Réal Ménard

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, December 3rd, 1998]

We know full well that there is no support for this bill, which is obviously an unreasonable measure. This is a bill that you should forthwith ask all your pages to collect, Madam Speaker, so that we never hear about it again. That is the best thing that could happen to it. Do not think for a minute that we will let it go through without putting up a fight.

We are all here today to let our listeners know that, if passed, this bill will result in the establishment of a government agency that is not accountable to this Parliament.

Why is the Minister of Revenue—who was so voluble when it came to promoting Vancouver's bid for the Olympic Games—unable to explain by virtue of what principle it is consistent with ministerial responsibility to surrender our powers and offload onto non-elected representatives the responsibility of destroying 20% of the public service? This is not serious. I think this bill should be immediately withdrawn.

There is at least ten good reasons justifying the Bloc Quebecois' opposition. First, as I said, there is no support for such a bill. There is an old principle in the British parliamentary system, which the heritage minister must know and which states that lawmakers must not legislate for no good reason.

How is it that a bill like this does not address the real problems? If the government wants to talk about taxation, it should get cracking and introduce a bill on Canadian transfer payments that would return to the provinces the money taken away from them.

Between 1993, when the Prime Minister closed the red book, and now, the provinces have been done out of $42 billion. Quebec alone lost $7 billion. Is this the kind of federalism the Minister of Canadian Heritage wants to see? Once again I ask the Minister of Canadian Heritage to listen to what I am saying and to tell me whether this is the kind of federalism government members favour, that is to say a system that allows the central government to literally destabilize the public finances of the provinces.

When I was a hot-headed and dashing young university student thirsting for knowledge, I was taught that federalism had three characteristics. I was told it was a political system with two levels of government: a central government and provincial governments. In their respective areas of jurisdiction, each level of government was supposed to be sovereign. That was the first characteristic.

The second characteristic, they said, was that, under constitutional law, a higher level of government was not supposed to interfere in the affairs of so-called lower levels of government. Well, what about bill like this, which goes right to the heart of taxation in Quebec? I know that you will hardly believe it, Madam Speaker, but if this bill is passed, municipalities might even be asked to help with tax collection.

Is there anything more closely related to provincial governments than municipalities? Why would the federal government need to interfere in an area such as this one?

The problem is that there is nobody in cabinet to defend Quebec's interests. Nobody in this government speaks for Quebec. They have no backbone when it comes to defending Quebec's interests. I am convinced we could not name a single minister who did so. Certainly not the member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges. He does not talk much. He is not one to raise his voice.

As a matter of fact, Madam Speaker, if I asked you, would you be able to name one minister who defended Quebec's interests when it came to putting an end to such interference by the federal government? No.

That is the sad part about it. If not for the members of the Bloc Quebecois who are totally dedicated to defending Quebec's interests, which is why we are respected and have the support of the people, this bill would have passed without a hitch.

No, we will not let it happen because we have too much respect for the Government of Quebec.

We fought hard to have our own tax system in Quebec. We just have to think of Maurice Duplessis, of the Union nationale, who asked Ottawa to give him back his loot. He was the first to create a direct taxation system in 1948.

So we will not let it happen. The day is not over yet, and we still hope this bill is withdrawn.

Madam Speaker, would it be possible to have the unanimous consent of the House—which, I think, will be granted—to continue my speech for another ten minutes? I am not finished yet.

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, December 3rd, 1998]

—this bill, which creates the Canada customs and revenue agency.

Hon. members should take just a second to imagine what it will mean if we pass this bill—and I cannot imagine in my wildest dreams that the hon. member for Hamilton East would stand up and vote in favour of such a bill. If we pass this bill it will mean that we have no belief in ministerial accountability and no belief in the quality of the Public Service of Canada.

If such a bill is passed, in one fell swoop, without any warning, and in a cavalier, peremptory and grotesque manner, 20% of the Public Service of Canada is eliminated.

I wish to tell all ministers present, and I wish to tell the somewhat left-leaning wing of the Liberal Party personified in the heritage minister, that if they want to show interest in the public service, they ought to call for anti-scab legislation with all their might. If the Liberals want to do something about the public service, what needs to be done is not getting rid of people but addressing the real problems.

If the government wants to legislate labour relations, why does the Minister of Canadian Heritage not rise and congratulate the Bloc Quebecois, which since the early 1990s, when it appeared in the House, when she was on this side and was the Rat Pack incarnate in her vehemence, why does she not rise and congratulate the Bloc for having introduced antiscab legislation very early on? Is this not democratic? Is that not honourable? Is this not an issue the government should raise?

There is a whole lot of legislation we would support as the opposition, but do not ask me or the members of the Bloc to support this centralizing, anti-union, anti-province pile of papers.

I have a challenge to put to our ministers present. I would like the Minister of Canadian Heritage to stop writing and listen. Perhaps she could tell us if there is one province supporting her bill.

I challenge her to rise. We all know her sweet voice that is sometimes cruelly silenced in Oral Question Period. Could she tell us as Minister of Canadian Heritage and to the best of her knowledge—I know she is not responsible for this and has her arms full at the moment—but could she tell us if she can whether one province, her province of Ontario for example, supports this bill? Does her friend Mike Harris support a bill like this?

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, December 3rd, 1998]

I am asking the Minister of Canadian Heritage to join in our enthusiasm and feign applause at least for Mayor L'Allier. I believe she needs encouragement to do so.

We feel obliged to explain to everyone listening why we, as a responsible opposition, I would even venture to say one of the best oppositions ever in the House of Commons, are opposed to—

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, December 3rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I wish to dedicate my speech to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. I believe her to be a minister who has shown open-mindedness in the past, and I believe she has an understanding of a number of things.

I would like to ask her, through you, Madam Speaker, to give a warm hand to our colleague, the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, who has done an excellent job for the official opposition in connection with Bill C-43.

[Division No. 281, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.

Clause 4 reads “Any commitment resulting from an item mentioned in section 2, or based on subsection (2), be deemed, or as regards the authority corresponding to the level of the amount that is specified—”

[Points Of Order, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like another element to be added to the debate. Since all parties have spoken on the topic and since one element was missing, I can assure you that this has nothing to do with your ruling.

[Aids, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we are all aware of the plight of AIDS victims.

What is less known though is the extreme slowness with which the federal Minister of Health is acting to approve AIDS medication.

How does the Minister of Health explain that, since 1996, the United States has approved two drugs against AIDS, while only one of these products has been approved in Canada?

[Extradition Act, November 30th, 1998]

Organized crime is an important matter. It is an unavoidable reality. As my colleague knows, the parallel economy fuelled by the activities of the underworld in certain communities has been estimated at some $200 million.

I have to say that organized crime advances in stages. The first stage involves controlling an area. The second is control in order to sell drugs. The third, and this is the one lying in wait for Canada in the opinion of those in the know, is investment in legal and illegal activities.

This is why a number of analysts claim that there is no sector organized crime has not infiltrated. It exists in a society because there is complicity and links with all those in positions of authority such as VIPs and lawyers.

This brings us to Bill C-40, which will allow speedier extradition and which will, in some cases, of course, involve people charged with underworld activities.

This may come as news but, 100 years ago, there was no such thing as telemarketing fraud. Now there is. This is a very contemporary example of criminal activity.

One hundred years ago, there was no such thing as theft of information via computer. Obviously, it did not exist. Can you, even for one moment, imagine Father Labelle with a Macintosh? It would be a complete anachronism. Now, we have telemarketing fraud, theft via computers and, of course, the fraudulent use of the Internet.

These are all reasons for reviewing the Extradition Act. At the beginning of my speech, I reminded members that the intention was to combine two statutes: the Fugitive Offenders Act and the Extradition Act and its application.

We also worked very hard as a political party in committee. I again thank my colleague, the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, for his very valuable co-operation and assistance. As members know, he is trained in international and constitutional law and is familiar with these issues.

In the true spirit of team work, we divided up the work. I moved an amendment to clause 44 of the bill and it is to this aspect of the bill that I wish to draw my colleagues' attention.

The minister may refuse to comply with a request for extradition from a state listed in schedule II to the act as one of Canada's extradition partners, if the minister has reason to believe that the individual concerned would be the victim of abuse or discrimination. Clause 44 lists a number of prohibited grounds of discrimination.

I found this list to be extremely restrictive. We were right. We were right in proposing an amendment such as this one. This morning, I was quite pleased to read a letter addressed to the Minister of Justice by none other than the high commissioner for refugees.

That distinguished person wrote that she shared our concerns. I hope this will convince the House that we did work really hard to improve the bill. In her letter, the United Nations high commissioner for refugees draws the attention of parliamentarians to clause 44.

The letter reads in part as follows:

The UNHCR is not trying to prevent prosecution against refugees who may have committed criminal offences—

—but, rather, to ensure these people are not exposed to persecution because of their race, religion, nationality, or because they belong to a specific social group.

Clause 44 of Bill C-40 provides crucial but insufficient protection. It does not specify that four of the five grounds for persecution listed in the definition of refugee proposed in the 1951 convention are not included in clause 44 of the bill.

As a responsible opposition party, we had a duty to improve the bill. We made no bones about that and we proposed an amendment which got 90% support from the Liberals.

We all know how this happens. There are always some government members who commit the sin of pride in that they refuse to admit that the opposition is right. They may admit it in part, but not entirely. In any case, our amendment was supported by 90% of members and we feel we improved the bill.

A number of issues were also raised. I mentioned earlier that we received representations from witnesses who would have preferred two distinct legal systems. I know that the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry will discuss this. Other representations were also made.

On a typical Thursday, our committee heard a large number of criminal lawyers who were all very knowledgeable. These people came to tell us about an issue that will interest the hon. member for Chambly, because, as I said, he is a distinguished jurist.

They told us that, under this bill, it will be possible to accept hearsay evidence. As some of you know, I myself have an interest in law. I was taught that, from a legal point of view, hearsay evidence is not considered to be very solid evidence. Under the bill, whenever a request for extradition is made, there will have to be a certified record of the case, in which all the evidence will be deemed to have been included, and the country's legal authorities will have to certify that legal record, which will be used for the purpose of a trial. However, it will now be possible to accept hearsay evidence without having to make a solemn declaration.

Some lawyers were worried about this, the criminal law specialists, who are generally fairly unconcerned about such details. They sought to understand why the minister was heading in that direction.

In the parliamentary committee, we had a number of questions for the senior public servants, and were told that, in the current situation, under the existing law, it is extremely difficult, with a bilateral framework and the treaties that have been signed, to recognize certain elements of proof within the strict confines of the letter of Canadian law.

That was one element that convinced me. We will see how things develop, but I will say right off that one of the important components of the bill is the significant change relating to eligible evidence, since it will now be possible to admit certain elements of hearsay evidence.

Not only will the bill provide extradition mechanisms that have more clout bilaterally, through agreements with the states listed in the schedule to the bill, but specific agreements will also be possible. That is a question we raised in committee, because we asked ourselves “What will happen if we want to extradite an individual from or to a state with which there is no treaty, one not in the schedule?” We were given the assurance that it would be possible to have specific agreements by mutual consent.

There are, as we know, two main processes in this bill that must be kept in mind. There is the entire legal system, because when all is said and done, the process is going to start when an extradition judge has assessed the contents of a file and made recommendations as to whether or not extradition is necessary.

Second, the Minister of Justice has considerable power. When all is said and done, she is the one to decide whether or not the person whose extradition is being called for should or should not be extradited.

Some hon. members on the committee, the Reform members in particular, were worried about this. They said “But this is impossible. The process should be entirely judicial. No one other than the extradition judges or the justices of the peace ought to decide, on assessment of the evidence, whether the extradition process should be put in motion. The judges should be the only ones to decide.”

In the Bloc Quebecois we said that perhaps that was not wise, because, if we elect people and form governments and if there are members of Parliament, it is reasonable for the executive authority to be associated with the process and for the minister, in the end, to be able to refuse.

For example, what happens when a country known for its human rights violations wants to extradite someone and when the government knows that this person may well face terrible reprisals and that the reasons for the request are political only?

There have to be mechanisms somewhere in the bill to provide a counterbalance and there have to be guarantees that Canada will never be part of a process in which people who are extradited could ultimately face reprisals because of their political beliefs. That makes no sense.

We think there are guarantees in a bill such as this.

Political beliefs are sacrosanct. There is nothing more true. There is nothing more authentic in life than political beliefs.

Let me take a few seconds to invite my fellow Quebeckers to vote. I think members will agree—and I am sure the President of the Treasury Board will agree with my assessment—that it is important for people to exercise their right to vote today. Those who will represent us need a clear mandate. The polls are open until 8 p.m., unless otherwise indicated I close by saying that I have confidence, and that things should go well.

I would add that this bill also amends the Immigration Act. It will be possible, should anyone facing extradition also file an application for refugee status—these things are possible—where a decision is made under Bill C-40, and the individual is denied refugee status, the decision will be deemed to apply to the IRB, the Immigration and Refugee Board.

This then is a positive bill and the Bloc Quebecois supports it. I know that my colleague will have more to say about this, but I would like to set the stage by saying that what we want as parliamentarians is for parliament to be involved in the decisions taken by the executive branch.

We were a little disappointed to see that, in the various extradition treaties—for instance, right now, Canada has bilateral agreements, reciprocal treaties, with 49 states—evidence existing in the other country may be allowed under Canadian law. We would like to see all extradition treaties, all bilateral treaties or, in cases in which an international tribunal is also involved, any criminal human rights tribunal, debated in the House.

We were rather surprised at the government's stubborn, not to say cavalier, refusal to consider such a debate. I and my colleague, the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, an eminent jurist whom the Privy Council would do well to consult more often, introduced an amendment proposing that all treaties to be signed by Canada and another country be debated here in the House. Members can imagine our surprise when Liberal members vetoed this proposal.

Can anyone tell me why they did this? What reason can there be for not involving parliament in the negotiation of treaties and for not sharing related information?

That was one flaw. It was a great disappointment and showed how limited the democratic reflex was in members opposite.

That concludes my remarks. My colleague, the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, will step in with great eloquence.

[Extradition Act, November 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues in the House for allowing us to proceed in this fashion.

We had the opportunity to indicate during second reading and in committee that we were in favour of the bill's intent and its underlying philosophy. This is a bill which will have two major impacts on the Extradition Act.

First, it will combine into a single piece of legislation the Fugitive Offenders Act and the Extradition Act, which was some 100 years old and had not been substantially reviewed in years.

Second, the procedures for evidence have been changed. In the future, the admission into evidence of elements that would not have been admissible under Canadian law will be allowed under agreements between countries or specific agreements on the individuals concerned. For these reasons, we support a review of the Extradition Act.

We are reminded that the Extradition Act concerns people's mobility. It refers of course to the fact that people are increasingly mobile and there is more and more trade and movement between countries. That is why it is important to have the most up to date legislation possible.

One of the problems with the Extradition Act is that it did not take into account a new approach to international law, which did not go unnoticed by the hon. member for Chambly, who, as I said, is a distinguished jurist. The act did not allow Canada to turn an extradited person over to international tribunals.

In recent years, there has often been a consensus in this House to participate in various proceedings concerning international crime. The new version of the act will allow this.

There were obstacles preventing Canada from carrying out its international obligations to an international court or criminal tribunal. Obviously, as my colleagues know, Bill C-40 provides for a single system applying in all instances. But, as our colleagues who sit on the committee will remember, it was suggested in committee that there should be two separate systems of law.

I will let the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry explain his position on this. I think that, while he may have found it attractive, this idea did not fly in government circles. The government fears it might be discriminatory, and the charter may be used to call on the government to explain why something that is allowable under an agreement with another country is not covered by the same rules when dealing with an international tribunal.

I took the stand that a single plan was desirable, but I must point out, to be accurate, that we had representations in this regard in committee.

I was saying this legislation is 100 years old. May you reach that age too, Mr. Speaker. We must review this law, because we obviously do not have the same means of communications we had 100 years ago. We must also consider the whole notion of criminality.

If there is one member in this House concerned about criminality, it is the member speaking. I thank my colleagues for their reserved, but real enthusiasm.

[Extradition Act, November 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, if the Standing Orders permit it, I would like to share my time with my colleague from Beauharnois-Salaberry, who also worked on this bill in committee.

During second reading we had the opportunity to indicate that we were in favour—