Richard Marceau

[Criminal Code, November 30th, 2004]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-303, an act to amend the Criminal Code (child pornography, child prostitution and child corruption).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to again introduce a bill I had introduced in the previous session. Its purpose is to provide for a minimum punishment of imprisonment for offences relating to child pornography, child prostitution or child corruption. This is a follow up on the commitment made by the Bloc Québécois during the last election campaign.

I trust that I will have the support of the House to move this bill through as quickly as possible.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act, November 16th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, one of the good news for our party as well as for this Parliament that came out of the June 28 election was the victory of our colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin. He is a distinguished colleague who attracted a lot of positive attention during his career in Quebec's National Assembly, where he held various portfolios and brilliantly discharged his duties.

Our colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin can now get an inside view of the federal monster. Because of the dysfunction of the federal system we live in, many of our fellow citizens support the creation of a separate country called Quebec.

Members will agree with me that June 28 also brought about a very significant change in what I would call the geopolitical face of the House of Commons. The Liberal government, the Liberal Party of Canada, took quite a beating across the country, and particularly in Quebec, where 54 ridings out of 75 are now represented by members of my political party, that is, the Bloc Québécois.

Unfortunately, it would appear that this change of massive proportions to the Canadian political map did not register correctly with our friends across the way. On June 28, the government was punished by the voters for two reasons among others.

First, of course, is what certain commentators in English Canada called the dictatorship of the Prime Minister, in reference to the inordinate control exercised by the Prime Minister over the federal administration or the government's political community, to the point that the House had become nothing more than an instrument rubber stamping the Prime Minister's decisions. Second, the voters rejected rather dramatically this desire to centralize and standardize that is at the core of the philosophy of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Let us start with the first component, namely centralization in the hands of the Prime Minister. A great many Liberal members spoke out and met with journalists, complaining about Prime Minister Chrétien's excessive control. They said, “With the new Prime Minister—the one we have now—all this will change. We, as parliamentarians, want our responsibilities as parliamentarians and lawmakers respected by both the House of Commons and our own government, naturally”.

Where are these members now? They are not speaking out against their government's attempt to reverse a decision freely made by a committee of this House. This means that they are in favour of having their prerogatives and rights as parliamentarians restricted and, worse yet, denied and negated by their own government.

That is what we are talking about here. A parliamentary committee decides to amend a bill. Unhappy with the decision freely made by parliamentarians and law makers in committee, what does the government do? It tries to have the decision overturned by the House. What a disgrace for a government and a Prime Minister who, day after day, meeting after meeting, used to say, “We will fix the democratic deficit in this House. At long last, we will let members who deserve it have their say again”.

And what do we see? We see that members across the way are quite happy to behave like eunuchs, to let themselves be led by the government as a herd of sheep under their Prime Minister. If they valued their prerogatives as parliamentarians and law makers, they would be the first ones to rise in this House and say, “We may not agree with what happened in committee, but Parliament should work in such a way that committee decisions are respected”.

But no, they keep quiet. They stick to this vision that everything is decided by the PMO. Shame on them! But what better example of the Liberals' double speak, who say on the one hand “We want parliamentarians to be shown respect”, but who, on the other hand, agree to this petty attempt to hijack parliamentary democracy. It is so sad it makes one feel like crying.

It is rather ironic that the division of powers and the Canadian Constitution are being defended by the same people who want out of it. My colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin was an activist in the Rassemblement pour l'indépendance nationale, the RIN, created in 1960 by André d'Allemagne and later headed by Marcel Chaput and then by Pierre Bourgault. This very same sovereignist-independentist movement now has to defend the division of powers under a Constitution from which it wants out, because federalists, as embodied by the Liberal Party of Canada, are ignoring their own Constitution, their own founding document, which is rather incredible.

It should not surprise us, considering that 44% of federal spending is in areas of provincial jurisdiction. Despite that, when they have an opportunity to prove that they are true federalists and not centralizers, they might well say: “We agree that provincial jurisdiction should be respected and in the case of each legislative measure that comes before us”. Maybe the House should decide to put in every bill a clause saying that provincial and federal jurisdictions have to be fully respected, in order to quell the Liberal members' appetite for centralization and uniformity.

Therefore I would invite two groups in this House to do the following. To the opposition parties I say: “Let us stick together and make sure that we have a truly democratic Parliament. Let us make sure that our rights and privileges, as members of Parliament and legislators, are respected”.

I invite my Liberal colleagues, who are listening to me intently, to rise and say to their leader, to the Cabinet members and to the Prime Minister: “We are Liberals but, above all, we are members of Parliament and legislators. We will never allow our privileges as members of Parliament and legislators to be denied, shoved aside or exchanged for a handout, such as an appointment to some position by the Prime Minister of Canada.

I will end with the following story, because I notice the presence of the former government House leader, who is a fan of Winston Churchill. Winston Churchill told the following story: “When I was a child, a circus came to my neighbourhood. In that circus, there was someone called “the boneless wonder”. My parents had refused to allow me to see that person. They thought it would be inappropriate considering my young age.” Incredibly, we have “boneless wonders” in this House: they are the Liberal members who refuse to stand up.

[Criminal Code, November 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I think that any death or loss of life is in and of itself a tragedy, especially if the tragedy could have been avoided, or the death or accident prevented.

That is why we in the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-16. Let us give credit where credit is due. In the previous Parliament, the issue of decriminalization of marijuana, which we support, was debated. Incidentally, I would point out to the NDP House leader that the NDP is not the only party to have passed at a congress a resolution in favour of the decriminalization of marijuana. The Bloc Québécois passed one also, at the instigation of its youth wing. I wish to salute its diligent and efficient work as well as its thorough job on an issue as important as this one.

When the bill on the decriminalization of marijuana was introduced during the previous Parliament, several stakeholders expressed concern about this bill's not having a companion bill on drug-impaired driving. This point was raised a few times in committee. The hon. parliamentary secretary will no doubt remember. Naturally, the Bloc Québécois always welcomes good ideas from witnesses, contrary to the Liberal Party while under the command of the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, who, when he was the government House leader, did not always listen to us. Much to his displeasure, he is left with only 21 members from Quebec, but that is another story.

Witnesses came before the committee to suggest that and, during consideration in committee, I put forward an amendment to the bill on the decriminalization of marijuana. The NDP House leader must recall, because there are similarities between that bill and Bill C-16. At the time, the chair, on the probably wise advice of the clerk, rejected my amendment on the grounds that it did not fit in with the decriminalization bill per se.

As a result, instead of the committee tabling a single report, two reports were tabled: one on the bill on decriminalization and the other calling on the government to quickly present a bill on drug-impaired driving.

Thus, it is thanks to the Bloc, with inspiration from numerous witnesses—I thank them—that the government, having listened to us for once, decided to present Bill C-16. We support this bill. We also agree with referring it to committee for full consideration before second reading.

An aspect of interest to me is the one mentioned by the member for Provencher regarding technology and the possibility of properly screening people under the influence of drugs. This is something that has been pointed out to us many times. I look forward to hearing the witnesses, experts, and police officers who will present their views on this. It would be irresponsible for us to present or support a bill without knowing at second or third reading what its full consequences could be.

Another aspect is the matter of the funding announced by the federal government. If I remember correctly, the figure is $6.9 million. And if I also remember correctly, there are 52,000 police officers in Canada. As well, I believe I recall that we were told in committee that, for a bill like this to be enforced properly, for it to be workable, about 40% of those 52,000—some 20,00 to 25,000—would have to be trained to administer the standard sobriety tests we are talking about today.

Is that $6.9 million sufficient to train this number of officers? I rather doubt it, particularly since—as I said in my speech on Bill C-17—this government has decided to close several RCMP detachments throughout Quebec, if I remember correctly, at Drummondville, Saint-Hyacinthe, and Joliette. My colleague from Provencher has also referred to this.

Yet the mayors, municipal councillors and reeves are asking the government not to close these down. They are in at least some of the regions of Quebec where there is large-scale marijuana cultivation. So, just as the police forces start working together to deal properly with organized crime, this government decides to close down some RCMP detachments.

That government is the same one claiming to be so serious about dealing with organized crime. To paraphrase Yves Boisvert from La Presse , the government will have a test of political will concerning the bill introduced by the Bloc Quebecois and supported by my colleague from Provencher and my colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh, the NDP justice critic. This bill involves the reversal of the burden of proof when it comes to those guilty of involvement in organized crime.

If the government is so serious about its desire to fight organized crime. if it wants to show its goodwill, I invite it to do two simple things, and with these I will end my speech.

The first is to tell us in the very near future that it will be supporting Bill C-242 on the reversed burden of proof for persons guilty of involvement in organized crime, and the second is to reverse its decision to close down RCMP detachments all over Quebec. These would be two good ways of proving that it really does have the desire to fight this social, political, economic and societal scourge: organized crime.

[Contraventions Act, November 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, after seven years in this illustrious place, we develop habits, some good, some bad. It is my practice, perhaps a bad habit, to start all my remarks by saying that I am pleased to speak on Bill x , y or z . I cannot say that I am pleased today, because I am tired of addressing this topic in the House time and time again.

Let us recall the various stages. We have had thorough debates in the special committee struck to look into the issue. This special committee made recommendations, which we debated. Then came Bill C-38, followed by Bill C-10, in the previous Parliament, both of which went through first, second and third reading, with more discussions at each stage. work was done in committee. The legislation died in the previous Parliament, because of the lack of political will of the current Prime Minister, who did not dare to go before the voters after decriminalizing marijuana. He probably did not want to leave himself open to criticism from the Conservative Party.

Because of the Prime Minister's lack of political courage, here we are starting all over again the whole process of passing a bill we have supported on many occasions already.

We supported it because we base our position on three premises. First, a totally protectionist approach does not work. It costs a fortune. A perfect example of such protectionist approach is what is going on in the United States, where we can see billions of dollars being dished out with unconvincing results to say the least. Second, when all is said and done, marijuana remains harmful to health. This needs to be taken into consideration in taking a position. Third, there is a principle in criminal law whereby the punishment must not be disproportionate to the offence.

Based on these three premises, we support the bill before us, Bill C-17. It is important when we debate an issue such as this that we target what we are talking about. We must be clear that we are talking about decriminalization and not legalization. The public often mixes up these terms. Decriminalization still carries with it penalties. If Bill C-17 is passed, a person caught in possession of a small amount of marijuana will be penalized. It will still be illegal, but the penalty will not be criminal, in that the person will not have a criminal record.

In my opinion, a criminal record is tragic for 18 year olds. My colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, an eminent criminal defence lawyer who has defended young people caught with two or three joints in their pockets, made me realize this. A criminal record has major consequences on a young person's career and ability to travel to the United States, among other places. God knows, in order to get to many places, Canadians have to go through the United States. Having a criminal record would make it impossible to travel to many places in the world. A young person could end up with a criminal record for many years and be prevented from travelling or getting certain jobs. For possession of two or three joints, the consequences are excessive. The person ends up in a state far worse than the one they started in.

Some witnesses and members of the Conservative Party have said that decriminalization, which, I repeat, is different than legalization, sends the wrong message to young people.

According to them, if the members passed this bill, the use of marijuana would increase almost magically by leaps and bounds.

Yet studies in other countries, Australia for one, where certain states have decriminalized marijuana, have shown that this is not the case. What they do show is that decriminalization of small amounts does not lead to increased use by young people. Instead of putting money and resources into repressive tactics, the money can be used to set up preventive programs explaining that marijuana is not good for the health. That money from Ottawa should go to the provinces since education is their responsibility. Good prevention is better than bad repression, which often tends to have disastrous consequences.

Another reason for our support of the bill is that, in the past Parliament, one of our proposed amendments became part of the bill. A person found in possession of a crop of one to three plants would not be put into the criminal system, in other words would be considered almost a case of possession rather than of cultivation.

We wanted to avoid the situation of an occasional user like the guy with his one plant on the window sill being forced by fear of criminalization to get his supply from the black market, which as hon. members know is controlled by organized crime. That was what we were trying to avoid. I am very pleased that this suggestion got adopted. It was, moreover, supported pretty effectively by my NDP colleague who is going to speak next, their House leader. Thanks to her work and that of our Liberal colleagues, worthwhile efforts for once from them, this recommendation was adopted.

I will make a quick aside if I may, though I have so much to say. There was reference just now to prevention. Let us put police officers and the forces of law and order in a position to really make a difference. Now we can talk about organized crime.

Last week, I tabled a bill on the reversal of the burden of proof for any person convicted of being associated with a criminal organization. I am sure that hon. members read it with great interest. This initiative was extremely well received by police officers and by crime reporters, including Guy Ouellette, Michel Auger, who wrote about it this morning in Le Journal de Montréal , and Yves Boisvert, who mentioned it in La Presse . They praised the bill.

If the government really wants to fight organized crime, it will support, along with the NDP, the Conservative Party of Canada and, of course, the Bloc Québécois, the bill tabled last week.

As time is passing, I will simply point out two things. Today, we have the opportunity, by passing this bill, to do something that will benefit everyone. We will decriminalize the mere use of marijuana for personal purposes. It means more resources will available for prevention, instead of being used for punitive action, which is totally useless. It also means that police officers can stop spending so much effort going after small consumers or people who have a small amount of marijuana in their possession. Instead, they can focus on the real issues, on the areas where they can make a difference and where the public wants them to make a difference, namely in the fight against that societal, economic and political plague, organized crime.

[Criminal Code, November 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-13, which has been introduced by the government. In this day and age, political discourse is often focused on the respect of human rights and freedoms, and I agree with that. We have taken part in some debates that illustrate this, the one on same sex marriage in particular.

It is also important to note that individual rights encompass individual security. In a society based on rule of law, such as ours, the right to personal security is essential. If this is to be more than merely theoretical, and to exist in reality, it is important to provide law enforcement bodies with the tools necessary to fight the crime that so often harms our communities.

The Bloc Québécois will be supporting Bill C-13. We feel that it will provide police officers with more effective investigative tools, which should permit them to resolve more crimes.

Members have examined this bill with care and will have realized that it makes some rather technical amendments to legislation already in place. When the bill is examined in committee, the Bloc Québécois will ensure that the changes proposed represent real improvements to the existing system of DNA testing. In addition, the Bloc Québécois will ensure that the RCMP has the funds to accommodate the expansion of the DNA bank this bill will bring about.

To make a small aside, it is all very fine to announce measures, measures we support, but there must be money attached to them. As hon. members are aware, the RCMP has decided—for financial reasons, or so we are told—to close detachments in numerous locations in Quebec. There has been much opposition to this, from mayors, municipal counsellors and reeves, backed up of course, as is only natural, by myself and my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois.

It does not, therefore, make any sense to talk of increasing the responsibilities, as well as the operating costs, of a police force, the RCMP, while making cuts here and there, including cutting police detachments scattered outside the urban centres.

And so I hope the government will reverse its decision to close these detachments. I believe my hon. colleague's riding of Joliette is affected by the RCMP detachment closures. I know that the mayor, municipal officials and prefect have made him aware of the situation. It is the same in Saint-Hyacinthe. I hope the RCMP will reverse its decision. If it wants to fight crime effectively, the force must be present throughout the area.

Having finished my aside, I return to Bill C-13, which takes up for the most part the provisions of Bill C-35 from the last legislature, the bill to which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice has referred.

Bill C-13 amends the provisions in the Criminal Code respecting the taking of bodily substances for forensic DNA analysis and the inclusion of DNA profiles in the national DNA data bank. It also makes related amendments to the DNA Identification Act and National Defence Act.

I have five minutes left. That is a very short time to address such a technical bill. That is why we are going to examine it very seriously in committee.

Bill C-13 makes other amendments, which ought at least to be listed in the parliamentary record of debates. It adds offences to the list of designated offences in the Criminal Code for which a judge is required to make an order for the collection of a DNA sample from the offender, unless the offender can convince the court otherwise.

It adds offences to the list of designated offences for which an order for the collection of a DNA sample can be made if the prosecutor so requests and the court agrees.

It provides for the making of DNA data bank orders against a person whohas committed a designated offence but who was found not criminallyresponsible by reason of mental disorder. This ties in somewhat with the subject matter of Bill C-10, which we are also working on.

It creates new provisions for the making of DNA data bank orders against a person who committed one murder and one sexual offence at different times before June 30, 2000, when the legislation on the DNA data bank came into force.

It provides for the review of defective DNA data bank orders and for the destruction of the bodily substances taken under them.

It allows the destruction ofthe bodily substances of offenders who are finally acquitted of a designated offence.

It compels offenders to appear at a certain time and place to provide a DNA sample.

It allows for a DNA data bank order to be made after sentencing.

Finally, it makes related amendments to the National Defence Act to ensure that the military justice system remains consistent with the civilian justice system.

So, this bill proposes many things. I must say that we are somewhat uncomfortable with the retroactive provisions included in this legislation and we hope they will dissipate with the review in committee. Obviously, any retroactive provision, particularly in the criminal justice area, raises serious issues relating to rights and freedoms and to the charters, whether it is the Quebec or Canadian one. In this regard, we are anxious to hear the witnesses and experts, who will tell us whether the bill does indeed respect the charters.

We also wonder why the bill adds participation in the activities of a criminal organization to the list of secondary designated offences, that is to the list of offences for which the taking of a DNA sampling is not mandatory, but optional. We wonder why such offences were not included in the list of primary designated offences. This is an issue on which we want to get an answer as quickly as possible.

All to say this is a very technical bill and it requires a thorough study of its provisions. At this stage, the Bloc Québécois supports its referral to a committee. We will work very seriously, as we always do, to ensure that, on the one hand, enforcement agencies have the necessary tools to fight effectively criminal activities in which the public is all too often the victim, and, on the other hand—and this is important in a society such as ours—to ensure that the rights and freedoms of the accused are respected. As I said earlier, the whole issue of retroactivity will also have to be thoroughly examined.

[Criminal Code, October 28th, 2004]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-242, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (proceeds of crime).

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to introduce a bill that is a joint initiative of the Bloc Québécois, the Conservative Party and the NDP, to reverse the burden of proof.

As you know, currently, if a person is convicted of involvement in organized crime, it is incumbent upon the Crown to prove that this person's assets come from an illegitimate source. Under the bill introduced today the person convicted will have to prove that the assets come from a legal source, otherwise they will be confiscated.

This is an important measure, which will give even more powerful tools to the police and the Crown to fight the social plague of organized crime.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Anti-semitism, October 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec is a society, a nation founded on tolerance. Each year it welcomes thousands of new citizens from all over the globe. We are able to live together in harmony because we are open-minded and reject hatred.

One of the most poisonous kinds of intolerance is anti-Semitism. Unfortunately, we are seeing its resurgence just about everywhere, and Canada is not exempt from it.

Last week, a Vancouver imam literally called for the massacre of Jews, and the president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, Dr. Mohamed Elmasry said that all Israelis over the age of 18 are legitimate targets of terrorist acts.

The Bloc Québécois strongly condemns these anti-Semitic remarks, and calls for calm and reason. Words such as these are absolutely unacceptable. The Bloc Québécois calls upon all those concerned to act responsibly and to speak out loud and clear against all forms of hate propaganda, against any group identifiable by religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation or skin colour.

[Criminal Code, October 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, First, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for Provencher for agreeing to change the speaking order, since I must leave the House immediately after I speak. At the risk of disappointing many hon. members, I shall have to keep this speech short. Please forgive me. I can see all those disappointed faces, knowing that I probably will not use the 10 minutes at my disposal; I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice is one of them.

On March 29, the Minister of Justice introduced Bill C-29, an act to amend the Criminal Code (mental disorder) and to make consequential amendments to other acts. This bill responded to the 19 recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, under its mandate to examine the provisions of the Criminal Code with respect to mental disorders. The committee submitted its report to the House on June 10, 2002. Bill C-29 was sent to committee but there was not enough time to examine it before the end of the 37th Parliament.

On October 8, as the parliamentary secretary has mentioned, the Minister of Justice introduced Bill C-10 in the House, and it is almost entirely identical to Bill C-29 from the previous Parliament.

At this point in the debate I would be remiss if I did not raise the point that the standing committee submitted 19 unanimous recommendations to the government. Of these, 5 were set aside by the government, even though the committee had proposed them unanimously.

We have a Prime Minister who prides himself on wanting to overcome the democratic deficit; a Prime Minister who says he is giving considerable—and increasing—weight to the opinions of MPs; but I must express my disagreement because these recommendations contained in a unanimous—I repeat, unanimous—report were set aside by the government. I think it would have been preferable for the government to adopt all the recommendations made by the committee. It would also have been preferable for it to take into account the opinions of the members, who had heard witnesses and experts, who did the reading, who were briefed, who therefore were at the leading edge of the debate on this issue. It is disappointing to see their opinion set aside.

I warn the justice minister's parliamentary secretary right now, in a friendly way of course, that from the opening minutes and hours of the committee, we will be asking why these recommendations were set aside. We will want to know why these recommendations were not followed by the government so that Bill C-10 reflected as closely as possible the committee's fourteenth report which, I would like to remind the honourable member, was unanimous.

In short, since I can see the clock ticking away, I would simply like to tell the parliamentary secretary that, at this stage in the proceedings, we are in favour of Bill C-10. However, the main goal or thrust of our committee's work will be, on the one hand, to strike a balance between protecting the rights of the mentally disordered and, on the other, safeguarding public order and the general public.

In that context, we will also want to know, as I said a moment ago, why the recommendations were not followed. As far as we are concerned, these recommendations reflected, albeit imperfectly—because perfection does not exist in this world—but still in a reasonable way, the balance that we always seek in the field of public order between protecting the individual rights of Quebeckers and Canadians and protecting society at large.

Therefore, at this stage, we are in favour of referring Bill C-10 back to committee and we will try, through constructive and detailed work, to avoid upsetting the balance we seek.

[Tibet, October 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in 1959, China invaded Tibet and the result was catastrophic. More than a million Tibetans, or one-sixth of that small country's population, have died as a direct result of the Chinese occupation.

More than 6,000 monasteries have been pillaged and destroyed. It is important to mention the atrocities suffered by the Tibetans who have been imprisoned and tortured for peacefully protesting the occupation by continuing to practice their religion.

It is still illegal in Tibet to own a picture of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Many Tibetan political prisoners are under 18, including the Panchen Lama, Tibet's second-ranking spiritual leader. The Panchen Lama was kidnapped at age six and has been missing ever since.

To stop this intolerable situation, I urge my colleagues who have not yet done so to sign the letter written by the Canada Tibet Committee calling on Canada to actively contribute to the non-violent resolution of the Tibet issue by promoting negotiations between Tibet and China.

[Canada Shipping Act, October 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague, who is an expert in fisheries, what he thinks, as a parliamentarian, about the fact that the present Prime Minister, who prides himself on fighting against the democratic deficit, presents, as one of his first bills, Bill C-3, legislation that does not take into account unanimous recommendations made by a parliamentary committee. This committee toured across Canada, met dozens of experts and people who know this issue.

As a parliamentarian, what does he think about this insult to the House, to the members of Parliament, to him as a member of this committee, and also to all the Liberal members who signed a unanimous report?