Richard Marceau

[Criminal Code, February 23rd, 2004]

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I speak on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois on Bill C-471, tabled by my colleague and friend from Crowfoot. The bill will amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (sexual assault on child--dangerous offenders).

The objective of the member for Crowfoot is to substantially toughen up the legal framework with respect to sexual offenders who assault children.

Members from all parties in this House know how passionate and determined I am about protecting young people, especially children. As you know, Madam Speaker, I have had the opportunity to express my point of view many times, including during the last session, during consideration of Bill C-20 to protect children and other vulnerable persons from sexual exploitation, which resumed last week with Bill C-12.

I cannot emphasize enough how preoccupying the safety of children can be. As legislators, we have the moral obligation to make such protection the best and most effective possible. All victims of sexual exploitation end up deeply affected and scarred for life. This is especially true of children.

Children are the people who are dearest to us, of course, but they are also the most vulnerable. It is our moral, political and philosophical duty, and our human responsibility as legislators who make the laws that apply in cases like this, to provide and ensure that these dear little ones, these children and grandchildren we all have, are protected as effectively as possible.

Seen in that light, the bill before us this morning takes on particular importance and requires the utmost vigilance regarding its legislative objectives. I remind the House and those listening to us that this text amends the Criminal Code to provide that, if a court is satisfied that an offender has had two or more convictions involving sexual assault on a child, the court must find the person to be a dangerous offender unless the offender can satisfy the court that he or she should not be so designated.

Thus, we are faced with a serious reversal of the burden of proof. As a lawyer myself, I am particularly reluctant to support such a provision. Nevertheless, I sincerely believe that the safety of children should take precedence over the rights of a known criminal, and that, because of this, the proposal by the hon. member for Crowfoot should be further studied by the Standing Committee on Justice.

I want to emphasize this part of the position of the Bloc Quebecois and to qualify our support for the bill, because of a decision by the Supreme Court in R. v. Johnson. A judge would be obliged to declare a defendant a dangerous offender without having to do a case-by-case analysis.

In this, there is a risk of overzealous action that I, as an individual, am ready to assume. But as a legislator, I cannot ignore this reality. Therefore, I suggest that we also examine this important and contentious element in greater depth in the Standing Committee on Justice and that we ask witnesses and experts to appear before the committee.

The bill will also amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act in order to severely restrict parole in certain cases. Under our colleague's bill, anyone designated a dangerous offender, under the circumstances I indicated earlier, would not qualify for parole, unescorted temporary absence or statutory release unless no fewer than two independent psychiatrists are of the opinion that the offender is not likely to reoffend or pose a threat to children.

This major statutory amendment deserves very close consideration. I still believe that the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness should hear from a number of witnesses and experts so that it can reach the most equitable conclusions possible.

Given the importance the Bloc Quebecois accords to child protection and the protection of all members of our society, we will support Bill C-471 at this stage. On several occasions, I mentioned the importance of strengthening the legal framework with regard to sexual predators and child abusers. The Bloc Quebecois' stand on this is extremely consistent and has sound reasoning behind it. Our support for this bill at second reading is based on this. This responsible attitude also requires that the legal framework be adequately, but carefully, amended.

Consequently, I invite my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois and the other parties to support Bill C-471 at second reading, but I want my colleague from Crowfoot and the other members to note that this support is not without reservation. We will have to re-evaluate our position on this bill in accordance with the work of the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

I assure my colleague of my utmost cooperation in this important work, which I hope will be done in committee, because our number one priority when debating such a bill is, naturally, the protection of the children we hold so dear.

[Supply, February 19th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, indeed, I find it unfortunate that this debate had to be requested by the opposition. The government may boast about having had a take note debate on Tuesday, but no vote took place. The government should wake up. We want a vote. We are certainly prepared to debate this issue, but at some point these discussions must lead to a concrete measure, namely a vote.

Based on the position that I explained, it would be logical to be much more determined in our will to see all the countries of the world embrace democracy and to see them respect human rights. There is no moral relativism in this.

We must insist on the respect of human rights, on gender equality, on democracy and on the rule of law. We must show how democracy works. In a debate as important as this one on the geopolitical realignment of Canada's role, we must absolutely be exemplary in our democratic process by having debates in the House that lead to free votes.

I see that the former government House leader is smiling ironically, but I know that he is a great democrat. In any case, I hope he is an admirer of Churchill. We have few things in common, but at least we have that. Churchill was a great democrat who was never afraid to speak up, including against his own party—and he belonged to two different ones. In the thirties, when he was campaigning against Neville Chamberlain and his predecessor because the governments of his own party were in favour of appeasement, Churchill was opposed to that option and he spoke against it.

So, I hope that the former government House leader, who is an admirer of this great politician of the 20th century, will be able to promote the idea of a free vote, so that his colleagues around him will have the right to say, “I too am opposed to the antimissile defence shield, regardless of what the Minister of Foreign Affairs thinks, regardless of what the current Prime Minister—who is in the process of bringing his policy in line with that of the United States—thinks, because the overwhelming majority of Quebeckers do not want this shield”.

[Supply, February 19th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question, and I thank him also for finally agreeing with me.

When we talk about terrorism, we are not talking about state terrorism. These angry groups and individuals are not acting on behalf of a particular state. They are members of al-Qaeda, Hamas, Jihad or other groups. The real danger is not that these groups will fire a missile from a particular state. Like the hon. member said, the real threat is that one of these groups with good financial means and technological expertise will bring a suitcase or drive a car full of explosives in the centre of a North American city.

This is the kind of threat we have to fend off. This is the real threat. The hon. member himself pointed it out, and he agrees with my premise. No antimissile defence could counter the threat of these angry groups and individuals. First, we must combat terrorism fiercely, of course, but we must also see to it that these young people who have no future, and no democracy, who live in totalitarian regimes—because that suits us and our economic interests—can live in democracies. Then they will have legitimate and acceptable means to express their feelings. These young men and women often live in repressive societies. By helping them, we will eliminate the threat against us.

[Supply, February 19th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I speak today on the motion by the hon. member for Saint-Jean, a member of the Bloc Quebecois, who has been doing excellent work on this file, on which I congratulate him.

This is an issue that worries many Quebeckers, all over Quebec. In my riding office, I have received many calls and e-mails. In the riding of Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier last week I launched a local campaign against the missile defence program the federal government wants to get involved in. People are calling me; they are talking to me; they are seeking a way to show their disagreement with the Bush government's missile defence shield that the Canadian federal government wants to join. For this reason I launched this campaign and it is already bearing fruit because I have received a number of postcards and petitions, which I will be presenting in the House later.

There are many good reasons to oppose the missile defence program. There are political, philosophical, economic and moral reasons. I will be discussing the following reason: the missile defence shield, as designed by the Bush government, is based on a faulty reading of the international geopolitical situation.

There is no conflict today between the countries of the West, or North America, and any other state, whether it be a superpower, a small or large power, or a rogue state. There is none. The conflict of today is between the open societies of the West—mainly, although there are others—and the angry men and women who are rising up against us, many of them from weakened, overthrown or broken states. They often come from the third world and from the Arab or Muslim world. I will come back to this later.

The defenders of the missile defence shield idea think that states, even rogue states, are so crazy and their leaders so out of touch with reality that they would be prepared to attack the United States or North America, even if such an attack would automatically and inevitably lead to their destruction. The idea that any leader, even of a so-called rogue state, could be crazy enough not to be dissuaded by such a threat of destruction, is in itself a completely crazy idea.

Who in this House would think that these leaders—whether of North Korea or other countries that have been mentioned in our debates—have stayed in power so long because they are suicidal fanatics? Is there anyone in this House who thinks, for example, that the family in power in North Korea has been leading that country for more than 50 years, because it has an instinct for survival? Of course it does.

Currently, there have not been any direct attacks on what I will call the West, for a lack of a better word, by a nation, a government or any entity claiming statehood, but rather very indirect attacks, often by terrorists and on easy civilian targets.

The proponents of the missile defence system seem to have forgotten that the main characteristic of these leaders of so-called rogue states is their survival instinct. They want to survive and, naturally, they want their regime to survive.

I was quite surprised to see that those in favour of the missile defence shield have not asked themselves the following question. If these leaders wanted to attack North America one day, why not do it now, before the shield is built and everything is in place? If they wanted to, they would do it before.

What is deterring these leaders or states, be they rogue states or not, is the knowledge that if they attack North America, the United States or Canada, with one or more missiles, their regime will not survive. That is what is stopping them. The thing they want most in the world is to stay in power and to continue to rule over their society.

Consequently, saying that a rogue state might attack us to justify this insane multi-billion dollar investment is not a valid explanation of or justification for the missile defence program.

I challenge everyone who spoke in the House in support of the missile program to answer the question I asked earlier: If anyone wanted to launch a missile attack on us, why not just do it now, before the shield is in place.

The real threat is not from any state or regime. The primary threat for North America, the West, is groups or individuals who are disappointed or angry, often with regard to their own country's leaders.

In my opinion, this is especially true in the Middle East. The Middle East is a real powder keg and is producing masses of unemployed youth who have no future and often, unfortunately, no democratic outlet. They live in repressive regimes. These men and women, these angry and frustrated individuals, will never launch ballistic missiles on the United States, Canada or North America. But they may blow up a suitcase containing a weapon of mass destruction, in the middle of one of our major cities.

This terrifying possibility is becoming all too real with the rapid development of new technologies, like the Internet, that permit the ready dissemination of information on the manufacture of dangerous and easily produced weapons.

That is the threat we should be worrying about. The billions of dollars invested in this shield, the facilities throughout northern Canada, Greenland and North America, cannot stop individuals who have nothing to lose by launching another 9/11 attack, by hijacking a plane and dropping a nuclear bomb, dirty or otherwise, on Manhattan, Toronto or Montreal, or even using biological warfare.

The shield would never protect us against that kind of threat, which is, I think, far more pressing than that of missiles launched from another country.

So, what should we do? What should we do instead of—how should I put it—throwing billions of dollars out of the window? The best way to deal with these threats, with these unemployed youths who have no prospects, who have been so far disappointed by democracy and development in their countries, is to support these countries.

We should insist in very specific terms, using a carrot and a stick if need be, on democratization and true respect for human rights, the rule of the law and true equality between men and women.

We need to help these closed and totalitarian societies set in place democratic governments that are untainted by corruption, governments that would meet the needs of ordinary citizens instead of serving the interests of a small group of leaders who usually benefit from totalitarian regimes.

It is about helping societies cope with the new economic world order, which is led, among other things, by globalization.

It is about providing tangible assistance to these societies in restructuring their economies so that economic development benefits their entire populations, not just a few friends of the regime.

It is about opening respectful and understanding dialogue with these societies, particularly Arab countries where unfortunately we do not have enough ties with their leaders.

Far too often, we in the West have accepted the dictatorships in that region. Far too often, we have accepted totalitarian societies because it has served our economic interests. Far too often, we in the West have turned a blind eye to human rights abuse for the sake of oil, for instance.

Far too often, we have turned a blind eye to the development of totalitarian ideologies that are conducive to terrorist potentials, because this affected trade.

I will conclude by saying that a foreign policy based on our values—democracy, human rights, women's rights, peace, the rule of law—would allow us to eliminate the threat posed by these angry people.

We who live in a free and wealthy society owe it to those who do not have the fortune to live in a society like ours. In doing what I have suggested, instead of investing billions of dollars in an antimissile defence shield, we would be helping these societies and these countries and helping ourselves.

[Criminal Code, February 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in this House to address this important legislation, namely Bill C-12, which was formerly Bill C-20.

As most hon. members have pointed out, if there is one issue on which all the members of this House agree, it is the importance of protecting the most vulnerable people in our society, who also happen to be the most precious ones, namely our children.

Quebeckers and Canadians expect us to rise above partisanship and not use this issue to score political points. They expect the perverts the sick and the maniacs, those who want to sexually exploit our children to be properly punished and to pay for the despicable and horrendous crimes that they commit by going after our children.

It is with this in mind that, when we debated this legislation, the Bloc Quebecois was very proactive and open, and also made a number of proposals. We listened very carefully to what those who came to testify told us. Based on the very eloquent testimony we heard, we proposed a number of amendments.

Motion No. 1, which is before us today, is an amendment that was originally proposed by the Bloc Quebecois. It is an amendment that I myself proposed. I am pleased to see it included in the bill. There was a minor problem with the French and English versions. That was corrected with this amendment. As for Motion No. 3, it deals with a mere technicality.

Two issues were the subject of rather heated discussions in committee, and I want to draw your attention to them. The first one has to do with the definition of “public good”. The witnesses who came to testify before the committee told us that a defence based on the notion of public good is currently too broad, not acceptable and could lead to abuse. Among others, police officers, who are on the front line, told us that they do not have the time to get into philosophical discussions on the meaning of “public good”.

That is why I put forward an amendment in committee to define the meaning of public good. The essence of this amendment is found in clause 7(2) of the current bill, Bill C-12. I absolutely do not understand why the New Democratic Party is against this clause, especially since the NDP critic said at the very beginning that public good was not defined. Perhaps she was referring to the first version of the bill, but the work done in committee resolved this problem by clarifying the definition of public good.

I was very disappointed by the Liberals' unwillingness, if you will, to insert a clause that would provide minimum sentences for the sexual exploitation of our children. In the general public, particularly in the Quebec City area, following the events of which we are all aware, there has been heightened sensitivity and awareness of the danger of sexual exploitation of children.

Having been previously alerted to the general problem, I thought it would have been a good idea for the government to agree to include minimum sentences and mandatory minimum sentences.

Unfortunately, the government, with its majority, refused. Nonetheless, to give credit where credit is due, some members of the ministerial team voted with me and the Canadian Alliance at the time, to have such sentences.

It is unfortunate that the government did not agree. I guarantee, and I will make the promise right now, that I will not drop this and I will make sure that these people, these perverts, these criminals, are severely, yet humanely, punished. They prey on those who are dearest to us and also most vulnerable.

I will conclude by saying that this is not my last speech on this topic in this House or elsewhere. As parliamentarians, we have the political obligation, but especially the moral obligation, to ensure that those who attack our children are severely punished; as severely as possible. This is about the future of our society.

[Government Contracts, February 17th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers and francophones are tired of hearing excuses from those who enjoy insulting them. Excuses, now that the harm is done, are too easy. Now, a minister of this government has joined those making insults.

Does the Prime Minister, who said yesterday that his minister's words were unacceptable, intend to set an example by demanding the minister's resignation?

[Government Contracts, February 16th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, on the heels of the offensive comments by Don Cherry and Conan O'Brien, a government member has joined in the Quebec bashing. The minister from Thunder Bay said, “This is Quebec's problem, and I think that is the way they do politics”.

What is the Prime Minister waiting for to tell his minister that this is the Liberal way, not Quebec's way, of doing politics?

[Auditor General's Report, February 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, if the government was capable of limiting the commission's term to one year, why could it not at the same time require the commission to produce a preliminary report before the next election is called?

[Auditor General's Report, February 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is all well and good for the government to have announced a commission of inquiry yesterday, but there is no guarantee we will learn anything before the next election.

Will the government commit today to have the commission of inquiry issue a preliminary progress report before the next election is called?

[Government Contracts, February 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we would be only too pleased to acknowledge the credibility of the RCMP, but the RCMP was part of the problem, part of the system.

Does the Prime Minister understand that the RCMP has no credibility whatsoever for investigating the government and the Liberal Party of Canada? They were working hand in hand.