Réal Ménard

[Criminal Code, May 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my NDP colleague for his remarks and for sharing some personal information with us about his municipal involvement and his intimate knowledge of certain aboriginal communities.

He is quite right to make the connection with aboriginal peoples' reality. It reminds me of when I was a law student, although I cannot talk about that as if it were completely in the past. I took a course on aboriginal law, which was fairly new.

I am certain that the older members of this House who studied law did not take many courses in aboriginal law. For a few years now, aboriginal law has received a great deal more attention, and there is certainly a link between sentencing and aboriginal people. Why? Because, unfortunately, aboriginal people are overrepresented in our prisons.

The Supreme Court handed down a 60-page decision in the Gladue case, and I would like to thank my professor for putting it on the curriculum. This is an extremely interesting case that led legislators to include a final paragraph in section 718. This paragraph specifically requires that particular attention be paid to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders and to their history. Obviously, this has not been easy for the courts to interpret.

Does my colleague believe that there should be specific provisions requiring that the history and circumstances of aboriginal offenders be taken into account in sentencing?

[Criminal Code, May 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate our colleague on his brilliant speech. I have two questions for him.

Did he get a chance to read the 2000 Supreme Court decision in the Proulx case, suggesting that there should be guidelines governing the whole area of conditional sentences? Could he tell this House whether he believes that conditional sentencing really promotes social rehabilitation? Could he share his thoughts on the matter with us?

[Criminal Code, May 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for sharing this with us and for his very good question, which brings me to the following two comments: first of all, the member seems to be asking whether prison itself is not a good school for crime. Clearly, those who proposed in 1996 that sentences be served in the community had concerns similar to those described by the Bloc member for Brome—Missisquoi, which will remain a Bloc Québécois riding.

Furthermore, there are others, such as Professor Marie-Ève Sylvestre at the University of Ottawa who is doing her doctoral thesis on such matters. Who ends up in prison? Often, it is the most marginalized groups. Unfortunately, aboriginals are often over-represented in prison compared to their numbers in the general population. This is also true for the less privileged.

The member is entirely right to say that, apart from this general use of incarceration, there are social concerns that must be considered before adopting bills such as the one proposed by the Conservative government.

[Criminal Code, May 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the member for Québec, and all members in this House, I am pleased to accept the good wishes of our colleague for the extraordinary win by the Remparts. We know that it was not easy. In the circumstances, one might have hoped that this would be contagious, and would be caught by the Montreal Canadiens. But that is all in the past now.

The member is correct. There is something extremely wrong—is that parliamentary language? I am of course using it without implying any malice. But there is indeed something very wrong with this bill, because it is guided by ideology. It is not based on meaningful and conclusive data.

That is why it is important that we be able to deal with it in more detail in committee. The member talked about the John Howard Society, and I know that there are other groups that want to appear before the committee. It is very important that we provide a forum for these people to speak. Once again, I would call attention to this idea that the criminal justice system must be modeled on what is done in the United States, without giving it any further thought, and without understanding what kind of society American society is and what impact that has on incarceration rates.

Our colleague is well advised to share our concern. I know that we will be able to work together on this matter in committee.

[Criminal Code, May 31st, 2006]

The hon. member for Trois-Rivières says $75,000. She is not very far off. The cost is $51,450.

Conversely, what is the cost to society when an offender or accused person is on mandatory supervision in the community? That costs the government $1,792.

In debating these matters, it is important to keep safety imperatives in mind. No one wants people released into our communities who might pose a threat. There is a consensus on this. However, we realize that there is a very big difference here.

In 1996, the following question was asked: how can we adopt and implement custodial alternatives which help relieve the congestion in our prisons while curtailing the offender's freedom? Canada was one of the western countries that made the most use of incarceration, particularly for unpaid fines.

Still, one can acknowledge that there was a degree of defensible rationality to this alternative to imprisonment. I repeat—it is not easy to be constantly repeating the same thing, but it is necessary for educational purposes—that conditional sentences of imprisonment apply to terms of under two years.

The problem with the minister’s bill, which in any case is a very bad bill, is that the minister is still under the illusion that this bill is going to be passed in committee in speedy and expeditious fashion. I must regretfully inform you that, in committee, all the necessary questions will be asked and all the necessary witnesses will be called. There will be no question of acting in haste, which would be alien to our duty of thorough investigation and analysis, a duty which the Bloc has never shirked.

The bill is being proposed by the Minister of Justice, a man with an ideological bent and a friend whom I respect because he is motivated to serve. However, we shall not let the Minister of Justice don the garb and shoes of George W. Bush, as if there were no difference between Canadian society, Quebec society and the United States.

This idea that the principle of conditional sentencing has to be restricted was imported from the United States. The minister seems to want to follow the same line as the Americans, and he thinks that what is good for them is good for Canadians or for Quebeckers. I think he is wrong.

Let us not get off topic and get away from what the bill proposes. Clearly, just because an offence carries a 10-year prison term under the Criminal Code, that does not mean that the sentencing judge—or the jury in the case of a jury trial—will sentence the offender to 10 years. This is obvious. But the minister's bill will mean that a conditional sentence cannot be imposed for any Criminal Code offence that carries a 10-year prison term.

Clearly, this does not pose a problem for the worst crimes, the most horrible or heinous offences. I am the last person who would be soft on someone who committed criminal negligence causing bodily harm. We understand that that is an act that carries a very serious consequence, although we believe in the principle of rehabilitation, of course.

What does pose a problem is that, without making any distinction, the minister took or had his officials take the list of offences punishable by more than 10 years in prison and, in every single case, without any sort of qualification, said that there would be no more conditional sentences. I have some examples. Theft of $5,000 is deplorable, of course. People should not steal from their neighbours. Nonetheless, we cannot say that someone who has committed theft is, by definition, a threat to people's safety and that a conditional sentence is never warranted.

We understand that cattle rustling is problematic too, especially for ranchers, whose livelihood is affected. But can we equate this with an offence causing bodily harm or this type of crime? I do not think so. We could also talk about unauthorized computer use, mail theft or things like that.

What bothers me about this bill is its lack of nuance. This is probably its most dreadful flaw, and it is consistent with the government's ideology. It is as if the government did not trust the judiciary, those elevated to the rank of judge. The golden rule in administering justice should always be to individualize the sentence. Who better than the judges, or juries in trials by jury, can appreciate the evidence and sequence of events and determine what took place?

Are studies available? In the amicable tone I am known for, when the minister was in front of me at the Standing Committee on Justice, I asked him whether his department had any studies suggesting that judges were not handing down appropriate sentences or that they abused conditional sentencing. I asked where this attitude of suspicion toward the judiciary came from. I must say that the minister was not particularly eloquent; in fact, he did very poorly. I mean no disrespect, but he was incredibly boring. All in all, he said nothing. I cannot understand that a bill as essential to the administration of justice as this one has been put forward without some well-documented and scientifically sound studies to support it.

Should it be demonstrated to us when the bill is considered—and I am sure that the hon. member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant will work with me with a similar mindset, because we in the Bloc are not dogmatic—that the use of conditional sentences has become excessively widespread, we will be prepared to reconsider. This does not appear to be the case, however.

In fact, when I met with senior public servants, I was rather surprised to hear some of the things they had to say. As for as sentencing goes, conditional sentences—where time is served in the community—come with conditions, as their name suggests.

Quite often one of the conditions is to be at home. This was established by the Supreme Court.

This is punishment and loss of liberty we are talking about.

Again, it seems easy to understand why this is not an option for the most heinous crimes. Nonetheless, it is this generalization of the 10-year rule that scares us.

In the administration of justice, the use of conditional sentencing is quite limited. During the years being considered, it seems that 5% to 10% of the people who ended up in court had to serve their sentence in the community.

I will give you some statistics that I got from the deputy ministers when I spoke with them at the briefing session we attended when the bill was tabled. The deputy ministers said, “The most recent statistics estimate that roughly a third of the 15,493 conditional sentences in 2003-04 could not have been handed down could not have been handed down if there were 10-year maximum terms of imprisonment”.

I understand that more recent data was not available.

We see that it is limited, but the bill is still quite worrisome, especially since Quebec's public safety minister, Mr. Dupuis, member for Saint-Laurent and deputy premier of Quebec was worried about the bill. If we do not allow the use of conditional sentences for people who are sentenced to at least two years, where will they end up? They will end up in Quebec's penitentiaries and prisons.

Has anyone asked the minister about this? Does his department have enough money to transfer to the provinces to fulfill this new obligation? Of course not.

We are quite worried. Allow me to say they will be long in getting this bill. We will call in witnesses, we will ask questions and we will do a thorough job of it because there is a limit to accepting ideological debates. We all have ideologies in this House, but when ideologies supersede responsibility and bills are tabled that are not backed by studies, we have to wonder.

In short, I will have the opportunity to talk about Bill C-10 when it arrives. I spent my summer reading up on sentencing. I would like to thank my leader for making me responsible for justice issues. I have read the literature on sentencing; there are no Canadian studies showing a correlation between sentencing and deterrence.

We know quite well that the sentence is not as great a deterrent as the fear of being caught.

The member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin is an individual whom I consult on a regular basis as a former justice minister. I have discussed this matter with him and he has confirmed my convictions: we were of like minds on this issue. It is always reassuring to know that I share the beliefs of the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin in matters of justice.

In the minute remaining, I would like to conclude with the following four statements: this is a bad bill; it is a bill that is not well thought out; the minister cannot don the garb and shoes of George W. Bush without being accountable to this House for the consequences of Bill C-9; the Government of Quebec is not in agreement with this bill nor are those who believe in social rehabilitation.

I invite all colleagues in this House to reject this bill. I believe that we must continue to advocate, when warranted, for placing our trust in the judiciary, in the judges who are in the best position to decide the sentence. Nothing would make me happier than to have this bill defeated.

[Criminal Code, May 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in connection with Bill C-9, introduced by the Minister of Justice in April as part of the government's so-called reform of criminal justice. Let me speak frankly; this bill has a very clearly avowed objective, which is to shift our justice system to the right.

What is even more worrying—and this will definitely not be the last time I have occasion to say so in this House—is that the government has an ideological approach to justice that can in no way be supported by statistics, rigour or documented analysis.

Furthermore, when the Minister of Justice, a former attorney general in his province, Manitoba, appeared before our committee to defend his interim supply, I had an opportunity to ask him a few questions about conditional sentences and sentencing in general. I have to say I did not get my intellectual fill. In fact, I was left hungry for answers.

What is it about? Bill C-9 wants to limit the use of conditional sentences. It would mean that all crimes—the crimes, not the people being sentenced—punishable by 10 years in prison... Since I have the privilege of addressing this House for 20 minutes—and this will go by very quickly as the member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher knows—I will have a chance to say more about the details of offences punishable by more than 10 years.

Let us begin with some background. I do not wish to revive bad memories for the House, but it was the former Minister of Justice, Allan Rock, today a diplomat and spokesperson for Canada at the United Nations, who introduced a bill in 1996. At that time, I had been in this House for three years, since I was elected in 1993.

Actually, in 1996, the government and various organizations responsible for law enforcement realized that Canada was one of the countries that had most recourse to imprisonment. Of course, the U.S. was also among these countries. We know that the prison population in the U.S. is about 700 per 100,000 inhabitants. Canada’s prison population at that time was about 133 or 134, and then dropped to 123 or 122, depending on the year. As we know, the U.S. does not hesitate to resort to imprisonment.

In 1996 therefore, Allan Rock, Minister of Justice and Solicitor General, tabled a bill to allow an alternative to imprisonment. It provided for the possibility of conditional sentences in certain circumstances: for crimes punishable by less than two years in prison, for individuals who did not pose any danger to society, and in cases in which there was no minimum sentence.

I repeat this because I have often heard analysts and journalists say that conditional sentences were always totally discretionary. That is not true. Our fellow citizens and parliamentary colleagues must know that when a judge wants to impose a sentence to be served in the community, certain criteria must be met. I remind the House because it is important to be aware of them: the offender must be guilty of an offence for which there is no minimum sentence, it is a crime punishable by less than two years in prison, and of course, there cannot be any threat to public safety. It is a question of secure communities. The judge must be convinced that accused who serve their sentences in the community do not pose any danger.

Finally—and this is important—according to section 718 of the Criminal Code, the judge must be convinced that a conditional sentence is consistent with the principle that sentences must be proportionate.

I say again and hope I do not have to repeat it: everything pertaining to sentencing is related to section 718 of the Criminal Code. There is still the proportionality principle. Obviously, if there is a petty thief and a first-degree murderer, it is expected that they will be sentenced accordingly. This is the very basis of our criminal justice system.

Conditional sentences of imprisonment are not discretionary. They were first proposed by the justice minister at the time, Mr. Allan Rock. They appeared at a time when too many people were being jailed. According to the statistics for 1996 and previous years, 50% of these people were imprisoned because they did not pay their fines. The social question that arises is: how much does it cost society to send someone to jail? I have a few statistics here that I will discuss a little later, although I will not keep members waiting long because I know how interested everyone is in these matters.

In 2002-03, what was the average annual cost of incarcerating an inmate in a provincial institution? We must remember that a sentence of two years or less is served in a provincial institution, while a sentence of two years or more is served in a federal institution. What was the average annual cost to incarcerate an inmate in a provincial institution? Do my colleagues have an idea?

[Private Members' Business, May 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to waste the time of this House, but I would like to understand this better. The bill in question adds provisions to the Labour Code. It has been introduced and debated in this House on several occasions already. In strictly parliamentary terms, it would be difficult to understand why it was acceptable in the past and now is not, when its content is virtually identical. Can you provide us with some further explanation on that point?

[Private Members' Business, May 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, did I understand correctly that the list you gave of the bills that cause you some concern included the bill presented by our colleague from Gatineau? Is that a mistake, or does it relate to an anti-scab provision? I do not understand, because this is a bill that has been introduced several times. However, I may have misunderstood. Are you concerned about that bill?

[Private Members' Business, May 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank you for calmly and diligently expressing your wish to ensure that all members who introduce a private member's bill can complete the process. However, I must say that during the last session, this question also arose on the floor of the House. We would have appreciated it had your statement suggested a minimum list of criteria.

Would it be unreasonable for a humble servant such as myself to ask the Speaker for a certain number of criteria to serve as reference points? For example, one of your predecessors allowed the former member for Montmorency—Beauport to introduce a bill giving additional powers to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation with respect to a redistribution of funds to the provinces.

Thus, if the Speaker would like to direct us toward a certain number of criteria, it would be appreciated. You said, in fact, that it would not be a question of infringing upon the right of any member of this House to table a private member's bill, especially since it has taken so long to get this process going. If you could possibly give us any clarification in terms of guidelines, reference points and criteria, we would be most grateful.

[Judicial Compensation, May 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take the floor today on this new matter of judges’ salaries.

I must confess, however, that I am discouraged. It is my impression that the Conservative government is continuing on the same path as the previous Liberal government in choosing to assign an independent commission authority for setting judges’ salaries, while at the same time not hesitating to act against those recommendations to suit the mood of the moment.

In 1999 we had found a solution, which was supposed to be definitive, to the problem of setting the salaries of members of Parliament and judges. To avoid bursts of demagoguery and ensure that salaries and other monetary benefits are equitably adjusted, parliamentarians chose to link the salaries of parliamentarians to those of judges, the latter being set by an independent commission every four years.

This solution, developed by all the parties represented in the House of Commons, seemed to us to be reasonable.

The commission was required by law to propose a reasonable salary, taking into account the state of the economy, the government’s financial position, the role of the financial security of judges in preserving judicial independence, and the need to recruit the best candidates to the judiciary.

The Prime Minister was going to earn the same salary as the chief justice of the Supreme Court; ministers, three quarters of that salary; MPs would receive an annual sessional allowance of 50% of the yearly salary of the chief justice of Canada, and so forth. The solution was simple and fair. It preserved the independence of the judiciary and ensured that parliamentarians did not have to set their own salary.

Everything was fine until the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission proposed an inordinate increase in 2004. In a panic, the Liberal government and the Conservative opposition chose to play petty politics and unlink the salaries of MPs and judges, instead of calmly analyzing the situation and proposing a review of the remuneration suggested by the commission.

It appears that the Conservative government has decided to continue the tradition of hypocrisy and simplistic populism of the Liberal government in this matter, by continuing to separate the salaries of parliamentarians and judges.

Admittedly, setting the salaries of parliamentarians and judges is still an extremely difficult and thankless task, for one simple reason: these are people who are well compensated, even very well compensated. The citizens who pay these salaries often find them to be out of all proportion. That brings me to the solution which the Bloc is proposing to the government as a way out of this mess.

Because it is necessary to establish an arms-length salary-setting mechanism for parliamentarians as well as for judges, the Bloc Québécois is calling for the government to reintroduce a legislative obligation to link the salaries of parliamentarians to the salaries of judges.

Also, because the indexing of the salaries of judges and parliamentarians has to be reasonable, the Bloc Québécois is asking that the salaries of judges be based on the same indexing mechanism as the salaries of parliamentarians, so that their salaries increase each year in step with those of unionized employees of big corporations and the private sector.

That seems to us reasonable and equitable.