Richard Marceau

[Criminal Code, June 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying very clearly and plainly that the Bloc Quebecois supports this bill and will support it wholeheartedly.

When deciding whether or not to introduce a bill, there are two questions that need to be asked. The first one is whether there is a need for a bill. The second is whether the bill in question meets the need that has been identified by the first question.

Let us start with the need. I remind hon. members that Quebec is recognized around the world as a place of tolerance, a place that accepts and defends rights and freedoms. Quebec was the first jurisdiction in Canada to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation, back in 1977. Quebeckers are very proud of this.

Unfortunately, despite the fact that Quebec and Canadian society is more tolerant when it comes to homosexuality, there are still groups and individuals that perpetuate ideas that promote hate toward homosexuals.

This type of hate must be punished in a society that calls itself free and democratic. If we do not tolerate hate propaganda based on colour, race, religion or ethnic origin, then it makes perfect sense that we should do the same when it comes to sexual orientation.

Currently, there are five groups that are targeted by hate propaganda. Of these five groups, four are protected. The one group that is not protected is made up of gays and lesbians.

It is interesting, and particularly relevant, to note that according to Inspector Dave Jones of the Vancouver Police, in Vancouver, 62% of hate crimes target homosexuals. This percentage, 62%, is high when we consider that gays make up only one of the five groups identified as targets of hate crime. According to Dave Jones, it is unacceptable that sexual orientation is not considered an identified factor targeted by hate propaganda.

There are all kinds of examples of hate propaganda. The Internet site, www.godhatesfags.com has been mentioned several times. On this site, there is a picture posted of the young man who was beaten to death and who is allegedly burning in hell because he was gay.

On that subject, I would like to reiterate what Pat Callaghan, from the Ottawa-Carleton police hate crimes unit, said about the visit to Ottawa by some followers of the godhatesfags site creator, the so-called Reverend Fred Phelps. He said:

If this was done against a Catholic, a Jew or a Black person, charges could be laid. If we had that legislation, we wouldn't have to put up with this nonsense. We could have told him, “If you show up and start spreading this hate, we'll arrest you”.

So my first criterion has been met; there is a need to protect a group that is being subjected to hate propaganda.

For the second criterion, when we analyze this type of bill, we have to ask ourselves whether it meets the need identified in the first criterion.

Freedom of religion is what is at issue here. It is the primary objection to this bill. It was the objection raised by my colleague from the Canadian Alliance who spoke before me.

First, I think it is important to say that not all religious groups or religious individuals oppose this bill. I will not repeat what my Liberal colleague said before me about the letter from Timothy Coonen from St. Mary's Catholic Church in the Yukon, or the letter from Thomas Adams, the pastor at the Baptist church in Richiboucto, or even the editorial—to use another religious denomination—from the Jewish Bulletin of January 3, 2003 pointing out that the Bible is not hate literature. I would only ask people to read what was said.

However, I do not entirely agree with my Canadian Alliance colleague who spoke before me. He said that he would no longer be able to speak freely from the Bible to condemn homosexual activity—for lack of a better word.

I was baptized Catholic. I was raised in that faith and I even went to private Catholic school. At school, in our religion courses, we were taught—I am making an analogy; and I know that analogies are often less than perfect, but bear with me—that the Jews made a mistake in not accepting Jesus as their saviour. The theological position of the Catholic Church—and I think it is the same in all the Christian churches—is that Jesus is the Messiah. Thus, accepting Jesus as our saviour leads us to eternal life. The Jews, who did not accept him, committed a theological error.

That is what I was taught and perhaps they still teach it. It is possible to say, with respect, that one believes the Jews made a mistake in not accepting Jesus as their saviour. But to go from that to saying that because the Jews made a supposedly theological error, they can be subjected to hate propaganda is a major leap that our society has refused to make for a long time, for instance when provisions against hate propaganda were included in the Criminal Code.

On Sunday, I attended the opening of the Holocaust Museum. It is easy to see how far hate propaganda can lead. One can see the depths of baseness and darkness that human beings can descend to when hate is involved. I am very much aware of the hate that has been directed against the Jews.

In the same way, someone who believes in a particular interpretation of the Bible, a holy book, may well say, “We condemn what homosexuals do”. Someone might very well say that. But to go from this interpretation in good faith of a religious text to an incitement to hatred based on hate propaganda is, once again, a step that must not be taken.

I was using the example of the Jews who are protected by the Criminal Code because they are an identifiable ethnic group. Quite simply, the same reasoning applies in the case of homosexual, lesbian or transgendered persons. It is simply a matter of not crossing the line between interpretation of a religious text, with which one may agree or disagree, and incitement to hatred.

We know full well that freedom of religion is well protected in Canada. There is section 2 of the Canadian Charter, section 3 of the Quebec Charter and the supremacy of God, as stated in the preamble to the Constitution. No right is an absolute right in our legal system, but the only possible limitations are those necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

Because these are factors that may affect a freedom very well recognized in our legal system, these limitations must be clear and narrowly interpreted to ensure that the freedom in question is subject to as little limitation as possible.

In a nutshell, freedom of religion is given prominent status in our law; nevertheless, it is not absolute. It is subject to limitations which must be clearly justified in law and come with safeguards.

I will conclude by reminding the House of three things. First, so far, there have been very few prosecutions under the hate propaganda provisions of the Criminal Code because the test is very difficult to meet. The disclosure that results in an infraction must be specifically designed to promote hatred against an identifiable group. The message heavily laden with contempt must spread hatred according to factors very clearly defined by Justice Dickson in the Keegstra decision.

I will let a non-partisan analyst, namely the Parliamentary Research Branch, conclude for me:

The drafting of the Code's hate propaganda provisions with respect to specific intent, the definition of hate propaganda by the courts, the special defences and the fact that the attorney general of the province needs to approve prosecution all contribute to ensuring that this kind of prosecution will be possible only for the most blatant cases and that the act is consistent with the Charter.

I read further:

These requirements meet the limitation criteria set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in cases relating to freedom of conscience and religion.

Adding sexual orientation to the list of identifiable groups does not have a negative impact on the principle of freedom of conscience and religion. It does not increase the limitation that may be placed on this freedom by lawmakers and courts or decision makers. Its impact is neutral.

In conclusion, we wholeheartedly support Bill C-250.

[Menachem Mendel Schneerson, June 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois is pleased to celebrate the life and work of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, “the Rebbe” as he was affectionately known. Born in Nikolayev, Russia, on April 18, 1902, or 11 Nissan 5662, the Rebbe survived the Nazi regime and fled to the United States in 1941.

He was definitely one the most influential Jewish figures of the 20th century. The Rebbe was no doubt among those who fostered the awakening of the Jewish collective consciousness following the Holocaust. In 1950, he assumed the leadership of the Chabad movement and guided it toward international outreach. He has been described as an accomplished scholar, statesman, administrator and teacher. His deep commitment to humanity and his dedication represent a unique legacy.

The Rebbe died in 1994, at the age of 92, but to this day he is still an inspiration to thousands of disciples and millions of admirers the world over. There are currently 37 Chabad centres in Quebec, which shows that his influence is felt even in our part of the world.

[Montreal Holocaust Memorial Museum, June 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Montreal, I and a number of my colleagues had the privilege of attending the opening of the Montreal Holocaust Memorial Museum.

This museum, the first one of international scope in Canada, was opened in the presence of men and women from a variety of backgrounds and political affiliations.

Montreal is known throughout the world for the size of its Jewish community. Moreover, it is home to the third-largest number of Holocaust survivors in the world. Needless to say, the choice of Montreal as the site of such an institution is particularly appropriate. Its Jewish community is lively, extremely dynamic and closely involved in the development of Montreal and Quebec as a whole.

The museum will help teach Quebeckers, particularly our youth, as well as other visitors to Montreal about the great horrors of the Shoah, not only for the Jews, but for humanity as a whole.

The opening of the museum to the general public will provide an opportunity to harmonize the national motto of Quebec, Je me souviens with the lesson that must be learned from the Holocaust, “Never again”.

[National Fight Against Homophobia Day, June 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure, on behalf of my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois, to draw attention to National Fight Against Homophobia Day.

I would like to acknowledge the extraordinary work done by Foundation Emergence and its president, Laurent McCutcheon, in launching this campaign.

With the theme “From tolerance to acceptance”, this day should make everyone reflect on behaviour—unintentional perhaps—that has homophobic undertones.

Our society prides itself on its openness, tolerance and acceptance. It is time, more than ever, to prove it and accept the fact that thousands of our fellow citizens are homosexuals.

We cannot remain impervious to homophobia. To ensure justice and equality, any excessive behaviour has to be denounced. I am calling on all my colleagues to take advantage of this day to pursue the fight against homophobia.

[François Gagnon, June 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to welcome to Parliament Hill, François Gagnon, the MP for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier for a day, who will be with us for 24 hours.

François was the winner of the sixth edition of the MP for a day contest and stood out from 1,200 other secondary IV students in an examination on general knowledge of politics.

While in Ottawa, he will have an opportunity to gain some familiarity with the parliamentary work of MPs, and will get a chance to see first hand the hectic lives we lead here on Parliament Hill. Along with his father, Mr. Jacques Gagnon, he was able to meet privately with the leader of the Bloc Quebecois and also with all the members of our caucus.

Mr. Speaker, you too will have the pleasure of meeting this young man after oral question period this afternoon.

On behalf of my hon. colleagues, I want to welcome him to Parliament and wish him an excellent visit.

[Supply, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Chair, I guess this will be my last question.

The minister, whom I listened to carefully when he was interviewed on television, on Maisonneuve à l'écoute , said earlier that one of the problems he hopes to solve with the new strategy announced today is the lack of consistent law enforcement. Often, in an urban setting, police will turn a blind eye, which is not the case in a rural setting, for instance.

In leaving it up to the police as to whether they want to draw up an official statement, that is, to give a ticket, or to proceed by summary conviction for between 15 and 30 grams, does the minister not see that once again he may not achieve consistent enforcement, which is one of his own objectives and which is one of the objectives raised in the report of the House committee with regard to the non-therapeutic use of drugs?

[Supply, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Chairman, in the whole debate on decriminalizing marijuana—even though the government seems to be allergic to the word, that is what we are talking about—the House of Commons committee that reviewed the issue came up with the idea of decriminalizing not only simple possession under 30 grams, but also growing marijuana in the same quantity. If I remember correctly it is recommendation 41 or 42 in the committee report.

I have three questions. First, why was that part of the recommendation on cultivation totally ignored?

Second, since the committee had suggested 30 grams, how did the minister come up with 15 grams? What swayed him in favour of this quantity?

Third, does he not see a contradiction between decriminalizing simple possession—of less than 15 grams—and making it illegal to grow marijuana for personal use? In his announcement today he stated that he had created a new growing infraction starting with one to three plants. This would force marijuana consumers to buy on the black market which, for the most part, is run by the underworld as we all know. Does the minister not see a contradiction between his stated desire to stop drug trafficking and the fact that he is forcing people who want to smoke marijuana—which we discourage—to get their supply on the black market when they could very well grow small quantities of marijuana for their own use?

[Supply, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Chair, still on the issue of the work done by committees, I would just like to make a correction. I did not ask the minister whether he would be bound, but whether he would feel bound by the work done by the Standing Committee on Justice.

There is also another committee that does excellent work, namely the Special Committee on Non-Medical Use of Drugs. The announcement made by the minister today on the changes to the government approach with regard to marijuana obviously raises several questions.

The first question is this. The minister went to Washington on May 13 to inform the American government of the decision and the direction that the Canadian government was taking on this issue. It was noticed, in the bill that was distributed to us today, that it was printed and finalized on May 14, which is the day after the visit to Washington.

Can the minister tell us what the input of the American government was on this issue and why was the bill not introduced in the House before being discussed in Washington?

According to the normal legislative process, foreign governments should have been asked for their input on this during the consultation process that will be undertaken by the committee, and not before members of this House had a chance to see and study this bill.

[Supply, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Chair, in view of the fact that the minister has recognized that he has great respect for the work that has been done by the committee, work that was done very professionally, will the minister feel bound by the recommendations the committee will be making very shortly in the report, which will hopefully be available before mid-June, giving him a few days to decide whether or not to appeal to the Supreme Court.

[Supply, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Chair, even though I did not want to see the minister pre-empt the committee's work, I would have liked him to comment on this. I would have liked to know what he thinks about this.

Of course, the Minister of Justice knows that the Quebec Superior Court, the Divisional Court of Ontario, and the British Columbia Court of Appeal have all ruled that same sex marriages should be allowed in Canada. He also knows that three rulings in that direction give us a good idea of the future orientation of Canadian case law.

Has the minister decided if he will file an appeal against the British Columbia Court of Appeal's May 1 decision authorizing same sex marriages? If I remember correctly, he has until the end of June to decide. So has he made a decision yet?

The federal government is filing an appeal against the Divisional Court of Ontario's decision on this issue; can the minister tell the House how much the appeal before the Ontario Court of Appeal will cost the federal government? Does he know how much it could cost to file an appeal before the Supreme Court against the decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal?