Richard Marceau

[Supply, June 3rd, 2005]

moved:

That the House denounce the recent remarks made by Mr. Justice Michel Robert stating that it is acceptable to discriminate on the basis of political opinion when appointing candidates to the federal judiciary and that it call on the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to create a special subcommittee with the mandate to examine the process for appointments to the federal judiciary and make recommendations for reform, with the primary goal of eliminating political partisanship from the process, by October 31, 2005.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to debate a highly important motion that speaks to the very state of law and the rule of law in our country.

The motion reads as follows:

That the House denounce the recent remarks made by Mr. Justice Michel Robert stating that it is acceptable to discriminate on the basis of political opinion when appointing candidates to the federal judiciary and that it call on the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to create a special subcommittee with the mandate to examine the process for appointments to the federal judiciary and make recommendations for reform, with the primary goal of eliminating political partisanship from the process, by October 31, 2005.

This motion, as you can see, has two main parts, one that looks back at what has already been done, and another that is more prospective. In other words, what can we do to resolve an increasingly recognized problem?

So, why this motion? Let us put this all in context. As a result of various witnesses appearing before the Gomery commission, the sponsorship scandal has hurt all politicians. Revelations by Benoît Corbeil suggest that the judicial branch is also affected by the scandal. We know that Benoît Corbeil, the former director general of the Quebec wing of the LPC, has stated that anyone wanting to be appointed a judge “needed to have friendly relations with those people”—meaning members of the Liberal network—who can influence the political machinery.

A few days later, Michel Robert, the chief justice of the Quebec Court of Appeal, a long-standing Liberal and president of the Liberal Party of Canada from 1986 to 1990, spoke out and intentionally crossed the line into the political arena, by reprising contentious remarks he had made before.

What did Michel Robert say before and what did he say this year? Mr. Robert was interviewed by Mr. Maisonneuve on November 19, 2004, on Maisonneuve en direct , a popular show on Radio-Canada.

Mr. Maisonneuve asked him, “Mr. Robert, would you have been appointed to the Court of Appeal if you had been a supporter or an elected representative of a sovereignist party?”

Michel Robert responded as follows. “No, I would not be on the Court of Appeal because I believe the Government of Canada appoints people with federalist sentiments when there are openings in the hierarchy”.

Mr. Maisonneuve asked him, “So, there is a political dimension?”

And Michel Robert replied, “There is a constitutional dimension, in my opinion, yes, but beyond that, I believe that the system needs to be more transparent”.

Several months later, on April 26, 2005, in another Radio-Canada interview, Michel Robert made two points, “We normally must adhere to the federal Canadian system, since it's the system within which we operate. Personally, I have nothing against someone who wants to change the Canadian system into another system; this, he is perfectly free to do. But I don't think he should exercise judicial functions”.

He added, “To be nominated to a federal judicial function, I think it’s a sort of prerequisite, one must not be sovereignist, I mean, I think this is a generally held opinion among Canadian judges”.

The comments of the chief justice of the Quebec Court of Appeal constitute a serious error in judgment. First, he crossed the line, which should be and which is extremely clear, separating the political and judicial branches. In other words, he did not fulfill his duty to refrain from public debate. He was not speaking as a judge but rather as a federalist and a Liberal. He ignored his duty not to take part in public debate and, of his own free will, he crossed the line into the political arena.

There has been another serious breach of judiciary duty on his part. In our legal system, because of the “constitutionalization” of rights and freedoms, judges play an important role, in fact an essential one. Indeed, they form the keystone of the protection system for rights and freedoms in Canada. By stating as he did that it is acceptable to discriminate on the basis of public opinion in Canada in the 21st century, Michel Robert sent the message that discrimination based on political opinion is okay.

But the fact is that a judge, and the chief justice of the Quebec Court of Appeal in particular, is among those chiefly responsible for promoting and defending human rights and freedoms in Quebec and across Canada. This means that one of the chief persons responsible for ensuring the promotion and respect of human rights came out and said that such discrimination based on political opinion was acceptable. As we know, this caused an uproar, quite a bit of an uproar in fact.

I would ask the members in this House who do not share the Bloc Québécois' political opinion to picture the following situation. Imagine that the PQ government announced at some point that it will be appointing to the Quebec Court of Appeal exclusively sovereignist judges. I am convinced that people everywhere would rise up in protest. I can just see the headlines in the Globe and Mail , the Gazette , the National Post and the Sun , among others, denouncing such a decision. And they would be right to say it is unacceptable. That is the mirror image of the current situation.

There is a fairly serious problem of perception as far as the politicization of the judiciary is concerned, one that has been aggravated by Michel Robert's comments, among others. We have monitored the debates, the phone-in,—some of which I took part in—the editorials and press coverage. This has attracted a lot of public attention. Unfortunately, people are starting to mistrust the judiciary, which is, as I said, the cornerstone of our legal system in a country where the supremacy of law must be enforced.

That is the reason why I have, as you know, filed a complaint with the Canadian Judicial Council so that it may address this matter. It has, moreover, been a source of great concern to me that the Minister of Justice has not also filed such a complaint in support of mine, despite my questions, which I would say have been posed in a friendly and constructive manner.

One of the important, essential, vital roles of the Attorney General and Minister of Justice is, in my opinion, to protect the separation between the political and the judiciary. The minister has been remiss in one of his vital duties by not supporting my complaint with one of his own.

The public perception of a politicized judiciary is based on facts. I would like to refer to the excellent work done by the Gazette and CanWest—and those words are not likely to come often from my lips; perhaps this day should be marked on the calendar. Elizabeth Thompson and Cristin Schmidtz, among others, have come up with the statistics. I will begin by quoting from an article by Elizabeth Thompson which appeared on page A1 of the May 6 Gazette. I will be reading it in the original, so I ask your forbearance for any mistakes of pronunciation I might make:

Nearly 60 per cent of lawyers appointed to the bench in Quebec by the federal government since the 2000 election contributed to the Liberal Party of Canada in the years leading up to their appointment, The Gazette has learned.

If professors and public servants are factored out, the proportion rises even higher.

Of the 29 law firm lawyers appointed to the Quebec Superior Court or Quebec Court of Appeal for the first time during that period, 21, or 72.4 per cent, had made individual contributions to the Liberals.

In fact, The Gazette's investigation reveals that the overwhelming majority of contributions made by those later named to the bench was to the Liberal Party during the 10-year period of contributions studied.

So the perception is based on facts which are troubling, to say the least. Hence the need to ensure that merit is the only consideration when people are appointed to the bench. This is why the explanations of the Minister of Justice that this is already the case do not hold water. Even the figures of the terribly sovereignist Gazette indicate the contrary.

Now for the prospective part of the motion. The procedure has to be changed. This change received unanimous approval in the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, where I presented a quite similar motion. It got the support of the NDP and the Conservative Party. Initially, the motion was much harder on Mr. Justice Robert. However, at the request of my Conservative and NDP colleagues, among others, the wording was toned down a bit so as to take off some of the edge, if I can put it that way, and so the motion would be as balanced as possible. This is this motion we have before us today.

I wish to thank my colleagues from Provencher and Windsor—Tecumseh, both justice critics. They too have some fairly well based concerns. I am sure they will present examples that affect them, doing their best to be as non partisan as possible.

In this regard, the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is generally speaking quite collegial. Despite the elevated levels of heat and antagonism in the House—as concerns the sponsorship scandal, for example—we manage to work together quite well. Everybody makes compromises, and the bills get moved along. This was the case with bills C-13 and C-2 on DNA banking and child pornography, respectively.

The Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the justice critics therefore have an interest and have made a collective contribution. I therefore want to thank my colleagues from Provencher and Windsor—Tecumseh not only for supporting the motion but for helping to formulate it. What we have today is almost word for word what was before the committee. This proves we are capable of working together. I thank them.

So, it is important to change the procedure. We all know how judges are currently appointed. There is an advisory committee made up of seven members: one is appointed by the provincial bar association, one by the Canadian Bar Association, one by the federal judiciary, one by the relevant provincial justice minister, and three by the federal Minister of Justice. The individuals who are interested in becoming judges submit their candidacy to that committee. The committee then produces three lists: one for those applicants who are not commendable, one for those who are commendable, and one for those who are highly commendable. The Minister of Justice can choose between those who are either highly commendable or commendable.

The current system is not working as well as we would like it to. Indeed, we found, as indicated by the figures that I submitted earlier, that there is an over-representation of individuals who are of Liberal allegiance. It is important to point out that the fact that a person was previously involved in politics is no reason not to appoint him to the bench. On the contrary, we would be sending a very bad message if we told people they should do their civic duty by getting involved in politics, but that this will prevent them from being appointed to the bench.

I understand this very well, and I think that we should not prevent someone from being appointed as a judge on the ground that he is or was involved in politics. In fact, this political experience can often prove to be very useful, once a person becomes a judge.

However, there is a problem when the person must be affiliated to a specific political party and must believe in a certain political philosophy to be appointed as a judge, and when this has almost become a prerequisite. Unfortunately, in Canada, we are getting dangerously close to that.

The subcommittee that I am proposing would try to come up with solutions to eliminate political partisanship from the appointment process. At first glance, there are two things that come to mind rather quickly. First, why does the selection committee choose those applicants who are either highly commendable or commendable? Why does the process give full latitude and discretion to the Minister of Justice to choose from a list of highly commendable or commendable individuals? This means that the minister can appoint someone from the B list—if you will—that is, the list of those who are deemed commendable, and ignore those who are deemed highly commendable.

One way to tighten the appointment process would be to take away this huge discretionary power enjoyed by the Minister of Justice. This could be done if the committee submitted a short list of people and if the minister were required to appoint judges from that list.

I am sure my colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh will talk about the process in Ontario. He brags about it quite a bit. Since he will surely be a member of the committee, if it is formed, he will probably want to invite Peter Russell, who set up the committee in Ontario, to tell us how to go about it and to discuss the advantages that have stemmed from the process. Notably, there was the arm wrestling match between the Harris government and the members of the committee. My colleague is in a much better position than I am to talk about it.

Second, is it necessary to have three representatives of the Minister of Justice on this seven-member committee? That is almost 50% when, in any event, the Minister of Justice will have very significant decision-making power since he will be appointing the judges in question. This begs the question: do we really need three representatives of the Minister of Justice on this committee?

Mr. Speaker, I see you are indicating that I should be wrapping up my speech. Twenty minutes is not a lot of time to talk about all this. I have two minutes remaining.

As a law maker, and simply as a citizen, I believe it is important for the judiciary not to be politicized. The public needs to have the impression and needs to know that the judiciary is not politicized. The keystone of our constitutional system must be protected by denouncing any intention to attack or even destroy the integrity of the judiciary system. We must denounce the politicization of the judiciary system. We must also protect the judges, who are essential, important and vital in protecting our individual rights and freedoms, which are constitutionalized in this system. With open minds, cooperation and non partisanship—the way things are in the justice committee, as I was saying—we must work on proposing a new process that will give the people of Quebec and Canada the least politicized judiciary system possible for the greater good of everyone.

[Privilege, May 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the problem pointed out by the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell is a concern to me at the present time.

I have received more than 1,000 faxes in 36 hours. When this is done, people from the riding of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, who often communicate with my office in Ottawa by fax, are prevented from doing so by a group that is monopolizing an essential tool for all members of this House. Being able to contact one's member is a basic right in our democratic society.

We have also received more than 2,300 e-mails since Monday morning. This uses the resources of House servers, as you know, and once again impedes the legitimate communications of my office because of the delays caused by heavy e-mail traffic.

In addition, the time needed just to sort through all this monopolizes my employees' time. When this is done, not only are electronic communications blocked, to the detriment of people in Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles who want to contact their member, but my employees have greater difficulty providing the people of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles with the services to which they are entitled and which they expect from their representative in the federal Parliament.

I will be brief because the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell has already done a good job pointing this out. It is therefore an infringement on the privileges of members of Parliament because they cannot do their work properly or remain in contact with the citizens in their ridings. In addition, thousands of Quebeckers and Canadians could not contact their federal member.

That having been said, something concrete must be done to put a stop to this kind of activity.

I see my friend from Calgary Southwest getting ready to speak. I think that he will probably defend what is being done. It might be of interest to him, though, that it could be his office that is blocked and he could be unable to do his work. That could very easily happen to him next week or maybe even tomorrow.

I ask that action be taken to ensure that these kinds of activities, these attacks on the privileges of members of Parliament, are stopped.

[Justice, May 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the disparaging remarks by Mr. Justice Michel Robert against the sovereignists go beyond politics and the borders of Quebec. With respect to the process of appointing federal judges, former Ontario Superior Court Chief Justice Patrick LeSage, spoke out in favour of a more transparent, less partisan procedure, and a recent report by the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness concurs.

We are prepared to give our support to moving this matter along. Does the government therefore intend to accept our offer made in good faith and table a proposal in the near future to improve the process of appointing federal judges?

[Age of Consent, May 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, let me say first that it is an honour to speak to this bill, especially since you are in the chair. We have an opportunity to work together on another committee. I must say that, up to now, it has been very pleasant, although the situation has at times been tense for reasons that escape you and me.

To begin, I would like to make two preliminary remarks and eight comments, which I hope will provide food for thought. My first preliminary remark is as follows. It is somewhat odd to be speaking to this topic, the age of consent. These days, in the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, one of the topics we are discussing is Bill C-2, which also concerns the age of consent and the sexual exploitation of children.

We are having this debate for Bill C-2. I think that it should take place in that context and not now, in this House. I believe it is a bit of a duplication of the resources and efforts of parliamentarians. The member could easily have introduced his bill as amendments during discussion of Bill C-2.

The second preliminary remark is as follows. It is something to see a party wanting to toughen the Young Offenders Act and the application of the Criminal Code as it pertains to young people, thus reducing the age of criminal liability, on the one hand, and raising the age of consent, on the other. In my opinion, it makes no sense. I realize the Conservative Party is not necessarily known for the logic of its positions, but this is a flagrant lack of rigour on a matter of considerable sensitivity.

In the Bloc Québécois we oppose Motion M-221, and Bill C-313, which propose to raise the legal age of consent in sexual relations from 14 to 16 years.

I have to say right off that our position in the Bloc in no way means we would like, support or promote sexual relations between young adolescents. Far from it. We do, however, believe that this is not the right approach.

I shall now proceed to my comments. First, sexual exploitation of children under 18 is already illegal, and consent is not a valid defence. That is already the case.

My second point is that, by raising the legal age of consent, we would be jumping on the bandwagon of sexual repression. Many sexually abused youth have reported that the huge industry of prostitution is, unfortunately, created and fostered by the absence of a healthy sexual climate and of adequate sexual education.

The third point that is important to make is that a higher age of consent would in fact criminalize sexual activity between peers. This means that persons below the age of consent would be prohibited from consenting to engage in sexual relations, regardless of the age of their partners. For instance, such an amendment would enable the courts to try a 16-year old for having sexual contact of any kind with his 15-year old girlfriend.

My fourth point about the age of consent is that raising it does not really solve anything, because there are adults who want to have sexual relations with children. If adult predators are the problem, they should be dealt with directly. Perhaps we ought to assess how evidence is collected and presented and what the role of the courts should be in protecting children. We have to ask ourselves the following question. How can we protect children against abuse through exploitation when the abusers flout the law?

Even setting the age of consent at 25 would not eliminate abuse. The only way to protect adolescents is by educating and empowering them.

The legislation should be based on the activity engaged in, not the age of those involved. Age does not matter, if abuse and exploitation are illegal and criminal.

The problem lies not with the legislation, but with its application. If current federal legislation against exploitation is difficult to enforce, then it has to be changed. That is what we are doing with Bill C-2.

Increasing the age of sexual consent could have the perverse effect of introducing some young people to the justice system. There are many lawyers in this House and others watching us. The justice system is complicated and cumbersome. People involved in it often pay a personal, psychological and moral toll. It is not something we would want for our young people.

Increasing the age of sexual consent also prevents young people from making decisions for themselves. I find that the age of consent is often used as an excuse to limit access to sexual education and contraceptives.

In closing, I want to reiterate the following. We are absolutely against the exploitation of children. I introduced Bill C-303 to impose tougher sentencing on anyone found guilty of sexual offences involving a minor, whether related to pornography, pedophilia, or the sexual exploitation of children. Bill C-303 will provide for minimum sentences, mandatory prison sentences, for the people who exploit these children who are the future of our society and who are so dear to our hearts.

I have already mentioned in this House and I will repeat it again today, my Bill C-303 to impose tougher sentences on those found guilty of sexual offences involving minors, will be presented as an amendment to Bill C-2 at the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. We will discuss it on the Tuesday when we come back from our break.

I can guarantee that the next time Bill C-2 comes before this House, it will include minimal sentences for sexual predators who attack our children. It will be a major improvement in law in general and also in the protection of our children who are, as I was saying, vulnerable persons. These young people deserve the protection of all the members in this honourable House.

[Justice, May 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, only 60% of those contributing to the Liberal Party since 2000 have been appointed.

The Minister of Justice built his international career and his reputation on defending victims of discrimination.

If he wants to keep this reputation, why does he not agree that he himself must call for the resignation of Michel Robert today on the basis of his discriminatory remarks against sovereignists?

[Justice, May 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice's predecessors wasted no time filing a complaint when judges made discriminatory remarks against women and Jews. Today, the sovereignists are being targeted, and the minister is still refusing to file a complaint.

Is the minister saying that he would have done nothing and remained silent before discriminatory remarks against women and Jews at the time, which would explain his own discrimination against sovereignists today?

[Justice, May 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Quebec bar denounced the words of Justice Robert, saying that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, regardless of their position. The president of the bar added that being a judge intrinsically includes the ability to distinguish between personal opinion and law.

Since Justice Robert obviously does not have the ability to make this distinction, what is the Minister of Justice waiting for to call for his dismissal?

[Justice, May 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the corruption in the system is so broad that it now extends even to the judiciary. The links between the Liberal Party and candidates to the bench are obvious. Cross-referencing the data shows that 60% of appointees since 2000 contributed to the Liberal Party of Canada.

Does this new example not show that it is high time to get rid of this tainted government?

[Holocaust Memorial Day, May 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to rise in this place today. I would, however, rather have been at Auschwitz with the Minister of Justice and our wives along with the 20,000 other people who are participating today in the March of the Living in that death camp in Auschwitz, Poland.

Yom Hashoah is being officially and solemnly commemorated for the second time this year. The chosen date, the 26th day of Nissan in the Jewish calendar, is in remembrance of the Warsaw ghetto uprising that saw weak, famished and poorly armed Jews stand up to the powerful Wehrmacht, the German army.

On November 7, 2003, with a unanimous vote of this House, Parliament passed Bill C-459, establishing Holocaust Memorial Day.

I had made that suggestion after my friend lost his father, Albert Rudolph, who was a survivor of this tragedy. Because there are fewer and fewer of these survivors and heroes still alive, it is incumbent upon public authorities and parliamentarians to take over, so that the horror of what happened is not forgotten. Despite all the studies, books, documentaries and seminars, it is not always easy to properly understand, explain and talk about the Shoah because it is unspeakable.

It is unspeakable in part because, paradoxically, it has both unique and universal aspects.

I use the term universal, because, before the Shoah, and unfortunately also afterward, people all over the world have been the victims of degradation, humiliation, torture and murder because of their ethnic background. The list of these is unfortunately too long. We think immediately of Rwanda, for course, where 800,000 people were murdered with machetes within the space of six weeks. Then there is the former Yugoslavia. The situation in Sudan at the present time, where the Janjaweed are massacring the black Sudanese at will, is another example. How shameful that, after the example of the Shoah, the international community has not put an end to these massacres. Unfortunately, it is obvious that the lessons of the Holocaust have not all been learned.

The other unique aspect of the Shoah is that ant-Semitism is still far too evident today. Some consider this to be the most long-lasting hatred of all. There has been a resurgence of anti-Semitism in the world, according to a recently released study by the University of Tel Aviv. Over the past 15 years anti-Semitic acts have been on the rise in the world.

Its effects are felt in Canada and in Quebec as well. Here are some examples: May 19, 2001, a bomb in a Quebec City synagogue; summer 2004, synagogues and houses vandalized in Toronto; April 5, 2004, United Talmud Torah School set fire to; Chief David Ahenakew's extremely anti-Semitic remarks. Only a week ago, students of Royal St. George's College in Toronto lauched an openly anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi website.

If our youth are still doing such things, it is because we have been remiss as a society. As parliamentarians, we have not done our part to counteract racism, intolerance and anti-Semitism.

This Holocaust Memorial Day imposes two duties on us: first of all, to remember, so that history does not repeat itself; second, to react every time there is a racist remark or a racist act, to stand up and speak out against such things, and to put an end to this behaviour. These duties are imposed upon us by the six million innocent victims. They are a sacred trust.

[Justice, May 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has a duty to protect, first, the independence of the judiciary and, second, the values of the charter, which include not discriminating against a person on the basis of his or her political beliefs.

How can the minister refuse to lodge a complaint against Justice Robert, if it is not because he is acting like a Liberal protecting a fellow Liberal?