Réal Ménard

[Criminal Code, June 16th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-26, which is supported by the Bloc Québécois. We supported this bill in its previous form, when it was presented in this House as Bill C-53.

We worked very diligently in committee. As our party's justice critic, I attended all the meetings. I was accompanied by my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, who has at least 30 years of experience as a criminal lawyer. His training was obviously very valuable during our examination.

We do not at all underestimate the gravity of auto theft. We heard a great deal of evidence in committee indicating just how important this issue is. If we sometimes have a tendency to refer to auto theft as a victimless crime, we must correct that tendency. It causes immense inconvenience for those whose cars are stolen, particularly in the regions. It also has a serious impact on the economy, given the associated costs for crime prevention groups, law enforcement agencies and people who rely on the protection provided by insurance.

Some of the best evidence we had in committee was from Richard Dubin of the Insurance Bureau of Canada. I would like to quote him. I believe that it provides a good context for situating the action to be taken by legislators in order to deal with the entire issue of car theft. He said:

Simply put, the days of the joyride have been replaced with sophisticated criminal rings bent on stealing automobiles, because the current penalties associated with this theft are so lenient and the profits are so attractive. These criminals steal vehicles and chop them up to sell parts. They switch the vehicle identification number to change the identity of the stolen vehicle, which is then sold to an unsuspecting consumer. And they export thousands of high-end vehicles through Canadian ports each year to overseas destinations where they can fetch a much higher price than here at home. In 2007, [not that long ago] almost 150,000 vehicles were stolen in Canada--exactly 146,142, to be precise. That cost auto insurance policyholders approximately $542 million. In that year, every policyholder in Canada paid an average of about $35 of their auto insurance premiums to finance costs incurred by the acts of car thieves.

Car thefts can be broken down into three categories. There are the petty thieves, the young people from the regions, who do it perhaps to impress someone. I said from the regions, but they can also be found in Montreal. I do not want to imply that this does not happen in big cities, but I am sure you know what I mean. These are young people who do not necessarily have a criminal record and decide to go for a joyride, decide to borrow a vehicle without permission to take it for a long, unauthorized drive. This is the first type of car theft. I would call it a joyride, which is not any less reprehensible or damaging to the victims. However, it does happen.

Other car thefts are committed by people who sell car parts. There is a market for them. They can resell the motor and some parts.

There are obviously large organized crime networks that are involved in importing and exporting, and that will export vehicles, especially luxury vehicles, to destinations and countries where they can make more money.

In all three cases, we can see how unique this bill is. Everyone knows that the Bloc Québécois is a responsible, clear-minded party that shows good judgment. When a measure is good, we support it; when a measure is excessive, we speak out against it; and when a measure is very bad, we fight it. I am pleased to tell the government members that we will enthusiastically support Bill C-26 because we know very well how serious the car theft industry is for our communities. When I studied law—a bit more recently than some other members in this House—we learned that the Criminal Code makes a distinction between theft where the value of what is stolen exceeds $5,000 and theft where that value does not exceed $5,000. However, until now, there has not been a specific offence related to car theft. Individuals were accused of possession of stolen goods, we made use of offences that were related, but there was no specific charge related to car theft. The government intends to create a specific offence for car theft, and I think that it has the support of law enforcement agencies. It certainly has the support of consumer organizations.

I will come back, obviously, to these offences but it is important to know that it is an extremely distressing state of affairs. In 1977, for example, 84,000 vehicles were reported stolen. In the early 1980s, the figure rose to 96,000. In 2007, it was 146,000. As we can see, in numerical terms, this phenomenon has grown significantly with, once again, the consequences involved in terms of insurance premiums and the resources required on the part of those enforcing the law.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you have never had your car stolen. I have not, as I do not have a car, but others may have and deserve our sympathy.

Certain distinctions need to be made if we are to understand this phenomenon. First, the rate of recovery of stolen vehicles varies significantly from one region to another. I have some statistics in this regard. In 2007, four of every ten stolen vehicles were not recovered by the police. What does that mean? We might think that the vehicles not recovered were intended for export and that organized crime was involved. It should also be noted that, in 2007, the lowest rate of vehicle recovery—and I was blown away to discover it—and I would draw the attention of the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles to this, was in Montreal, the Saguenay, Sherbrooke and Trois-Rivières. I repeat that, in 2007, it was in Montreal, the region I represent, the Saguenay, Sherbrooke and Trois-Rivières that the fewest vehicles were recovered. People might think that the residents of Trois-Rivières are leading a happy existence, preparing to celebrate their 375th anniversary as if they had not a care in the world, but in fact there are problems with car theft.

And so, with regret, I must inform the House about the city that tops the list for this kind of offence.

I see that my colleague from Trois-Rivières felt I was directing my remarks at her, but the city that tops the list in all categories is the city of Winnipeg. It has one of the highest rates of vehicle recovery in Canada. So, it is in Winnipeg that the most vehicles are stolen, but it is in Winnipeg that the most are recovered. Still, these are troubling data.

What does the bill propose?

I repeat, the Bloc Québécois enthusiastically supports this bill because we are a responsible and reasonable party. I have no recollection of our party not supporting a government whose measures were reasonable.

The bill creates four new offences. First, there will be, as I said, a separate offence for the theft of a motor vehicle, punishable by a maximum sentence of 10 years. Obviously, I repeat, we have no problem with maximum sentences, since their application is left to the discretion of the judge.

Also, in the case of a third offence, there will be a minimum sentence of six months below which the judge cannot go. The type of proceedings will be at the discretion of the plaintiff.

We support the creation of a second offence in Bill C-26 in connection with the alteration of a motor vehicle identification number. In the course of our work, I learned that every vehicle has an alphanumeric number that is located in a different place depending on the vehicle model. It is not always in the same place. This set of 12 alphanumeric characters can be obliterated or changed to facilitate the resale of the vehicle, and that would constitute a specific offence. I believe that is a good thing. It is covered by clause 3 of the bill.

In addition to creating an offence for obliterating the vehicle identification number, as well as an offence for auto theft with a maximum sentence ranging from 6 months to 10 years, the bill establishes a third offence for trafficking in property obtained by crime and for possession of property obtained by crime for the purpose of trafficking. I spoke earlier about the import and export of autos dismantled for parts. Under clause 5 of the bill, this will be an offence carrying a maximum sentence of 14 years.

The fourth new offence is very important for those working at the Canada Border Services Agency, who will henceforth be able to prevent property obtained by crime from being taken across the border. I was very surprised to learn that, under the terms of the law, customs officers did not have the means to intercept stolen vehicles. This bill will correct that situation.

This is a bill that attacks a real problem. I will say it again: almost 150,000 vehicles are stolen every year. It is a reality in major centres, but not just in major centres. Earlier I gave examples of towns dealing with this problem.

I would like to speak about another issue. We were informed in committee that auto theft is a significant problem in Canada and is an offence that is committed in particular by young people between the ages of 15 and 18.

We were told, for example, that they were responsible in 2007 for three solved auto thefts in ten. The people found guilty, therefore, in three solved cases in ten in 2007 were 15 to 18 year old youths. This takes us much more in the direction of young people out looking for a thrill. With their desire to run with the crowd and impress their peers, they get together in a gang, take a car and go for a joyride. These youths are not necessarily big time criminals, but it is still very disagreeable, as the communities where this kind of thing tends to happen have pointed out to us.

I talked about the statistics and will not go back over them. However, I still want to mention the geographic realities of auto theft. For the 15th year in a row, the city of Winnipeg had the highest rate, followed by Abbotsford. The latter is a lovely town and I hope our committee gets a chance to go back there, but there is this nagging concern and the hon. member involved should delve into this a little more deeply. In third place is the city of Edmonton, followed by Regina. Then there is Kingston, which is actually a university town represented in the House by the Speaker, who guides our proceedings. Kingston is the city with the fifth highest auto theft rate. We should not think the Maritimes are spared. Saint John, New Brunswick, is in sixth place. The six communities that are most affected are therefore Winnipeg, Abbotsford, Edmonton, Regina, Kingston and Saint John.

People who want to know more about this should see the letter I had the pleasure of seeing published this morning in Le Devoir, the newspaper of Henri Bourassa himself, which explains why the Hells Angels should be outlawed. People should not hesitate to send me an email or correspond with me because this is very important. I hope to have a quick five minutes at the end of my remarks to return to this.

According to a study done by the RCMP in 1988, big criminal gangs are involved in all aspects of auto theft. That includes ordering specific vehicles, recruiting young people, taking vehicles apart, changing the vehicle identification number—which is now a specific offence—and transporting stolen vehicles outside Canada. That pretty well covers what organized crime is responsible for.

In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-26. We worked hard on it in committee. We know this is a significant problem. One hundred and fifty thousand vehicles are stolen in Canada, and certain communities are particularly hard hit.

I hope this bill will be passed as quickly as possible so that it can be sent to the other place and given speedy royal assent.

[Criminal Code, June 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have not reread the recent briefs submitted to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, but I recall that in 2002 I read briefs from witnesses who told us that the definition of “terrorist” was so broad that they actually believed that this kind of connection could be made between apprehended terrorist activities and organizations like unions and ideological or other groups.

I know that some people were apprehensive about this, but I do not know whether the recent work done by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security has resulted in any narrowing of the definition of “terrorist” from the 2002 definition.

[Criminal Code, June 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, of course, some people think that the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles is a little demagogue who distorts the facts and is incapable of any consistency with the truth in any form whatsoever. I would not want you to think I am the one saying that, but on occasion I have had to listen to descriptions along that line when someone was talking to me about the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

The Bloc Québécois has an extremely impressive track record when it comes to vigilance against organized crime. I was the first member to introduce a bill to deal with criminal organizations. We got $1,000 bills withdrawn. At the time when Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles had a very vigilant member, in the person of Richard Marceau, that is what we did. On the last day of the Martin government, we got a bill passed to reverse the burden of proof for proceeds of crime.

So when it comes to this gratuitous demagoguery from the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, who distorts the facts and is incapable of any sustained legal reasoning, we do not need it. We voted against the bills he referred to because there were mandatory minimum sentences in them. He would be unable to rise in this House and present us with a single scientific study that supports his views. The member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles is the master of demagoguery.

[Criminal Code, June 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Jeanne-Le Ber is usually enlightened and moderate, in addition. The one does not necessarily come with the other, but this member is the happy synthesis of both. My colleague is quite right. During the more than 16 years I have been in Parliament, no government has ever had such a pitiful record in human rights. Obviously, the matter of the death sentence of Canadians abroad comes to mind. The courts had to intervene to ask the government to commit to providing a more rigorous defence than what it had been offering. There are people held in foreign prisons, which the government refuses to repatriate. This government, frankly, is pitiful in the field of human rights. We have all the more reason to be concerned about the future use that might be made of these provisions.

[Criminal Code, June 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this debate on Bill C-19, whose purpose is to re-introduce two provisions that the House did not want to approve when we dealt with them back in 2007.

I remember the debate we had in 2002. I was in the House then, having been elected a few years previously. If I remember correctly, Minister McLellan was responsible for public safety at the time and there was a legislative committee on which the Bloc Québécois was represented by the hon. member for Saint-Jean. It was not the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security or the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that dealt with these proposals. I remember the situation very well. It was just after the attacks of September 11, 2001. There was a kind of psychosis in the air and all countries felt the need to be much more vigilant about terrorism. This widespread psychosis made us realize just how vulnerable we were as a society.

I can remember reading documents and going to conferences where we were told about the new phenomenon of terrorism. It was mass terrorism, in which innocent civilians were attacked. We had seen examples on subways and in airports. The terrorists were pursuing ideological ends. These were not various groups confronting one another but people trying to find ways to destabilize and terrorize civilian populations. We were trying to find methods—and very legitimately so, I can easily understand it—to avert these threats.

It was a time when the American congress had quickly passed the Patriot Act. I think the United Kingdom passed some legislation too, as well as France. Canada did not want to be left out and passed an act.

It would be a mistake for the members to allow themselves to be guided by reasoning that is fundamentally flawed. The provisions proposed here give the impression the government wants to find people to convict. It wants to force people before judges without having to meet a certain burden of proof, and that is clearly unreasonable. They argued at the time there was an emergency. I am very proud that the Bloc Québécois never yielded to this psychosis. There was also a very strong feeling of sympathy for the Americans. Prime Minister Chrétien went to walk around Ground Zero, along with all the party leaders.

We obviously have a special relationship with the United States. In speaking of it, former President Kennedy said geography made us neighbours and history, friends. There really is a symbiotic relationship between Canada and the United States. Whether it is the border, the American dream or trade flows, we are integrated in ways that can sometimes be very harmful. It is not my intention, though, to talk about that now.

I am proud that the Bloc Québécois managed to resist voting for these provisions, which are not the right approach given our objectives. When members do not agree with these provisions—one of them more than the other, if I understood correctly, especially when it comes to preventive detention in section 83.3—that does not mean we are less concerned about terrorism, we are not vigilant, we do not think we should anticipate terrorist acts, or we think there is no such thing as terrorism.

It was even explained to me that, in the world right now, there is an alarming proliferation of terrorist groups and that the most threatening terrorism, the most active, should I say, is that guided by considerations that are often ideological based on religious practices. That said, we are parliamentarians, democrats. We do not lose sight of the balance that must be struck in Parliament between rights, and of course, the end, in this case, is to protect the public. In 2002, it did not seem to us that this balance was reached and that the means being proposed to us were likely to achieve this end. Through my colleague, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, who sat on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, we are renewing our position and concerns of 2002, when we considered the provisions put before us then.

Why did we have concerns? Because, for a parliamentarian, the end can never justify the means. We can never take shortcuts with warrants, assessment of the evidence or detention, even if we are talking of 24 hours. We can never take shortcuts, because to do so in this matter, there will be no more limits and there would be a loss of vigilance that is beneath the office we hold.

People here lived through the 1970 crisis. I was a little too young, but I am well aware, having heard the oral history, of the extent to which 1970 was a blot on our collective history of individual rights. Freedoms were suspended and because of that excesses were committed against poets, women singers, people who were moved by freedom, who believed in a certain ideology but represented no threat to society.

In the Bloc Québécois, we are not prepared to give our support to this type of democratic shortcut, even less so when we consider the history of these provisions, a short history, I grant you. Investigative hearings are mechanisms by which a provincial court or superior court justice of the peace can be asked to compel a citizen to testify and answer questions. While certain mechanisms may prevent it from being prejudicial for later testimony, the potential for compelling someone on the basis of suspicions remains. These investigative hearings, while they are more clearly defined, still represent a threat to procedural balance and democracy. I will come back to this.

Investigative hearings, like preventive arrest and detention, exist in provisions but have never been used. That is rather surprising. I heard the government members telling us earlier that these are tools needed by the various law enforcement agencies. It is contradictory, not to say paradoxical, and perhaps even inconsistent to suggest that tools are vital to law enforcement agencies, when they have never been used. Could we take into consideration the fact that the reason we have never used them is that there are alternative means in law, provided in the Criminal Code, which the law enforcement agencies can use?

We all understand that when terrorism is involved, somewhat like when organized crime is involved, these are not things that come about through spontaneous generation. They are things that call for lengthy investigations and a huge amount of resources. The Bloc Québécois does not dispute that intelligence is needed or that wiretap warrants are required. I was also in this House when wiretap warrants were extended. Not only may those warrants be necessary, but there may also be surveillance operations.

Terrorism and the networks that make it possible are things that depend on organizations. It is reasonable for a state to be able to use all means available to it to try to anticipate what is going to happen. Not only is it reasonable, it is also our duty. Society would not feel safe without the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the RCMP and all of the organizations that are responsible for intelligence. I agree, and I understand, that the state must have agencies that will keep an eye on these various networks and will use wiretaps, surveillance, undercover operations and counter-espionage, and all lawful means available to its leaders, to anticipate, foresee and engage in extremely vigilant monitoring of these people’s behaviour.

Let us consider the question of preventive detention. Obviously there is a considerable risk of abuse and stigma. In our legal system, the first consideration is fairness. If the state, with its prerogative powers, uses coercion against individuals and intrudes into their private lives, it is reasonable for there to be something to offset this, that being the knowledge that the individuals will have evidence against them that will lead to a conviction. In order for them to know and understand that evidence, and be able to prepare their defence, they must know what they are charged with and they must be arrested in accordance with the procedure set out in the Criminal Code.

In the case of preventive detention, that balance is upset somewhat. If I understand correctly, in the case of preventive detention, individuals may be arrested based on grounds or suspicions. Suspicions, in legal terms, are much less sound considerations. When there are reasons to think that individuals will commit terrorist acts, we generally have information we can use to assess the situation. There are various provisions. Why not use the conspiracy provision? If I remember correctly, it is in section 467 of the Criminal Code. Why not use the conspiracy provisions?

If we want to force someone to behave in a certain way and enter into a recognizance to keep the peace, why not use section 810? There is a big difference between clause 83.3 in the proposed legislation and section 810. They both have the same objective, namely to avoid something and ensure that someone enters into a recognizance to keep the peace. Under section 810, however, the person is summoned before a justice of the peace but not arrested. That is the first very important distinction.

The justice can require him to sign a peace bond, and he is arrested only if he refuses. If I remember correctly, the person can only be arrested for 12 months, although I think that might have increased to 24 months, at least in the case of section 810.

Those are provisions, therefore, that can be used by the various people responsible for enforcing the law. Unfortunately, clause 83.3 goes much further than that. A person can be held for 24 hours. The justice can also impose conditions for keeping the peace, there is no doubt about it. There will also be a stigma attached to the person involved because he was brought before a justice of the peace and associated with things that lead one to think he was involved in terrorism.

Being stigmatized in this way can have repercussions on a person’s job. If his employer hears about it, his reputation could be tarnished in the organization he works for. His employer may well question his allegiance as an employee and even his contract.

If an employer finds out that one of his employees has been associated with terrorism, even if only suspected of it, he could very well lose confidence in him. This is understandable but very detrimental, especially as it is based not on a charge, or solid proof, or a trial conducted under the established rules but simply on a process that takes someone to a peace officer who sends him before a justice of the peace, all on the basis of suspicions.

Once someone has been associated with terrorism, even if only suspected of it, there are repercussions not only on his job but also on his mobility, for example if he wants to travel by plane or any other means.

In thinking about our objective, neither Canada nor Quebec is safe from terrorist incidents. We understand that. But why ask parliamentarians to take shortcuts with our democracy when there are no assurances that these shortcuts will ever be used by law-enforcement agencies? In fact, until there is proof to the contrary, they certainly have not been used so far.

In connection with the prevention of acts of terrorism, section 495 of the Criminal Code provides that a peace officer may arrest without warrant a person whom he believes on reasonable grounds is about to commit a criminal act. As we can see, the provisions are already in place.

I must say with no ill will, because I am totally incapable of it, that I am surprised by the attitude of our colleagues in the official opposition. The Liberals supported the charters and just society of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, and I thought they always responded positively to the call to end practices that might be considered highly discretionary and of concern in terms of individual rights. I do not understand that the official opposition is today supporting the government. If my calculations are right, that means that Bill C-19 will likely be passed. Even if the Bloc and the NDP oppose it, we can realistically expect it to pass.

That is shameful, especially since the leader of the Liberal Party, when I was a law student, was recognized as an authority in individual rights. How can he today drop his guard and allow his party to support a bill that is extremely worrisome in terms of individual rights and the potential abuses it may lead to?

My time is up. I appeal for Bill C-19 not to be passed.

[Truth in Sentencing Act, June 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the whip's office for letting me speak. I am pleased to start the week off by joining in the debate on Bill C-25, which the Bloc Québécois supports.

With our sense of balance and our healthy common sense, we are able to separate the good bills from the bad. When a bill is good for Quebec, we support it, and when it is bad, we do not support it. This is because our only loyalty is to Quebeckers.

We support Bill C-25, a measure we have been calling for since 2007. In 2007, I led a working group for the Bloc that also included the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, my colleague from Ahuntsic and my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin. Together, we built a platform of justice measures that was a far cry from the logic of mandatory minimum sentencing, which we now know has very little positive, deterrent impact.

We put together an election platform consisting of a dozen recommended measures. These measures became an integral part of the party's platform. In the recommendations I made to my caucus, it was noted that, in a way, the court system rewards offenders in pre-sentencing custody by reducing their sentences by two days for every day of custody, once the sentence is known. This makes no sense. It seems to us that this measure is rather implausible and discredits the administration of justice.

The report I submitted to the leader of the Bloc Québécois in 2007 recommended eliminating two-for-one credit, abolishing automatic parole after one-sixth of the sentence is served and making parole contingent on real, conclusive evidence of rehabilitation. We want to tackle organized crime and the fact that our society authorizes the open display of symbols that frighten and intimidate. I am thinking here of the insignia the Hells Angels use to terrorize and intimidate communities.

Those are the measures we have proposed. I will repeat that the Bloc Québécois has never been captivated, enthralled or motivated by the concept of mandatory minimum sentences. I deplore the fact that, in all the bills presented, the government has succumbed to the facile idea that just because mandatory minimum sentences are included in a bill it will make our communities safer.

I wrote a piece for La Presse, published on October 22, 2008, in which I demonstrated that judges can be somewhat over-liberal when granting credit for time served before sentencing. The principle exists and is dealt with in sections 719 through 721 of the Criminal Code. The amount of credit was established by the Supreme Court of Canada in a decision signed by Justice Arbour, on behalf of the majority. She later left the Supreme Court, as we know, to take up responsibilities with the United Nations Human Rights Commission.

In a 2000 ruling, R. v. Wust, Justice Arbour indicated the ratio to be applied when calculating the credit for time spent in pre-sentencing detention. In paragraph 45 of this Supreme Court ruling, in a text which set precedent and was adopted in all lower courts by way of the rule of stare decisis, she wrote:

In the past, many judges have given more or less two months credit for each month spent in pre-sentencing detention. This is entirely appropriate even though a different ratio could also be applied, for example, if the accused has been detained prior to trial in an institution where he or she has had full access to educational, vocational and rehabilitation programs. The often applied ratio of 2:1 reflects not only the harshness of the detention due to the absence of programs, which may be more severe in some cases than in others, but also reflects the fact that none of the remission mechanisms contained in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act apply to that period of detention.

We are talking about conditional release—or parole—and the time counted does not start from pre-trial custody. Justice Arbour added that:

“Dead time” is “real” time. The credit cannot and need not be determined by a rigid formula and is thus best left to the sentencing judge, who remains in the best position to carefully weigh all the factors which go toward the determination of the appropriate sentence, including the decision to credit the offender for any time spent in pre-sentencing custody.

Section 719 would therefore allow a judge to take into account remand custody, and the Supreme Court has validated the time ratio in use in judge-made law. The Supreme Court has created law that was not initially provided for by the legislation voted by Parliament. This is, however, a widespread practice in lower courts. This practice of deducting two days for each day remaining in the sentence might be, on the face of it, excessive.

I wrote an essay that has earned positive reviews. We are living in world where words of praise can be few and far between. This is a time of restraint, when few compliments are paid and showing consideration is something that is falling into disuse. It does wonders for one's self-esteem to be paid compliments. This essay was published in La Presse and resulted in several interviews for me in the various media.

It was based on Project Colisée, an investigation that went on for months and cost $38 million to the taxpayers, which is not an insignificant amount of money. Nowadays, investigations into organized crime can take months, and even years. They involve conducting electronic and in-person surveillance, of course, and often result in mega-trials due to the enormous amount of evidence collected. Project Colisée made it possible to lay charges against six of the most prominent figures of the Italian mafia in Montreal.

We even managed to get the head of the mafia in Montreal, in the person of Nicolo Rizzuto, sentenced. I will explain the perverse logic of pre-sentencing custody in the case of these people who are among society's most criminal element. It is understood that, in the case of the mafia and the higher echelons of organized crime as these people are, we cannot realistically offer them the possibility of rehabilitation.

I would like to tell you something that happened in my childhood. When I was somewhat younger, with my father, mother, brothers and sisters—we were five children—our days were happy, we were a united family and loved each other. In the 1970s, the government of Robert Bourassa set up a televised commission of public inquiry into organized crime—not just the mafia but even the Dubois brothers and the whole issue of tainted meat and other goods. We watched the commission of inquiry on television. At that time, I was not quite 10, but I know how closely Quebeckers followed this trial of organized crime and just how deeply organized crime was unfortunately rooted in our society.

And so, with Project Colisée, we managed to arrest and lock up six prominent figures from the mafia who represented a real threat to public safety. Despite the totally reprehensible record of these people in organized crime and because the rule went as far as the Supreme Court, the judge—if memory serves, it was Mr. Justice Bonin of the Quebec Court, criminal division—had no choice but to grant a pre-sentence credit this October.

I have very specific examples for you. Nicolo Rizzuto, the mafia godfather, an old man with heath problems, but who still had the audacity to do damage—even behind bars, charged with gangsterism and possession of proceeds of crime—was sentenced in 2008 to four years. However, because he was arrested in 2006 and had thus spent two years behind bars before his trial, he was freed at his trial, because two years of custody amounted to four years of pre-sentence credit, which was equal to his sentence.

Do members realize that the rules set by the Supreme Court, because in this case they apply sort of automatically, led to the release of the mafia godfather somewhat prematurely?

I have another example. Paolo Renda, charged with gangsterism and possession of proceeds of crime was sentenced to six years in prison. His sentence was reduced by four years. He had two to serve. The same is true in the case of another underworld individual well known to law enforcement officials, Rocco Sollecito, who was charged with gangsterism, possession of proceeds of crime and complicity. He was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment. His sentence was reduced by four years as a pre-sentencing credit. He had four years to serve.

Francesco Del Baso, Francesco Arcadi et Lorenzo Giordano, charged with gangsterism, possession of proceeds of crime and complicity were sentenced to 15 years in prison. Their sentence was reduced by four years, because they were in pre-sentencing custody. So, two years of custody led to a reduction of four years. They now have 11 years to serve.

Is it acceptable that in our justice system, the people who have successfully risen in the ranks—unfortunately—of organized crime get months or years of credit for pre-sentence time served because the Supreme Court came up with a two-for-one scheme?

I have to say that the government took some good advice when it decided to introduce Bill C-25. It finally listened to the Bloc Québécois, my colleagues and I, who have been campaigning for this since 2007. All the same we do not want to eliminate the two-for-one rule. The Bloc Québécois never suggested that it should be abolished. In general, in the administration of justice, the rule is that when people are arrested, they can be released on a promise to appear. The judge can determine the conditions, of course. They may have to surrender their passport, or be forbidden from leaving town or from meeting with certain people, but the general rule is release on a promise to appear.

In some cases, individuals charged with gangsterism under sections 467.11, 467.12 and 467.13 of the Criminal Code, made pursuant to 1997 anti-gang legislation, cannot be released because the charges are very serious. In some exceptional cases, those charged with terrorism or murder, or who are unlikely to comply with the terms of a conditional release, are remanded in custody prior to trial. They lose their freedom because they are in custody and do not have access to time toward parole or, most importantly, to rehabilitation programs. The reality of prison being what it is, pre-trial custody often subjects people to extremely difficult living conditions because prisons are overpopulated.

Does that mean that, as a society, we expect the two-for-one rule to be applied? Of course not. That is why the Bloc Québécois, in its usual wisdom, suggested a review of the equation in 2007 and recommended a one-for-one formula: reduce the sentence by one day for each day of pre-trial custody. That seemed fair to us.

The bill incorporates that proposal and I thank the government for that. This is one area we can actually agree on. Good ideas deserve to be shared. It is not a question of partisanship when an idea is constructive and benefits society. The Bloc Québécois has made a positive contribution in this Parliament on many issues regarding not only justice, but also intergovernmental affairs, employment insurance and foreign policy. We have always tried to act as enlightened spokespersons defending the values of Quebeckers.

The bill is balanced because, in some situations, judges can decide to grant not only one for one credit, but also one and a half for one. That is possible, but judges must justify their reasons for doing so and indicate them in the docket.

Once again, the Bloc Québécois will support this bill. We examined it very carefully in committee, and we hope it will be sent to the other place and receive royal assent very quickly. We hope to see it become law in the next few months.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, June 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, in cases where an individual is trafficking large quantities of cocaine, my colleague will have no problem convincing me that tougher sentences are needed, and we have no problem with maximum sentences. However, if six young people are sitting on the University of Ottawa campus and smoking marijuana, we might find that unfortunate, and socially speaking, we might want to see a campaign to discourage them, but I am not convinced that those six young people should be sent to prison for six months.

I find it unfortunate that this bill does not differentiate between two situations that should not be equated to one another.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, June 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, every time we use the criminal law to deal with drugs, especially in regard to the lower links in the chain, there will obviously be an increase in the provincial prison populations, given that the sentences are less than two years. These prisons have obviously reached their limits beyond which they cannot function.

I sat on the same committee as my colleague from the NDP and remember very well that this was not the approach we recommended in our report to the legislative committee. I am very sorry that the government did not listen to our recommendations.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, June 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I entirely agree with my colleague. I believe I recall him introducing a bill during the previous Parliament or the one before that.

The witnesses who were familiar with developments on the drug market told us there would be certain social advantages to decriminalizing small amounts of marijuana. First, it would reduce the burden on the courts because 60% of the drug-related infractions in Canada are related to cannabis. Second, there could be a different legal process, for example a fine rather than falling back on the criminal law. Finally, if we really want to deal with the drug market, we have to go after the top tiers primarily and not people whose drug use may pose no threat to society.

I entirely agree, therefore, with my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, June 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague. I too respect his contribution. He is one of the more moderate people on the committee. He is always under control, and I am sure the people around him appreciate his inner peace, which, I hope, survives all the ups and downs of life.

I do not deny that certain provisions of the bill could be very helpful to law enforcement agencies when they are trying, for example, to break up organized crime gangs involved in drug trafficking. We agree with the increase in the maximum and with this provision of the bill. What we are concerned about, though, is the elimination of judicial discretion and the unfortunate effects of minimum mandatory sentences. I have explained over and over in the House why they are harmful.

It is not true that such provisions were used for a few years to break up organized crime. There were no minimum mandatory sentences. The countries that have been most successful at fighting organized crime do not have these sentences in their legal arsenals. The hon. member is drawing an ideologically driven connection between effectiveness and minimum mandatory sentences. This connection is not supported by the scientific literature.