Richard Marceau

[Supply, October 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments.

He spoke of mandatory treatment. It is indeed one of the things we should perhaps be looking at. However, this is very much along the same lines as what I was saying, which is that we will have to look beyond the penalty. There is the issue of rehabilitation, but, as my colleague so relevantly pointed out, there is also the issue of education. He mentioned advertising, etc.

Some campaigns have certainly been effective, but is there no way to make them more so? This warrants consideration. Could prevention campaigns in schools and other institutions be made more effective? We could look at that too.

I imagine someone in a bar, having a drink. Is this person going to decide not to have a beer, because the fine has gone from $300 to $500? I do not know. As I said earlier to my colleague, it is worth having a look at. This is why we support this motion. Let us have a look at the problem, but in a broader context, beyond the matter of stricter penalties.

[Supply, October 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the motion before us today, which was tabled by the Reform Party, calls on the government to bring forward a motion to instruct a legislative committee to prepare a bill to amend those sections of the Criminal Code which deal with impaired driving in order to enhance deterrence and ensure that the penalties reflect the seriousness of the offence.

The Bloc Quebecois, like all Quebeckers, recognizes the seriousness of the issue raised in the motion put forward by my colleague from the Reform Party. Driving while under the influence is a terrible scourge which must be fought efficiently. However, we must be careful not to go for sensationalism.

The Bloc Quebecois supports the Reform Party's motion. We are asking that the motion be referred to a legislative committee, which would conduct a more in-depth review of the issue and the offences relating to alcohol consumption and impaired driving.

The Bloc Quebecois, which is always aware of the serious problems caused by this situation, feels such legislative review should be comprehensive and not limited to stiffer sentencing. We must not look only at the issue of sentencing, but at the whole picture.

A few questions should be raised at the committee level. First and foremost, we have to ask: Is stricter enforcement of the penalties provided for in the Criminal Code absolutely necessary to ensure better deterrence among the public? This is one question we must ask ourselves.

The second question is the following: Would improving the judicial process, which, let us not forget, is a provincial jurisdiction, not be a solution? We are talking about the administration of justice here. Again, it extends far beyond a simple matter of stiffer penalties.

Another question: Is drunk driving a high enough priority with the police? We know that top officials in the police consider cracking down on impaired driving a priority. But is it also a high priority for the police officer who has to deal with impaired driving on the street?

Police officers receive more calls than they can respond to. Is it a priority for the police officer in his or her car to fight drunk driving? As I said, for some of them, traffic law enforcement is a boring and somewhat cumbersome routine, when they would prefer to see some action. In that context, this is a valid question.

We must bear in mind in dealing with this issue that those involved in law enforcement, which, I repeat, is a provincial jurisdiction, should have a say. We should also find out how they feel the fight against impaired driving could be improved. I am not convinced that merely stiffening penalties is what the police want.

As well, the following question must be asked: What are the reasons fewer people have been charged with impaired driving since 1986? To give you some figures, in 1996, police reported 161,805 cases relating to driving offences under the Criminal Code, which represents a decrease of 6.9% compared to 1995. As well, there were 78,894 impaired driving charges, a 6.2% drop from 1995.

What are the reasons for that decrease? One may well wonder, but an examination of the circumstances may offer some suggestions for solutions.

Since an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, we should ask ourselves another question: Are the programs for raising public awareness and education adequate? Is there not some better way to make people more aware of the dangers of driving while impaired? Are the advertising techniques being used the right ones? Should a better program be developed for schools, youth centres and so on? This must be looked into.

In conclusion, the Bloc is in favour of this motion because it will open up debate on the question, which is very important, and the debate must go far beyond the matter of penalties. The conclusions drawn must be based on more than just some high-profile cases. Parliamentarians have a duty to examine this matter coolly and calmly.

[Dna Identification Act, October 29th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today deals with a very important issue, something that cannot be taken lightly.

We must decide today, in our consideration of the bill, what is most important: the fight against crime or the respect of individual rights and freedoms, including respect for an individual's private life and person.

In principle, the Bloc Quebecois supports the bill, because the crime rate in this country can never be too low, because the number of unresolved crimes is never too low and because the work of the police is too important for them not to have all the tools they need.

We all know that a DNA profile is the best way to identify someone. It raises some questions, however, first because it involves an individual's person, second, because we are talking about people's DNA profile and, third, because the possibilities of improper use are limitless. We must therefore ensure a very high level of confidentiality for the bank.

What sort of questions might we have? There are some I would mention here today. First, the bill contains provision for the storage of bodily substances taken. I would like to know why a sample will be kept once the genetic information has been taken, because the comparison is not done with the sample, but with the information taken from the sample. The point of having the bank is to establish a relationship between an individual and the scene of the crime, which can be done without the need to keep the sample once the analysis has been done.

Who is to say that, if these samples are preserved, there will not be pressure from a segment of the population saying “Let's do genetic testing to see if there is not some genetic predisposition for becoming a criminal”. Once again, these are huge ethical questions. Where will it stop? This is a slippery slope, one which we ought not to embark upon, in my opinion. By destroying the samples, while keeping the information gleaned from them, we will be able to resist the temptation to carry out unnecessary testing.

I have another concern. The bill provides that samples may be taken by a law enforcement officer. In the opinion of the Bloc Quebecois, samples ought to be taken, not by a law enforcement officer, but by a health professional, either a physician, a nurse or a qualified medical technician. I have good friends on the police force and I respect their law enforcement work, but if they came after me with a needle I would feel pretty uncomfortable. Let us give sample collection over to qualified medical personnel.

There is also the question of the disclosure of profiles. It is possible, and somewhat normal in today's world, for information to be transferred between countries or between organizations. I am thinking of such things as the FBI or Interpol. Once a foreign state or organization has been given information, what assurance is there that if a file is sealed in Canada it would be sealed elsewhere?

Perhaps there could be a notification process whereby foreign states to whom information had been forwarded could be told that the file had been sealed in Canada and asked to seal it as well. Agreements could also be drawn up between Canada and these states so that once a profile is sealed here in Canada, it could also be sealed in the foreign state to whom we transmitted the information.

Another question we have concerns access to the information in the data bank. As it now stands, the bill gives commissioners considerable leeway. This raises certain problems of confidentiality of data.

Perhaps we could put measures in place, or require the commissioner to make public the list of persons with access to this bank so that there are certain limits to the commissioner's discretionary authority.

In conclusion, we support the bill in principle, but feel that there should be very serious consideration of certain provisions, some of which I have just mentioned. It merits serious consideration and we in the Bloc Quebecois would be very pleased to take part in such consideration.

[Prison System, October 29th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, how can the solicitor general allow the Correctional Service of Canada to permit the head of a penitentiary to put himself in such a vulnerable position vis-à-vis a biker gang? Does acceptance of this situation not indicate serious negligence?

[Prison System, October 29th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General of Canada.

The Correctional Service of Canada and the warden of the Leclerc penitentiary joined forces to try to calm our concerns about the unthinkable situation Mr. Deslauriers has put himself in. It was all very well for the Correctional Service to say that it was aware of Mr. Deslauriers' business activities, but a serious problem of ethics remains.

Is it not a serious error in judgment for the head of a penitentiary to own and, more importantly, manage a hotel two feet away from a bikers clubhouse, when we know—

[Prison System, October 28th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, considering the recent murders of peace officers for which biker gangs are strong suspects, does the solicitor general find it normal for one of his penitentiary wardens not only to be the principal shareholder but also to come in regular and close contact with these biker gangs, his clients, since he is not only the owner but also the manager of the hotel?

[Prison System, October 28th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General of Canada.

In Trois-Rivières-Ouest, a hotel known as Auberge du Canada is very popular with biker gang members. It is owned by a numbered company, 2837617 Canada Ltd., whose principal shareholder is Michel Deslauriers. Now, Michel Deslauriers is also the warden of Institut Leclerc, a federal penitentiary in Laval.

Does the solicitor general find it acceptable for one of his employees to be the principal shareholder of a hotel popular with biker gang members?

[Rcmp Investigations, October 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, they can stop the melodramatics. When the minister says that they are “well organized”, does this mean that a minister's office which is under investigation might be informed of a search ahead of time? That is the question.

[Rcmp Investigations, October 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board, because the more he tries to explain, the less clear it gets and the less we understand.

Yesterday, when asked by journalists how he knew about the search warrant, his answer was, and I quote: “Because we are well organized. We checked and we were told it was not executed”.

My question is very clear. Was the minister suggesting he knew about the search ahead of time because he had access to privileged information?

[Supply, October 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to pick up on what my colleague, the member for Frontenac—Mégantic, was saying. Surely this is just the tip of the iceberg we are talking about right now, and it is important that the government one day shed light on this whole affair. But unfortunately it seems this is not its intention.