleague from Charlesbourg, Richard Marceau, an excellent parliamentarian, succeeded in convincing the government to remove the $1,000 note from circulation, it being agreed that this note made things easier for organized crime. This same colleague from Charlesbourg also succeeded, in the last days of the Martin government, in persuading the House of Commons to pass a bill to reverse the burden of proof for property obtained by crime.

The problem with Bill C-15 is not that it targets traffickers, or that it provides for longer maximum sentences for people who engage in the trafficking and exporting of drugs that do such great harm in communities. It is that it is incapable of distinguishing between different things.

Certain provisions of the bill are extremely disturbing. First, something we have said over and over again. It was mentioned by my colleague from Abitibi, an eminent member of the bar and a criminal lawyer for 30 years. In committee we asked for studies or scientific material showing that incorporating minimum sentences in the Criminal Code will be a deterrent. This is a philosophy of this government. In all the bills, the clauses proposed are accompanied by minimum sentences, ignoring the fact that this does not act as a deterrent. On the contrary, when there is plea bargaining, this encourages people to plead not guilty. As a result prosecutors will prefer to avoid charges that carry minimum sentences.

More troubling still, it is certainly not with a prohibitionist drug strategy that we are going to succeed against organized crime and manage to deter people.

We had people appearing before us in committee from Washington and New York who had been tempted by mandatory minimum sentences but had unfortunately discovered that the states which adopted them were not the most successful at reducing drug use.

The bill itself does not distinguish between big traffickers from the underworld and occasional users. We know, of course, that it is best for people not to use drugs.

That being said, though, young people will not refrain from doing so just because the Criminal Code says that they should not. Would we not be better equipped as a society if we had prevention campaigns, if we encouraged addiction courts, and if we worked together with community groups involved in harm reduction?

What is worrisome about the bill is, first of all, the definition of trafficking. Take an arbitrary example. I am at a party with friends and someone hands me a joint of marijuana. In the eyes of the law, just passing it along is considered trafficking. A young person at an end of term party for students in political science could be charged. I said political science but it could be students at the École des hautes études commerciales, I do not mean to discriminate. We are incapable, therefore, of distinguishing small users from big traffickers.

We need to take a close look at the bill. A person can engage in trafficking, but that does not necessarily mean loading three containers in the port of Montreal. A recreational situation where people hand joints around could also result in a trafficking charge.

We need to look at the gradations in the penalties prescribed. The person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years. It is at the discretion of the judge. This is not a minimum sentence, and the maximum sentences are never a problem for us. It is up to the judge to assess the evidence, the circumstances and the context in which the offence was committed.

We are told as well that the prison term may be no less than—so it is a minimum penalty—six months when the offence is committed for the purpose of trafficking and there are fewer than 201 plants involved. A young person from the University of Ottawa sitting outside and offering a joint to one of his friends is liable to a sentence of six months.

I repeat that the Bloc does not encourage the use of any drug whatsoever. It is not part of the Canada food guide and we do not think it essential for self discovery or that it is a good habit. However, socially, will the problem of drug use be resolved with minimum sentences of six months to two years? This is what we tried to explain to the minister.

Individuals with considerable authority, such as criminologist Line Beauchesne of the University of Ottawa, and others, have studied the issue of drug use. We have difficulty with the fact that there are minimum penalties for trafficking and with the increments of these minimum penalties given the scope of the problem. We do not believe that, socially, this is the best way to discourage young people from using drugs.

This is one of the reasons we will vote against the bill.

[Justice, May 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, this is another example of the Conservatives' lack of transparency. True to form, they are trying to put a poison pill in this bill, which is generally supported by the opposition. This provision is unacceptable. The government must remove it.

Will the Minister of Justice remove that provision from the bill?

[Justice, May 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government is stubbornly pursuing its completely repressive agenda. With Bill C-31, it wants to pass legislation with a provision that would allow police officers to photograph and fingerprint anyone who is arrested, before it is even decided whether charges will be brought against them.

How can this government reconcile its abusive approach with the presumption of innocence, which is recognized in the Quebec and Canadian charters?

[Supreme Court Act, May 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate the member for Acadie—Bathurst. I have known him for many years and I know he is very committed in the fight to promote French, recognition, access for those appearing in court to their mother tongue and full and complete justice delivered in French.

I have no difficulty imagining areas of Canada where this situation is mishandled. In more fundamental terms, the merit of this bill is in its attack on the Supreme Court, the ultimate court of justice. We know this court's role. It is not only the guardian of rights. Of course, it has had the job of interpreting the meaning of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms since 1982. It has also has the job of keeping the law current. In doing so, it can invalidate certain provisions of the law or add to sections of law that may be considered incomplete.

The member for Acadie—Bathurst rightly points out that, we should expect realistically that the people who have been appointed to the Supreme Court can understand both English and French without the help of an interpreter. The member for Acadie—Bathurst belongs to a party with very specific ideas on the appointment of judges and with which I have generally agreed.

It is the prerogative of the Prime Minister to appoint judges to the Supreme Court. Parliamentarians were consulted regarding the two latest appointments. I was on one of the committees myself. I recall that it involved appointing a judge to represent the prairies, Manitoba, specifically. With the current President of the Treasury Board, who was Minister of Justice, we looked at one judge's candidacy. When he appeared before us, it was very clear to us that he had no skill in French. He claimed to understand it and I did not doubt him. He was a worthy candidate. He had a good record and was very erudite, well versed in jurisprudence, and clearly had the ability to write—qualities of some importance in interpreting the law. I repeat that, in terms of his knowledge of the law, he was beyond reproach. However, it was troubling that the government was making this appointment. It was of some concern that the government lacked sensitivity and was putting forward a candidate who did not know French.

I put the question to this judge, who now sits on the Supreme Court. I asked him if he did not find it was a handicap not to know French. It is one thing to not know civil law, since it is not the legal tradition in the other provinces. But to not know French in the Supreme Court can be a problem when counsel and parties appear and a judge wants to evaluate—perhaps not so much the evidence, because it has been assessed at the trial level—or understand briefs, when points of law are raised or new law is being created. Only one jurisdiction, a single court, can change the law, and that is the Supreme Court. The other courts are limited to interpreting the law and remaining true to the intent of the lawmaker, but the Supreme Court can help to change the law.

Here is one example. In 1995, a legal challenge concerning sexual orientation was taken to the Supreme Court

In 1982, when the constituent drafted the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, some members, including my colleague and friend Svend Robinson, who was then the member for Burnaby—Douglas, suggested that sexual orientation should be included in the charter. Of course, I was not in the House at the time, because I was barely 20 years old. So, in 1982, some parliamentarians proposed to add sexual orientation as a protected right under section 15. However, that request was rejected.

At the time, former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien was the Minister of Justice. Unfortunately, the groups that wanted sexual orientation to be included in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms did not succeed in their endeavour. This was followed by a very broad movement that lasted for several decades. The issue went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. In 1995, in the Nesbit and Egan case, the court ruled that section 15 must be construed as including sexual orientation. This is a very good example of the power, the ability and the prerogative of the Supreme Court of Canada to bring about progress in the law.

The proposal made by the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst regarding appointments is a very reasonable one. In fact, I cannot think of any instance where our colleague did not act reasonably, because he is himself a reasonable and moderate person. So, it is very reasonable to ask us to include a requirement to understand English and French without the assistance of an interpreter.

Again, how can one truly render justice if one cannot read the submissions, or listen to the representations of all the counsel? Is there not also a symbolic value involved? If one is appointed to the highest court in the land, should one not be responsible for knowing French?

I have not had the opportunity to discuss it with the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst but, in my opinion, if a person is not perfectly bilingual but is committed to improving his knowledge of French, then this person should also be considered for the job.

However, there must be an obligation to achieve the desired results. Ultimately, when a judge is sitting on the bench to issue his first ruling or to hear the parties, whether by leave to appeal to the court or otherwise, that judge will have to know French and be familiar with that language and its subtleties. As we know, law is often about nuances, it can be convoluted and subtle, and it often requires us to be able to get into the substances, the nuances and the interpretations.

Of course the Bloc Québécois will support this bill. The Bloc first came here in 1990. In 1993, our parliamentary group expanded its representation under the skilful leadership of Lucien Bouchard. Also, as early as in 1995, my former colleague, Suzanne Tremblay—and some parliamentarians probably remember her—was given the responsibility, in Mr. Bouchard's shadow cabinet, of the dialogue that we must maintain with francophones outside Quebec.

I remember that Mr. Bouchard, as leader of the Bloc Québécois—and a strong believer in the francophonie outside Quebec and in the necessary friendship and solidarity link that had to be established—announced a policy in Shediac, in 1994, entitled “Francophones d'Amérique : le temps d'agir”. The way we already understood the rights of francophones outside Quebec back in 1994, it included the whole issue of the administration of justice and, ultimately, that of the Supreme Court of Canada.

I am going to conclude by congratulating the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst. I hope that all parliamentarians will support this balanced and moderate bill, which certainly deserves to be passed.

[International Day Against Homophobia, May 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, on May 17, Fondation Émergence will be marking this year's International Day against Homophobia around the theme “Homosexuality knows no borders”.

Homosexuality is universal and knows no geographical borders. The purpose of the 2009 campaign is to raise public awareness, particularly among all ethnocultural communities, regardless of origin, to the realities of homosexuality and sexual diversity. These communities make invaluable contributions to our society, but some of their members come from countries where homosexuality is illegal. We need to make them aware that what was illegal in their country is allowed, and protected by law, in their host society.

Fondation Émergence marked the occasion as well by presenting its 2009 Fight Against Homophobia Award to Dany Turcotte, television host and comedian. My warmest congratulations to him.

May this day remind all of us that homophobia is always present and that we must fight against it.

[Criminal Code, May 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

I think that there is an element of a worthwhile solution there. Do we need to require all car manufacturers to include an immobilizer? I did not think that was the case, I believed it was not mandatory. But I will consider his suggestion. We will certainly have occasion in committee to verify whether installation is mandatory or optional. We should perhaps follow the lines of the solution Manitoba has gone for.

I promise our colleague that we will look into this in committee.

[Criminal Code, May 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. This is a committee chair I am very fond of and I know how he loves music. There is something of Charles Aznavour about him, which we like.

I believe we must be very clear. If someone has been found guilty 150 times in his province without any proper sentence, I would hope that the Crown prosecutors of that province would do their job and file an appeal. I would like to be shown evidence of a case where a person was found guilty of 150 car thefts without any proper sentence.

I understand, moreover, that in this bill, as I believe I explained in my speech, the matter of minimum sentences is less of a concern because these apply to convictions on indictment. Prosecutors do, however, have total freedom to opt for summary conviction, where there is no minimum.

I do not want to commit myself today to the kind of amendment we will be making. We will study the matter and work very seriously in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We will listen to the witnesses. I would repeat, however, that we are opposed in principle to the inclusion of mandatory minimum sentences in government bills for reasons I have had an opportunity to explain on numerous occasions in this House.

[Criminal Code, May 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that, in certain circumstances, the government, despite the compassion we know it has, has been hypocritical—and I hope that that is parliamentary. It is a fact that I, myself, met with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police during their lobby day on Parliament Hill. They told us that, basically, the Conservatives had committed to allowing the provinces to hire 1,000 new community police officers and that, unfortunately, they had not yet fulfilled that promise, which was creating a lot of problems in certain communities.

It has always been our belief that when choosing between creating mandatory minimum sentences and making it possible for police investigations to be resolved more quickly, we obviously want to give more power to the police. So I share the analysis and concern of the hon. NDP member.