Michel Bellehumeur

[Criminal Code, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, at a press conference yesterday, the Minister of Justice announced his intention to amend the Criminal Code to keep dangerous offenders in prison longer and keep a closer eye on them after their release. This is quite normal for those who have already been found guilty of a crime.

However, and this is my question to the minister: Does the minister confirm that, under his proposal, an individual who has been acquitted of or has never even been tried for a crime could still be ordered by the court to submit to supervision by police or correctional authorities and even to wear an electronic monitoring device?

[Criminal Code, September 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make the following comment. I listened religiously to what both the government and the Reform Party had to say about this amendment to section 745. From what I can see, the government paid some attention to our suggestions, as the speech I heard went, in large part, along the same lines as what we have always said about this amendment.

What baffles me somewhat is the Reform line where they seem to put everything in a jumble and even go in for some disinformation. I do not wish to dwell on this but what I have heard said to spook people was so gross that I must at least give you one example among many. The hon. member said, referring to the Paul Bernardo case: "It is terrible; he could apply for parole in 15 years".

I would remind members that this individual was declared a dangerous criminal and, as such, will not be able to take advantage of section 745 of the Criminal Code.

I think that the Criminal Code already goes a long way towards addressing the Reform Party's claims and concerns about public safety. But the Criminal Code must be considered globally, as it applies to parole as well as to the concept of dangerous criminal, a relatively new concept that the courts, yielding to public pressure, will eventually enforce. After all the judges live in the same world as we do.

This concerns me because the Criminal Code forms a whole. And I have a problem with the amendment the Minister of Justice wants to make to section 745 of the Criminal Code. The minister is trying to respond to public pressure or to in-house polls we do not have, which probably show how the population is increasingly moving to the right. Perhaps the minister is thinking: if I want to score political points with the voters in this regard, I should tighten the screw.

I think that the Minister of Justice is acting irresponsibly by simply going ahead and amending section 745, as it is a very important section of the Criminal Code. This section is a link in the chain of the prison system. It did not come out of nowhere. Everything hangs together in the Criminal Code and in the philosophy we have defended in this country, whose evolution Quebecers have done a great deal to bring about. Section 745 is already aimed at protecting the public and rehabilitating criminals.

True, this section was adopted 20 years ago. You may recall that many moving speeches were made in this House during consideration of section 745 as the bill was aimed at abolishing capital punishment. However, the arguments put forward by the minister today to speed up the legislative process are designed to hide his failure to plan a piece of legislation originating from his own department. Instead of thinking about how to muzzle the people of Quebec, which is moving toward sovereignty, the minister should perhaps stop and think for a few minutes about what he could do in his own department to design a bill that provides for the rehabilitation and social reintegration of criminals while at the same time protecting the public.

In this regard, as I was saying earlier, section 745 already protects the public, which is entitled to the protection it seeks. So this is not a real problem. True, it is fashionable today to adopt extremist positions in order to win some votes votes in English Canada, but this must not be used as an excuse.

In fact, if we read documents from the department, and also some newspaper articles, we can see that the proposed amendments to section 745 are primarily motivated by the case of serial killer Clifford Olson who, under this provision, has the right to apply for his release.

The minister seems to be have been caught off guard by this case. Yet, we have known for 15 years that, on August 12, 1996, this criminal would have the right to invoke section 745, but the minister did not do anything. Now, at the last minute, he wants to quickly pass an amendment on the grounds that we cannot allow this criminal to use section 745. We have known for 15 years that this criminal would invoke section 745; all criminals do so. However, not all of them see their application approved.

In its present form, section 745 provides some security and I have no doubt that, if we apply this section and instruct the jury in an appropriate manner, this criminal will not get what he is seeking to obtain through section 745. But the section must be applied. We have to give the jury a proper opportunity to make a decision.

The Bloc Quebecois made a number of observations regarding section 745, including three in particular, which have led us to propose, as did the hon. member for Bellechasse, motions to amend three clauses of this bill.

First, we believe in rehabilitation. However, the amendments to section 745 of the Criminal Code put such restrictions on the scope of the judicial review that this review will exist only in theory. Indeed, the requirement for a unanimous decision by the jury makes it almost impossible for an applicant to get a positive response to his or her application for a judicial review, since a single juror could block the whole process.

The second reason we oppose these changes is that they remove the right of multiple murderers to apply for judicial review. It is completely arbitrary and unfair. In the field of justice, in the field of crime, there is no formula by which someone who has committed a murder has certain rights, whereas someone who has committed two murders does not have those rights. All this must be looked at in its context. It is because of the system as a whole that there is a history to the administration of justice, with the result that if we amend a section here and a section there, we may change the rules of the game, with disastrous consequences.

The third reason we are against the proposed changes is the introduction of a new concept in the Criminal Code, the so-called reasonable prospect that the judge must consider. I think that further study and closer examination of this new concept in the Criminal Code are indicated.

We have nothing against reviewing a section 20 years after it was passed. What we are saying is that we should take more time to analyse the changes, listen more carefully to what the public wants. We should listen to what the experts who will be applying this section can tell us about what direction to take in amending section 745, something the minister is not doing now, in his haste to proceed.

It must be remembered that the first reading of Bill C-45 took place on June 11, 1996. We adjourned for the whole summer, and today, the first day of our return, we are already at the report stage. What is the rush? Why change such an important section in the Criminal Code? Let us take the time to examine section 745 and to listen to the experts who will be applying it.

That is why the member for Bellechasse, a member of the Bloc Quebecois, has at least presented amendments. I say at least, because this point should be studied further. But at this stage, I think that the unanimity rule is the most important rule that must be blocked. We must not vote in favour, and the amendment proposed by the member for Bellechasse changes unanimity to three quarters of the members of the jury, so that nine out of 12 will make the decision on whether or not to apply section 745, instead of the unanimous decision that the minister is calling for.

If the minister wants to be clear about what he is doing, if he is against section 745, then let him follow the lead of the Reformers and make up his mind to repeal it. But if he believes in rehabilitation, if he believes in section 745, I think that he should at least receive the amendments proposed by the member for Bellechasse to change the requirement from unanimity to three quarters of the members of the jury.

[Committees Of The House, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, there is at least one person who seems to have understood certain things. And coming from a Reform Party member, that is not so bad.

Indeed, the House made a decision and referred the motion to a committee. However, the accuser is a Reform member. The one who made the accusations is a Reform member and if I use that word to describe him, it is because in my mind someone who makes accusations is an accuser. But I will not tell you what I call someone who is unable to produce evidence.

If Reform members had read the tripartite agreement and the Act on Quebec's future, they would not have asked the questions they are asking today because it was clear. I say again: following a yes vote, we would have an army in Quebec. But in French, "au lendemain de" does not mean "the day after".

That is an example of Canada's duality. It is another proof. We are two solitudes. We say something in French and it is interpreted by anglophones in a way that suits them. It has always been like that in Canada. Next time, in the next referendum, if there is a lesson to be learned from all this, it is that if we write that kind of communique, we will send it with explanatory notes just for the Reform Party.

[Committees Of The House, June 20th, 1996]

Yes, that is true, there are people who said no but they did not do so because they did not understand the question. If that is the way you see it, that is your problem.

The question was clear. In fact, it was so clear that we had a federalist wave of love on October 27 because everybody understood that if Quebecers said yes, Quebec would then be sovereign. Negotiations would start the very next day and the Act on Quebec's future would be taken into account. The tripartite agreement was very clear. The process was understood by everybody. It was very clear. There was talk of partnership. It was very clear.

As for the communique, since it is what we are discussing today, the communique from the member for Charlesbourg was also very clear. They were trying so hard to find a hidden agenda and the action they took was so partisan, as the member for Charlesbourg said, that it took them about five months to decide do to something about the communique which was, according to them, so seditious.

I know there is a time differential between the west and the province of Quebec but I do not think it is five months. I do not think I need to go on about this issue. It was extremely clear and the only people who understood nothing are at the far end of the House and will stay there a long time, I think, because they understand nothing.

[Committees Of The House, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, concerning the referendum question, I would like to say to the House that because the Reform members did not understand the referendum question, that does not mean that it is necessarily complicated. I think Quebecers have understood very well the referendum question.

[Committees Of The House, June 20th, 1996]

Mario who, he asked. See, Mr. Speaker, three months after the fact, they still do not know who Mario Dumont is and what is meant by tripartite agreement concerning the future of Quebec. As if Reform members had not already wasted enough of Canadians' and Quebecers' time, they continue to raise the Jacob issue in the House whereas, for us, the matter is closed. We are

turning a new leaf. It is true that they do not know what they are doing, that they are making extremely rash accusations.

But one thing is sure. One of us has been wronged. As you were saying on March 12, the accusations made were of an extremely grave nature. Today, we know, since the Liberals' majority report says so, that there was no contempt of Parliament, there was no question of privilege. However, we all know that the member's partisan accusations have undermined the parliamentary privilege of the hon. member for Charlesbourg.

And what happens today? The government is making itself the accomplice of Reformers by refusing to tell the member that he was not careful in establishing his proof before making accusations, that he made accusations without checking the facts.

At least, and that is what we ask for in our conclusion, in the recommendations, the member should apologize publicly not only to the member for Charlesbourg but also to all his parliamentary colleagues, because what he has done on March 12 to the member for Charlesbourg, he could do again tomorrow to the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell; the next day, it could be the member for Outremont or the member for Québec-Est. Will we allow such things to take place in this House?

Freedom of expression, freedom of speech, is sacred. We asked that the member apologize to my colleague for Charlesbourg, to all the parliamentarians, but also to the people of Quebec and the Canadian people.

[Committees Of The House, June 20th, 1996]

He had two days to prove his case, but he did not. However, we learned a few things during those two days, while the member who laid the charges was appearing before the committee. We learned that in November, after the famous seditious communique, the member sat five times with the member for Charlesbourg on the defence committee without ever raising that question. If this was seditious on March 12, why was it not seditious in November 1995? Why did he accept to sit beside somebody who had been seditious in Parliament? Because his charges were unfounded, that is why.

We also learned something else. On November 21, 1995, when for the first time, the Deputy Speaker of the House heard charges brought against the member for Charlesbourg, in a statement that was not directly related to that matter, but which charged the member for Charlesbourg with having issued a seditious communique, do you know what he did? He wrote to him. Mr. Kilgour, the Deputy Speaker of the House, wrote him a note telling him to be careful, that the charges he was bringing against the member for Charlesbourg were extremely serious, that he should consult the clerk of the House as well as legal counsel.

Guess what we learned. The member never consulted anybody, no counsel whatsoever, before laying those charges. Why did he lay those charges on March 12? It was two weeks before a byelection, that is why.

He was unable to prove a single allegation. He neglected to obtain legal counsel, to consult professionals in this House who could have advised him, guided him correctly so that he would not breach the privileges of one of his colleagues, a man democratically elected to defend the interests of Quebec.

Quebecers want to get all the information that is available. Quebecers too are members of the Canadian Armed Forces, they are not only francophones, they are not only anglophones. Within the ranks of the Canadian Forces based in Quebec, there are francophones as well as anglophones.

He even admitted that he had been careless when he said that the communique was intended for francophones only. I think he did not even take the time to examine the communique sent on October 26 by the member for Charlesbourg.

We also learned that the member knew practically nothing about the referendum context, that he had not even read Bill No. 1, the Act concerning Quebec's future where it is clearly written that a sovereign Quebec would have its own armed forces. He had neglected to read the tripartite agreement signed by Mr. Bouchard, Jacques Parizeau, then Quebec's premier, and Mario Dumont. He forgot to read it. He did not know-

[Committees Of The House, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, before I was interrupted, I was quoting the very precise charges the member laid, unwittingly, before the House. These charges are extremely serious and you ruled that they were in order.

However, after three months and 25 days of hearings, and after hearing the testimony of experts and of the member who laid the charges, who came before the committee to explain during two days of hearings, what did we learn? We learned that the charges were unfounded, that there was not one shred of evidence, that these were unwarranted charges. That is all. Two whole days.

[Committees Of The House, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as I have a lot of respect for the Chair, I take back what I said. So I come to the conclusion that the member made these allegations unwittingly.

[Committees Of The House, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in three months-