Réal Ménard

[Criminal Code, September 28th, 2005]

I am sorry, Madam Speaker, but since you were moving about, I thought that my time had expired. You have stressed me unduly.

So I will limit my response as well.

[Criminal Code, September 28th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

[Criminal Code, September 28th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to take part in the debate on Bill C-53 to amending the Criminal Code, especially the provisions on property acquired through crime. In some ways, this is surely the most important of the criminal law bills.

We have seen a certain amount of legislative activism, of course, over the last few years in regard to the criminal law. It has not always been to the liking of defence attorneys. This is a debate in which we are always trying the find the middle ground between the powers that the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness must have and the rights of people representing the accused who are always deemed innocent.

It is true that we are tipping the legal balance a little further today because it is not very common in the criminal law to reverse the onus of proof. Before looking at things in depth, we should realize that this reversal of the onus of proof pertains only to some very specific crimes. First, these offences are related to organized crime. They are related, therefore, to criminal organizations like those described in Criminal Code sections 467 and following. They are usually related to crimes involving drug trafficking.

Still, this bill is historic. I can recall that in the early 1990s biker wars were raging in certain big cities, including Montreal.

It should also be remembered that in Quebec there was an assassination attempt in the mid-1990s on the journalist Michel Auger. We are reminded that 160 people have died, victims in some cases and organized crime members in others, in the conflict among rival groups.

In the early 1990s, I remember meeting the Minister of Justice at the time and his senior officials. It was Allan Rock, currently Canada's ambassador to the United Nations. He was a very nice person who wondered himself about the most effective way of fighting organized crime. That was relatively new, it must be said. I am not speaking of organized crime but of organized crime moving into public spaces, with car bombings and raids and murders in orderly places like cities. That was relatively new.

Of course the elders among us, or the ones with the most experience—let us not confuse the two—will remember the CIOC, the Commission of Inquiry on Organized Crime. This was headed by Justice Robert Cliche.

Its hearings were televised and I remember my parents and a lot of other people in Quebec watching them. What they got out of it was perhaps a more detailed understanding of the ramifications of organized crime in various sectors of the society of the day, including the construction industry.

In the early 1990s I met the Minister of Justice, or at least some of the senior departmental officials, as well as the mother of Daniel Desrochers. No doubt hon. members will recall that, on August 9, 1995, a car bomb on Adam St. in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve took the first innocent victim, this young boy who went to Hochelaga school in the Maisonneuve sector. This boy died because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

At that time, during the 1990s, senior Justice officials were convinced that organized crime could be eradicated just by using Criminal Code provisions against conspiracy. Police and investigators I met with explained to me that this was not possible because there has to be active participation for there to be a conspiracy.

I note the nod from my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue, who remains a member of the legal profession. We remember the likes of Maurice “Mom” Boucher, for instance, who was the one giving the orders and is now behind bars for 25 years, with no possibility of parole. We know very well that the ones giving the orders are not the ones who commit the offence. It was clear that conspiracy provisions would not work for dismantling major organized crime rings.

I met with investigators, police officers, lawyers and criminologists who convinced me that new provisions had to be included in the Criminal Code. At the time, in the mid-1990s, that was not obvious. The example of my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, who was the Minister of Public Safety at the time, comes to mind; he has been justice minister and he is a defence counsel as well. He had very legitimate concerns about this issue, given that the presumption of innocence is something sacred in criminal law. Without the presumption of innocence, there can obviously be abuse.

Now, we are going a little further, arguing that tools are being given to the Crown. There are counsels who might feel somewhat uncomfortable at times, but I believe that is only temporary.

On the face of the wording of the bill, it is clear that these tools provided to the Crown are designed to be used once a conviction has been pronounced. The order sought to reverse the burden of proof applies to possessions presumably obtained illegally. The conviction, however, has already been pronounced, based on all the rules of fairness and natural justice one can expect as part of a trial.

This is nevertheless a very major tool that is being provided. It is hard to understand how individuals who report very modest incomes for income tax purposes can own property worth several million. How can someone who declares an annual income of $12,000 afford a boat, three houses, two triplex buildings and a millionaire's lifestyle?

Now, tools are being provided which respect this balance. I would not want this balance to be upset. I realize that the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof and adjudicative fairness are very important rules that ensure a degree of civility in our justice system.

What will this mean in actual fact? The Crown will have to prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the accused is guilty of a criminal offence. We are talking about offences related to organized crime and, in essence, drug trafficking. These offences are indictable offences carrying minimum five-year sentences. Once the individual is convicted of a criminal offence, an order of forfeiture should be made against certain property, although not necessarily all of an individual's property. In its order, the crown should specify the property it wishes to seize on the grounds that it is the proceeds of crime. Here is where the reversal of onus of proof occurs. The accused will have to show how and by what means he acquired that property.

Since my time has almost expired, I want to say rapidly in closing that all parliamentarians should unanimously vote in favour of this bill, which should then, in all due diligence, be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

[Criminal Code, September 26th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague. This is a very relevant question. This is something that is of concern to me as a Montrealer.

I few weeks ago, I attended a press conference with tobacco manufacturers and people involved in retail. As far as tobacco smuggling is concerned, we must recognize that our colleague was right when he spoke of the native reserves.

I have put a motion before the Standing Committee on Health. My colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin did the same at the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, and so did my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot at the Standing Committee on Finance. We have put forward four proposals dealing with tobacco taxation, among other things. We have called for a campaign to ensure compliance with tobacco product labelling requirements. We have considered a moratorium on new production licences in Indian reserves.

I would gladly send the hon. member a copy of the four motions we have put before these various committees. I thank him for sharing his concerns, which are completely legitimate.

[Criminal Code, September 26th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, the question is particularly relevant, and typical of our colleague from Abitibi-Témiscamingue.

When I met with the Franciscans International, they provided me with the ratification schedule. With respect to the convention in question, for example, more than 100 countries have ratified it. I am not familiar with the details of this convention, however, and I do not know why Canada did not ratify it.

I hope that someone on the government side—the parliamentary secretary or anyone else in a position of authority—will be able to enlighten us. This is very disturbing. I think this situation ought to be remedied.

Of course, my hon. colleague understands that this in no way affects the relevance of Bill C-49. The Bloc upholds its brilliant tradition of defending the interests of Quebec. As the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie points out in many of his speeches, when a bill is good for Quebec, the Bloc supports it, and when a bill is bad for Quebec, the Bloc opposes it. In this particular case, we stand for the interests of Quebec and will therefore support the bill.

[Criminal Code, September 26th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I think this is an important issue. I agree with my colleague. Trafficking in women is necessarily exploitation, but there are types of exploitation that are different than trafficking in women. This is without a doubt a nuance that I should have made in my speech. Clearly, the focus was on trafficking in women.

I would say to my colleague that there are some who think the entire family aid worker and domestic help program is a form of exploitation that should not be encouraged, but that is a whole other debate.

It is true that when 200,000 to 240,000 new immigrants arrive, there is a chance that a number of irregularities will work into the system. I believe Citizenship and Immigration Canada has conducted studies that found that, just like in all the major social programs, no more than 10% of people are guilty of fraud or have broken some provision or other of the legislation. I would not want anyone to think there is an automatic link between immigration and fraud. Let us be clear that most people who get a visa, a work permit or a study permit respect the terms of these various permits.

I also understand from the latest performance review of Citizenship and Immigration that law enforcement provisions have been enhanced. My colleague is absolutely right to try and ensure that deportation measures are applied whenever people are illegally detained in Canada.

I will conclude by saying that we need to think about the Immigration and Refugee Board, which has long epitomized patronage for the various governments that have been in place. The Immigration and Refugee Board has not always been diligent or efficient in determining refugee status. This certainly has something to do with the fact that some people who have been here in Canada for five, six, seven years have rebuilt their lives. When they are told that under the Geneva Convention they are not real claimants, it is difficult for them to leave. Something needs to change in the way refugee status is determined.

[Criminal Code, September 26th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank you for allowing me to participate in this important debate on Bill C-49, which is clearly on a timely topic, trafficking in persons.

A few years ago, we were concerned about cross-border crime. Moving forward, we have realized that there is now something that is just as great a concern, namely trafficking in persons. The United Nations has set up a special working group on trafficking in persons. It has determined that about 15 million people a year could be subject directly or indirectly, within various migratory flows, to trafficking or the sex trade or exploitation.

This is therefore a very important question. During my speech, I will have occasion to refer to a document on sex workers and prostitution that was provided to us in connection with our work on the Subcommittee on Solicitation Laws, created by the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. This document was produced by Citizenship and Immigration Canada and also the RCMP. It is a joint classified document which we obtained through our clerk. It is very interesting because it is a matter of costs and large international circuits with consequences on the human level and for national security. “National security” is used here in reference to illegal immigration into Canada.

I would like to start by thanking two fellow citizens who came to see me in September. I am speaking of Danielle Julien who works for Franciscans International, an NGO that has followed very closely the entire international migration question as well as trafficking in women and, more especially, their exploitation. Franciscans International has come up with a document that is very well done called Handbook on Human Trafficking. It explains in a very educational way the issues surrounding human trafficking. I was extremely surprised to learn that Canada had not ratified.

Today, we are talking about Bill C-49, an extremely important bill, which the Bloc Québécois supports. Our party's justice critic, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, said so this morning, and I believe the member for Québec, our status of women critic, reiterated our position. I was extremely surprised to learn that the government has not ratified the 1949 convention on the traffic of persons. It is cause for serious concern to now have a bill on such issues when Canada could have done so much more in international tribunals. A number of countries have ratified this convention, but not, unfortunately, Canada.

There are a number of tools. I want to list a number of conventions, including the one entitled “Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others”. This convention dates back to 1949, very early in the history of the United Nations, which was established in 1945. Nearly five years after the UN was created, in an already multilateral framework, member countries were taking an interest in the issue of human trafficking. Most people know, and we must admit it, that we are referring here to the trafficking of women.

It is quite incredible; I could not believe my ears. When the Franciscans came to my office in early September to talk to me about this issue, they told me that Canada had not ratified this convention. I hope that someone will explain why. I hope that the parliamentary secretary and other MPs on the government side will tell us why Canada has not ratified this convention.

I have a list here of the countries that did ratify that convention in 1949: they include Afghanistan, Argentina, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Colombia, Cyprus, Congo, Ivory Coast, Dominican Republic and Egypt. A number of countries have ratified it, but Canada still has not.

Fortunately, even if Canada has not ratified the 1949 convention, it has ratified another extremely important document, the Protocol to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons, especially women and children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against transnational organized crime.

The document I referred to earlier, a joint effort by the RCMP and Citizenship and Immigration Canada, provides a sort of ranking as far as trafficking in persons is concerned. We know that there are four countries in the world that might be called high immigration volume countries, and one of these is of course Canada. We receive between 220,000 and 240,000 immigrants yearly. On October 1 each year, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has to disclose the planned quotas for immigrants.

I will point out in passing that Canada specializes more in economic immigration. The main interest is in independent workers, investors and family helpers. That is economic immigration and basically accounts for over 75% of those who immigrate to Canada.

So, we have four countries with a large volume of immigration: Canada, the U.S., Australia and New Zealand.

Another aside: Canada and Quebec have not made the same choice as far as models for integration are concerned. Canada has opted for multiculturalism, which means that people who have chosen Canada, whether they come from Poland, Spain, Senegal, Côte-d'Ivoire or the Dominican Republic, can maintain their culture of origin but must participate in the great melting pot of the ideology that is multiculturalism.

In Quebec, because Quebec is a francophone society with a particular historical responsibility, we have not opted for multiculturalism. We have opted for a common public culture. Quebec selects approximately 40% of its immigrants. It selects mainly those who come here to work. We will select a few refugees in camps outside their own country, but essentially this is also economic immigration.

Of course, in a sovereign Quebec, we will be fully aware of the importance of selecting our immigrants. I will make another digression here. I do not want to get too far away from the issue, because this is not what my comments are about. However, one of the modern reasons why Quebec should achieve sovereignty is to able to select its immigrants. Quebec needs immigration. We have a tradition of opening our doors to immigrants and of being generous with them. It goes without saying that since Quebec does not have a fertility rate that allows for the natural reproduction or replacement of its population, it needs immigration. In a sovereign Quebec we will set up extremely generous policies to select, welcome and integrate immigrants, based however on a common public culture.

The former poet, the late Gérald Godin, who was the MNA for Mercier, and who was very appreciated in sovereignist circles, and whom the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst knew, used to say that there are one hundred ways to be a Quebecker, but that these one hundred ways all had a common denominator, namely the French language.

This is why we rejected the multiculturalism model. We are saying that one can choose Quebec, but to do so is to participate in the common public culture. That participation is achieved through a communication vector, namely the French language. That was my short digression, which of course is totally non partisan. We are all aware of the level at which our debates should take place.

So, I am now getting to the issue of human trafficking, which is an extremely important issue, at least as important as the trafficking of goods or the illegal transborder trade. The UN set up a task force in which Franciscans International, as an NGO, is recognized as a stakeholder. I looked for some figures for Canada.

I remember that when the committee was working on the issue of prostitution, we were looking for figures. It is not easy to get an assessment on such an issue.

I obtained a confidential and protected document prepared in 2002 by Immigration Canada and the RCMP. I am referring to the first paragraph, on page 6, which says: “Over a five year period, about 13% of improperly documented arrivals that came to Canada or that were intercepted en route to Canada were directly related to a trafficker or an escort”.

This means that 13% of the people who entered Canada in various ways, by air, sea or land, did not have a passport or official travel documents, and of course, did not have a visa permitting them to enter.

A little further along in the document, the RCMP and Immigration Canada make the following assessment: “If only the people arriving by airplane are considered, this proportion rises to 25.1%.”

A look at the literature on illegal immigration will show that, for Canada, it is about 10,000 people a year. This is not an insignificant number. As lawmakers, we have good reason to be concerned about this.

There is another more humanitarian consideration. We know that there are people all over the world going through upheavals in their countries: genocide, the overthrow of the political regime, famines. They are going through terrible times. Therefore they want to leave their countries. What would we do if we were in their shoes, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, for example, or Niger, or certain countries in Africa where people cannot survive on $1 a day? We should ask ourselves the question. It is possible that we too, as human beings, would be tempted to want to improve our fate and leave our country of origin. It is not unpatriotic to want to improve one's fate.

It should be understood that in terrible situations like those I just described, people are vulnerable and put themselves in the hands of traffickers. This is why there is illegal international immigration. People take advantage of the misfortune and unhappiness of others. They demand money and hold out the possibility of coming to live in a third country. In my example, of course, we are speaking of Canada.

The document from the RCMP and Immigration Canada estimates the amount that is asked from these poor people living in anguish. I would like to quote from the document: “The fees paid by migrants to enter Canada are high. They are said to be rising. The cost depends on the means of transportation and the market. According to illegal migrants, the fees vary between US$20,000 and US$50,000.”

US$50,000 is easily C$70,000.

“Few clients are able to amass the necessary funds by liquidating their personal assets, and even fewer are prepared to risk such a large sum by paying the full price before reaching their destination. A portion of the cost of human smuggling, perhaps as little as 10% to 20%, is paid in advance. The rest is collected upon delivery to the final destination.”

Remember that we are not talking about goods here but rather about human beings.

“Partial payments of the price for smuggling may be demanded at various stages of the journey.”

That is why Bill C-49, which the Bloc Québécois supports, is so important. From now on, the Criminal Code will set out sanctions and offences. Smugglers found guilty of such a crime could face life in prison. Document forgers may easily face 10 years in prison.

When the UN Commission on Human Rights last met, for example, it mandated a special rapporteur to report before the next UN general assembly. So this is an extremely important issue that deserves the full attention of parliamentarians.

I was saying earlier that Canada has not ratified the 1949 convention. I hope that someone will tell me why. I do not understand how this bill can be adopted here, by parliamentarians, when, in a multilateral forum, a convention dating back to the early years of the UN has not been ratified.

This convention was important nonetheless, however, because it created a legal system to fight the traffic of persons and the exploitation of the prostitution of others, now called procuring, by individuals serving as intermediaries. Procuring feeds on prostitution. The convention made it a crime to arrange for or profit from the prostitution of others.

This system affects women, children and some men, but obviously this reality applies mainly to women.

Canada's ratification of the 1949 convention must be a source of concern. As Franciscans International pointed out to me, it is extremely embarrassing when NGOs are working with the UN Human Rights Commission, for example, and there is talk of a bill, like Bill C-49 or Bill C-2 in the past, yet the convention has not been ratified.

I will say something about the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. That protocol contains something of interest, something that is in fact basic: the whole issue of victim consent. This protocol is an important tool.

For the first time, this protocol gives a definition of the phenomenon which consists of abuse of authority, as well as one for victim consent. We know that traffickers often make use of threats, blackmail, constraints, kidnapping, fraud, trickery, false promises, swindles and abuse of authority. The trade exists because of these ingredients.

This protocol, which has been ratified by Canada, is one of the means that has been used where victim consent, whether freely given or invalid, cannot be used as a pretext to excuse some action by a smuggler.

In other words, the mere fact that these means have been used is sufficient in itself to bring the law into play, regardless of the victim's wish or acceptance of the exploitation.

In closing, let me say that this is a bill supported by the Bloc Québécois and dealing with an extremely significant phenomenon. The entire Bloc Québécois parliamentary team will work diligently to help it pass.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his kind words. I remember quite well when the Canadian Psychological Association appeared before the committee and said that there was no correlation between sexual orientation and parenting skills.

It was also made very clear how important it is to quell any type of stigma in the process of building self-esteem, what psychologists call psychogenesis. All the members voting in favour of the bill we are discussing this afternoon are contributing to making homosexuality respectable. In so doing, we are saying that gays and lesbians are full citizens. That is the historic dimension of tonight's vote.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her questions. I will not dwell on what the Conservative leader said, which, in a democracy, is extremely unfortunate. I think this shows how many light-years away he is from the responsibilities he aspires to, in other words, the responsibilities of Prime Minister.

The concept of freedom of religion is an important one. I am sure that no member would want to interfere with anyone's religious beliefs. Religious beliefs are important and have to do with our perception of the world and how we relate to one another.

I believe that the clause in the bill was very clear and that the Supreme Court was very clear in its reference. My colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles introduced an amendment to ensure that no group would be denied its status as a charitable organization, regardless of its religious beliefs on the right to marriage. I think all these factors combined ensure that all those concerned with freedom of religion can vote with complete peace of mind in favour of the bill before us today.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the House, I will be sharing my time with my good friend, the hon. member for Sherbrooke.

I am pleased to speak to what is certainly an historic debate in this House. I was in the House of Commons when Allan Rock introduced an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination. I was in the House when section 718 of the Criminal Code was amended to include provisions on hate crimes. I was also in the House when common-law same-sex couples were given the right to be fully considered as spouses with all the related obligations and responsibilities.

I must say that today's debate seems rather different to me. Of course, just like the other laws mentioned, it improves rights for gays and lesbians. Nonetheless, the debate today is slightly different because we are not just talking about financial benefits.

The primary issue is whether Canadians and Quebeckers want to consider gays and lesbians as full citizens. If so, then logic follows that we should allow no room for discrimination in any aspect of society. It is not permitted in the workplace, in common carriers, nor in public places. There remained one place, one major institution, that of marriage, where same-sex couples were being discriminated against. That is what makes today's bill so great.

The bill before us is not important from a financial standpoint. I would even say that it is not important from a legal standpoint, since many of the benefits associated with marriage are available to those in common law unions. In Quebec, many benefits granted to heterosexual couples are available through a civil union.

What is great, noble and profoundly historic in the debate today is that we are recognizing same-sex couples as full citizens by allowing them to get married. Some will say that not all same-sex couples want to get married, just like not all heterosexual couples want to get married. However, all homosexual couples will have the choice. Among the wide range of possible committed relationships they can have, marriage can be added to the list.

Why is this important? It is never easy discovering you are a homosexual. I recall realizing I was homosexual about the age of ten. I announced it to my parents at age 18. Even though I was a member of a very open family, even though my parents were very understanding, even though I had brothers and sisters who loved me and still love me a lot, it is never easy saying you are gay. Parents wonder in what sort of company their child will grow up, what awaits the child, if the child will face jeers and rejection and if the child will be accepted wholly.

The bill before us sends a very clear message to parents. It says that, if they discover in a few years their child is homosexual, they will be able to say that, in Canada and Quebec, there is no room for discrimination, rejection, intolerance, at least in the light of the legislation passed by the men and women in Parliament. That is what is so great about today's bill.

I recall when we looked at Allan Rock's bill, when he was Minister of Justice. A psychiatrist had appeared before us in committee and presented very alarming figures, which even today are true. They reveal that young adolescents who discover they are homosexual are more prone to suicide, depression and self rejection. So, I think that everyone who supports such a bill today will help make it easier to live with one's homosexuality in the Canada and Quebec of tomorrow.

Today, I am thinking as well of Svend Robinson and of two of my fellow Quebeckers, Michael Hendricks and René Leboeuf, who were the first in Quebec to contest the laws. They were so serious and strong in their fight then that they had to remortgage their house to pay legal costs. It is all very well to have the court challenges program, but, obviously, people contesting the law have to invest time, money and energy.

So, if you asked me who, in the long list of great values advocates made important human rights contributions, I would immediately say Svend Robinson, along with Michael Hendricks and René Leboeuf.

I would like to finish by saying that the churches had some reasons for concern in this debate, even though there were very clear provisions on freedom of religion in clause 3 of the bill . What I liked was what the United Church of Canada had to say when it appeared before the members, and I would like to quote it:

In August 2000, the 37th General Council affirmed that human sexual orientations, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are a gift from God and part of the marvellous diversity of creation, and further resolved to advocate for the civil recognition of same-sex marriages.

Wherever one looks in society, whether among religious groups, in legal circles, in political parties, in social groups, among our fellow citizens, in urban or rural areas, there are people who support this bill.

The leader of the Bloc Québécois, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, shared a survey with us in caucus that had been done in Quebec. It was interesting to see that in all the large urban areas in Quebec, a majority of people supported same sex marriage.

When I introduced a motion in 1995 to recognize common law marriage rights for homosexual partners, the government whip, who was Alfonso Gagliano at the time, called the vote on a Monday morning to make sure that as many members as possible were absent. Only one member of cabinet came to vote, and that was Sheila Copps, the Prime Minister's good friend, who had a tremendous amount of courage. She was Minister of the Environment then and Deputy Prime Minister. At the time, it was still so taboo for people in public life to be associated with homosexuality and the promotion of it that no other cabinet members dared to come and vote on a Monday morning.

The good news, this evening, is that more than a decade has passed since then. With great pride, dignity and open-mindedness, a majority of parliamentarians, I hope, will make one of the most noble gestures that can be made in a democracy, namely furthering human rights and saying clearly to all the homosexuals in this country, wherever they may be, whatever their age, and whatever education they may have, “You are real citizens and you have a right to love”.