Réal Ménard

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, February 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would not like to pass over that question. I am not familiar with the example raised by our hon. colleague, but he is quite right to remind the House that we all benefit from a process that is carried out fairly, rigorously and according to the rules.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, February 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my mathematician colleague, who told me one day that he raised his children by teaching math at night school. I remember him giving a speech in the House in which he said he paid taxes to Mr. Trudeau at the time. I will never forget that speech by such a strict mathematics teacher who obviously loved what he was doing.

However, let us not confuse matters. The Bloc Québécois does not deny that organized terrorist networks exist. I read a book from the UQAM Raoul Dandurand Chair that explains that the major terrorist threats to democracies like ours are often ideology based threats, by people connected with ideologies and often with religious movements. These are people who have very powerful means of representing a threat to our democracies and following through.

However, I do not believe this is a matter of informants. When there is reason to believe that individuals represent a terrorist threat on our soil, it is often because our intelligence services have conducted investigations. These are not individuals who are going to blow the whistle on others, and there is very solid evidence on this.

The very fact that intelligence services have solid evidence on this is why we must ensure that the fair procedures I was talking about come into play. I do not think that means individuals have to stay in Canada; but they have to be informed of the evidence against them. They should have the right to be represented and we have to be certain they are not deported to countries that practice torture. If ever their home country practices torture, they can stay imprisoned here for a very long time.

Again, let us resist the urge to act hastily. There is no good reason for an individual not to be informed of the evidence against them if that evidence will incriminate them for a very long time.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, February 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate all the opposition members who worked very hard in the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on this very important issue regarding human rights and people who are concerned about procedural guarantees. I am thinking of the contribution of my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin. I believe he was supported by the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. I also know that members of the official opposition, such as members from the NDP, worked very hard and they should be acknowledged.

I must say it is very disappointing for the democrats in this Parliament, very disappointing for those who believe certain principles should be defended when it comes to the administration of justice, and very disappointing for those who believe in fundamental justice.

As my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights know, in a democracy, the ends do not justify the means. We cannot say a situation is urgent or that there are potential terrorist threats as a way to ignore or fail to respect some principles of fundamental justice that are inalienable and inviolable.

That is why the Supreme Court sent a very clear message to Parliament—it will be one year ago in a few days, if my memory serves me correctly—indicating that it had gone too far, that it miscalculated the potential repercussions of this bill, particularly in light of one of the constitutional guarantees found in section 7 on the right to life, liberty and security. There is ample case law to show that section 7 cannot be violated unless the fundamental principles of justice are respected.

I was in Ottawa in 2001. The then minister of justice was a member from Alberta, Anne McLellan, a former constitutional law professor—I do not know whether she went back to teaching. It was therefore quite surprising that we were being proposed procedural shortcuts like those contained in the bill at the time and which have not been improved since.

In short, the Bloc Québécois has always had three lines of attack when it comes to this bill. First, in 2001, we said that the Criminal Code contained all the necessary provisions for dealing with possible security threats by individuals who are not Canadian citizens. This could be handled through the Criminal Code and also through the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

In 2001, we already had three major concerns. It is nonetheless reassuring to know that the Supreme Court shared our concerns.

The first concern is about the exception that allows foreign nationals to be arrested without a warrant. This exception can very easily be abused. Anyone who has ever practised law in any capacity has considered the balance that must exist in societies, between the duties of citizens and the responsibility of the state to provide a safe environment for its citizens. Accordingly, if we are to rely on the police, they should, at the very least, be given the authority to intervene with a warrant.

This is a topic that has generated all sorts of rulings. There is even talk about an independent judicial authority and ensuring that a certain number of conditions are met when a warrant is issued. That is easy to understand, since a warrant has the potential to be extremely intrusive. Not only can individuals be arrested, but authorities can interfere in their private lives and go to their homes. The court has said that a home is a man's castle. Obviously, we cannot enter an individual's home without first having done a certain number of compliance checks.

Since 2001, it has been possible to arrest foreign nationals without a warrant previously issued by an independent and impartial court whose judges cannot be removed—except, of course, for misconduct.

I would remind the House that it has nothing to do with the fact that someone is a foreign national, that they do not yet have Canadian citizenship, that they have not been in Canada or Quebec for many years. As we know, concerning the process of obtaining citizenship, from the time a person enters Canada as a political refugee, permanent resident or person in need of protection, it can take many years to be eligible. It takes three years for citizenship, but in some cases, it can take much longer, depending on whether there are any appeals.

What an absurdity, what a violation of rights and how insensitive to introduce in Parliament a legislative framework under which we can appear without a warrant being issued by a legal authority, a court of law, and of course, under the conditions set out in the Criminal Code. What is most worrisome is that when someone is accused of being a threat to national security—the word “national” refers to Canada, but it could also apply to Quebec—it is believed that that individual has a history of terrorism, that he or she has been involved in organized crime and has committed such serious offences that he or she must be considered inadmissible to Canada. Furthermore, we expect that individual to understand the evidence used by a legal authority—in this case, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the Minister of Public Safety or both—to declare him or her inadmissible to Canada. In fact, we expect the individual, whom we are about to declare inadmissible to Canada, to know what evidence exists against him or her.

There was a sort of revolution with regard to procedure in the early 1990s. I am referring to R. v. Stinchcombe. Stinchcombe was an Alberta lawyer who practised business and real estate law, and who committed fraud by making poor investments with the fortune of a client who had retained him. There were a number of appeals.

This case is important in the history of justice because a ruling was given on disclosure of evidence. Since 1992, all evidence held by the Crown must be disclosed to the defence. At times, the evidence could fill the House of Commons. At times, hundreds of thousands of pages have to be disclosed to the defendants. That is why trials can last years and years. This is particularly true in criminal cases.

However, that is part and parcel of the principle of procedural fairness whereby if charges are laid, if an individual is brought before the courts, if he is accused of an offence, he must be apprised of the elements of the proof. That applies to a notebook kept by the police upon the arrest to the most refined investigative techniques. The fact remains that the evidence must be disclosed in full to the defendant who is being accused.

Given that it allows someone to be arrested without a warrant, Bill C-3 strays far from this principle. Not only is the individual arrested without a warrant, but he is told that he will not have access to the evidence which has deprived him of the right to remain in Canada and Quebec. Consider the extent to which this contravenes fundamental legal rights. Consider that depriving an accused of access to evidence is contrary to the tradition of defending rights and procedural fairness.

It is obvious that there are times when the evidence can be sensitive. That is why there are provisions in the Criminal Code. The judge can order a closed doors hearing and request that the media do not have access to information. However, in no way can we support a principle that does not allow an accused person, and particularly someone accused of a criminal offence, the right to know the evidence on which the accusation is made. Why is this principle important? It is important because the right to a full and complete defence is written into the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. How could one appoint a solicitor to defend a client if the solicitor does not know all the evidence being used against the accused? Why is it important? It is important because we know that as individual citizens we are not on a level playing field with the government. The government has investigation techniques and police officers and can use infiltration to gather information. There is a whole range of tools that can be used in making an accusation against an individual that are not available to the ordinary person.

I repeat, the Bloc Québécois is not saying that terrorism does not exist or that there are no individuals who could represent a real threat to the security of the country. What we are saying is that it should be possible to set up a legislative regime in which a lawyer under oath has access to the evidence and represents his or her client in a closed-doors context, in a context where there cannot be the same circulation of information as in a regular trial. However, to insist that during all the procedures the accused person can never see the evidence—we do not believe this is acceptable in terms of procedural fairness.

The third questionable point for the Bloc Québécois is the point the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin brought out so brilliantly in committee. We know what a formidable attorney the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin is. He has made his living as a defence counsel. He has an excellent command of the techniques of cross-examination. How many times have I spoken of his excellent work in the Schreiber-Mulroney affair at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics? He was splendidly supported by our colleague, the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, who is not a lawyer but was still able to extract a confession. She led Mr. Schreiber to confess, as a result of which the Club des ex awarded her the title of one of the most promising parliamentarians; a member with a bright future within the Bloc Québécois. That happened between Christmas and New Year’s Day on the RDI network program Le Club des ex. The host of the program was our old colleague Jean-Pierre Charbonneau, the former provincial member for Borduas. The former Liberal Heritage minister took part and, of course, a former ADQ member of the National Assembly from Lanaudière, Marie Grégoire.

All this to say that our third concern is that people will not only be arrested without a warrant but will not be allowed to see the evidence against them. This means that if the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration or the Minister of Public Safety signs a security certificate, the Federal Court is notified. If the judge, having examined the facts, finds that the rationale in the certificate is reasonable and finds reasonable grounds to believe that the person involved is a danger to Canada, the entire process is initiated. The individual will be arrested and detained, often for considerable periods.

Some people say that the individual can choose to return to his country of origin, but when someone has left that country three, four, five or six years previously and remade his life in Canada, it is not easy to leave. Often, of course, people came here to remake their lives because they feared the possibility of torture and persecution under authoritarian regimes.

There is another problem with Bill C-3. The level of proof required is clearly too low in view of the seriousness of such situations. The Bloc member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin moved an amendment to require that the evidence be beyond a reasonable doubt, as in any criminal case. But the amendment was rejected. It was a bad decision that had no basis in parliamentary practice and was certainly not justified from the standpoint of the interests of the accused.

How can we possibly be satisfied with a simple level of proof like reasonable doubt when the physical survival of people—including arbitrary imprisonment and detention under very difficult conditions—is at stake? What sense does it make not to require a level of proof equivalent to “beyond a reasonable doubt”, as in any criminal case?

Once again, the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, who is a very experienced parliamentarian, moved amendments but unfortunately they were not discussed. It was decided, quite wrongly, that they were beyond the scope of the bill. That was a very bad decision. We obviously respect the authority of the committee chair. I do not know whether you were asked for advice in the matter, Mr. Speaker. In my opinion, you would have agreed with your clerk and would not have rejected this decision. I should add that the Bloc Québécois challenges it and we think it was an abuse of procedure that is not a credit to the institution.

That being said, I would like to move on to our fourth concern, which is the fact that this bill does not include an obligation to ensure that an individual will not be deported to a country that practices torture before triggering the process by which that individual can be not only detained, deprived of basic freedoms, poorly represented and arrested without charge, but also deported. The bill offers no guarantees in that regard. In cases where the mechanism applies, Canada may use the flawed system that I have been talking about for several minutes now to deport individuals deemed to be a threat to national security. Canada is violating its international obligations by failing to ensure that measures are taken to avoid deporting individuals to countries that practice torture.

This is, therefore, a very bad bill. I do not understand how the Minister of Public Safety can sleep at night after introducing such a terrible bill that stands in stark opposition to our democratic traditions. This will certainly be a blemish on Canada's reputation in the international community and in forums for multilateral debate.

This is a very bad bill, and we cannot support it. We do not understand the Conservative government's intention given that, as I recall, it expressed serious reservations when it was on the opposition benches. Even though the Conservatives supported Ms. McLellan's bill, they were concerned about a number of flaws that remained over time.

Once again, shame on the government for its lack of respect for procedure. I call on all of my colleagues in the House to reject this bill.

[Housing, February 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, may we proceed so that anyone who has a speech can make it before going to committee? Also, I would like to speak before 3:30 p.m. May we proceed?

[Afghanistan, February 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the government has been questioned many times about possible cases of torture and has always denied the allegations, stating that it was Taliban propaganda.

How could the government deny that the torture took place when it had documents proving that the torture was carried out by those in the highest political circles, namely the very governor of Kandahar province?

[Afghanistan, February 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the government denies that there have been cases of torture in Afghanistan. Yet it has heavily censored the documents provided in accordance with the Access to Information Act, thereby protecting the torturers.

How can the government have denied for one year that there have been cases of torture when, at the same time, it censored proof of the activities of the governor of Kandahar province, who is suspected of having tortured prisoners?

[Criminal Code, January 30th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the member is blessed with great wisdom. I would like to congratulate him on being a moderate and extremely clear-headed man. We will support this bill. We will see what the witnesses have to say in committee. We will not hesitate to make amendments if necessary.

However, we would like to see other reforms as well. That is why, a year ago, the Leader of the Bloc Québécois asked me to chair a party working group to propose reforms to the justice system.

I worked with my colleagues from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, Ahuntsic and Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, and we produced a very good report that I am particularly proud of. We will turn these proposals into legislative reality at the earliest opportunity. In fact, we put these proposals forward last June, and they were quite well received.

For example, we were concerned about parole, the relevance of the accelerated parole review process and pre-trial detention because for every day of pre-trial detention served, two days are subtracted from the sentence. We were also concerned about the fact that socially, there is no law against wearing symbols representing criminal motorcycle gangs.

Those are the proposals the Bloc put forward.

Clearly, we have always been very serious, responsible and dedicated to the creation of the best possible measures for our fellow citizens.

[Criminal Code, January 30th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I join in extending praise to the government on this specific bill, Bill C-27. All parties support this bill. We will see if amendments are required after committee consideration. It is, of course, the prerogative of committees to decide whether or not they want to make amendments.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, to whom I offer my congratulations on his new baby, has to recognize, however, that there will likely be amendments as a result of the serious work we do in committee.

For the rest, our colleague from Yukon is right: the government's reform of the Criminal Code and most of its proposals were rather ill-advised. We need only think of conditional sentencing and the many bills providing for minimum sentences, even though all the studies show that these are not effective punishments. There is certainly cause for concern.

The Bloc Québécois, in conjunction with all the other opposition parties in some instances, has called on the government to take a more balanced approach to fighting organized crime.

[Criminal Code, January 30th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to wish all of my colleagues and the staff here on the Hill a happy new year. After all, one can do so until the end of January. I hope that 2008 will be a productive year for all parliamentarians. Who knows what the future holds?

Bill C-27 is very important because it deals with a new kind of crime. Everyone was familiar with old-fashioned crime—theft of goods. Everyone knew about organized crime rings and gangs. You all know how hard Parliament had to work in the early 1990s to develop new legislation and move away from conspiracy provisions to make gangsterism a new offence. Everyone here is familiar with traditional crimes concerning offences against the person.

However, a new kind of crime—identity theft—is surfacing, and it is very worrisome. Identity theft is an economic crime. One in four Canadians has been a victim of identity theft or knows someone who has been a victim of an offence related to identity theft. The most common of these crimes is the fraudulent use of a personal identification number.

When people withdraw money from a bank, there are more and more organized crime rings that can access their PINs and, unfortunately, empty, steal from or appropriate their bank accounts. We know that this can cause major headaches for victims, not to mention damage their credit rating.

I would like to share some relatively recent numbers that illustrate just how big this problem has become. For example, in 2004, an estimated $50 billion was involved in identity theft in the United States. In Canada, this phenomenon is just as worrisome. If my information is correct, we are talking about approximately $50 million. Identity theft is therefore a very serious phenomenon. We need to define new offences to deal with it, and that is the purpose of the bill before us.

What are the most serious forms of identity theft? Here are some examples: theft of credit cards or debit cards, whether they are used in bank machines or credit unions; redirecting mail, that is, taking someone's mail and sending it somewhere else; pretexting, that is, pretending to be someone who is authorized to obtain the information. This can include telemarketing. We learned from recent news reports about people who claimed to be representatives from the Red Cross, soliciting by telephone, pretending to sell first aid kits. Such offences are becoming more and more common: pretexting in the context of telephone solicitation by marketing networks.

In addition to credit card theft, redirecting mail and pretexting, there is also hacking into computer databases. In fact, there are specialized networks capable of searching software programs and networks to steal data.

We know, for example, that even within public services such as the Régie de l'assurance maladie, the Régie des rentes du Québec and others, there are fraud artists who are able to extract information and use it for completely illegitimate purposes.

Another offence is the use of skimming devices to capture credit and debit card information, and stealing someone's PIN, something that we would never have imagined a few years ago. When we went to our credit union or bank to pay our bills, withdraw money or make deposits, we naturally thought we were in a secure environment. However, people routinely spy on seniors, in particular, and try to steal their PINs.

In a program I was watching on an English language channel, I even saw people in shopping malls and other public places stealing purses, like the one the hon. member for Québec left here. If I were not such an honest person, I could take the hon. member's credit card and PIN, and try to reproduce them for illegitimate purposes.

There are also networks in shopping centres. Someone will distract a person in a public place by engaging that person in conversation while two, three or four other people steal the person's wallet. One member of the network will claim to have witnessed the crime and will talk to the person, who is clearly shaken and emotional. The witness will give the person a telephone number, supposedly for a centre where you can report theft. This centre is bogus. A tape recorder has been used to record a voice as if the centre were real. The person who calls has to give his or her PIN, social insurance number, address and personal information, which completes the theft that is in progress. This happens in public places such as grocery stores, arenas or busy places where an organized group of three, four or five people can carry out such an operation.

So there is identity card theft, redirection of mail, false pretence, hacking into data banks, using sorting devices to gather information, stealing PINs by spying on people in financial institutions and, obviously, computer theft. These are examples of modern ways individuals and networks can use to access personal information. This is why we have to be increasingly vigilant about sharing information about ourselves. We have to be increasingly vigilant and shed the reflex to give out such information.

The government has introduced a bill that creates three new offences. Bill C-27 mentions obtaining and possessing identity information. That is the first new offence. Section 347 of the Criminal Code already prohibits the use of false pretence or forgery for unauthorized purposes. These offences have been on the books for a very long time. But the government is proposing three other offences, including obtaining and possessing identity information with the intent to use the information deceptively, dishonestly or fraudulently in the commission of a crime. This is a new offence that will be added to the Criminal Code, and we support this.

The second offence is certainly the most interesting with respect to what is currently happening. It concerns trafficking in identity information. This is an offence that targets those who transmit or sell information to a third party knowing that or being reckless as to whether the information will be used for criminal purposes.

The third offence is the unlawful possession or trafficking of certain government-issued identity documents that contain information about other persons.

These are three new offences introduced by C-27 and we will certainly support this bill. We support it because the issue of identity theft is of great concern. In committee, we will hear and obtain the opinions of our fellow citizens. We believe that we must do more. We are urging the government to consider the possibility of strengthening this bill.

We must recognize that the fight against identity theft is not just a matter for criminal law. The former Information Commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart, appeared before the committee dealing with information issues. This is the same committee that deals with ethics, which has been in the spotlight of late owing to the Schreiber-Mulroney affair. I do not wish to dwell on this matter but I must at least comment on these events.

Last night, I read the report by the former rector of McGill University who outlined for the government and the Prime Minister a certain number of scenarios, including first listening to the testimony of parliamentarians who will continue their work. The Bloc Québécois has the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert. I believe that my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin also sat on this committee.

There is, of course, cause for concern when a former prime minister, someone who held the highest ministerial and public office in this country, accepted money for making representations while he was still a member of Parliament and under circumstances that remain unclear.

While provisions concerning lobbying were added to Bill C-2, the fact remains that we have had a code of ethics since 1985 at least and that, in light of various ethical concerns, such action might appear suspicious. The presumption of innocence applies to everyone of course. The former prime minister has the right—it is his prerogative—to clear these things up; still, one can wonder, if only because this former prime minister did not report until 1999 income received in 1993. All this is fueling a climate of suspicion which, unless the record can be set straight, might tarnish the office of prime minister.

I will be following, with my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois, the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. We can count on the dynamic member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert to put the most pertinent questions. We will recall that the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert was voted parliamentarian of the year on the Club des ex show broadcast on RDI between Christmas and New Year's. I think that it is very wise to recognize the energy and professionalism of the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.

I will close by saying that the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, the person responsible for access to information, was clear that the issue of identity theft, which is a growing phenomenon in Canada, cannot be fully and satisfactorily resolved through criminal law alone. She invited us to adopt civil sanctions as well. I will read what she said in committee on May 8, 2007:

I don't think it's just an issue of the Criminal Code. As you know, our law administrators hesitate to use the Criminal Code: the standards of proof are higher, and the charter may apply.

We know that in criminal law the standard is not balance of probabilities but proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a higher standard.

The Commissioner added:

And so very often you have to have a fairly clear-cut case to use the Criminal Code.

There needs to be a causal link between an offence, harm and the consequences. The Commissioner added:

[They] are very easy to prove and easy for citizens to understand.

She was talking about civil sanctions and gave the example of small claims court. Such courts exist in Quebec. I do not know whether they exist in other provinces. They are courts where one can submit a claim before a judge without the need to be represented by a lawyer. Matters that are important to a person are considered more quickly than in superior courts, where they may not be considered as important.

The Commissioner went on to say:

Small claims courts may provide a more easily accessible deterrent to the growing industry of ID theft. This means, of course, that I think the federal government has to work closely with the provinces, because a lot of what happens in terms of ID theft falls within provincial jurisdiction.

I get worried when cooperation between the federal government and the provinces comes up. The federal government has sometimes flexed its authority and completely ignored the will of the provinces.

For example, take the recent statement by Quebec's finance minister, Ms. Jérôme-Forget, who is also president of the treasury board and an MNA in west Montreal. Like previous finance ministers and all the premiers in the National Assembly, including Bernard Landry, she is opposed to creating a national securities commission. We know that this is an area the provinces can regulate. We therefore do not see the need for a national commission.

The same thing is true of the Kyoto protocol and the manufacturing and forestry crisis. It is quite something to hear all the premiers join together in condemning the federal government's insensitivity in offering $1 billion in assistance. This is very little, considering what is needed.

Of course, what is most upsetting about the federal government's strategy is that it does not take into account where the job losses have occurred. In a case like this, you cannot simply distribute money on a per capita basis.

The Prime Minister says that each province will be guaranteed $10 million, and each territory, $3 million. Yet central Canada—Ontario and Quebec—accounts for nearly 60% of all the manufacturing job losses—57%, in fact, if memory serves.

Quebec, which has invested billions of dollars to help its industry, will therefore get $276 million. Yet the federal government will have an estimated $24 billion surplus for the next two years. Consequently, $1 billion is simply not a serious offer when the Canadian economy is in crisis and central Canada—Quebec and Ontario—is being hardest hit.

The information commissioner invited the federal government to exercise its prerogative by using point 27 in section 91 of the Constitution, which enables the government to legislate on criminal matters. However, she said that Canada cannot combat identity theft without using civil law measures. This is the responsibility of the provincial governments, especially the National Assembly, because Quebec is the main jurisdiction where civil law is in force.

My time is up. I do not believe anyone has a question, but I will be happy to answer questions if there are any.

[Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007, December 12th, 2007]

I think that our colleague, the leader of the NDP, should not mislead the House and should clearly say that the Bloc Québécois is opposed to Bill C-28. If he wants to find—