Richard Marceau

[Supply, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Chair, in recent months, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human RIghts has had the opportunity to address the problem of suspended sentences.

As the minister is no doubt aware, a number of parties, including provincial justice ministers, raised the possibility of ensuring that violent crimes would not be treated the same way as offences where suspended sentences are allowed. If memory serves, the provincial ministers were unanimous on this.

How does the federal justice Minister intend to respond to these oft-repeated requests not to allow suspended sentences for violent crimes?

[Supply, May 27th, 2003]

The Justice minister says we still have 20 minutes, but that is not enough. There are so many things I wanted to talk about.

Here is my first question. In part III of the main estimates for 2003-04, the Report on Plans and Priorities, we can read on page 22, under the heading “Legal Aid Program”, and I quote:

The governmnent has annouced in the recent Budget that it would increase its funding support for legal aid to the provinces and territories.

Yet, in the table right above this quotation, we can see that the planned spending for 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 remains stable at $126.4 million. Therefore, how it is possible to explain that in the last Speech from the Throne, it was said that the government would increase its financial support and that for the next three fiscal years, the numbers remain unchanged, that is, there is a reduction given that this is not in constant dollars?

[Supply, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Chair, I am delighted to see so many people tonight to listen to us. This debate must be very popular. I have several questions, but I will unfortunately have to proceed quickly. There are so many points I would like to raise.

[Supply, May 26th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, perhaps I have a problem comprehending the language of Shakespeare, but I still do not understand the answer provided just now by my hon. colleague from Yukon to the former leader of the Canadian Alliance. So, for the benefit of all the members of this House who are participating so avidly in this discussion, I will repeat the question: is the hon. Liberal member for Yukon in favour of the motion put forward by the Canadian Alliance or is he opposed? A simple question deserves a simple answer.

[Marijuana, May 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, after this week's cabinet meeting, just before leaving for Washington, the Minister of Justice knew he did not have any money for the national drug strategy, but he went and consulted with the Americans anyway.

How can he hide behind any excuse whatsoever today for having been given his marching orders by Washington, when upon his return, he started working on a bill that takes the wishes of his buddy, Ashcroft, into account?

[Marijuana, May 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the fears we expressed on Tuesday have been confirmed. Upon his return from Washington, the Minister of Justice, having been given his marching orders by the American government, did not introduce his bill to decriminalize marijuana.

How can the Minister of Justice deny having received instructions from Washington, when the series of interviews with the media scheduled for today has been cancelled and he is now talking about not introducing his bill until the end of May?

[Criminal Code, May 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a bit surprising to speak today following the unanimous adoption of a motion of this House, but it is still gives me great pleasure to do so.

The House has unanimously decided to refer the subject matter of the bill to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights so that it might consider a fairly serious problem in our society, which is to determine how to protect the men and women who risk their lives trying to save innocent men, women and children who are, unfortunately, all too often victims of infernos.

I had mentioned to the hon. member who introduced Bill C-269 that we strongly supported the principle, which is to protect these men and women, rightfully known as heroes, who do an extraordinary job for society. Their work is essential and too often overlooked.

By the way, I was a little surprised to see people's reaction to the events of September 11. Firefighters were transformed into heroes, as if they had not been heroes before September 11. Of course, the attacks of September 11, 2001, really highlighted the heroism of these people, but they were already heroes before that; they were already people who deserved to be honoured and protected as much as possible, especially by legislation, such as that which the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will be studying very soon.

Thus, it was certainly time to do this. I had one problem, which I pointed out, with the various sentences provided for in Bill C-269. I will simply say that the Bloc Quebecois will work very seriously so that firefighters, the men and women who risk their lives in the service of others, will be protected and at the same time, that the sentences for criminal acts should be appropriate, not only in terms of our constitutional law, but also in terms of the protection provided by the charter and the general principles of the Criminal Code.

We are pleased to support this legislation; we will work hard in committee to ensure that it becomes law, so that firefighters get the recognition and the protection they deserve. This is not a demand they are making; this is something they deserve. It is not a privilege but something we owe them.

In that sense, I think it is one of the major pieces of legislation I will have worked on in my career on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Thus, I can assure the hon. members here present and all the firefighters watching and listening today that we will do everything we can so that they have the protection they need in order to do their work, which is to protect us and rescue us.

[Marijuana, May 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister admit that by going to Washington, the Minister of Justice is confirming that the legislative process has become an insignificant detail, since the changes that will be made to the bill will be done in backrooms in the U.S. and not here, by the federal government?

[Marijuana, May 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, under the usual process for drafting and considering a bill, cabinet decisions are discussed by the Liberal caucus and the bill is introduced in the House, where it is debated and amended as needed, then passed.

Is the reason the Minister of Justice is in such a rush to go to Washington because he wants to leave as much latitude as possible to make the changes recommended by the U.S., without it appearing obvious and without anyone knowing?

[Supply, May 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my answer to the second question is that, personally, I see no artistic merit in child pornography. The question is pretty simple indeed.

Also, once again, I do hope that the hon. member is not suggesting that mental sickness is not curable. There are thousands of Canadians with mental diseases and who can be treated. I am not talking about those with a dependence on pornography.

I repeat, and I want to make it very clear, I am against child pornography. I believe we must do everything in our power to fight it and that our action can take many forms.

However, to make it an issue, as I have heard suggested, borders on demagoguery. I would have so much more to say but, unfortunately, I am out of time. People may not necessarily support this particular motion put forward by the Canadian Alliance to fight child pornography, but to accuse these people or suggest directly or indirectly that these people condone such horrors is something that should never be done in this Parliament.