Michel Bellehumeur

[Family Trusts, September 25th, 1996]

I have not even asked the question, Mr. Speaker.

[Family Trusts, September 25th, 1996]

All this squawking is making it extremely difficult for me to speak, Mr. Speaker.

[Family Trusts, September 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the family trust scandal has raised many questions about Revenue Canada's questionable interpretation of the Income Tax Act.

On September 10, 1996, Choices, a coalition for social justice, approached the Minister of Justice, requesting that he ask the courts to issue a declaratory judgement on the decision made by Revenue Canada on December 23, 1991.

Could the Minister of Justice tell this House whether he intends to ask the courts to settle the family trust scandal?

[Restoration Of Death Penalty Act, September 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, I do agree with the government on this point. The death penalty is indeed an issue, a decision one must ponder very seriously.

There are, however, many other very important issues. If we were to apply the principle developed by the Reform Party, should the government consult the public via a referendum on every important issue? For instance, abortion is a very important issue. Does the Reform Party favour a referendum on abortion? Does the Reform Party also want a referendum on how to reduce the deficit, on peacekeeping missions we are taking part in?

Speaking of democracy, I believe that the voice of democracy was heard in 1993, and will be heard again during the next federal election. During an election campaign, we are asked what we think of a given topic. I remember very well that constituents would question me on the death penalty, in 1993, asking me: "Are you for or against the death penalty, Mr. Bellehumeur?" My answer was: "No, I am not in favour of the death penalty". And I would then explain why I oppose this concept. And yet, constituents in my riding of Berthier-Montcalm voted for me. Therefore, today, I am in a position to rise and speak on behalf of my constituents on issues such as the death penalty.

We do not have to hold a referendum on every issue on which we believe that the public may have a different view or, as the Liberal member mentioned, simply to wash our hands of it. We have been given the mandate, each one of us in our respective riding, to represent our constituents and express the opinion which we believe to be the majority's.

The Reform's approach in several areas, including capital punishment, is, I believe, very simplistic. Once again, this past week, we saw Reform members choose the easiest way out. They do not like Bloc members, they find them too vocal, too intrusive, so they would like to take away their official opposition status.

This past week, we heard them talk about dangerous offenders. They want to leave them in prison as long as possible, to let them rot in there. No matter what the minister suggests to strengthen the law, it is never enough for Reform members, they always demand more.

Their attitude is the same in the case of young offenders. They do not know what to do with them, so they say: Let let us change the Young Offenders Act so that the age limit will be nine or ten. That is the easy way out. The same goes for first degree murders. What would be the easiest thing to do? Restore the death penalty to get rid of first degree murderers as quickly as possible.

The purpose of Bill C-261 before us is not to determine whether we are for or against the death penalty.

All the Reform speeches I have heard show clearly that members of that party are for capital punishment. It is said very clearly, but they will not come right out sand say so.

If we consider the whole issue of the death penalty closely, we have to admit that, in 1975-1976, when Parliament studied the question, it made the right decision and chose to abolish capital punishment as many other countries have done throughout the years. Several countries have abolished the death penalty and have come to some conclusions.

Earlier, the parliamentary secretary read out some statistics, and yes, the figures are very positive. I have here a very comprehensive study, conducted between 1985 and 1996, which shows that, in Canada, after the death penalty was abolished, homicide, murder, manslaughter and infanticide decreased by 20 per cent. Therefore, those who think that the restoration of the death penalty will reduce the number of murders and other similar horrible crimes are wrong. That is for Canada.

If we look at statistics for France, in the eighties, that country also abolished capital punishment and the figures there are similar. It is not because the death penalty can be imposed that crimes will automatically decrease and vice versa.

What I often hear from Reform members and all those who advocate a return to capital punishment is the famous theory of deterrence, but it does not hold with the numbers we have before us.

We also talked about the risks of convicting innocent people and involuntarily putting them in the electric chair or some other method of ending it all. This is one aspect must also consider. As regards the inequality of justice, we need only look at what is happening in the United States to realize that, when it comes to the electric chair, justice is not necessarily the same for the rich and the poor.

The rich can afford lawyers and a multitude of legal experts to avoid the electric chair, while the most powerless before the system are even more powerless and, quite often, cannot present a fair defence, a defence that a rich person could have presented.

One point that surprised me is the uncertainty a return to capital punishment would bring out in the justice system, and perhaps Reform members do not know that. Again, when capital punishment was abolished in 1960 and 1976, it was realized that its abolition had a direct effect on the conviction rate.

Again according to statistics from Statistics Canada and experts, I will read to you what one of them, a certain Mr. Mackenzie, has to say. He says that in Canada, between 1960 and 1974, when capital

punishment was in force, the conviction rate for a first degree murder was below 10 per cent and, after capital punishment was abolished, it increased to 20 per cent between 1976 and 1982, the study period.

Why? Because the jury that hears the case knows that, if it decides that Mr. X is guilty or that Mr. X has committed a murder, he faces hanging, the electric chair or whatever. The members of the jury want proof beyond a reasonable doubt and even more, so that they often have a slight doubt about the individual before them who could be sentenced to death.

If the accused faced only a minimum sentence of 25 years, they would say that he was guilty, but with capital punishment hanging over him, they have doubts. They then decide that a unanimous verdict is impossible and the accused is set free.

The numbers are there. Without capital punishment the conviction rate is 20 per cent, compared to 10 per cent with capital punishment. These figures must be considered. Obviously one does not launch a philosophical debate across Canada before a federal election without looking at these figures beforehand, without realizing-unless they are completely irresponsible, which I do not think is the case-that they did not consider these things before launching this debate, before asking the government to hold a referendum on this issue in the next federal election.

If not, I urge them to do so. At some point we get into a vicious circle. The more we complain about a bad situation, the worse it gets. The more we talk about the murder rate, the higher it seems. We are creating a kind of public panic for no good reason. Yes, murders and other horrible crimes are being committed, but I think that the people of Quebec and Canada do not lean to the right as much as the Reform Party does.

Reform members often claim to represent Mr. or Mrs. So-and-So who has gone through the terrible ordeal of losing his or her child and demands that the death penalty be reinstated.

In closing, I would like to talk about Isabelle Bolduc, who was in the news over the summer. She was murdered by a killer on parole. But her father, Mr. Bolduc, clearly came out against capital punishment. He is working to improve rehabilitation and social reintegration for inmates.

The problem may not be with capital punishment itself. The problem may be with the enforcement of the current regulations. That is what I want to say to the Reform Party today. I do not think most of the people listening to us in western Canada share the views of Reform members. I am convinced that only a minority think the way Reformers do on this issue.

[The Judiciary, September 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the board of inquiry recommended that Mr. Justice Bienvenue be removed from the bench, and now the Canadian Judicial Council has endorsed this recommendation. What is the minister waiting for to take action, and why is he stalling? It is in the news, everyone knows about it, it has been in the news for a long time now.

What is the minister waiting for to table a resolution, right now or early next week, in order to close the final chapter on this case and ask the House to remove Judge Bienvenue from the bench?

[The Judiciary, September 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.

Yesterday, the Canadian Judicial Council voted unanimously in favour of removing from the bench Mr. Justice Bienvenue, a judge of the Superior Court of Quebec. Last July 5, the justice minister indicated clearly that he was awaiting the council's recommendations before taking action regarding Mr. Justice Bienvenue.

Will the Minister of Justice tell us whether or not he agrees with the recommendation of the Canadian Judicial Council that Mr. Justice Bienvenue be removed from the bench?

[Criminal Code, September 19th, 1996]

In that case, I will give a very quick summary, Mr. Speaker.

The main aspect of this bill, an aspect to which we object, is unanimity, and we also object to the government's rushing to get this bill through the House. That is why my colleague, the hon. member for Bellechasse, tabled an amendment seeking an additional six months so that we can examine and study this bill and perhaps improve it. The government has shown undue haste, although this is a bill that deserves particular consideration.

[Criminal Code, September 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, although I am sorely tempted to deal with certain of the Reform concerns about this bill, I shall restrain myself because I feel we are straying rather far from the clause.

There could be a debate on everything that has been done, everything that is being done, about parole, the pros, the cons and so on. Right from the start, I think, it has been said that this bill before us may contain things we would have liked to have seen changed but that, overall, it is a bill that merits careful examination.

For those listening to us, who are hearing all of the philosophical debates but are not too clear about what the hon. members are to vote on, Bill C-45, an act to modify the Criminal Code (judicial review of parole ineligibility), it might perhaps be worthwhile to understand the context, how it operates, and particularly why we in the Bloc Quebecois have some reservations about it.

Section 745 of the Criminal Code already covered parole, and this is the part the Minister of Justice wants to change with his bill. Looking at the summary of this bill, one can see there are three major points. It is not a revolutionary change to the entire Criminal Code, only to section 745. Three key points are affected by the changes.

The first removes the right of multiple murderers to apply for judicial review. The second introduces judicial screening of applications, and the third requires that decisions of juries to reduce parole ineligibility periods be unanimous. These are the three key points affected by the bill.

People need to understand how the system works. First of all, the individual "behind bars", as they say, who has fulfilled the conditions of section 745, applies in writing, according to the proposed changes. In the past, this could be a verbal request, but now, under subclause 745(1), the person applying for parole under section 745 must do so in writing to the appropriate chief justice of the province or a judge designated for the purposes of this section. That is the first step.

The second step is new, and the Bloc Quebecois has reservations about it as well, because it is an initial evaluation. The judge, on the basis of the written material in his possession, including the application, the report provided by the Correctional Service of Canada, or any other document submitted by the attorney general or the applicant to the judge, will decide whether the applicant has shown, on a balance of probabilities, that there is a reasonable prospect that the application will succeed.

There has already been an evaluation by an appropriate judge, a judge familiar with the field, to determine whether there is a reasonable prospect that the application will succeed. Our first reservation about this is that the judge is not given specific guidelines. As far as his evaluation goes, there is no problem. I understand that judges have experience in the field, that they will evaluate the case, that they will weigh the facts and make an informed decision, but I would have liked to have seen something clearer, or this part dropped altogether.

That is the second stage of the process. After written application is made, a judge evaluates it and decides whether or not to designate another judge to empanel a jury. Naturally, if the judge who examines the application concludes that, on the face of it, there is not a reasonable prospect that a properly instructed jury would approve the application, he will obviously reject it.

There are two possibilities, according to the amendment: either that the inmate will come before a judge in two years, or that the inmate will not be entitled to present himself for a specified number of years, because his record is not appropriate for parole, or no information is given. Then the law calls for the inmate to be allowed to make another application in two years.

Under 745 (5), if the judge says yes, deciding that the applicant has shown that there is a reasonable prospect that the application will succeed, the chief justice instructs a judge of the superior court of criminal jurisdiction to empanel a jury to hear the application.

The third step is another evaluation, this time before a twelve member jury. The jury has a whole series of criteria to apply. I have absolutely nothing to say on the criteria set by the minister; they are in keeping with jurisprudence and with what is being done at present. I have absolutely no comments to make on this.

Where I do have something to add, where we in the Bloc see an obstacle, is where it is stated in 745.3, subsection 3: "The jury hearing an application under subsection (1) may determine that the applicant's number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole ought to be reduced. The determination to reduce the number of years must be by unanimous vote". This is what bothers the Bloc Quebecois, the unanimity of 12 persons. Twelve people will have the file that has already been examined by a judge. The judge has said "Yes, there is a reasonable possibility of the applicant's being able to convince a jury, so we will move it to a jury". The jury of 12 examines all this and has to reach a unanimous conclusion. That will be very hard.

Finally, if the government had decided that section 745 ought to be abolished, that ought to have been done, but without imposing excessive criteria, because it is excessive to require unanimity on a case of this kind.

Mr. Speaker, you are telling me I have only two minutes left, but I thought I was entitled to 20 minutes.

[Committees Of The House, September 19th, 1996]

This is not a good example.

[Criminal Code, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer my question. But, since he is talking about this provision, can he assure the House that this provision does not violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, since at first sight it seems to fly in the face of one of our basic legal principles, namely the presumption of innocence?