Richard Marceau

[Criminal Code, November 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-215, introduced by my colleague from the Alliance. This bill, sponsored by the member for Calgary Northeast, could not be more directly linked with that party's dominant philosophy in favour of a harder line for the entire criminal justice system.

We need to look at the specific character of the legislative amendment proposed. It is no more and no less than a raising of the legal age of consent to sexual acts. The framework surrounding the concept of consent in the Criminal Code is a rather complex one, but can be summarized in three points.

First, the consent of a person under the age of 14 years is not a defence against a charge of sexual aggression, exhibitionism, sexual touching and the like.

This means that a person over the age of 14 years is in a position to give consent.

Second, there is an exception to this rule. Plaintiff consent may be a defence if:

the accused (a) is over 12 and under 14 years of age;

(b) is 12 years of age or more but under the age of 16;

(c) is less than two years older than the complainant; and

(d) is neither in a position of trust or authority towards the complainant nor is a person with whom the complainant is in a relationship of dependency.

Third:

a person in a situation of authority or trust may not have sexual contact with a person aged 14 to 17, even if the minor consents.

In attempting to make the legal framework more strict for sexual activities involving youth, the Canadian Alliance hopes to protect their virtue. However, there is a contradiction in the approach of the Canadian Alliance when it comes to youth justice. Allow me to explain.

The purpose of the Alliance proposal is to increase the age of consent from 14 to 16. First off, in our opinion, there is not much to debate about this. We know that young people engage in sexual activities at a younger age and the prevention campaigns that have been created for them work relatively well.

We believe that an approach based on listening to young people and sincere dialogue with youth works much better when it comes to sexual education than the punitive approach that the Canadian Alliance promotes.

The society in which we live has evolved considerably, so much so, that what used to be considered taboo is now discussed with complete openness and with a sometimes alarming candour. This is more the case in Quebec, which has the well-earned reputation of being the most liberal society in North America, when it comes to these matters; more so than the rest of Canada.

But, and this is where it gets touchy for the Canadian Alliance, what is the logic behind that party wanting to legislate the raising of the age of sexual consent, when in the whole debate on tightening the Young Offenders Act, it called for the age at which children can be tried in adult court to be dramatically lowered.

Indeed, in the debate on the young offenders bill, the Canadian Alliance supported an approach described as a hard line approach whereby 16 and 17 year olds, as well as 14 and 15 year olds charged with serious crimes, would be tried before adult court. This was in its own platform.

Now these 14 and 15 year olds, who are apparently mature enough to commit crimes, would not be able or capable of consenting to sexual activity? This is definitely double talk.

The Canadian Alliance's reasoning does not hold water. The initiative before us is, once again, a reflection of the Alliance's propensity to take a piecemeal approach to amending the Criminal Code, depending on the personal opinions of its members or popular trends in western Canada.

What they are suggesting would inevitably result in an unmanageable legal mess and would run counter to the fundamental principles of the administration of justice.

The objective pursued by the Alliance would be counterproductive in that it would criminalize the personal activities of young people on the basis of their age, instead of protecting them from sexual predators. To conclude, the Bloc Quebecois opposed this legislation in the past and remains opposed to it for the two main reasons mentioned earlier: while it may not be desirable for young people aged 14 and 15 to have sexual relations, the provisions referring to this age reflect what society is prepared to tolerate. The Canadian Alliance is using double talk.

In the debate on young offenders, they argued that adolescents 14 or 15 years of age were mature enough to be held criminally responsible for their actions, but in this debate on the age of sexual consent, they are arguing that the 14 year olds are not mature enough.

Consequently, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to the bill, even though it is not a votable item.

[Supply, October 29th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, it has been said numerous times that our political party misunderstood the ideas of the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard. I will read them in full and ask my colleague to comment on them. They go as follows, and I quote:

Fifth, the process for government appointments has to be reformed. The unfettered powers of appointment enjoyed by a prime minister are too great. From ambassadors and consuls-general to regulatory agencies to museum boards and the list goes on. Such authority must be checked by reasonable scrutiny conducted by Parliament in a transparent fashion. Some senior government appointments should undergo public review. The decision should continue to rest finally with the government so that the process does not drag out. Nevertheless, qualifications of the candidates should be examined by the responsible standing committee before the appointments are confirmed.

These are the exact words of the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard. So, does the member for Yukon agree with the proposals I have just quoted made by the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard? Yes or no?

[Supply, October 29th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I would like to raise two points. First, how can the Parliamentary Secretary of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons say that Standing Orders 110 and 111 already cover those two points. While the motion by the Bloc refers to automatic referrals, Standing Orders 111(1) and (2) use the conditional. It cannot be automatic on one side and conditional on the other, as it is in subsection 111(1), which reads, referring to committees, “If it deems it appropriate”, or subsection 111(2) which reads, “If it should call an appointee”. There is nothing automatic there. It is all conditional.

Second, I would like the parliamentary secretary to tell us, if this House is the best of all possible worlds, and if the system is transparent and works well, why his colleague from LaSalle—Émard propose—it cannot be said that I did not read the speech, because I have it here in front of me—in which he said that, at present, to solve problems in this House, one had to answer only one question, “Who do you know in the PMO?”

How does the hon. member justify his position, according to which everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds, when his colleague from LaSalle—Émard talks about the necessity of a democratic and institutional renewal?

[Supply, October 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, one after the other, the Liberal members mentioned Standing Order 110 and 111 concerning the operation of the House.

The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the other members all repeated this little pitch; they said that the people appointed automatically appear before the committee.

However, how can the member for Québec, whom I congratulate for her speech, explain to the people opposite that there is an inconsistency between saying, on the one hand, that this is automatic and, on the other hand, that Standing Orders 111(1) and 111(2) use the conditional tense, which makes it non automatic?

How does she explain that the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has used these Standing Orders, if not to give us smoke and mirrors and to distort the true meaning of the Standing Orders of the House?

[Supply, October 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, what a plea for the status quo we just heard. What a plea for the concentration of all powers in the hands of the Prime Minister. This is not at all in line with the speech made by the member for LaSalle—Émard at Osgoode Hall last week.

His colleague from LaSalle—Émard, who will probably be the next Prime Minister of this country in February 2004, made a harsh assessment of the way the House of Commons and this government work.

I am asking him a very simple and straightforward question: does he agree, yes or no, with the assessment made by the member for LaSalle—Émard? Does he agree, yes or no, with the proposals for reform suggested by the member for LaSalle—Émard? If the answer is yes, he should say so and withdraw his passionate plea. If the answer is no, he should indicate on which issues he disagrees with his future leader.

[Supply, October 29th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Châteauguay is a highly skilled lawyer, a member of the Barreau du Québec. He knows full well that the legislator does not talk needlessly.

This morning, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons was saying that the motion moved this morning by the Bloc was redundant because appearance before a committee was automatic. He referred us, among other things, to Standing Order 111. However, when we look at Standing Order 111, we wee that “the committee shall if it deems appropriate, call”. In section (2), it says: “if it should call an appointee”, thus including the conditional in the Standing Order.

What does my colleague think about the government House leader's argument that this is automatic, when the Standing Order makes it conditional? Does the government House leader's argument make sense?

[Supply, October 29th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am always a bit surprised when a member argues that asking parliamentarians to review appointments would politicize the process. Quite the opposite, it would depoliticize it, since what we have right now is a political process, with only one person, the Prime Minister, making the appointments. My question, however, is more specific than that.

The member and some of her colleagues must be using the same standard speech, because she mentioned, as they did, Standing Orders 110 and 111. Earlier this morning, the government House leader told us that appointments were automatically reviewed by committees. Let me ask the member the following question: If that is so, how does she explain the fact that Standing Order 111(2) states that “the committee, if it should call an appointee—” The provision is in the conditional. How does she explain the fact that the conditional is used in the provision being referred to by the government members, who argue that appointments are automatically reviewed? How does she reconcile the two?

[Supply, October 29th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am extremely surprised to see a minister of the Crown rise in the House to say that debating democracy in this country is a waste of time, that it is not an important issue. It blows me away.

It seems that her speech was already written and she did not change it as a result of the amendment proposed by my colleague from Mercier. So I want to ask her a question.

Does she agree that committees should review appointments made by the Prime Minister before these appointments are confirmed? Is she willing, yes or no, to allow committees to have their say before the appointments are made?

[Supply, October 29th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank and congratulate my colleague from Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière for his excellent speech. He was with me in the House this morning to witness the little play that the government House leader put on stage for us. He played on words, to a certain extent, talking about the so-called automatic character of the referral to committee process.

Now, I know that my colleague from Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière is deeply attached to the French language and that he knows his grammar very well. Standing Order 111 (2), to which the leader was referring, says, and I quote:

The committee, if it should call an appointee--

Could he tell us whether he thinks that something can be at the same time automatic and conditional with the use of the word if? Does he not agree also that, when the word if is used in the Standing Orders, it makes things conditional and not automatic, which would destroy the argument presented by the government House leader this morning?

[Supply, October 29th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough on his speech and ask him the following question. What does he think can explain this tendency on the part of government members to relinquish an important part of their responsibilities to the Prime Minister and his staff? Is it simply in their nature to do such a thing? Is it the way the system is designed or is it simply that they have decided that the less they speak up and the more they follow, the greater their chances are of acceding one day to certain positions to which they would be appointed by the Prime Minister?