Réal Ménard

[Canadian Human Rights Act, February 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I feel very privileged to have the opportunity to speak on the subject of Bill C-44. This is an important bill because it addresses an important aspect of first nations' organization and shared reality: their relationship to human rights and freedoms.

Any Quebecker who thinks about first nations cannot help but think about René Lévesque who, as we all know, was not only the founder of the sovereignty association movement, but was also a man with a very generous vision of our relationship with first nations.

When he was premier, René Lévesque introduced a motion in the National Assembly to recognize Quebec's 11 aboriginal nations as nations. The word “nation” implies recognition of a people's history, language, institutions, will to live, and territory. It implies that they deserve to be considered not just a society, a minority or a group, but a nation.

The term “nation” also implies self-determination. Self-determination is the right to decide one's own future, the right to decide one's own destiny, and the right to create one's own vision for progress.

We must support Bill C-44 in principle. This reminds me that a former Supreme Court justice, Justice La Forest, was given a mandate by Allan Rock or Anne McLellan. One of those former justice ministers chose him to oversee a working group on the modernization of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Justice La Forest came to two major conclusions. Like all New Brunswickers, he is very endearing.

Justice La Forest concluded that social condition should be added to the Canadian Human Rights Act as prohibited grounds for discrimination. As unbelievable as it sounds, social condition is not currently grounds for discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Eight provinces and territories have it. Quebec was the first to include it. Yet the federal government never updated the Canadian Human Rights Act by including social condition.

Since 1997, I have repeatedly tabled bills to ensure that this is done. Other members have done this as well. I know that in the other chamber, in the Senate, Senator Kinsella, who has become the Speaker of the Senate and is a professor specializing in human rights, has also tabled a bill to this effect.

Judge La Forest's second recommendation was to remove the exception made under section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act so that the act would apply. All Quebec and Canadian citizens, no matter what their origin or position in society, whether or not they are a members of a first nation, are subject to the Canadian Human Rights Act.

First, a distinction must be made. The Canadian Human Rights Act is not the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter is a constitutional document adopted in 1982. You will recall that this was a very unhappy time for Quebec because the charter was adopted without the agreement of the National Assembly.

At the time, under both René Lévesque and Claude Ryan, everyone was well aware that this was no the way to treat one of the founding peoples of Canada, that is, Quebec, which had significant experience in the protection of human rights; in 1977, it instituted the Quebec charter of human rights and freedoms, which continues to this day to guarantee judicial, social and economic rights. It is considered to be one of the most thorough documents on human rights. The Canadian Human Rights Act protects individuals who receive the services of the federal government or in areas where it has jurisdiction, such as banking, national transportation, financial institutions, the RCMP and the federal government itself.

Anyone who believes they are the victim of discrimination by a federal institution, agency or office can invoke the Canadian Human Rights Act, which has significant repercussions for intergovernmental affairs.

It is a pleasure for me to note how well my caucus is served in intergovernmental affairs because the member for Trois-Rivières is our critic and looks after this file with sensitivity and wisdom.

The Canadian Human Rights Act lists 11 prohibited grounds of discrimination. I am going to mention them for everyone's benefit. They are: race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion—regarding which the Supreme Court has handed down some landmark rulings—age, sex and sexual orientation. I was in this House when we amended the Canadian Human Rights Act. This was in response to court rulings and to representations from all the groups involved in the protection of major civil liberties. It was the then Minister of Justice, Allan Rock, who amended the Canadian Human Rights Act. Later on, he was appointed to the United Nations by the Liberals but, unfortunately, the Conservatives did not renew his mandate at the UN.

The Canadian Human Rights Act protects our fellow citizens who receive services from the federal government, or its agencies, against discrimination based on race, ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status—whether or not one is married; as we know, some very important rulings were made by the Supreme Court, including on custody and income—family status, disability and, what is more unusual, conviction for which a pardon has been granted.

When that act was passed, section 67 provided the following:

Nothing in this Act affects any provision of the Indian Act or any provision made under or pursuant to that Act.

When we passed the Canadian Human Rights Act, why did we want to exclude the first nations from its scope, and particularly people who live on reserves? This was meant to be a transitional provision, because we wanted to negotiate with the first nations to prepare them to develop conciliation methods, to prepare them for the fact that complaints might be made to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and, ultimately, a notice to appear before the Human Rights Tribunal might be issued.

Section 67 was meant to be a transitional, temporary provision, not a permanent one. The various governments that have been in office have all failed in their responsibility to negotiate with the first nations.

It is not the first time, as my colleague from Chambly just reminded me. He could give us countless examples, himself, with regard to employment insurance and the POWA, the Program for Older Worker Adjustment. Examples abound of governments that renege on their commitments.

The government did not negotiate to create any mechanisms suited to the first nations. We are talking here about areas such as culture, heritage, traditions and the justice system. How can we not think, for example, of what justice means to our aboriginal people?

As a matter of fact, the Law Reform Commission tabled an excellent report on the subject. The Conservatives have abolished that commission. Could we have ever thought that a government would be so mean-spirited as to abolish such an important consultative body? May I add that that body was chaired by the dean of the University of Ottawa law school, Nathalie Des Rosiers.

It was with astonishment that we realized that this government is not keen on doing intellectual work. It does not want to create situations where it would be confronted with its values and its vision, which is we know is a right-wing vision. That is the difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals. I am not saying that the Liberals are above reproach, but since coming into office, the Conservatives have proven that not only the economic right is alive and well, but also the social right. We had not seen that from a government in a long time.

How can we not be outraged, for example, by the fact that the government is planning to cut $2 billion, not from tax shelters or subsidies to oil companies, but from literacy programs, from Status of Women Canada and from programs aimed at helping those in need?

Coming back to Bill C-44, what is really sad about this bill is not the principle. We recognize that aboriginal nations are different—as I pointed out—in terms of justice. On that, the Law Commission of Canada pointed out that restitution is possible, and not merely restitution in the form of fines and imprisonment. When an offence is committed in an aboriginal community, people sit down together and figure out how restitution can be achieved. Restitution could involve the offender putting himself or herself at the direct service of the victim. There are all sorts of innovative and more interesting ways to look at justice than our conventional sentencing mechanisms.

We can surely agree, in 2007, that the specificity of aboriginal peoples cannot preclude offering impervious guarantees concerning human rights. We can no longer tolerate the notion of two categories of citizens: those who are protected by the Canadian Human Rights Act and can invoke it when discrimination occurs, and those who are excluded.

The Bloc Québécois agrees that section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act should be removed from the act, as Justice La Forest recommended.

However, there is one thing we do not understand. Our critics who sit on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development know what this is; we do not understand why there was no prior consultation with aboriginal groups and the first nations.

It is true that the bill provides for a six month transition period as soon as section 67 is repealed. Nonetheless, that is not very much time considering the adjustments that will be necessary.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court, in Delgamuukw, in Mitchell and in so many other cases, reminded us that the federal government has a specific responsibility toward aboriginals: it is their trustee. When the charter was passed in 1982, section 35 recognized specific ancestral rights for the first nations stemming from the fact that they were the first inhabitants of this land. It is unacceptable that the federal government, in its capacity as trustee—as part of its fiduciary responsibilities—is not consulting the first nations.

Again, the Bloc Québécois does not have a problem with the principle of the matter. We agree that 30 years after the Canadian Human Rights Act was passed, it is conceivable, normal and desirable for the first nations to enjoy the same protection, same rights and the same constitutional guarantees. When discrimination occurs, they have to be able to lodge a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and ultimately call for a human rights tribunal, if necessary.

This is the federal government's responsibility as a trustee. Moreover, if the member for Abitibi were with us today, he would remind us of that fact. Our colleague who sits on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development would do the same. If the federal government has one fiduciary responsibility, it is that it must never take action without first consulting extensively.

This is what is so sad about the current situation. No one in the first nations was consulted, be it their authorized spokesperson, Phil Fontaine, Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, the women's groups or young people. We believe that this is not the way to do things.

Failing to consult these groups is a black mark on the federal government in its relations with the first nations. Obviously, it is not the only one. We know that this government has a very poor record when it comes to the first nations, especially on the issue of housing.

We know that the first nations are a young people. Demographically and statistically, they are undergoing great changes. They are a people with an extremely high birth rate. Young people make up a large segment of the aboriginal population. This reality raises the whole issue of equitable access to housing.

The government has a fiduciary responsibility to the first nations. Sadly, it is doing a very poor job of living up to its responsibilities and has not put sufficient resources for housing on the table.

Since I see that my time is almost up, I will conclude by saying that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill C-44. It was in favour when Justice La Forest issued his recommendations in 2002. We believe that human rights and freedoms should apply equally to first nations people living on reserves and people living throughout Canada and Quebec. Nevertheless, it saddens us that the first nations were not consulted. We hope the government will learn its lesson and will not introduce other legislation without holding consultations.

[Judicial Appointments, February 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Bar Association says that if people do not believe that judges are impartial, they will lose confidence in the legal system.

How can the Prime Minister compromise the entire justice system for the sake of his ideology?

[Judicial Appointments, February 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has just admitted that he wants to do judicial profiling. According to the Quebec bar, he will now be choosing judges based on criteria that should ordinarily disqualify them.

Does the Prime Minister not agree that by acting in this way, he is undermining the credibility of the legal system, which is based on judicial objectivity and impartiality? What meanspiritedness.

[Criminal Code, February 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our colleague for his question. I know that he has been interested in the work of the committee for at least 10 years and his point of view is very important to me. He often shows common sense, which I respect very much.

Nonetheless, I must say to him that we have to get one thing straight. We are claiming that there are cases where release on bail is not indicated. We agree, but we believe it is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove it. Beyond the exceptions in the Criminal Code, we believe it is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove it.

In the most obvious cases, such as the examples he gave, I do not believe that a judge would allow release on bail. We agree with him that there are certain cases where this is not indicated. However, we do not want to broaden the cases of reverse onus.

[Criminal Code, February 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, our colleague is right to remind us how sad it is to see, I am sure, that many of us have been under pressure when it comes to the national crime prevention strategy.

I hope the government understands that it is important to bring projects to the grassroots and that our communities need this money. I agree with the hon. member. It is clear that we need more solid information on the financial consequences of this bill, particularly for the provinces which, in some cases, will see an increase in the number of prosecutions.

[Criminal Code, February 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles that I looked to France—Marianne, eldest daughter of the church—for inspiration because that country has achieved sovereignty. Unfortunately for him, when he makes such comparisons, he inspires us all and reinforces our belief that Quebec must become sovereign.

I hope that by inviting us to consider the French judicial model, where presumption of innocence does not exist, the member is not suggesting that his government would do such a thing. That is not our legal tradition. To my knowledge, none of the stakeholders—indeed, no member of our civil society—would like to see that model used here. The main reason the Bloc Québécois cannot support the bill is that we believe reverse onus, as proposed for eight offences, is not the right solution.

This would not prevent prosecutors or the crown attorney from acting. If a person should not be released, if that person is a danger to society or used a firearm inappropriately, it remains the prerogative—if not the responsibility—of the justice not to allow that person to be released. I repeat, pre- trial release is not a constitutional right.

The main difference between how the Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party view the justice system is that we, the Bloc Québécois, trust judges while the Conservatives do not have much respect for the judiciary.

I would like to conclude by thanking him for his confidence in Hélène Alarie. I think that in her report, the vice-president of the Bloc Québécois concluded that we will be first in line to win back Quebec in the next election. I would like to caution him against being overly confident because we have set our sights on Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

[Criminal Code, February 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-35, concerning release on bail.

I must say that the Bloc Québécois, my leader, my colleagues and my colleague from Châteauguay, will not be supporting this bill. Not because the issues raised are not important, but we believe that this government has an insidious reflex, a dangerous propensity and tendency to want to undermine the principles of natural justice.

This bill wants to narrow the important concept of presumption of innocence. There are litigators in this House. I know that the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin was an extremely vigorous, formidable and respected attorney.

I have a small anecdote. Yesterday, I was at my last law course on evidence and procedure when, quite nonchalantly, my professor told me and my colleagues that he had an idol. He was referring to the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin. Obviously, I was flattered by association by this tribute to the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin. It was the part of the course when we were talking about plea bargaining. It was extremely moving to me to hear my professor tell me that in the courts of justice where the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin worked as a stern defence attorney, he was a tough and formidable man. The professor explained to us that there was something insidious in plea bargaining, but that without it, the judicial system would break down under the pressure of all these charges and all these cases that have to be tried.

I know that the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin will agree with me that there is something absolutely sacred in the presumption of innocence. We have learned that we have to minimize cases where there is reverse onus. The presumption of innocence must never be lost. It is the responsibility of the prosecution, it is the responsibility of the Crown to prove that the accused breached a provision of the Criminal Code.

Of course the Bloc Québécois is in full agreement with the idea—in fact it made a significant contribution to it—of giving police officers the most effective tools for conducting investigations and bringing people to justice.

In Quebec charges are not laid by the police. They are laid by attorneys general. But we are constantly concerned about the need to provide the police with the most effective tools. This is why in the past we have asked for extended wire-tapping warrants. This is also why we demanded provisions in the anti-gang law to bring charges against organized crime in the 1990s.

The most worrisome thing is to hear the Minister of Justice say that the bill will help prevent crime. This could not be less true. If the government is really concerned about crime prevention, perhaps—and I am sure that many members feel as I do—the Minister of Public Security will sign some projects under the national crime prevention strategy so that community groups can get down to work in our various ridings at the grassroots level with people in the communities, and do some real prevention work.

So Bill C-35 proposes that, at the appearance stage and in some cases even at the preliminary investigation state, the onus be placed on the accused, the person charged. Therefore before the trial the accused has to be able to show that he can be set free.

The Bloc Québécois does not think that this should be automatic. Being set free when one has broken the law is not a constitutional right. The constitutional right is the right to be represented by a lawyer, the right to be heard and to have a fair trial.

What we do not understand is why the Crown, why the Crown attorney, should be exempt from demonstrating that we are in the presence of an accused who does not deserve to be set free.

Once again I want us to be clear about this. We agree that in some situations an accused should not be set free and should be detained until his trial begins. The Criminal Code has such provisions. I would remind members that we are not before a judge or in a trial. We are in a situation where bail is an option. We are weighing the evidence, we are at the stage of an appearance or a preliminary investigation.

There are situations, of course, when it is prudent, justifiable and perfectly comprehensible for the Crown to say that an individual should not be released, for example when evidence might be destroyed, when the individual may not appear as required for his or her trial, or when the individual poses a danger to the victim or the community.

We also already have provisions that require people charged with an offence to show themselves why they should be released. This is true, for instance, in cases of gangsterism.

I was a member of this House when we passed Bill C-95. In its original version, this bill stated that if five people had been found guilty of five offences over the previous five years, they were members of a gang. It was the crime of gangsterism. Nowadays, the term has changed and we speak of a criminal organization.

We agree that if the information or indictment involves Criminal Code sections 467.11, 467.12 or 467.13, this is a serious enough matter. If a person is accused of gangsterism and is one of the members of society that has been criminalized to this extent, we agree that there should not be any automatic responses and it should be up to the person to demonstrate that he or she does not pose any threat to society. In most cases, these people are not released.

This is true not only of the old charge of gangsterism but also, as the hon. member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant pointed out, of the new gangsterism provisions passed in 2002. It is true as well when release conditions have been violated, when someone who was already out on bail or probation violated the conditions. If an individual already tried once to dodge the legal system and violated the conditions, it is completely understandable that he or she will not be released.

The bill goes much too far and there is a problem and considerable concern about offences committed with a firearm. I can never say enough about the inconsistencies, contradictions and stupidity of this government. On the one hand, it asks us parliamentarians to pass stricter legislation on offences committed with firearms, while on the other, it is willing to leave more arms in circulation.

What a disappointment it has been to us to see this government maneuvering, ever since it was elected, to abolish the gun registry.

The police have reminded us that this registry is consulted all across Canada, not just by the RCMP; not just by the Sûreté du Québec, and not only by the Montreal police. Police officers and law enforcement officers consult the registry 6,500 times a day. That is not insignificant.

I want to thank the researcher for the Bloc, Olivier Bernard, for providing us with very precise statistics. I will share them with you. What a contradiction this is. The gun registry, with compulsory registration, has been in existence for several years, notwithstanding the fact that the Conservatives have tabled a bill to dismantle it. This registry that is consulted an average of 6,500 times per day is not unimportant. There are 1.2 million restricted firearms that were required to be registered. That means 1.2 million firearms that were taken out of circulation thanks to this registry.

What does this mean? The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is now debating that point. We are going through clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10. Unfortunately, it is not a good bill because it is based on a philosophy that has been refuted by I do not know how many studies.

The bill seeks to impose mandatory minimum penalties for a number of crimes committed with a firearm. The Bloc Québécois is concerned about rigour and consistency. When Allan Rock established the gun registry, he established minimum mandatory penalties for crimes committed with a firearm.

We would like to know what that has meant. Scientific studies presented to the committee show that there is no correlation between minimum mandatory penalties and any deterrent effect that the presence of those penalties in the Criminal Code could have on criminals.

As a legislator, it is normal to ask questions about the consequences of public policies before adopting them.

What inconsistency, what contradiction. I am anxious to see some sign of enlightenment in the Conservative caucus. Someone who was a bit enlightened could make the government see reason. They could make it understand that one can not, on one hand, adopt or table bills that call for more severe penalties for crimes committed with a firearm, and, on the other hand—as though there was a constitutional right to bear arms—freely allow firearms to be carried as if that were not something that had consequences.

I am again appealing to all members to ensure that the government listens to reason, as urged by the police association. Many stakeholders from civil society have told the government that it does not make sense to dismantle the gun registry.

The shortcoming of Bill C-35 is that it is much too general. In some cases, pre-trial release is not justified. We reiterate that point and we concur. However, at present, we are discussing a number of offences that, in our opinion, should not automatically allow for reverse onus.

We must not shift the presumption of innocence without concern for the consequences to the administration of justice. We cannot toy with the principles of natural justice. Very often, I heard Conservative members, whom I will not name out of kindness—although I have a terrible urge to look at them and point them out, I will not do so—say that it was as though the Charter were a necessary evil.

Naturally, it is easier to devise the judicial system when we think in black and white and when there is no need to reconcile respect for the burden of proof or for disclosure of evidence, for example. That is certain. There is obviously an imbalance when we want a society where, on the one hand, there is the Crown with all its resources and means and, on the other hand, there are the offenders.

The Bloc Québécois supported increasing penalties for the most serious offenders. Again this morning, I made a proposal to the committee in an effort to bolster the fight against organized crime, with its contemporary incarnation of street gangs. We know that street gangs are a significant phenomenon. They are a reality in Montreal and in Toronto and, I am told, are organizing in Calgary, Saskatoon and Halifax. And of course there is Vancouver, where street gangs are a very important reality.

We cannot just go along with this idea that justice will be administered more effectively and things will be more acceptable if reverse onus is generalized. We do not believe that this is the right approach.

Unfortunately, we cannot support the bill as it currently stands. What is more, I was very surprised to learn something, which I checked with my leader. I think the government could have had the courtesy to inform the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that it planned to create a legislative committee. Of course, the government has the right to create a legislative committee.

For the people who are watching, a legislative committee is a committee that has a limited lifespan, existing only as long as a bill is being studied. For example, legislative committees studied the language-based school boards when the constitutional amendment was made and also studied Canada's clean air act and same-sex marriage. Obviously, this means double the time for the people on the committee, and I believe I will be sitting on it with my colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant. In my opinion, the government could have had the courtesy to tell us about it.

The bill is too broad, because it targets all offences involving firearms. In my view, this is not the right approach. We repeat: the Bloc Québécois will always support legislation that gives the police more resources to conduct investigations, for example.

We recognize that, in a certain number of cases, maximum sentences need to be increased. We believe that. We support Bill C-10, which creates two new offences. We voted for the bill in committee, and we will vote for it at the report stage if the committee decides to send Bill C-10 back to the House. We will support the two new offences created by Bill C-10: robbery to steal a firearm and breaking and entering to steal a firearm.

In conclusion, I call on the government to take a much more moderate approach, and I hope that the members of this House will understand the risk that reverse onus poses to the administration of justice. Because of these concerns, the Bloc Québécois will vote against Bill C-35 at second reading.

[Criminal Code, February 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech.

Is there not a glaring contradiction between the rhetoric of this government, which wants to punish people and increase mandatory minimum sentences—even though some thirty witnesses appeared before the committee to tell us that this has no deterrent effect—and the fact that the government refuses to assume its responsibilities regarding gun control, by eliminating a public registry that Canadians want?

Does the hon. member recognize that a public firearms registry with mandatory registration helped keep 1.2 million weapons off the street? This registry is consulted 6,500 times a day by various police forces across Canada.

Does he not see that when it comes to inconsistency, contradictions, double talk and subterfuge, there is no better example than the rhetoric of this government?

[Criminal Code, February 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his speech and I will ask two quick questions.

I understand the significance of this bill, but why did the government choose to set up a legislative committee and to refer the bill to this committee? This is the first I hear of it. I glanced over at my colleagues, who were members of the committee, and we had the impression that the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights would study this bill. I realize that this is the prerogative of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and does he perhaps have the answer?

Second, does he not find it contradictory for his government to abolish the gun registry, which is consulted 6,000 times a day by the police? It is a means of limiting the number of guns in circulation.

What is the use of increasing penalties or reversing the burden of proof for offences involving firearms if we do not permit the interception of firearms and if we do not give the police the means to determine whether or not firearms are in play when they are called to intervene? Is there not something contradictory, even illogical, in this reasoning?

[Criminal Code, February 13th, 2007]

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

I would like to know if there was an error on the part of the Speaker or if it was I who misunderstood. You indicated that the bill would be referred to a legislative committee. This is the first time that has been mentioned.

Does the government really intend to do that or will this bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice?