Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak when you are in the Chair. It seems to me that you are doing a lot of overtime there these days.
Before I get into the substance of the bill before us, I would like to remind hon. members that on May 13, this coming Saturday, I will be turning 38. I would like to thank all of my colleagues who have sent me birthday wishes.
The Chair has been so kind as to send me a little greeting. I want to remind those who have not already done so that there is only one day left. It is always a great pleasure to know that people are thinking of us on the very personal occasion of a birthday. I have not yet had many cards from the NDP, but there is still time to remedy that. I would therefore like to issue a reminder to them. On the government side, things have also been pretty quiet, but anyway they have one more day. Since I have a twin brother, I will share your wishes with him as well.
Now, getting down to business. Sadly, I must inform the House that, despite the traditional co-operation the Bloc Quebecois has always shown when bills were reasonable, we will not be able to support Bill C-18.
A few weeks ago, I shared my concerns about the Criminal Code with the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine. As she knows, I even went so far as to register for a course in criminal law given by Mrs. Grondin, at the University of Ottawa. She is an excellent professor.
The exam was really a tough one, I must admit, but a person cannot have too much knowledge when he has to reach decisions here as a legislator. I can say that readily because I know that the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine herself studied law at UQAM in the early 1980. Those were the days when the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine was not only Liberal, but perhaps even a little Bolshevik at times. That being said, she has always had social concerns, which is, I must say, to her credit.
We cannot support Bill C-18, because it is unreasonable. A bill requires a degree of measure, flexibility, rigour and balance.
Before getting to the core of the issue, I want to say how much the Bloc Quebecois caucus benefited from the expertise of the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm, who is himself a great legal expert, one of the brightest of his generation, even though he can sometimes be stubborn. Still, I think he is one of the most brilliant legal experts in the House.
I express, on behalf of us all, the hope that the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm will seek a third mandate. I know that he can count on the support of the president of the Liberal association in his riding, who had extremely harsh words for the Prime Minister. The riding of Berthier—Montcalm is a breeding ground for dissenters, a riding where critics are very vocal. I would not be surprised to learn that, in that school where criticism is a requirement, the member for Berthier—Montcalm taught a few classes.
I salute the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas, whom I would ask to send me his wishes for a happy birthday on May 13, since he is no doubt the member of this House to whom I am closest.
Coming back to the substance, Bill C-18 goes too far. How can the government ask us, parliamentarians, to impose life imprisonment—these words have a meaning after all—for impaired driving causing death or bodily harm resulting in death? We must set things back in their proper context.
Let us examine what the Criminal Code is all about. The Criminal Code is a law. Some might think it is not a law, but it is. It is a law containing several hundred sections—on procuring, on criminal interest rates, on property given as security, on homicide, on defamatory libel, section 347 on criminal interest rates. It is a key piece of legislation. But in a society that wants criminal law to be taken seriously, there must be a balance between the sentences proposed to us as lawmakers and the offences committed.
We know that our justice system is an adversarial system, with the crown, represented by those defending the government, on one side, and the defence on the other. Even though lawmakers have suggested a number of sentences within the Criminal Code, these are always discretionary.
I would like to interrupt my speech to read a message which I will not hesitate to make public, with the kind permission of the House. I am touched. It reads: “Happy birthday, love and kisses, Svend Robinson”.
I would like a round of applause because May 13 will be my birthday. Thank you to all those who remembered to send their good wishes to me and my twin brother. It is this sort of thoughtfulness that makes it all the nicer to work together. I thank all my colleagues. I will be 38, and 40 is just around the corner, but I must say that I think I am in rather good shape for my age. Once again, I thank our colleague, Svend Robinson.
The Criminal Code must therefore reflect what we see as effective sentences. The House will remember how, a few years back, we amended the Criminal Code. I must pause again for all the congratulations.
A man much liked by the House, one of the most brilliant defenders of the working class, has sent me another birthday telegram “Happy birthday, and many more, Yvon Godin, Acadie—Bathurst”. I thank my colleague, and on behalf of—