Richard Marceau

[International Transfer of Offenders Act, May 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill now before the House is to replace the Transfer of Offenders Act, which has been in force for over 20 years. The basic objective of the solicitor general's proposal is still the same as the one pursued by the old act that would be replaced, with the exception that the list of countries with which the Canadian government has entered into agreements would be updated.

Thus, Canadians convicted abroad would still be allowed to come back here to serve their sentences and foreigners convicted in Canada would still be allowed to return to their country to serve their sentences.

The foundation of this bill is to set out how the transfer of offenders to Canadian correctional institutions would be done, while ensuring the compassionate nature of the process. It is important to mention at this point that the Bloc Quebecois supports such a measure.

The bill also deals with with the equivalency of foreign and Canadian sentences. In this regard, it will be interesting to follow the progress of this bill, particularly in light of the justice minister's decision, last week, not to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal of Quebec concerning the new Youth Criminal Justice Act.

At this time I would like to point out that the Bloc Quebecois agrees in principle with Bill C-33. Nevertheless, this support should not be considered carte blanche for the government. As is customary, we reserve the right to present amendments to the bill in order to improve it.

As an example of a constructive amendment the Bloc might suggest, I give you the delicate issue of human rights and the unhealthy conditions in the prisons of certain countries. From this point of view, it seems obvious that we should repatriate criminals who otherwise would have to serve their sentences in inhumane conditions.

These transfers must be carried out in a spirit of collaboration with the states that are signatories of treaties and administrative agreements. It is essential to establish a quick, simple administrative framework for transferring criminals. The same would be true for foreign nationals serving a sentence in Canada.

Nevertheless, we have serious reservations when it comes to enforcing certain provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Despite the recent opinion of the Quebec Court of Appeal in this matter, the federal government has decided to go ahead and sentence young people of 14 and 15 as adults. This is a concrete example of our reservations with respect to this bill, and we intend to explore this further when the bill is examined in committee.

Thus, the bill proposes major changes in the current act, particularly with respect to simplifying the administration of justice, rehabilitation and social reintegration for criminals who are serving sentences in Canada or their countries of origin. It also clearly describes the conditions and implementation mechanisms. It is entirely commendable that the bill aims at simplifying administrative procedures and the Bloc Quebecois will support this principle.

It is also important to mention the provisions related to the notion of the consent of the foreign entities under the legislation. In addition to the eligibility criteria outlined in clauses 4 and 5, clause 8 clearly stipulates that the transfer requires the consent of the foreign entity, Canada and of the offender. Similarly, clause 9 states that certain rules will apply in terms of the consent of Quebec and the provinces. Accordingly, Quebec or the other provinces may and must express their consent before any steps are undertaken.

The minister responsible for implementing the act, the Solicitor General, is given a considerable amount of responsibility with respect to assessing the factors to ensure transfers are carried out properly. As such, several elements must be taken into consideration and recent events shed some very relevant light on this matter. One of these elements to be considered is the assessment of the threat to security that the transfer of a criminal to Canada may pose. The reverse seems to be the case when it comes to the—let us call it accelerated—extradition of Holocaust denier Ernst Zündel to Germany. The government's actions must be guided by a multitude of factors, and in the case of foreigners who are found guilty in Canada, the minister must take into consideration the risks involved in their detention and future release when considering and assessing transfers.

In order to avoid the transfer procedure being used to shorten or even cancel sentences, the bill contains specific provisions to ensure the continuity of sentences imposed on offenders. Thus, the rule of law will be respected and will be sufficiently consistent with the criminal law of the countries involved.

The case of young offenders is also dealt with specifically in the wording of the bill. Specific provisions apply in the cases of the transfer of adolescents. In terms of these cases, the comments of certain experts could certainly shed some needed light, particularly given the recent judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal.

It is our hope that the Solicitor General, as minister responsible, will make the necessary changes to the bill to reflect the requirements of the charter, pursuant to the decision rendered by the Court of Appeal.

As I mentioned in my introduction, it is also important to raise the sensitive issue of human rights and the humanitarian considerations that we must keep in mind. These issues are so important that we find it curious, to say the least, that there is only one clause dedicated to the issue in the bill.

What are the purposes of such transfers? First, social reintegration. With the development of increasingly sophisticated means of communication and transportation, it becomes simpler to implement a new administrative framework for international transfers. Criminals also benefit from our increasingly open borders and the porosity of our various systems, and we therefore congratulate the government on developing modern methods in response to these specific issues.

Rehabilitation is as important an issue as reintegration, and both are at the core of this bill.

Criminals are also transferred for humanitarian considerations. The countries involved will take into consideration communication difficulties related to language, the alienating effect of cultural differences and local customs, as well as the lack of contact with family. We can therefore deduce that repatriation of criminals has a certain interest both for offenders and governments.

The second objective relates to sovereign equality. Another issue relating to the transfer procedure consists in respecting the rights of states. There is a recognized principle that the sovereign equality of states must take precedence. Moreover, article 2 of the United Nations charter stipulates that the organization is based upon the principle of the sovereign equality of all its members. This is, moreover, the reason why the agreement of the countries involved is required by this bill and the transfer also requires the agreement of the offender.

The Council of Europe adopted its Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons in 1983 at Strasbourg, a place where I have lived, you will be glad to know, Mr. Speaker.

Certain parallels might be drawn between the Council of Europe convention and the bill before us here. First, there is the need for collaboration between the states and the necessity to facilitate the social reintegration of offenders.

It is also important to point out that the convention rigorously respects the national law of each member country. Article 13 of the convention states that the sentencing state alone shall have the right to decide on any application for review of the judgment. Thus, the humanitarian aspect is clear in the provisions and the explanatory passages of the convention.

Let us also talk about mental disorders. Several provisions of the current bill are related to procedures concerning the transfer of people declared not criminally responsible on account of mental disorders. We will have to pay particular attention to this part of the bill to ensure that these provisions reflect as best as possible the sensitive nature of the sentences handed out to these particular criminals.

The Bloc Quebecois still has some reservations concerning the bill, particularly about clause 18, which says:

A Canadian offender is deemed to be serving an adult sentence within the meaning of the Youth Criminal Justice Act if (a) the Canadian offender was, at the time the offence was committed, from 14 to 17 years old; and (b) their sentence is longer than the maximum youth sentence that could have been imposed under that Act for an equivalent offence.

We believe that it is very likely that 14- or 15-year-old youths would receive far too heavy sentences compared to the ones that they would have received in Canada.

I repeat that the Court of Appeal of Quebec gave its opinion in the case of the Government of Quebec's order regarding the reference concerning Bill C-7 on the youth criminal justice system. During the hearing of this case, Quebec's Attorney General said that the breaches of freedom and psychological welfare that result from criminal charges against a minor are exacerbated by the system that presumes subjecting youth to adult sentencing. This procedure would violate the presumption of innocence, guaranteed under paragraph 11( d ) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and recognized by the Supreme Court as a fundamental principle that is protected by section 7.

Paragraph 11( d ) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms establishes the rightto be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.

Quebec's Attorney General also argued that:

The procedures involved would be similar to those used in declaring someone a dangerous offender, in that they cause similar harm.

The attorney went on to say:

The Youth Criminal Justice Act would therefore violate the freedom and safety of adolescents, which contravenes the principles of fundamental justice in that it does not specifically require that the factors the court must weigh when determining whether an adolescent should be subject to adult sentencing must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

This refers to subsection 73(1) of the act.

The Attorney General of Canada argued that:

The new legislation, which is an exception to the adult criminal system, is in line with an approach that balances the interests of society and those of adolescents in such a way as to make the taking into account of the specific situation of adolescents a major consideration.

In response to the question raised by the Attorney General of Quebec, whether the elements set out are indeed principles of fundamental justice, the five judges of Quebec's Court of Appeal agreed that they were.

On page 63 of this opinion, we read the following:

The expression “fundamental justice” in the context of section 7 is not limited to rules of procedure, but includes substantial principles. This means that to withstand charter scrutiny, any psychological security violation must be fundamentally warranted not only procedurally but also in relation to the objective, in accordance with the basic tenets of our legal system.

The Quebec Court of Appeal judges added that there is a wide consensus about these elements because of the essential role they play in the Canadian legal system. Their vital importance has been recognized ever since the very first legislation on the subject-matter. Over time, the details were worked out to meet the particular situation and needs of adolescents more and more specifically.

In the decision in R. v. M. (S.H.) (1989), 2 S.C.R., on page 446, Justice L'Heureux-Dubé wrote:

[This brief legislative history of] the provisions of the Young Offenders Act amply demonstrates that for nearly one hundred years Parliament has committed itself to the separate treatment and rehabilitation of young persons involved in the criminal process. The underlying philosophy has been from the beginning that it is in society's interest to assist young offenders “to strengthen their better instincts”. An attempt is made through the legislation to “prevent these juveniles from becoming prospective criminals and to assist them to become law-abiding citizens”.

Unfortunately, this government has chosen to ignore this legacy and expertise by doing away with the Young Offenders Act and replacing it with a piece of legislation that is pretty shaky in terms of its wording, as demonstrated by the Court of Appeal of Quebec, and questionable where its rehabilitation objectives are concerned.

As the members are aware, the Bloc Quebecois took a clear stand against this new legislation, which disregards nearly 100 years of history and practice, and opens the door to challenges, and the Court of Appeal of Quebec recently proved us right. We have continued to be vocal opponents of this poorly worded legislation whose sole purpose was to clumsily reassure the public.

In its opinion, the Court of Appeal stated:

Although the presumption may be set aside and the court may retain greater discretionary powers with respect to the appropriateness of imposing such a sentence rather than an adult sentence, it is no less true that the legislator has clearly indicated in sections 62 and 72 that the usual sentence applicable to designated offences is that imposed on adults guilty of the same offences.

It also sends a clear message to the population as a whole that, in general, adolescents are dangerous criminals if they are 14 years of age or older when they commit certain offences. In other words, applying adult sentences has the effect of stigmatizing the adolescent guilty of a designated offence.

Bloc Quebecois members have spoken many times on Bill C-7, the young offenders legislation, questioning its real purpose. We have questioned the relevance of the purpose of this legislation. It was surprising to find that the government really thought it could deal with juvenile crime by giving the public a false sense of security, when the real issue was to lower the crime rate among young people.

At the time, Bill C-7 had its objectives backwards. The government had completely forgotten whom this bill was for. Should we rehabilitate young offenders or should we give an illusion of protection to society, based on the leveling of the enforcement of the adult legislation?

However, if we consider clause 18 of Bill C-33 that we are discussing, the same questions remain.

The Quebec Court of Appeal has provided several responses that, it must be said, rankle the Liberal government. The Court of Appeal is categorical. The imposition of an adult sentence is not essential to achieving the goal of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

On page 69 of the opinion, the Court of Appeal judges analysed these provisions and concluded, and I quote:

—in this respect, clearly, the new legislation presumes that adult sentences be applied as a general rule. From now on, this legislation places upon minors the onus of demonstrating why an adult sentence should not be imposed. Supreme Court case law is however clear: Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that, during sentencing the onus is on the Crown to establish beyond all reasonable doubt the aggravating circumstances surrounding the commission of an offence. Paragraph 724(3) (e) of the Criminal Code requires the prosecutor to establish, by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the existence of any aggravating fact or any previous conviction by the offender. Subsection 72(2) of the WCJA, therefore, violates the rights guaranteed under the section 7 of the Canadian Charter in that it places on the young offender the onus of proving the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence, the lack of a previous record at the time of the exemption, as well as the other factors listed in subsection 71(1). The onus should instead be placed on the prosecutor who wants the court to impose an adult sentence to show the fitness of such claims in terms of the factors set out in subsection 72(1), once a request has been made. The prosecutor should also have to prove the existence of facts justifying the imposition of an adult sentence. Once this has been done, the courts could decide whether to impose such a sentence on a young offender.

The judges added that even the presumption of this imposition, and I quote:

—is a violation of the right to freedom and the psychological freedom of adolescents, which does not conform to the principles of basic justice.

In conclusion, I will say that the Bloc Quebecois will obviously work very hard in committee to make sure our various concerns are dealt with and also that the recent opinion of the Quebec Court of Appeal on the Young Offenders Act is taken into consideration.

We support the bill in principle but we ask the government to be open. We want criminals to be returned, especially knowing what the conditions are in prisons in some countries. But such transfers must be done in a spirit of close cooperation between the states signatories to treaties and administrative agreements.

I thank you for your attention and I am looking forward to the committee review.

[Young Offenders, May 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, since the minister seems to be at last seeing sense, ought he not to do the only proper thing and consult Quebec's new minister of justice, who shares the opinion of the previous government, namely that Quebec must be exempted from this legislation?

[Young Offenders, May 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, today is the deadline for the federal government to file an appeal with the Supreme Court against the Quebec Appeal Court opinion on the Young Offenders Act.

Rather than using the appeal process, does the Minister of Justice plan to amend the act to bring it into compliance with the charter, as the Bloc Quebecois has been demanding from the start?

[Petitions, March 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to submit a petition signed by 321 people.

The petitioners are calling upon Parliament to oppose any plan to limit access to the disability tax credit and to ensure that the government does not pass any measure in the House of Commons without prior consultation of organizations representing the disabled and of health professionals.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, March 25th, 2003]

The Youth Criminal Justice Act, which has been invidiously imposed upon Quebec, will come into force this April 1, despite the fact that the Quebec Appeal Court must rule on certain important legal questions, particularly those related to its compliance with the international rules on the rights of the child.

Will the Minister of Justice agree to postpone the coming into force of his repressive act until such time as the Quebec Appeal Court hands down its ruling?

[Supply, March 25th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, they were quite unequivocal and clear. They support the program. Does this prevent them from asking for additional money for more police officers in the streets? Of course not.

However, the fact remains that they support the program. When it comes to this, I trust the expert judgment of this country's police officers.

[Supply, March 25th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, in the six years that I have been a member of the House, if there is one thing that I have learned over the course of the work I have done here, including committee work, it is that there are some people who know more about certain situations than we do. As legislators, we have to be jacks-of-all-trades because we vote and make decisions on all kinds of things. However, there are people who are much more knowledgeable about different subjects.

This morning, for example, the Canadian Police Association came to reiterate its support for the firearms registration program. These men and women who work on the streets, in the neighbourhoods, in the country and in the cities say that despite all of the problems with the program's management, they believe in it because it is useful for them.

I would say to my friend from the Canadian Alliance that we must trust the experts, the police officers of Quebec and Canada, who are telling us to keep the program, since they use it.

[Supply, March 25th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by asking the following questions: can we have any greater responsibility as legislators, as elected representatives of the people, than to ensure the safety and security of our fellow citizens, of those who have elected us?

You will understand that my answer to this is no. The members of this House have no greater responsibility than to ensure that the people of Quebec, the people of Canada, live in a healthy and safe environment.

You will understand from my introduction that I am opposed to the Canadian Alliance motion. The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of the firearms control program. We are, moreover, not alone in that.

This morning I met with representatives of the Canadian Police Association, an association that does a remarkable job all year long. They come to us once a year to share their concerns and express their grievances. This very morning in my office they again repeated their support of the firearms control program, and I was pleased to hear it.

I have also spoken recently with the officials responsible for the Coalition for Gun Control, including Dr. Chapedelaine and my friend, Caroline Gardette, also an exceptional person, who accompanied him. They, too, reiterated how important the coalition felt the firearms registry program was, and rightly so.

However, we condemn the administrative fiasco that the government has made of the program. All punning aside, this Liberal government's administrative fiasco has claimed two victims. First, obviously, the pocketbooks of Quebec and Canadian taxpayers who have paid for this program, and second, the very principle of gun control, and that is very serious.

Those who are ideologically opposed to the principle of gun control—such as the leader of the Canadian Alliance—have been all over the Liberal mismanagement, using it as ammunition to shoot down the very idea of gun control.

The Minister of Justice and his predecessors are largely responsible for this. They have made life a lot harder for the thousands of people across the country who advocate for gun control, because people are telling them, “Look at the fiasco, is it really worth it?” We believe it is, of course. But what a waste.

What a waste to give this kind of ammunition to the Canadian Alliance and its henchmen, who have been fighting against gun control since the beginning. It is ironic, by the way, that a party that claims to be a grassroots party is against gun control, when a majority of Canadians support it. Incidentally, the place with the highest percentage of support for gun control is Quebec. This little tangent just demonstrates the specific character of the homeland we share, Madam Speaker. So, it is ironic that members of the Canadian Alliance are ignoring what Quebeckers and Canadians are telling them.

On December 6, 1989, when the massacre took place at the Polytechnique, I was a first-year law student. I clearly remember being in a restaurant in Quebec City, where Université Laval law school students were celebrating. It was our class's first Christmas party. When we received the first reports of the massacre, during which 14 women were killed and 13 others were wounded by a mad gunman, in that instant, everything changed.

There are such moments in history. We feel we are at a point of transition, that everything has changed. We felt it immediately. People became subdued. They wanted to listen to the different radio stations to learn what was happening. The young men and women there said, “This must never, ever happen again”. The coalition was created in that instant, with the results we see today.

It is very unfortunate that the Liberal government was unable to manage a program that, really, should have been quite simple. Registering firearms is not very complicated. We have been able to land on the moon for 30 years now. So I refuse to believe that it is so difficult to register guns.

Despite transferring the firearms program from the Department of Justice, which proved its incompetence, to the Solicitor General, the government must still tell us what is going on. Not only that but, starting today, it must ensure that the program administration is transparent. It must ensure that the public and the members of this House have access to all the information needed to ensure that the government cannot, once again, prove its incompetence, as it has here.

In Quebec, the program was implemented by Quebec's ministère de la Sécurité publique and the Sûreté du Québec. From having spoken with staff at the former, I can tell you that things are going smoothly; program registration and application are going well, and they are sticking to the initial budget.

I should also mention that Quebec and the federal government have signed an agreement making the Quebec government responsible for issuing the permits, and this is also going well.

When the Firearms Act was being implemented the Government of Quebec cooperated by sharing its expertise on firearms and how to monitor them. Given that this works well in Quebec, we must avoid handing the program back over to the federal government, because there is no reason to do so.

We want to maintain the firearms program and we support the existence of the Bureau de traitement and the Centre d'appel du Québec, which do very good work and employ a significant number of people.

We want to avoid creating a federal firearms management agency, which would place the program back in the federal government's hands, since it has shown in the past that it is unable to manage such a program.

In conclusion, I reiterate the Bloc Quebecois' support for the firearms control program. We are going to vote in favour of the proposed budget this afternoon and I call on all members from all parties, including the New Democratic Party, to do the same. I am a little disappointed to hear my colleague and friend, the member for Burnaby—Douglas, say that he will abstain from voting. Despite the fiasco and the somewhat difficult situation that making this a confidence vote places us in, the fact remains that beyond all this and beyond the political posturing, the safety and security of Quebeckers and Canadians is what is most important. The firearms control program will ensure that there is better security for all our fellow citizens. I call on all members of this House to vote in favour of the proposed budget this afternoon and against the Canadian Alliance motion.

[Committees of the House, March 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay.

It is with great sadness that I rise today because, last night, an illegal, immoral and illegitimate war began. It is a sad moment in the history of mankind. People all around the world are sad and many of them are worried.

In the last few weeks, I had the opportunity to meet people, including students at the École Arc-en-ciel in Lac-Saint-Charles, at the Polyvalente de Charlesbourg and at the Polyvalente Le Sommet. They told me: “Mr. Marceau, do whatever you can to prevent this war from happening. We do not want this war”. These young people said spontaneously, and not because they were prompted to do so by teachers or by some school board employee, that they were worried and that they wanted to avoid this war.

But, unfortunately, the war has begun. These students asked me: “What can you do as a member of Parliament? What influence do you have on this issue”? Unfortunately, I had to tell them that the government, through lack of leadership, refused to put this issue to a vote in the House. Considering what is at stake here, parliamentarians should have been given the opportunity to vote on this issue in the House.

The government should have taken the lead and given the hon. members the opportunity to vote on this issue. But they did not. It is only thanks to the Bloc Quebecois that the elected members of Parliament have the opportunity to officially express their opinion on this war, by voting on this motion. Of course, we should have held that vote before the start of the war. But again, because of a lack of leadership, that vote did not take place.

The Prime Minister said that Canada would not participate in the hostilities, and we commend him for this. However, if we are to be consistent and logical, we need to take action to avoid being caught in the middle of this, which could very well happen. We have ships in the Persian Gulf and some of our troops, taking part in exchange programs with the U.S. and the British armed forces, are also over there. What this means is that troops with the Canadian flag on their uniforms will be called upon to take part in the war against Irak, even though the government has said that Canada would not participate in that war. This is not logical.

It is crucial that the government recall our troops who are currently in the Persian Gulf, so that Canada will not be called upon to play an indirect role in a war that the people and the members of Parliament consider illegal, immoral and illegitimate.

The only invasion that should have happened in Iraq is an invasion of inspectors. With more inspectors and more time, we could have avoided this whole mess.

When we talk about war and dead people, be they soldiers, civilians, men, women or children, we are talking about waste and damage.

There should have been more inspectors and more time. Unfortunately, since the American government had probably decided from the beginning to take military action, this did not happen.

Now that this conflict has begun, the Government of Canada must insist on a cessation of hostilities. It must insist on this to avoid more lives being lost.

At the conclusion of the most terrible conflict in the history of humankind, the second world war, the world created an instrument, however imperfect—it was created by men and women and is thus imperfect by its very nature—and that instrument was the UN.

The UN was created to prevent such situations from ever happening again. The world created the UN to avoid pre-emptive wars, to ensure that might no longer made right and that conflicts would be solved in a peaceful and legal way, and no longer by force.

With the beginning of hostilities, unfortunately, the instrument that the world created, the UN, has suffered a serious blow.

Other solutions besides war would have been possible. Any unilateral action, any pre-emptive war is an illegal action. It is a breach of international law. However, the interpretation of the countries that initiated the strikes might be this. Martin Wolfe, of the Financial Times , summarized international law as seen by the Americans as follows:

The supreme law is the security of the republic—

We are talking here about the American republic. Too bad if the search for absolute security for the Americans means that others must live in absolute insecurity.

How dangerous it would be if this notion of international law won out over the multilateral and international approach, which should be the one guiding us today.

The beginning of hostilities will probably have consequences not only for Iraqi civilians and for Iraq itself, but also for the neighbouring regions. Several states are very unstable in the Middle East. The conflict between Israel and Palestine is still an open sore.

I am at a loss for words, and this does not happen very often. Because of these people who will die, probably by the thousands, and because of this destabilization of a situation that is already serious in the Middle East, this is not an auspicious day for humankind. It saddens me.

I will conclude by saying that it also saddens me that the government chosen by Canadians did not at least show leadership and allow parliamentarians in this House to vote before the beginning of hostilities to justify its refusal to take part in the conflict.

[Divorce Act, February 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, as you know, an MP's life can be a most interesting one. Some 45 minutes ago, I was in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, as was the parliamentary secretary I see here. We were discussing marriage, but marriage between same sex partners. Marriage there, and divorce here. Clearly these topics are of interest.

It is also a sign, however, to us all here in this House that what we do here will affect the personal everyday lives of the men and women of Quebec and of Canada.

When we address matters such as marriage and divorce, we must be very careful. We must reflect, listen, study. Unfortunately, with Bill C-22, the Minister of Justice seems to have brought forth a mouse. He has unfortunately not delivered on his promised revolution.

I would like to begin by reaffirming as strongly as possible the Bloc Quebecois' firm belief in the importance of the respective roles fathers and mothers play in the lives of their children, whether outside marriage, during a marriage, or after marriage breakdown.

Every parent, every father and mother has an important and essential role. This philosophical principle, which underlies every Bloc Quebecois intervention in the debate on Bill C-22, will guide us. This philosophical principle, which underscores the importance of the role of the father and the mother, will be present and is present in all our interventions in this bill.

You would not be surprised if I, as a Quebec sovereignist, said that the option preferred by the Bloc Quebecois is simply to repeal the Divorce Act and transfer it to Quebec.

In 1867, when the British North America Act, which is nothing more than an act passed by the British Parliament, was passed, anything that had to do with family law was left in the hands of the provinces under section 92 of the Constitution. The only exception was marriage and divorce, which, let us not forget, was basically for religious reasons.

Quebec was mostly Catholic and Canada and Ontario mostly Protestant and some feared that one of the provinces was imposing its views on the religious minority there.

Now that Quebec and Canada accept religious diversity and varying points of view, the federal government's appropriation of divorce and marriage, this tiny section of family law and civil law, no longer has its place. There is no longer any reason for this.

In this regard, the Bloc Quebecois is part of a long and illustrious tradition. For many decades, Union Nationale, Liberal and Parti Quebecois governments have all asked that family law be repatriated to Quebec. The Bloc Quebecois made this request again in 1998 when the joint committee on child custody submitted its report and it is a request we are reiterating today. We cannot be accused of inconsistency.

In the unfortunate event that the government rejects this option, changes would still need to be made to Bill C-22 introduced by the Minister of Justice.

I will simply address a few of the main points. When I met with Justice officials to discuss Bill C-22, they told me—unfortunately the briefing was conducted in English—that the words access and custody should be removed to effect what they called a conceptual shift in the approach to children's rights and to try to eliminate any notion of winner and loser in the debate on the custody of children.

Whether the words custody and access are removed or not, the fact remains that the child, boy or girl, will have to spend x number of days with mom and y number of days with dad. So, change wording as we may to call it something else, in actual fact, one parent will have the child for a period of time and the other will have him and her for another period of time.

All this to say that I seriously doubt that, in practice, the conceptual shift sought by the justice minister will be very meaningful.

Another aspect is the interest of the child. The minister's bill maintains the principle of the child's interest in determining custody and making various orders regarding the parents by setting out a number of criteria to take into consideration in determining what is in the interest of the child.

First, the interest of the child is already covered in subsection 16(8) of the Divorce Act, as well as in section 514 of the Quebec Civil Code, with respect to separation from bed and board.

All the minister has done in connection with the best interests of the child has been to codify existing criteria from the jurisprudence. Decisions rendered across Canada were reviewed, and actions determined to have ensured the child's best interests were included in the legislation.

In the system of laws that governs us, jurisprudence is very important. All this to say that codifying jurisprudence hardly qualifies as new law. It does not change the law; it changes absolutely nothing. It only makes a cosmetic change to that part of the act. Once again, it reinforces the idea—and this was the point I was making at the beginning—that the government has brought forth a mouse.

There is another major problem with Bill C-22. The unified family courts. The government wants to make sure there is a unified family court in every province. Again I will remind the House that in 1998, when the joint committee released its report, the Bloc Quebecois opposed this idea and, surprise, surprise, it is still opposed to it now.

The way the federal government sees it, a unified court would bring every aspect of family law under the Quebec Superior Court, whose judges are appointed by the federal government.

In Quebec, courts that have jurisdiction over family law, except, of course, for marriage and divorce, come under the Quebec court, whose judges are appointed by the Quebec government.

We are opposed to the principle of a unified family court as planned by the federal government. If it persists in this direction, we will ask respectfully but firmly that it transfer to Quebec the money set aside to establish a family court in Quebec, so that Quebec may keep its distinct character in the way it manages family law, which, I remind members, is under provincial jurisdiction. Quebec is the only province with a civil code.

For all these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois will oppose Bill C-22, but it is our sincere hope that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will hold the broadest possible consultations, because whatever we decide in this House will have far reaching consequences for millions of Quebeckers and Canadians.