Carole Freeman

[Death Penalty, February 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, on February 6 the House reaffirmed its opposition to the death penalty and called on the government to continue to make efforts on behalf of Canadian citizens sentenced to death in a foreign country. This government voted against that wish, with complete contempt for the traditional position in this matter.

I would point out that in 2001 the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty is “cruel and unusual”. And yet the Conservatives have refused to appeal to the United States to ask that the death sentence given to a fellow Canadian citizen be commuted to a sentence of life in prison. In addition, they refused the invitation from the United Nations to sponsor a resolution calling for a moratorium on this cruel form of punishment.

We can only denounce the distressing direction taken by this Conservative government. Last Wednesday they clearly voted to turn the clock back 30 years.

[International Child Soldiers Day, February 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, February 12 is International Child Soldiers Day. Throughout the world, hundreds of thousands of children are forcibly enrolled in militias or join out of need. These children serve on the front line, and are used as scouts or, worse, as slaves. They are deprived of a decent childhood. They suffer injury, abuse or deep trauma, and die in combat.

That is why the Geneva Convention and the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child seek to prohibit the involvement of children in armed conflict. Since the late 1990s, a multitude of international treaties, resolutions and protocols have been added to guide the protection of child soldiers.

I therefore reaffirm the Bloc Québécois' unfailing support for the cause of stopping the use of children as soldiers, so that these children can have a real childhood.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, February 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the 30th European Parliament — Canada Inter-parliamentary Meeting, held in Brussels, Belgium, from November 20 to 22, 2007.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, February 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today at second reading of Bill C-26. In this bill, the government is targeting those who produce and distribute illicit drugs by imposing more severe penalties on them. This is part of a major anti-drug strategy with a budget of more than $64 million unveiled a few months ago by the Prime Minister.

Even though the purpose of Bill C-26 seems clear, I think that its ultimate goal, to reduce consumption of illegal drugs, would be better achieved with more subtle measures that would produce truly positive results. That is why it is important to understand this bill, to hold onto the parts of it that have merit and to reveal the problems hidden within it.

First, I would like to point out that the current legislation already includes good tools to fight drugs. Since 1997, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act has prohibited the import, export, production, sale, acquisition and possession of drugs and controlled substances, except when regulations permit it for medical purposes. At the time, the legislation created a new offence, production of a controlled substance. It also amended certain penalties in accordance with rulings of the Supreme Court, which had ruled that a minimum seven-year sentence for the import and export of drugs was far too severe.

Under the legislation, trafficking is defined as the selling, giving, administering, transporting, sending or delivering of one of the drugs listed in Schedules I through IV. The legislation also includes precursors of substances listed in Schedules I through V. Precursors are the ingredients used in the production of a controlled substance listed in the schedules.

Now that we know the context of this bill, I would like to focus on a worrisome aspect that I have criticized many times in previous bills and that is minimum sentences. With respect to heavier minimum sentences, it is clear that the Bloc Québécois has never doubted the importance of taking measures to reduce the consumption and production of drugs.

At first glance anyone would say that this bill provides more safety and more means to control drugs. However, before drawing hasty conclusions, the first thing to do before addressing a problem is to understand it in its entirety, grasp its scope and assess its consequences. We have to put things in perspective.

It is important to remind people that Statistics Canada indicated in 2006, before Bill C-26 was put on the table, that Canada's overall national crime rate, based on incidents reported to police, hit its lowest point in over 25 years, driven by a decline in non-violent crime. The crime rate dropped by 3% over the previous year and by 30% since 1991. When we look at the problem as a whole, we see that crime is going down in Canada. This is a major trend that has been observed for many years.

Obviously the Bloc Québécois does not want to minimize the situation. Any tragedy is one tragedy too many and statistics hide the human tragedies that affect families. We have to realize that the current system is producing positive results. We have to avoid giving up these gains by adopting measures whose impact has not been fully examined.

Bill C-26 relies heavily on minimum sentences, and specifically on the supposed deterrent effect of harsher sentences. That has never been clearly proven. Harsher sentences are imposed by our neighbours to the south, who obtain results that are not particularly convincing. I would say that minimum jail sentences are not a greater deterrent than adequate supervision in the community.

However, as a member of a responsible party that does not ignore reality, I have to recognize that drug-related offences have increased slightly.

For example, again according to Statistics Canada, the total number of drug offences rose by 2% in 2006. In fact, the picture of drug use is changing slightly. Cannabis-related offences, such as possession, make up 60% of all drug offences, but were down 4%.

We understand the situation, and we are aware of the issues. Moreover, quite recently, my colleague from Hochelaga and I examined Bill C-428 to consider the best way to combat the emerging problem of methamphetamine use.

We are contributing to the war on drugs, which brings me to a positive aspect of Bill C-26. The bill allows judges, with the consent of the prosecutor, to require offenders to take part in a drug treatment program. If the offender successfully completes the program, he avoids the minimum sentence. I believe that this is a good way to rehabilitate offenders.

I therefore believe that we are going to refer Bill C-26 to committee for a more detailed examination.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, February 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am in total agreement with my colleague. Not only did the National Assembly vote unanimously against the previous bill, but this bill will have even more serious consequences—

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, February 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank my colleague for his two-part question on how to reduce crime and on the solutions that could be used.

As regards reducing crime, there are models that exist. Currently, this government is very much influenced by the American and Republican ideology which, as confirmed by the statistics, is not producing any positive results. It does not reduce crime.

We have here a model that has proven its effectiveness, namely the Quebec model. There is absolutely no question about that. As the hon. member for Beauséjour mentioned earlier in his speech, the Quebec model should serve as an example to all legislatures, beginning with this government.

Quebec is currently the province with the lowest crime rate. That also applies to young people. When there is such a model around, we should follow it, push for prevention and rehabilitation, and work with young people right from the beginning. It so happens that this legislation deals with teenagers. It is at this stage in their lives, when young people may take a bad turn, that we must salvage and rehabilitate them, we must invest in prevention, instead of sending them to jail, to a place where, instead, they will learn about crime.

This approach, which the government is once again trying to impose on us, does not work. Studies and statistics constantly show that this approach does not yield any positive results and does not solve any problem. On the contrary, it creates more.

To answer my colleague, there are measures available. The Quebec model includes many of them. More importantly, these are effective, as is clearly confirmed by all the statistics.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, February 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in today's debate at second reading of Bill C-25 to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act. This bill has two main purposes. First, it broadens the circumstances allowing for custodial remand and, second, it adds denunciation and the deterrence of crime to the principles of sentencing. In addition, Bill C-25 clarifies that the presumption against the pre-trial detention of a young person is rebuttable and specifies the circumstances in which the presumption does not apply.

I want to make it very clear from the beginning that this bill is very much in line with the Conservative ideology, which consists of punishing the offender rather than preventing the offence. We have become accustomed to seeing this from this government since the Conservatives came to power in 2006.

So that our listeners may fully understand the impact of Bill C-25, I will comment on each of the provisions included in the bill and explain how this bill reacts to a deplorable situation, rather than preventing it from occurring in the first place.

The first provision states: a judge must presume that the pretrial detention of a young person is necessary if the young person is charged with a violent offence or an offence that otherwise endangered the public by creating a substantial likelihood of serious bodily harm to another person; the young person has been found guilty of failing to comply with non-custodial sentences or conditions of release; or the young person is charged with an indictable offence for which an adult would be liable to imprisonment for a term of more than two years and has a history that indicates a pattern of findings of guilt.

Those who are hearing this provision for the first time may consider the amendments appropriate and even logical since they refer to serious situations and offences. However, by transferring the burden of proof to the young person, the government is tampering with a fundamental feature of the justice system: the presumption of innocence. This is not the first time this government has tried to amend this aspect, but it must realize that we regularly see proof that not all charges lead to a guilty verdict.

In such a case, a youth who is detained before his trial and then is found innocent, will have experienced the often undesirable consequences of detention even though he did no wrong. In addition, because of the burden of proof on his shoulders, the youth will have to prove that he does not represent a risk even before being accused. The fact remains that we must avoid increased costs to communities to comply with the additional requirements. This logic is even more pertinent for those who are quite innocent but penalized by Bill C-25.

I have spoken often of the social and monetary costs of massive and preventive imprisonment in speeches on previous government justice legislation. Bill C-25 specifies that, henceforth, the sentence may have the objective of denouncing unlawful conduct or deterring one or more young persons from committing offences. Once again, anyone not very familiar with the law could find that this provision makes sense and would be a reasonable solution to a recurring problem. However, that is not the case at all.

This very ideological provision rejects the federal government's previous approach and runs directly counter to Quebec's traditional position. First, the fact that deterrence is not one of the objectives for youth sentencing in the Youth Criminal Justice Act is revealing. Why? Because the federal government in power at the time resisted imposing punishment for the sake of punishment and wanted to address the root causes of crime. It sought to focus on the reintegration of youth, often called for by parliamentarians in Quebec's National Assembly. However, the Conservative amendment is attacking efforts to not marginalize youth who make mistakes and to not send them to prison, the university of crime.

I want to emphasize that Quebec has already taken a stand in this matter. With regard to young offenders, it has traditionally opted for an approach based on rehabilitation and reintegration, a position strengthened by the passage of time and the results achieved.

When the federal government passed the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which replaced the Young Offenders Act, it was heavily criticized by the Quebec government for having ignored what Quebec had done in this area.

Specifically, the Government of Quebec felt that the new act undermined its approach, which is based on the reintegration of young offenders rather than on the seriousness of the offence. I remind the House that Quebec’s approach has enabled it to achieve the lowest rate of juvenile crime and recidivism in Canada.

Quebec has already challenged the constitutionality of certain provisions in the act before the Quebec Court of Appeal in view of the inflexibility shown by the federal government toward Quebec’s own specific approach.

It is clear, therefore, that although Bill C-25 may seem reassuring, it actually harbours objectives that are injurious to individuals and to Quebec.

The Bloc Québécois was vehemently opposed at the time to the reform of the Young Offenders Act, deeming it worthless and even dangerous because of its likely effects on the long-term reduction of crime. At the very least, Quebec should have been exempted from it. Quebec should be allowed to pursue its own approach based on the needs of young people and emphasizing prevention rather than rehabilitation.

Getting back to the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the government seems to have forgotten that the current act already permits the incarceration of violent young people who are at least 12 years old. It defines a young person as “a person who is…twelve years old or older but less than eighteen”. It also states unambiguously that incarceration should be the exception and judges should look first to extrajudicial measures before considering imprisonment.

It is obvious, therefore, that Bill C-25 is a backward step based on an unproven, punitive approach. What is worse, I remember that the former justice minister, my hon. colleague from Provencher, was toying with the idea of extending the act to include children as young as 10. How telling, Mr. Speaker, are the real intentions of this government.

Once again, the Bloc Québécois is proposing an approach that is suited to the situation in Quebec and defends its fundamental interests, this time in regard to justice.

First of all, we firmly believe that prevention remains the most effective approach. We need to address the causes of crime. This means that we have to prevent crime instead of waiting to repair the damage after a crime has been committed. Not only is it the most effective approach, but we believe that it is also the most beneficial, both socially and financially.

It could not be any clearer. As I have said on previous occasions, we must first deal with poverty, inequity and all forms of exclusion. In fact, exclusion breeds frustration, which in turn can lead to violence and crime as an outlet for these frustrations.

In the context of Bill C-25, youth justice should not be an exception. Young people should benefit from a healthy environment, they should not be living in extreme poverty and they should have access to affordable education. In all these areas, Quebec has made choices that set it apart, and we support these choices. As I mentioned earlier, the approach chosen by Quebec is yielding good results, thereby proving the lack of merit of the ideological and sensationalist shortcuts proposed by this government.

Of course, the Bloc Québécois is fully aware of the fact the young people commit crimes and that they must be brought to justice. It is the government's duty to use all the tools at its disposal to ensure that Quebeckers and Canadians can live in peace and safety.

In this regard, the measures that are brought forward must have a real, positive impact on crime, an effort that goes beyond sheer rhetoric and fearmongering. We need more than a mere imitation of the American model, which is yielding unconvincing results.

Like my colleagues, I also deplore the lack of seriousness with which the Conservative government brings in amendments or measures that reflect on the foundations of our justice system.

In conclusion, Bill C-25 should have been more than a response to mere impressions.

It should build on what is already working well and also allow Quebec to continue—

[Death Penalty, January 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to take part in the debate on motion M-411 introduced by the member for York West.

Briefly, motion M-411 states that:

—the government should reaffirm that: (a) there is no death penalty in Canada; (b) it is the policy of the government to seek clemency, on humanitarian grounds, for Canadians sentenced to death in foreign countries; and (c) Canada will continue its leadership role in promoting the abolition of the death penalty internationally.

This debate is very timely in that we believed that the issue of the death penalty had been closed, politically speaking, for more than 20 years. However, this Conservative government has recently sent out some rather disturbing signals on this issue. Are the Conservatives giving us a glimpse of the policies they would adopt if they had a majority government? It is up to them to prove otherwise.

I do not want to debate this government's reactionary claims. Instead, I would like to discuss each point in this motion, to show the people who are watching why the death penalty should be avoided and why it is unworthy of the society we live in today.

First, Canada no longer allows the death penalty. It was officially abolished on July 14, 1976 for all crimes, except certain offences committed by soldiers. However, in fact, there has not been a civilian execution in Canada since 1962.

The military death penality was officially abolished in 1998, even though no soldier had been sentenced to death by a military court since the second world war, when there was only one execution. The decision to abolish the death penalty was based on a number of principles. I will not list them all, but one principle holds that there is no going back when a criminal is put to death. Any judicial error or miscarriage of justice cannot be corrected. Justice being human, it is impossible to guarantee that these sorts of errors will not occur.

Moreover, a justice system that applies the death penalty is focused on punishment, not re-education. It is implicitly ruling out the possibility that the criminal can change for the better one day. We must not confuse justice, which recognizes the harm that has been done to the victim, with vengeance, which is the desire to do harm. Justice can be the first step in the healing process for the victim, whereas vengeance imprisons the victim or victims in feelings that we know are negative.

Plenty of humanist arguments honourably support the decision to abolish the death penalty and could be the topic of a separate debate. This is why I maintain that wanting to reverse the abolition of the death penalty is a clear demonstration of narrow-mindedness and irrationality in terms of what we are at our very core: human beings.

Second, there is the fact that one of our policies is to seek clemency, for humanitarian reasons, on behalf of our citizens facing the death penalty in other countries. I would like to point out here that Canada did not hesitate in the past to appeal to other countries and ask that the death penalty not be imposed on its citizens who had been convicted. We do so not only for humanitarian reasons, but also to be consistent with our domestic laws.

Furthermore, this position has been reinforced by the Supreme Court, which ruled on February 15, 2001, that, under Canadian law, the death sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. As a result, it prohibited the extradition of Canadian and other citizens to foreign countries if there is any risk they could be sentenced to death. In short, the Government of Canada must obtain guarantees that the death penalty will not be sought or imposed if the accused is to be extradited.

More recently, however, this government seems to be moving away from this humanist approach. Last fall, it refused to intervene with the State of Montana in the case of Ronald Allen Smith, an Albertan sentenced to death for the murder of two aboriginal men of the Blackfeet tribe in 1982. Mr. Smith was convicted of the murders and must serve an exemplary sentence, since his crimes are inexcusable.

However, the political debate triggered by this government has unfortunately strayed from the position mentioned earlier. Despite what the Minister of Justice said at the time, it was not a matter of bringing that individual back to Canada. Nor was it a question of public safety. It is not a debate on whether a country operates under the rule of law, or whether it is democratic.

The fact remains that we must follow the laws we have established for ourselves and not ignore them for the sake of the laws of another country. The Supreme Court was clear about this and we must abide by this position. This is why the government's inaction in Mr. Smith's case could permanently stain our international reputation.

In fact, it undermines our international involvement. For example, the Conservative government took a hard line with the Chinese government over human rights. But how will it explain that it defends the rights of people on death row in China, but not in the United States?

Canada has already been strongly criticized, notably by the Secretary General of the European Council, Terry Davis, who accused Canada of outsourcing the death penalty to other countries.

Our position must remain the same, regardless of the country, its importance or its domestic laws. Canada should have intervened and tried to get Montana to commute Mr. Smith's death sentence, while still respecting local laws.

I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the Bloc Québécois' extraordinary initiative to unite all opposition parties on December 6 to intervene with the governor of Montana. Our approach honoured our traditional position, did not excuse Mr. Smith's actions, and demonstrated absolute respect for Montana's institutions.

Third, it is time to show leadership in campaigning for the abolition of the death penalty worldwide.

Over the past few decades, we sponsored all UN resolutions concerning the abolition of the death penalty. Suddenly, in October 2007, that changed.

Canada surprised all of its natural allies by refusing to sponsor a resolution calling for a moratorium on the death penalty, a European Union initiative that enjoyed the official support of 87 countries.

At the time, the government said that it wanted to devote its energy to other more important documents. To hear them say it, one would think that supporting the resolution would have required a colossal effort on the part of the government. But according to a former Canadian ambassador to the UN, Paul Heinbecker, “co-sponsorship does not involve much more effort than a phone call or raising a hand during a meeting”. The government's position does not hold water and is very disappointing.

Fortunately, the resolution was adopted nevertheless but we sent a message that we are moving away from our tradition as a champion of fundamental human rights, a tradition that brought a very positive cachet to our international image.

Therefore, it is more than necessary to reaffirm this determination once more and at the same time to correct the message sent to the international community.

I will close by stating that citizens interested in human rights should be concerned about the change in this government's position. There is no indication that it is the government's intention, any time soon, to restore the death penalty, a punishment that has not been proven to be a deterrent and that remains unconstitutional in the eyes of the Supreme Court. However, the Conservatives' actions—particularly the refusal to sponsor the United Nations resolution or to intervene in Mr. Smith's case—should sound the alarm for our citizens.

That is why the Bloc Québécois supports Motion M-411. This motion is more than necessary at a time when ideological or rhetorical sound bites are used to please a particular segment of society.

Previous generations fought to defend human rights and the respect for human dignity. We must face up to our principles and we must clearly reaffirm our commitment to them.

[Criminal Code, January 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question. He raised two interesting points.

There is a lot of talk these days about the criminalization of identity theft. My colleague emphasized this by asking whether there is already legislation to protect personal information. In my view, we should look instead at protecting databanks.

We should definitely crack down on the crimes that are committed, but most of all we need mechanisms to protect the data of agencies and businesses. There should be stricter protection of personal information in order to reduce the crime related to it.

[Criminal Code, January 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question. As I said in my speech, the identity theft problem is huge and international. Incidentally, the steps that the minister announced today are a step in the right direction.

As well-intentioned as these measures might be, they are of only limited effectiveness. If we really want to get at the problem of identity theft, we will also have to work with all the representatives of organizations and provinces since many matters fall under provincial jurisdiction.

Moreover, there are different kinds of identity theft, such as petty theft and theft by organized crime, as the minister said. When tackling organized syndicates on the Internet, it will be necessary to have international regulations and a concerted international effort.

We will need a concerted effort because the identity theft problem is only going to increase. The rise of the Internet and new technologies means that the problem cannot be solved simply by adding sections to the Canadian Criminal Code. The problem is much bigger than that.

First there is the concerted effort needed on the federal level. Then there are a lot of regulations, although they are not necessarily protected or used enough.

We must first use and protect the data we have. In my speech I pointed out deficiencies within the federal government and the data losses we have seen. Concrete action is needed, specifically better management.

In addition, a concerted effort is needed from the federal and provincial governments and the governments of other countries in order to get a better handle on the problem of identity theft, which is often related to international organized crime.