Réal Ménard

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

Mr. Speaker, regarding your intervention, I would like to say that I did not use the name of any colleague or any riding.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader of the NDP for his speech. I have to say that the Bloc Québécois considered the issue of poverty and took action a long time ago. As the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, certainly one of the hardest hit ridings in terms of industrial obsolescence, I tabled a bill known as the anti-poverty bill on four occasions, and am about to do so again.

My bill contains four measures that I certainly hope will have the support of my NDP colleagues. My bill would add “social condition” to the prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act. My colleague for Outremont, who was a member of the National Assembly of Quebec, will remember that eight legislatures, eight provinces, added social condition to the prohibited grounds of discrimination in their human rights codes. It is unacceptable that the federal government has not. Had it done so, we could have successfully challenged certain measures. For example, Lloyd Axworthy's employment insurance contained restrictive measures for new applicants and that was unacceptable.

My bill also provides for a new contravention, by financial institutions, of the Canadian Human Rights Act. I am referring to the refusal by banks to provide credit to disadvantaged communities. I have studied what happened in the United States where, since 1977, the Community Reinvestment Act has provided access to credit for the most disadvantaged communities. I am thinking of black and Hispanic populations.

If adopted, my bill would require Parliament to hold a mandatory debate on poverty, on a regular basis. It would institute the requirement that the Canadian Human Rights Commission assess every bill and its effects on the impoverishment of citizens.

I know that the member and his political party are concerned by these matters. However—the member knows that I am very sensitive—I was somewhat hurt to discover that in Paul Martin's last budget, my NDP colleagues, whom I affectionately refer to—

[Justice, December 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to issues such as the environment and justice, the Conservatives like to follow the example of the Americans and their friend George W. Bush. Yet this government's plan for youth justice is based on harsher sentences, an approach that is no longer supported by half of the American states, which believe, with good reason, that this is not the right approach. Like Quebec, the states of Illinois, Louisiana, Pennsylvania and Washington have proven that reintegration and rehabilitation produce very positive results, both socially and economically.

Can the Minister of Justice explain why he insists on using a counter-productive approach that does not help young people and has been abandoned even by the Americans?

[Tackling Violent Crime Act, November 27th, 2007]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his comments. It is rather bold of him, though, to assume that my back is the best feature of my anatomy. I suppose that this could well be a case of faith without works because the hon. member has a less than complete knowledge of my anatomy.

Our colleague is quite right to say that 6 of the 12 bills received royal assent before Parliament was prorogued. Parliamentarians took their work very seriously and the government’s criticism is totally unfounded.

It is true that, in committee, some provinces were concerned about the entire issue of driving under the influence, taking samples, the handling of this evidence and the acquisition of the equipment needed for these new technologies. They were concerned about the possible related costs. In addition, the working out of this part of the act must obviously not invalidate the principle that it is desirable from a public safety point of view to have the means to ensure that people under the influence of drugs are kept off public roads.

Our colleague is quite right, though, to point out that there may be something premature about it or that there are just not enough resources to enable the provinces to carry out their new responsibilities.

[Tackling Violent Crime Act, November 27th, 2007]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You are too kind. I get the impression that there are some people who like me. That is very kind. I want to thank my colleagues.

In the Bloc Québécois, we have looked closely at the primary offences and assessed their gravity. We are not taking this lightly and we have asked ourselves questions about the reverse onus of proof. This means that when someone commits two offences on this list and then commits a third offence—which is cause for concern—they will have to explain why they should not be designated a dangerous offender.

The Crown is never required in court to present a dangerous offender designation. It must inform the prosecutor—because this requires the prosecutor's consent—and the court whether or not it intends to present a designation in dangerous cases or not.

The committee was informed that this could require a great deal of work in terms of the evidence and physically assembling the file. We were even given the figure of 300 hours for the Crown and 300 hours for the defence, for a grand total of 600 hours.

I would like to add as well that there are already some provisions in the Criminal Code that involve reverse onus of proof. For example, if someone is sitting in the driver’s seat and an offence is committed, that person is deemed to be the driver and owner of the vehicle, even if it is stopped.

There is also an onus of proof regarding prostitution in the Criminal Code. If one associates with persons involved in offences against sections 210, 211, 212, or 213 of the Criminal Code, one is deemed to be living off the avails of prostitution. There are six or seven examples of reverse onus that have given rise to decisions, such as Downey in regard to prostitution, Smith in regard to firearms and White in regard to the possession and trafficking of narcotics. We obviously do not want reverse onus to become a common practice.

Both the Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers and the Bar were concerned that reverse onus could potentially be prejudicial to one of the rights guaranteed in the Charter, that is, the right to remain silent.

It is only logical. If someone is in a situation where he has committed two offences and then commits a third, there is a declaration to designate him as a dangerous offender. That person necessarily has to defend himself. His lawyer can conduct his defence without having him testify, by having other people testify or calling expert witnesses. However, the people on the committee were concerned that this could be prejudicial to the right to remain silent and the presumption of innocence. There were even some witnesses who worried that it could be contrary to section 7 on liberty and cruel and unusual punishment. Other witnesses said that it could infringe on section 10 of the Charter on arbitrary detention.

It is obvious, therefore, why the Bloc Québécois took Bill C-2 very seriously. We had an excellent discussion in caucus and our colleagues argued their points of view, but we ultimately came to the conclusion that, on the balance of the advantages and disadvantages, it was best to support Bill C-2. However, I want to warn the government against any more attempts to introduce bills with reverse onus of proof.

I would like to congratulate all my colleagues who worked so hard on Bill C-2 in committee.

[Tackling Violent Crime Act, November 27th, 2007]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was sure you would remember.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to finish my speech. I was about to explain that the government lumped together the five justice bills it had introduced previously to produce the new Bill C-2, which the parliamentary committee studied very thoroughly.

As I said, even though the Bloc supports Bill C-2, we wanted to make a few changes. Before I was interrupted by question period, I told the House that the Bloc Québécois has, in the past, expressed significant reservations about imposing mandatory minimum sentences.

Bloc Québécois members have long argued that this is not an effective way to fight poverty. We are convinced that we must instead provide police with the means to conclude investigations. The issue here is more the effectiveness of legislation and the fear it inspires. We believe that some offenders, some people who might find themselves on the wrong side of the law, will be deterred more by the possibility of going to court than by the mandatory minimum sentences they could receive. In fact, the witnesses we heard in committee explained that people do not necessarily read the Criminal Code before they commit an offence. That is why, historically, we have been extremely wary of mandatory minimum sentences.

We also analyzed the whole issue of the age of consent, which has now become the age of protection. My colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant was responsible for this issue. Very early in this debate, the leader of the Bloc Québécois and member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, in cooperation with his caucus, wanted to include a close in age clause to make sure school-aged children engaging in non-exploitative sexual activity would not be liable to be arrested.

We also looked at the whole issue of reverse onus, not at the trial stage, but at the judicial interim release stage, as provided for in section 515 of the Criminal Code. The government was proposing reverse onus, which we were told was already common practice. In fact, according to the experts who came to talk to us in committee, people who committed offences involving firearms were not subject to release at the hearing stage.

Naturally, when we studied Bill C-2 in committee, we examined the whole issue of impaired driving. I am not talking about a particular departmental policy here, but about Bill C-2, which introduces three main innovations.

The bill will make it mandatory to stop and submit to tests. Previously, this was optional under the Criminal Code. There will be two main types of tests. An individual may first undergo standard field sobriety tests at the roadside. Then, he or she may be examined at the police station by a drug recognition expert. We were told that this practice existed in some American states and that some people in Quebec had even received this training.

Of course, we are not minimizing the seriousness of impaired driving. Just this morning, the Bloc Québécois lent its support—enlightened support, I might add—to a motion introduced by the parliamentary secretary to study a number of important issues, because we know our fellow citizens are worried about them.

Indeed, the bill that raised the most questions for us, even though we support Bill C-2, was the bill dealing with reverse onus for dangerous offenders.

As we all know, the Criminal Code has had provisions concerning dangerous offenders since 1947. Our seniors, for instance, sometimes used the expression “habitual criminal”. My mother said that, although never in reference to any of her own children, of course. But she talked about habitual criminals in general terms. I was able to make a link between that expression, which has passed on to the vocabulary of another generation, and a provision in the Criminal Code.

We had some questions. Of course, in matters of law, a reverse onus of proof is always very serious. The main offences are: weapons trafficking, possession of a firearm, unauthorized import and export, discharging a firearm, attempted murder, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault with a weapon, kidnapping, hostage taking, robbery committed with violence and a weapon and extortion.

It seems I am out of time. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for the consent of the House to continue speaking for another five minutes. I would then be able to deliver my conclusion.

[Tackling Violent Crime Act, November 27th, 2007]

Youth court. I should have remembered him because of his baby face.

When Justice Bellehumeur was a member of the Bloc Québécois, he was particularly enterprising with regard to the provisions of the anti-gang legislation. He had support in caucus and we convinced the government. We started this battle in 1995 following a very sad incident that I will not forget as long as I live—the car bomb attack that led to the death of young Daniel Desrochers in the Hochelaga—Maisonneuve area.

It was at that point that the public took notice that the existing legislation did not have the teeth to attack organized crime. We were presented with a bill that created the new offence of gangsterism. It was too general. In fact, at the time, it required five individuals who, in the previous five years, had committed an offence carrying a sentence of more than five years. It was the three fives rule. It was too general and the police asked us to review the anti-gang law.

The first Bill C-95 was introduced in 1997 as a result of the Bloc Québécois' hard work. The provisions of the anti-gang law were revisited by Bill C-24 and Bill C-36. It was also the Bloc Québécois that worked on taking $1,000 bills out of circulation, thanks to the efforts of my colleague for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, Richard Marceau. This man has been a great inspiration in justice matters. He stands out in other areas as well, but in justice he has been a true inspiration.

Once again, it was the Bloc Québécois that introduced and ensured the adoption, on the last day of the 2004 parliamentary session, of a bill on reverse onus. The member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue likes bills that address specific issues and distrusts those that are generic.

The bill was very specific because it reversed the onus of proof for proceeds of crime acquired by criminal organizations.

When I hear the Minister of Justice showing a lack of respect by saying that the Bloc Québécois used stalling tactics, I do not see how that applies to me, and I am sure the other Bloc members feel the same way. It is the role of the opposition to keep pushing the government to be better. Obviously, every member of the Bloc leaves Parliament at the end of the day feeling exhausted, since there is so much work to do.

That said, crime is not on the rise; in general, it is going down. I think it would be ill-advised to hold a debate that does not take that fact into account. The Bloc Québécois has always been very concerned about mandatory minimum penalties.

Sure, they have always existed in the Criminal Code. But when we passed the bill to establish the firearms registry, back when Allan Rock was minister, we also decided to add 40 or so mandatory minimum penalties for offences involving firearms.

The hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm, with his characteristic insight, already had very serious reservations at the time. He relied on studies by criminologists, particularly at the University of Toronto, who concluded that there is no link between the availability of mandatory minimum sentences in the Criminal Code and the crime rate in a society, any more than there is a link between the incarceration rate and the crime rate in a society.

Consider, for example, the United States. The incarceration rate there is three times higher than Canada's, but the crime rate is seven times higher. Thus, it is not through reliance on incarceration that we will have a safer society.

Of course, the Bloc Québécois recognizes that incarceration must be used in certain situations. This is why we do not question the need to have certain provisions in the Criminal Code, such as section 753, which talks about dangerous offenders. A very serious offence must be involved in order for an individual to be a dangerous offender. An offender must be convicted of personal injury offences. An offender must present such a high a risk of recidivism that the court must be convinced that the person cannot control himself or herself or has difficulty controlling his or her impulses.

Regarding dangerous offenders, the older people among us—including some members of my caucus—will recall that, in the 1950s, they were referred to as “habitual criminals”. Perhaps some members remember this? Even my mother used this expression, although never about her own children.

I think I am out of time, but I would like to be able to start over again after question period.

[Tackling Violent Crime Act, November 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to take part in this third reading stage of Bill C-2. I would like, perhaps, to correct a number of perceptions that the government has done nothing to discourage in recent days concerning the work of the opposition.

First, we know that the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-2. In fact, if my information is correct, I believe that our support is unanimous. I do not imagine that any of our colleagues will be defecting. However, we know that friendship is a fragile thing that we must always work to preserve.

I said that the Bloc Québécois supported Bill C-2. Any kind of offence could make even a man over 40 wish for young offender status.

In a more serious vein, we were presented with a number of bills. Of 12 bills that the government introduced since coming into office, six received royal assent, four made their way to the Senate and the remaining two were to be examined in committee. Naturally we had reservations about the dangerous offenders’ bill, which is a serious bill and I will come back to it. We still have those reservations. There was also Bill C-32 on impaired driving.

When the government suggests that the opposition did not work diligently, some explanation is in order. When a party has been in government for two years—not quite two years even—and you have succeeded in obtaining royal assent for six bills, when half of your legislative agenda has been adopted, I think the government’s criticism is not well founded. The Bloc Québécois has worked very hard in the Committee on Justice and Human Rights and the Committee on Public Safety and National Security. We will continue to work hard in the future.

I know that the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue will be speaking about this in a few minutes, but there is a problem of philosophy. For a democrat—let me put it the way René Lévesque did—the end cannot justify the means. Even if we know that judicial practice in our courts should be changed, my colleague for Abitibi—Témiscamingue will agree with me that when a person is held in detention before trial, for example, and they want to subtract two days from any sentence for each day in detention, there is perhaps something that we need to look at.

If the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin were with us today, he would join with me in recognizing that the government should have made tackling the parole system a priority. This is an area where the support of the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue is very firm, very strong, and not negotiable. You can be sure that I take comfort in this.

So I was talking about the question of sentencing, about release after one-sixth of the sentence. If a judge in a court of law, with defence counsel, Crown counsel and a jury as provided under the Criminal Code, has imposed a sentence, it seems that allowing the accused to be released after one-sixth of the sentence is very soon. There are philosophical questions that concern us, that cry out for answers. We are not prepared to accept everything in Bill C-2.

Generally speaking, I think we must remember that crime is dropping. There was an increase in crime in the 1960s and 1970s, both property crime and crimes against the person. This continued until the 1990s, with small variations. After that, crime has fallen. There have been peaks, for example in 1994, 1995 and 1996, when we had the whole phenomenon of organized crime. Some of my colleagues may recall this.

In fact, I owe this to history. To be truthful, I must point out that the Bloc Québécois was the first to call for anti-gang legislation. I recall very clearly having discussions with senior officials who wanted to dismantle the organized crime rings. At that point, there were 38 criminal biker gangs known to law enforcement agencies. The main one was the Hell’s Angels. The obvious face of organized crime in our communities was the Hell’s Angels.

Some senior officials wanted to dismantle the organized crime rings using the conspiracy provisions. The member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue will recall that this was section 476 of the Criminal Code, if memory serves me.

Obviously, in the Bloc Québécois, we were convinced that this was not possible. Why? Take the example of Maurice “Mom” Boucher. While he gave the orders, he was not the one who carried them out. There was a gap in the chain of command that meant that it was extremely difficult to lay charges against the organized crime kingpins, even though the people responsible for surveillance techniques, even though the law enforcement agencies, the Montreal police service, the Criminal Intelligence Service Canada and the RCMP, were able to identify who the kingpins of those criminal organizations were.

It was the Bloc Québécois, through the wisdom it has always had—wisdom that is perhaps not innate, because it took a lot of work to gain it—speaking in the voice you are listening to now, that took action to deal with this. The member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles also worked very hard on it, as did the member for Berthier—Montcalm. I think I can bring back fond memories in this House if I mention the name of Michel Bellehumeur. He was appointed to the bench because of his personal talent and his intellectual breadth. The member for Berthier—Montcalm had all the qualifications needed to be appointed to the bench, and today he is a judge of the Court of Québec, Criminal Division.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, November 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in the history of the Bloc Québécois, the question of young offenders has been extremely important. Those who have sat in this House since 1993 or 1997 will recall that we had a colleague by the name of Michel Bellehumeur, who today has been raised to the bench. He was the member for Berthier—Montcalm and was our critic on justice and matters relating to the Attorney General. In 1999 he fought a fine battle on behalf of Bloc Québécois members. The minister at that time was Ms. McLellan, from Alberta. I am not sure whether I am recalling good or bad memories for the House, but she was the justice minister. She was succeeded by Allan Rock and, after that, Martin Cauchon.

At the time, we were examining a bill that was extremely negative concerning practices of the Government of Quebec. The National Assembly had unanimously passed a motion demanding that the bill be withdrawn. The Quebec Minister of Justice at the time was a Quebec City lawyer. We all know how the Quebec City area has always appreciated wisdom in the field of justice. The Quebec City lawyer, now minister, Linda Goupil, formally wrote to the Government of Canada asking for withdrawal of the bill.

What were the issues involved? The Government of Quebec was very resistant to pretrial detention and any kind of measure that had the consequence of prematurely incarcerating people, especially young people. Let us remember that the Liberal bill wanted to refer young people of 14 and 15 to adult courts.

The philosophy of the National Assembly, regardless of government, whether Parti Québécois or Liberal, was to use the right measure at the right time. In some circumstances it could be appropriate to send a youth to a youth centre, while in other cases, the young person should be kept in the community under the guidance of a responsible adult.

There are actually few cases where early incarceration is the appropriate avenue. Of course, it cannot be totally excluded. We can understand that there may be cases of very violent youth, with psychotic behaviour, who have difficulty in controlling their sex drive. Obviously, no one in this House would want that kind of young person to go free in the community. However, that is the exception, rather than the rule.

Minister McLellan’s bill nevertheless had one merit. Although it was a badly defined bill that, in far too many cases, would send young people into adult courts, it did address the issue of pretrial detention.

We made the following observation. The federal and provincial ministers and those who analyzed the issue of young people in the justice system recognized that instead of providing meaningful interventions or offering measures of support, they were opting for the most repressive measures by allowing pretrial detention.

The bill that is now before us not only re-opens that debate over pre-trial detention but it would also deal with an extremely unsettling principle, that of including the principle of deterrence among the very objectives of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

We are well acquainted with the principle of deterrence. It is common knowledge that my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue is a renowned jurist, a progressive spirit in all circumstances. In any case, that is my wish. I believe that my colleague from Quebec City will join me in paying tribute to the member from Abitibi-Témiscamingue and acknowledging his wisdom in the area of law.

Even though we know that the goal of deterrence is found in section 718 of the Criminal Code and that it may be appropriate to resort to it, the fact remains that there is a very specific reason why Parliament did not include it in section 2 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act . In terms of youth criminal justice, deterrence must not be the priority. Naturally, when someone is kept in prison, in detention, the judge will bear these considerations in mind when handing down a sentence; however, this must not be our priority.

I would like to read an excerpt from Supreme Court decision R. v. B.W.P.; R. v. B.V.N. It deals simultaneously with two appeals. It makes it very clear why it is undesirable for deterrence to be included in the stated objectives in the Youth Criminal Justice Act. It says:

Unlike some other factors in sentencing, general deterrence has a unilateral effect on the sentence. When it is applied as a factor in sentencing, it will always serve to increase the penalty or make it harsher; its effect is never mitigating. The application of general deterrence as a sentencing principle, of course, does not always result in a custodial sentence; however, it can only contribute to the increased use of incarceration, not its reduction. Hence, the exclusion of general deterrence from the new regime is consistent with Parliament’s express intention to reduce the over-reliance of incarceration for non-violent young persons. I am not persuaded by the Crown’s argument—

Those are the words of Justice Charron who wrote the decision. She continues:

I am not persuaded by the Crown’s argument that the words of the preamble referring to the public availability of information indicate that Parliament somehow intended by those words to include general deterrence as part of the new regime. The reference in the preamble to the desirability that certain information be available to the public, in and of itself and in context, cannot reasonably support such an interpretation.

So we can see in which direction the government wants to take us. I know that all the Bloc Québécois members will oppose this bill and will ask that it be withdrawn. Furthermore, this bill is not what the National Assembly wants. Again, focusing on deterrence, an objective of criminal law or penology, is not the way to address the issue of youth justice. The exemplary nature of sentences is the deterrent, and that can only be achieved by longer sentences.

I know that other Bloc Québécois members will expand on this, but I am calling on the government to be very careful about the precedents it could set. It would be very irresponsible for members elected by the people of Quebec to support a bill like this one. That does not mean we should not look at the issue of youth crime, but I must remind everyone that youth crime is going down, as is crime in general.

Since my time has expired, I will stop here, but I would like to say that the Bloc Québécois will not support this ill-advised bill, which is legally unsound and does not respect the wishes of the National Assembly.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, November 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech. It brought back fond memories of the time when we were both sitting on the Standing Committee on Health. Unfortunately, I no longer have the pleasure of sharing that experience with her, but I am convinced that the member for Québec does so brilliantly.

Our colleague has concerns, and rightly so, about this being a somewhat isolated bill, about the government's lack of vision and scope when it comes to strategies to fight poverty or help young people.

We in the Bloc Québécois have had longstanding concerns about the whole issue of poverty reduction. On many occasions, we introduced bills or motions on the subject. For example, we have introduced a motion to amend the Canadian Human rights Act to add social condition to the prohibited grounds of discrimination. It is pretty incredible that all the provinces are subject to that prohibition, but not the federal government.

My hon. colleague is right also to be concerned about the bill not being appropriate because it is not respectful of the provinces' demands, and those from Quebec in particular.

I would like her to share with us her views on an eventual anti-poverty strategy. What should such a strategy contain? I imagine that she will not be able to stop herself from referring to the wealth of experience in Quebec, where anti-poverty legislation was passed under Bernard Landry's PQ government.