Benoît Sauvageau

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, February 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues,I too am pleased to speak in reply to the Speech from the Throne.

It is a bit awkward to talk about nothing, about a vacuum, about empty air. So I will read a few excerpts from the throne speech if I may. I will then offer very humbly a speech that might inspire the PM or the government, or another leader for a speech just as empty of meaning as this one. Then, having acknowledged the vacuum left by this speech, they may make an effort in future, out of respect for parliamentarians and the people of Canada, to have something with a bit more consistency to it.

I will give some concrete examples. I am not joking and I did not get this from the Readers' Digest humour section. I will read for example a most edifying paragraph from page 2

We want governments to reflect our values in the actions they take. This includes living within our means; investing as we can afford; and looking to the future.

You will see that a class of philosophy or literature students could spend a long time pondering the underlying meaning of this statement without coming up with any answer.

Later on, on page 3, we read:

We want a strong economy for the 21st century, with well-paying and meaningfulwork; ready at the forefront of the next big technological revolution; and built ona solid fiscal foundation.

They could have gone on to mention motherhood and apple pie. Then:

It is time to take our place, meet our responsibilities, carry our weight.

They go on to say:

Today the Government is proposing an ambitious agenda to set our country on this path. An agenda that should be measured and judged by the goals we have set and by the resolve and constancy by which they are pursued.

If we pay a little attention to the throne speech, we begin to notice that it may contain some pretty phrases, but their meaning is pretty vague. Here is one that is a bit less so.

The path to achievement begins with making sure that Canadians believe their government, so that they can believe in government.

That is on page 3, but I would remind hon. members that there has been another Auditor General report this week. Let me repeat:

The path to achievement begins with making sure that Canadians believe their government, so that they can believe in government.

Allow me to read an excerpt from the Auditor General's report, page 20. We live in a civilized country. The problem is that the sponsorship scandal even affects the police in this country. We are at a point where the government has been corrupted by laundered money. The police being asked to conduct an investigation into this corruption are involved in the scandal. Imagine. Yet, we were told a few weeks ago that we must act in such a way that would allow Canadians to trust in their government.

Listen to this. It is not sovereignists, but the Auditor General, who said about a $1.7 million grant for the 125th anniversary of the RCMP:

A separate non-government bank account was used for all deposits and payments to the RCMP's Quebec Division; this was a contravention of the Financial Administration Act. The internal audit report mentioned that the Receiver General account was not used and approval was not obtained for a departmental bank account—a requirement under Treasury Board policy.

I think the Treasury Board policy was probably put on ice. A billion dollars was lost on the firearms registry and the Treasury Board president did not notice. Two planes were purchased for $100 million and the Treasury Board president did not notice. Some $250 million was spent on sponsorships and the Treasury Board president did not notice. But never mind.

In addition, all transactions for Quebec Division were recorded in a manual accounting system rather than in the RCMP's corporate accounting system.

Séraphin also worked it out by hand.

We were unable to verify the transactions from the Quebec bank account—

Why?

—because some of the supporting documents had been destroyed.

The RCMP destroyed documents for an illegal bank account that used a manual accounting system.

The Speech from the Throne says:

The path to achievement begins with making sure that Canadians believe in their government—

Keep it up and we will believe in it.

Further in the Auditor General's report, it says:

The RCMP used some of the sponsorship funds it received for its own operations... for the 125th anniversary celebrations, and six horses and two trailers were purchased for $107,268.

With the money that was transferred for sponsorships and publicity, they bought six horses. They must be Canadian horses on which the flag of the former heritage minister has been stamped.

And further:

[the RCMP] agrees that the Financial Administration Act was contravened—

By the police. However, it says:

—the RCMP's own administrative review concluded that this was due to a lack of understanding by local managers and not malicious intent.

It is certain that there was a lack of understanding; they are usually involved in legal activities. This time, it was not legal. They did not understand and therefore were caught. Canadians must believe in their government.

The throne speech is like that all the way through. I shall offer the House another speech and give the author's name at the end. I hope I will have time to read it all. Here it is:

We are at a turning point in our collective existence when, more than ever before, democracy must speak. It must speak out loud and clear so that its voice is heard by all those to whom it carries, so that no one can be oblivious of the deeper meaning or deny the objective reality.

In short, the time has come to act. To believe. To dare. To move. To do something. To overcome the obstacles that await us in our path toward prosperity. The time has come to outdo ourselves. Our destiny is calling. Will we answer “Present”? Will we snatch the golden ring and take this opportunity that will never come again until the next time? The answer is obvious.

You can see that is just as deep as the throne speech. In the article I am quoting, it says “Quebec”, but we can change that to “Canada”:

[Canada] is a complex society, ever changing, even restructuring, and we will never solve problems by running away from the solutions. But [Canada] is also a mature, modern, open society that cherishes its identity and cultivates its distinct character, a society that has confidence in itself—

This is irony here. I would not want anyone to think seriously that these remarks are mine.

—to turn towards new horizons. This is the [Canada], with the true values and concerns to which we can all identify, that I invite to fully play its role and face the issues that confront us.

This is as serious as the throne speech.

In order to achieve that, we need specific objectives and promising, unifying and structuring projects based on reality. We must also decide, unequivocally and while fully realizing the work and sacrifices involved, the type of world in which we want to live. There are many ways to play, but there is only one way to win. And we will win, because there is no other alternative for those who want to succeed. And we want to succeed.

Dear friends, I have a plan.

Better still, I have a vision.

That vision is an ambitious desire to give ourselves the tools to build. To fulfill together our legitimate aspirations, to affirm our vitality and to strengthen our ideals. To perform also, to the full extent of our abilities, by relying on our energy and on our tremendous resourcefulness.—

And, at this critical turning point for our common future, we would put our affairs in the hands of these denigrating and narrow-minded souls who are out of touch with the reality, these people who hinder growth and who keep us from developing at our pace? No, my dear friends, never. We have better things to do; we deserve better than that.

And I will tell you what we deserve: we deserve to be, in every respect, who we are, who we have always been, who we will always be, and who we are proud to be, without any ulterior motive and without envying anyone. This is the [Canada] to which we must aspire, this is the [country] where I want to take you and where I want your children, my children and the children of your children and of my children to fulfill themselves totally and lastingly. I want a [Canada] where life is good, a [Canada] that meets our expectations.

So, the time has come to reinvent ourselves without repudiating our traditions, to give ourselves new momentum while preserving our gains, to make things differently without knocking everything around. Of course, everyone will have to work at this. Concerted efforts and an ironclad solidarity will be necessary. Such is the price of the consensus building process—

I will leave the nice rhetoric and the empty words to others: the public is intelligent enough to put things in perspective. And I bet that, ultimately, it will endorse the ideas that I am putting forward. It will use its past experience with today's ideas to build a better tomorrow.

Together, we can do it.

This ironical article was written by Jean Dion. It sort of looks like the throne speech. It is one thing to be ironical, but the public deserves better than to be made fun of with a meaningless speech.

In quoting this article, I wanted to send to the Liberals the message that trust is something that is earned.

[Official Languages, February 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we have a minister responsible for the Official Languages Act. In theory, the minister should know that he has to make sure the institutions under his responsibility fulfil their obligations with respect to linguistic duality.

Consequently, will the minister responsible for official languages tell us what measures he intends to take to ensure compliance with the law?

[Official Languages, February 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, for a long time now, Don Cherry has been making disparaging, racist remarks about francophones on CBC's airwaves. The Commissioner of Official Languages has even launched an investigation into the crown corporation.

Should the minister responsible for official languages not try to get assurances from CBC management that the controversial commentator will be suspended, at least for the duration of the investigation?

[Jean-Baptiste Meilleur, November 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Jean-Baptiste Meilleur is recognized as one the main founders of Quebec's public education system.

Founded in 1963, the Jean Baptiste Meilleur high school in Repentigny was among the first public composite high schools established as part of the educational reform. Both were precursors in their own way, in their own time.

Thousands of young people had the privilege of studying in this leading institution of our region. To mark this 40th anniversary, staff and students of this educational institution are invited to a big reunion.

Organized by a dynamic team led by Gilles Bélisle, himself an institution within the institution, this event is overseen by the new director, Jacques Ménard.

As the honorary president of this reunion, it is with pride and pleasure that I extend to all former students of the school an invitation to attend this great celebration on Sunday, November 9.

[Criminal Code, October 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Joliette for her kind words. We are very much aware of this important and sensitive issue.

The RCMP does have a detachment in the vast region of Joliette. Joliette is one of the largest cities in the Lanaudière area, and the RCMP detachment helps make our homes and streets safer.

However, this professional but rather modest detachment cannot ensure the safety and security of everyone in the region. As in several areas in Quebec and in Canada, I am sure, but especially in our region, which I am very familiar with, the role of an RCMP detachment is to bring together the various stakeholders.

The role of the RCMP is to educate the public about their rights and the law and to ensure public safety. To this end, it works in cooperation with the Sûreté du Québec, the appropriate municipal police forces and public safety agencies, like Avenue Jeunesse and the Maison des jeunes.

I see the role of the RCMP as being more preventive, in cooperation with our communities. I see the RCMP as a group which, together with others, prevents our youth from falling into organized crime or committing a crime by preparing them in advance and not only by being coercive.

Their involvement in our community is very important. In this regard, I appreciate the question and comments from my colleague and I support the comments made by the member for Joliette. We want to keep this detachment that has been a part of our communities for a very long time in order to ensure this security.

However, if the government should one day decide to follow up on the RCMP report and abolish this detachment, we would at least ask for financial compensation, not because we want money, but because that would create a void that would have to be filled to ensure that the services previously provided could continue to be offered.

As to whether removing the RCMP detachment would be a good thing or a bad thing, we could look at it from another angle. If I remember correctly, in 1998, 1999, the New Brunswick Provincial Police was abolished and replaced by the RCMP. Frank McKenna was the premier at the time.

I have friends who lost their job. They were members of the New Brunswick Provincial Police. I do not know—I have not done any studies and I am asking you or rather us—if all the concerns and all the expectations were addressed.

We would have to look at the crime rate. We would also have to look at the issue of speeding on the highways and fatal accidents. We would have to look at what people hoped to achieve by eliminating the provincial police in a province and replacing it with the RCMP and see if all the objectives were met.

That would give us an example of the role of the RCMP and of the importance of its presence in our communities. Of course, in Quebec, the RCMP is not as present and as visible in our daily lives. However, it is there to a modest degree in Joliette and in the Lanaudière area and we want to preserve what we have come to rely on, or at least be compensated if we lose it.

[Criminal Code, October 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Joliette, for his well-chosen words on Bill C-32. I am pleased to speak to this bill on behalf of my party.

Today, once again, we are going to cause sorrow among our colleagues opposite by explaining in a very rational way, with reasoned arguments, why we oppose the amendments, the bills and the ideas, that the government party brings before us.

Nevertheless, this time, we are going to support Bill C-32. The Minister of Justice will certainly be pleased to see his friends in the Bloc Quebecois once again supporting a government bill, and I shall explain the four primary reasons.

These are the four themes we think are very important, and I quote:

This enactment amends the Criminal Code by

(a) establishing more serious offences for placing, or knowingly permitting to remain in a place, a trap, device or other thing that is likely to cause death or bodily harm to a person;

(b) permitting the use of as much force as is reasonably necessary on board an aircraft to prevent the commission of an offence that would be likely to cause immediate and serious injury to the aircraft or to any person or property in the aircraft;

(c) modifying the provision dealing with the provision of information on oath in relation to weapons;

In a moment I will explain why we are also supporting this amendment. The final theme, which, in my opinion, may be the most important, is this:

(d) creating an exemption to the offence of intercepting private communications in order to protect computer systems.

It amends the Financial Administration Act in order to authorize the federal government to take necessary measures to protect its computer systems.

In 2003-04 electronic communications and transactions are increasingly numerous. Many citizens make transactions over the Internet using their credit cards. Unfortunately, sometimes—too often—someone steals their credit cards by stealing the personal identification numbers. Later, fraud is committed through illegal use of the information networks.

If, through this bill or other legislation, we can correct this situation and give more protection to electronic transactions and transfers made by our citizens, it seems to me that we must, as parliamentarians, encourage such amendments and make as many of them as we need.

On this particular bill and on other bills—I want to emphasize that for my colleagues on the government side—we could draw on a bill recently passed in the United States dealing with unsollicited e-mails.

If I correctly understood the intent of the legislation in the United States, people can add their name to a national register and ask not to receive any promotional material from all major media and big corporations using telemarketers or computers for this purpose.

The big corporations have to consult the national registry every day and to delete the names of all those who do not want to be on the mass mailing lists anymore. According to the latest data that I have, some 50 million Americans have added their names to the national register to avoid receiving all this correspondence trying to sell products all equally miraculous and claiming to make them rich and famous, to educate them and to solve all of their health or financial problems.

I think that it would be perfectly legitimate to look carefully at this aspect in Bill C-32 or in a similar bill that would draw from this American legislation and to see if we can apply it to Canada in order to allow people to regain control over their computer and their personal lives.

When you are quietly sitting at home and the phone rings constantly with someone trying to sell a heat pump, a vacuum cleaner or a wonderful encyclopedia, it is a form of pollution. It disturbs our privacy and infringes on the leisure time we want to spend with our family. In our bills, we should be sensitive to that and try to improve the situation.

I talked about the four reasons for which we support Bill C-32. The main reason is that this bill creates a more serious offence for those who set traps or other devices in places kept or used for the purpose of committing crimes.

Let me explain why we agree with this principle. The offence of placing a trap already exists in section 247 of the Criminal Code. The proposed amendments would replace that section. We want to make it more specific and then add more offences.

Right now, setting or placing a trap with intent to cause death or bodily harm to a person is an offence punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of five years, wherever the trap or the device is placed. This provision would remain, but with minor changes.

New offences are also being established. First of all, if the trap or the device does cause bodily harm, the term of imprisonment will be 10 years. It will be 5 years for placing a trap, but if it is used and someone is accidentally injured, imprisonment will be for a period of 10 years.

If someone sets a trap in a place kept or used for the purpose of committing a crime, the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years. If the trap is set in a place kept or used for the purpose of committing a crime and that trap causes bodily harm, it will be possible to extend the term to 15 years.

Finally, if a death is caused by a trap, a bear trap or anything of the kind—I will explain that later—the person caught committing the offence of setting the trap or device will be liable to life imprisonment.

This may seem a bit crazy, but I want to explain. This has happened recently in fields in Quebec. My hon. colleague from Joliette talked about people taking over tobacco or other fields belonging to farmers. So as not to get caught cultivating marijuana, members of organized crime rings place bear traps and other traps so that if the farmer gets too close to where the marijuana is being grown, he will get caught in the trap and can get hurt or even die from his injuries.

This is also true when buildings in industrial areas are rented and used to grow illegal plants. Bear traps or other traps are placed to prevent security or police officers from checking, or intruders or others from entering and discovering their stash.

In Quebec, some people have been very seriously injured by this kind of protection used by organized crime rings to protect the proceeds of their crime. It is understandable and legitimate, given the evolution in the use of these kinds of traps, to amend and clarify the scope of section 247 to provide even harsher sentences for those resorting to such abominable tactics to protect the proceeds of their crime.

The Minister of Justice said on Radio-Canada radio last April 13, “Currently, organized crime rings are placing traps in areas used for criminal activities. For example, areas where cannabis is cultivated. The firefighters association had been requesting this for some time”. This is why section 247 needs to be amended.

What happens when there is a fire and firefighters arrive on the scene? They might wind up in a bear trap because they cannot see through the smoke. It is perfectly legitimate to protect the lives of those protecting us and give them the tools they need and a safer environment in which to do their jobs.

I will take advantage of this theme of traps and snares to state that the Bloc Quebecois had asked for certain tools in the antigang legislation to be corrected and changed. Two of these have not yet been acted upon. We feel the bill could have gone further. First of all, with Bill C-24 in the last session, the government refused to criminalize passive membership in a gang. This would have made it possible to fight organized crime more effectively, and that is what we want to do here. Had membership in a gang been recognized as a criminal offence, it would have helped in the battle against organized crime.

The other measure we were calling for was reversal of the burden of proof. In Canadian law it is essential to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an accused has accumulated wealth by committing a series of specific and identifiable offences. We need only think of the Hell's Angels megatrials. When someone has a job and reports an annual income of $19,000 when filing income tax returns, but is living in a house worth $265,000 with a Jaguar and a Porsche parked out front, I do not know how that person manages his budget, but certainly not like you or I do.

Perhaps we ought to introduce the reverse burden of proof in order to get these people to tell us how to legally manage our affairs so efficiently. But, all joking aside, I think that people who belong to an organized gang ought to be required to show how they amassed their wealth. We would not be the first country to adopt this reversal of the burden of proof for this specific situation. Canada would not be breaking new ground and the world's legal system would not be destroyed.

I would remind hon. members that Australia, Austria, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland and the United Kingdom have changed their legislation for these very specific cases, reversing the burden of proof.

One of the other reasons we support Bill C-32 is its authorization of the use of reasonable force to prevent criminal activity on board an aircraft in flight that could endanger persons or property—indeed could lead to their death.

Under the current Canadian legislation, the use of reasonable force to prevent the commission of an offence is permitted. The same applies on board an aircraft in Canadian airspace. The bill will amend the Criminal Code to explicitly recognize that any person on board an aircraft in flight is justified in using reasonable force if he or she believes that the use of such force is necessary to prevent the commission of an offence which could endanger the safety of the aircraft or its passengers.

The bill will also clarify that this justification also applies on board any Canadian registered aircraft in flight outside Canadian airspace, and not only in Canadian airspace.

The amendment will ensure the full effect of the Tokyo Convention On Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft.

Canada is signatory to many conventions and belongs to many international institutions such as the ICAO and the UN.

Meetings are held regularly in certain countries. For example, the ICAO deals with aviation safety. Countries are asking themselves how they can contribute to the improvement of aviation safety.

As a sovereignist, I have a lot of respect for the sovereignty of states and their right to independence. However, in this era of globalization, there are decisions that cannot be made strictly within our borders, whether on land, on the sea or in the air. There is a constant flow of people, information and money. Financial transfers abound. Therefore, we must sign more and more international conventions, and this is why the sovereignty of states is important.

When we sign an international convention, if our own legislation is inadequate, incomplete or incorrect, we must amend it. In this part of Bill C-32, we are amending the Criminal Code with regard to the use of force on board aircraft. We are doing this to comply with the Tokyo convention. We must also prevent serious crimes like we saw in the United States in 2001, when terrorists hijacked airplanes and used them as weapons against civilian populations.

We consider it essential that passengers and peace officers on aircraft know that they are covered by legislation if ever they feel it necessary to use force to ensure the safety of both those onboard the aircraft and those who could become the victims of the use of this aircraft for terrorist or criminal purposes, as happened in New York City.

I am therefore convinced that the amendment of section 117.04 of the Criminal Code will ensure greater safety for the crew as well as for people who travel by plane either for business or pleasure.

Our third reason for supporting Bill C-32 is the provision on warrants to search for and seize weapons. Section 117.04 of the Criminal Code deals with that. It sets out the procedure for a peace officer to apply for a warrant to seize weapons, prohibited devices, ammunition, explosives, and so on.

In this respect, one only has to think of family violence situations and the restriction put on police officers to apply for a warrant before entering a home when there are weapons on the premises. Here again, we must make the work of those ensuring our safety easier by allowing us to ensure theirs.

To conclude, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, let me stress again the importance of creating an exemption to the offence of intercepting private communications in order to protect computer systems. A growing number of Canadians are using computer systems to transact business and communicate at all levels. These computer activities must be protected.

As I said earlier, we should take advantage of this window of opportunity to go one step further and develop something based, for once, on what the U.S. is doing. They can do good things in the U.S. A national registry of people could be developed in Canada, and we could tell the big companies which spam us to take our name off their list. This way, our quality of life would be improved.

As you can see, the Bloc Quebecois once again considered with all due diligence this bill before us. For these four main reasons, we will support the bill.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, October 22nd, 2003]

Yes, that they be non-partisan, as my colleague suggests.

He asked that returning officers be appointed, based on a competition, by the chief electoral officer. The Liberals refused. Why? I told them, in committee, “Do not worry: I am sure there are some competent Liberals”. I would not say they all are, but there must be some who could get through the competition for returning officer and there are some who could do the work and do it well during an election. They rejected that, too.

I am curious and I would like to do a study to find out how many countries there are where the prime minister appoints the returning officers, and the returning officers control the ridings. We have been hearing about the democratic deficit and there is a real one here, because they rejected the idea of the chief electoral officer, who is non-partisan, making such improvements to the Elections Act.

They have gone away from the democratic and non-partisan principle that has prevailed since 1867 in establishing electoral boundaries. In Quebec, we are also seeing the disappearance of regional entities, as has happened on the North Shore and in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean.

Demographic weight is also being lost. Yes, the Constitution and the patriated version of 1982—which Quebec did not sign—guarantees us 75 seats. It is true that Quebec did not sign the Constitution, the government House leader cannot deny that. We are guaranteed 75 seats, but that was when there were 280 seats in the House, so it was fair. However, we have remained at 75 seats, and the House of Commons has increased the number of members to 308.

If, one day, there are 500 members and we still have 75 seats—which will not happen because we will be a sovereign nation—Quebec will have no demographic weight. Under exceptional circumstances, we can have more or less 20% or 25% in certain ridings, as my hon. colleague from Québec and my other colleagues stated earlier in their speeches.

What we asked, simply to ensure Quebec's demographic representation, was for these exceptions to be taken into consideration. To ensure real regional representation for Quebec, mainly with respect to the North Shore and the Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, we had also asked that the economic and historical realities of those living in the regions be respected, and that the wishes of the representatives of Quebec not be set aside by making a partisan decision in a bill that should not be partisan.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, October 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to this bill, as all my colleagues have been as well. As the last one to speak, I think it has all been said. All I need do is emphasize the importance this bill holds in the eyes of the Bloc Quebecois, the people of Quebec and the population of Canada as well, we hope.

To explain the context a bit, even in my own riding the people are wondering why the changes to boundaries. Often ridings include municipalities that are a sort of buffer zone. Each time there is a revision of the electoral map, people find themselves bounced from one riding to another, from one region to another.

This is likely one of the reasons for public disaffection and poor voter turnout. Looking for example at the regions where ridings are slated to disappear, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, for instance, the people have been told that their three ridings will be changed to two. More or less the same thing is happening in Côte-Nord. The community of interests is gone. People are integrated within an new reality with which they really cannot identify. Perhaps—maybe I should say probably—people feel more and more distant from their elected representatives. They wonder why they should even bother to go out and vote in the next election, since they will be in a different riding next time anyway. So there is a poorer turnout.

Why are these changes being made? It must be acknowledged that it is not because the party in power woke up one morning and decided that this or that riding would be eliminated. That is not how it works. I will give a quick explanation, for the benefit of our constituents.

Representation in this House is readjusted after each dcennial census done by Statistics Canada, to account for any population changes and movements in Canada and Quebec. This process is governed by the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.

I am in a good position to discuss this subject and I will take this opportunity to thank the people I had the privilege to work with during my first term in 1993. I used to represent the riding of Terrebonne, which is now Repentigny. This shows how ridings can change. Changes not only affect borders, but also names and representation. During the second election campaign, in 1997, I lost the municipalities of Terrebonne and Bois-des-Filion. I had developed affinities with some of the people living in these communities. I enjoyed working with these people and the mayors of Terrebonne and Bois-des-Filion.

There were 50,000 people living in Terrebonne at the time. I was told, after the decennial census, these two major municipalities would be taken away from my riding, leaving me with the five municipalities included in the present riding of Repentigny, which I still enjoy working for. Now I have learned that my riding will be cut up once again for the next election. Three more municipalities, Lachenaie, Mascouche and La Plaine, will be taken away.

After 10 years, we have even more things in common and more pleasure working with the elected officials as well as with the representatives of the business world and community groups. More than half of my riding is being changed. Luckily, there is an RCM in this riding. In Quebec, RCMs are homogeneous regions sharing communities of interest and history. For once, as far as the boundaries of the riding are concerned, the right decision was made. However, at what price and how? It came about after we asked the RCM and the Chamber of Commerce to file briefs, and asked various stakeholders, such as the school boards, business people and myself, to intervene to have these boundaries changed.

I think that the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act does not give enough opportunity for elected officials to say how the community of interests is reflected in the new electoral district.

The committee that hears complaints about the Electoral Boundaries Commission as a last resort, gets involved too late in the process. It is rushed through the process and accepts the decisions made by three of the commission's representatives. One person represents Quebec; there is a representative for each province and each territory of Canada.

What bothers the Bloc Quebecois is the idea of moving up the implementation date for this act, which has been around since 1867. New provisions always come into effect one year after the reports are tabled. Why throw a monkey wrench into the works? My colleague from Québec said earlier that they are trying to pull a fast one. We are being told that the new electoral map will come into effect five months sooner, in April. Why? For one simple reason: to give the future prime minister enough leeway to call an election.

When we are told about the democratic imbalance in the House of Commons and are asked to have a partisan vote on fundamentally non-partisan legislation, this begs the question as to why the one who wants to address the democratic deficit in the House of Commons says one thing and does another.

Mr. Speaker, you will recall the red book of 1993, since you were elected in 1993. The red book said there would be an independent ethics counsellor to resolve the problem of ethics and of the perception of the House of Commons.

What have they done since 1993? It is true that the Liberals put it in writing first, but it is also true that the Liberals were the first to do just the opposite. Is that because the ethics counsellor is a friend of the Prime Minister? The ethics guidelines that were followed later—the government House leader will certainly agree with me—were in total contrast to the 1993 red book. I see the House leader nodding, but he does not dare do so during oral question period.

What I was saying is that this bill, which attempts to move up the date on which the electoral redistribution comes into effect by five months, and the partisan aspect of the electoral process is not acceptable to us. If they had wanted to change parts of the Elections Act, they could have responded positively to a request from the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Kingsley, when he asked that the returning officers in each riding be appointed—

[Contraventions Act, October 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to speak to Bill C-38, which has just been introduced by the Minister of Justice. I will say right off the bat that we are in favour of supporting this bill. We are confident and we truly believe the minister when he says that in committee he will listen to members and make the necessary changes to better define the bill and make it more effective.

Our reality reflects the distinct character of Quebec and we want to share it with the minister and the members of the committee. We are sure that, as was the case with the Young Offenders Act to a degree, after hearing about those differences and the success we have had in Quebec, together we will be able to improve the bill before us.

I will talk about our reservations, but on the face of it, the very idea of decriminalizing simple possession is, in our view, the best solution for the short term because it deals with the most important issue by ensuring that people found in possession of cannabis will no longer have a criminal record.

In our opinion, this option is also one that best balances the need to reduce the harm due to consumption and the need to reduce the costs and problems associated with enforcement. Because Bill C-38 is aimed at decriminalizing the simple possession of cannabis, the Bloc Quebecois, as I said, will vote in favour of the bill.

This option presents many advantages. First, such a reform will inevitably result in huge savings in legal costs and other criminal justice system expenses. According to various studies, it is estimated that the fact that the simple possession of marijuana is still a criminal offence costs about $500 million a year in legal proceedings. It costs $500 million a year to process arrest cases and follow-ups to cases of simple possession of marijuana. Decriminalization could result in a substantial reduction in this cost of $500 million.

If the House will permit, I shall try to explain what decriminalization is. Some people, like the Canadian Alliance just now, are very much aware of this issue and so are we. Too often, the general public thinks that this bill means that young people, everyone, will be walking around with a joint, and there will be no more problems; life will be wonderful. But that is not it.

The difference between decriminalization and legalization is simple to demonstrate. Let us take an example that is easily understood by everyone listening: the highway safety code. If you are going 130, 140 or 150 km per hour on highway 417, sometimes there are police around; if they have you pull over, you are not a criminal, but you have done something illegal and you get a ticket; you pay the fine and that is the end of the matter.

If, each time a person did something illegal like not stopping for a red light or speeding, he or she were charged with a criminal offence, and had to appear in court—each time—our courtrooms would be even more clogged than they are.

What the minister is saying with this bill is that simple possession of a certain amount of marijuana is not permitted, it is still illegal. I will discuss quantities and sorts at greater length later. A person who speeds receives a fine, but not a criminal record.

I am certain that many parents who are listening to us today have children who have had bad experiences. In Quebec, I think that close to 50% of youth under 18 have had an experience with marijuana or soft drugs. Are they future criminals? Yet they get arrested and they get a record.

What happens when they get a record for making a mistake in their youth and getting caught with a joint? What if, one day, they wanted to go to the United States? They would have to get a pardon, which is a big hassle. If one day they became truck drivers and had to cross the border, they would have serious difficulties. If they wanted to become lawyers or police officers, with a police record they would be considered criminals.

Members of all parties have seen it all too often in their offices. This is not a political issue. Young adults come and tell us, “I got arrested 12 years ago, but never thought there would still be a record of that today. It is causing me all sorts of problems in my professional life. Am I a criminal?” No, these are not criminals, just young people who made a foolish mistake.

Our population has to deal not only with soft drugs but also with alcohol. Every year, alcohol kills 3.5 million individuals around the world, while tobacco kills approximately 750,000.

Even if there are no known cases of cannabis related deaths, this substance remains prohibited. How much is spent on alcohol awareness campaigns? I think it will not come as a surprise to anyone if I say that young persons under the age of 18 use it occasionally. The same is true of tobacco. Both these drugs are legal in our societies, and the social costs associated with them are much higher than those associated with cannabis.

That is why we think that this Parliament and this society must keep up with the times and ask themselves questions. Do we want to continue penalizing our adolescents and young adults by burdening them with a criminal record they do not really deserve? Will we keep overloading our courts with crimes which are not really crimes? Should possession continue to be prohibited? Yes, but under the Contraventions Act, by giving a ticket. Simple possession remains illegal, but is no longer criminal.

That is important to us. It is also important that the savings of $500 million a year from the tracking of criminal cases be reallocated to a good awareness campaign. The minister announced, earlier, plans for a $245 million campaign on Canada's drug strategy.

We believe, and this belief is based on blatant and tangible examples, that this $245 million should go to those who are knowledgeable, at the provincial and territorial level, where they deal directly with the people affected by drug use.

The $245 million is fine, but should be redistributed to the provinces to fund more effective awareness campaigns. Why give $245 million to the provinces? The firearms program was originally supposed to cost $2 million. We are now at $1 billion plus and the government still has no control over costs.

With regard to national awareness campaigns against smoking, we still do not know exactly how the federal government is spending the money. We only have to look at the results. We think that, given these disastrous results, the money must to given to the provinces.

Consequently, it is worth reminding members that, with this bill, the possession and production of cannabis are still illegal under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The approach to enforcing the law will be changed. It will now be governed by the Contraventions Act. A minor contravention will therefore be given to the offenders.

In what circumstances will these people get a contravention? The possession of 15 grams or less of marijuana would be liable to a $150 fine for an adult and $100 for a youth. For a youth, a $100 fine is already high enough that he or she would think twice before doing the same thing again.

I will provide some facts, since I am almost at the end of my presentation. One in 10 Canadians uses cannabis. Over 30,000 Canadians are accused each year of possession of cannabis. In Quebec, 80% of the accused are adults, not youth.

There is one very interesting bit of information. Currently, 84% of the population would be in favour of the legalization of marijuana for therapeutic and medical uses, for example. In May 2001, the Canadian Medical Association said in its review that arresting people for the possession of marijuana has more serious social consequences than the moderate use of the drug itself. Thus, arrest is more serious than use.

Consequently, we will support this bill. We hope that some corrections will be made, and we think that this is a step in the right direction.

[Public Safety, 2002, October 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I rise with considerable emotion after a comment or intervention like the one by my friend and colleague from Champlain. No bill, no motion, no subject in this House can be debated in this way, when a person has had an experience like that described by my friend and colleague.

Too often here in Ottawa, when we are discussing a bill, even if we want to be close to the public, we sometimes forget the distance that separates us MPs from our fellow citizens. A comment such as the one we have just heard reminds us that all the fine words we pronounce here have repercussions on our communities. The bills on which we vote will one day impact on the people in our communities, in our counties, in our municipalities. If we make poor decisions, they are the ones who will have to bear the brunt of our error, as in the circumstances the hon. member for Champlain has described to us.

We have just had a clear demonstration of that. It is why the Bloc Quebecois is so sensitive to Bill C-17. We have seen concrete examples of why we feel that way, and why we are opposed to the bill. We have wanted to remedy the situation right from the start, in order to make this bill, which started off as Bill C-36, more acceptable.

It is quite ironic that we are dealing with a problem that occurred on September 11, 2001 by discussing it on October 7, 2003. It is as if we were still discussing whether, if those tragic events had occurred here, who would be responsible for cleaning up the mess, the Minister of Industry or the Minister of National Defence.

More than two years after those tragic events, we are trying to remedy the situation through passage of a bill. We are still discussing the advantages of passing a public safety act, which started out as an antiterrorism act.

I will, if I may, give a little historical background on this Bill C-17 we have before us today.

As I mentioned earlier, Bill C-36 was introduced in response to terrorist attacks. Although we supported the idea of an antiterrorism bill—as it was originally called—we believe that this current bill disturbed the desired balance between security and freedom.

The Bloc Quebecois felt that this would not ensure a fair balance between security and freedom. Furthermore, the amendments proposed in committee by the minister are clearly insufficient to restore that balance.

The Bloc Quebecois did not oppose this legislation for the joy of opposing it. We did not block the bill, as we are often accused of doing. On the contrary, we tabled amendments, not to delay it, but to improve it and its implementation.

We had asked, and this is very important, for the bill to include a sunset clause. Something may happen, and perhaps this bill will no longer be needed in the future. There is a start date and an end date. This is not like legislation on the environment or the official languages. The official languages legislation had a sunset clause right from the start, meaning it was adopted one day and the next day it ceased to truly exist. The sun set very fast.

We asked that this bill be reviewed in one year and, second, that there be an end date. And if it needed to be extended, we would have been responsible and extended the bill.

We asked for an automatic review each year and not just every three years, as proposed. The sunset clause and the annual review, instead of every three years, were not significant changes, but rather corrections to bring the bill into line with its stated purpose, which is to protect the public from possible terrorist attacks or from the creation of terrorist groups.

We also found the bill's definition of terrorist acts overly broad.

Moreover, the fact that the attorney general could withhold information by not applying the Access to Information Act was not enough for us.

And there is also the fact that the bill will only be reviewed in three years' time, as I said before, and the fact that the Minister of National Defence would be able to intercept international communications simply by sending a written request to his officials. We also wanted to correct or clarify some other aspects to make the bill more acceptable, as I was saying previously.

Then Bill C-42 was introduced, followed by Bill C-55 and now by Bill C-17. We can see that this bill has evolved. Some of the amendments, some of the Bloc Quebecois' concerns have been heard and we have gained a very significant victory with regard to the controlled access military zones.

The situation was corrected and the designation “controlled access military zones” was taken out of Bill C-42 and of the following bills. If that had not been done, Quebec City for example could have been identified as a controlled access military zone et been subject to the War Measures Act and the Public Safety Act or Antiterrorism Act, and federal laws could have been suspended in these controlled access military zones.

The Bloc Quebecois has made a good presentation with respect to responsibility. Today we can say to everyone that even though we oppose Bill C-17 as it stands, at least we won a victory regarding the controlled access military zones.

But this is a special debate today, discussing a bill like this one that has an impact on people's individual freedom, rights and safety. At the same time, there is time allocation to gag us once again. We could set up a counter and keep track of the number of times they have forced through a time allocation motion.

Today, once again, the government House leader rose in the House to tell us that Bill C-17 is a very important bill. It is a bill on which consultations will be held, but in a very limited time frame. He told the members of Parliament and the message goes out to the population that bulldozer tactics are being used on a bill dealing with every man and woman's individual freedoms. I want to remind the House that it is extremely important and saddening that we are having closure imposed on this bill.

The last aspect of this legislation that particularly concerns us—and we oppose its application—are the powers to be granted to the RCMP. What image is the RCMP projecting today? I should ask, instead, what the Prime Minister and the government are doing to the RCMP's image, by using it for political purposes.

I want to give a few examples. There is Shawinigate, which concerns the golf course and the hotel. Three, four or even five years ago, the RCMP launched an investigation into apparent conflicts of interest. The report on this investigation has disappeared. Groupaction did not make three copies, that is for sure. If they did make three copies, then they lost all three. So, there is still no report, no investigation, and no conclusion to that investigation.

There is also the sponsorship scandal. Paul Coffin was investigated. The report will surely come out. The RCMP may be investigating others, the real big cases like Everest or Groupaction. We do not know and no one will tell us. In addition to this refusal to tell us, the investigation report will never be made public.

I feel it is totally unacceptable for a government to make use of the police for political purposes and thus to tarnish its image, particularly since it wants to give it more powers.

In addition to Shawinigate and the sponsorship scandals, now we have CINAR. They refuse to tell us whether there has been an investigation and whether there was a report. We do not want to know the report's contents, just whether or not it exists. That is all we want to know, and they will not tell us. They are even refusing to tell us whether there was an investigation or not, yet the then deputy prime minister and heritage minister gave us the name and phone number of the lady who was supposedly carrying it out. Today they will not even tell us if there was an investigation.

As for the Radwanski affair, here we have the same thing all over again. Maybe the RCMP will look into it. We will end up with more or less the same result as with the ethics counsellor, which is either nothing at all, or something that is totally useless.

We are therefore opposed to enhanced powers for the RCMP. In principle, we want to improve this bill and to make it acceptable. As it is, however, we will continue our opposition to it.