Alain Giguère

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, April 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. We are looking for justice. We propose laws that should, in theory, be in the spirit of justice. Unfortunately, we sometimes miss the mark. However, in the tradition of the English criminal law system, we have judges and juries. Sometimes, these people say that the law does not reflect their vision of justice, in the sense that it seeks to revenge or too harshly punish a crime, when what they were looking for was justice.

This does not mean that we will support and protect criminals. We must find a balance. Does Bill C-54 provide that balance? We will support this bill, even though we are very uncomfortable with the philosophy behind it. However, we will search for justice. That is the duty of every single member who sits in this House.

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, April 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this law is problematic. Some individuals should not be able to plead insanity. We must identify the problem to prevent such crimes, since some people need health services while others, who are of perfectly sound mind, plead insanity. Those are two completely different things. Measures must be taken to provide support for mental health.

With deinstitutionalization, too many people were released from psychiatric hospitals and literally put on the street. These crimes were predictable. Quite often we are talking about petty theft. Others commit serious crimes, plead insanity and win their case. That is another problem. We must provide support for mental health care. Too many people are on the street who should not be there.

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, April 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today.

Bill C-54 aims to include a new policy in the legislation, and that policy, that ideological shift, forces us to take a step back and look at our country's history.

As soon as British rule was established, we enforced British laws. Criminal laws were set out in the aptly named Bloody Code. The number of crimes that resulted in a death sentence was unreasonable. Quite often, it was not just death by hanging. In Canada, it often involved torture.

The second important element of the British criminal code that we inherited is the jury. That is an important element, one that should not be ignored.

Individuals appearing before the jury were guilty. They had already been proven guilty. When the jury found out what kind of sentence was to be meted out, the jury members decided to declare the individuals innocent. The jury did not want to be complicit in enforcing an overly harsh and unreasonably cruel law. Luckily, the Bloody Code was amended and became the Criminal Code.

At the time, stealing cattle could lead to death by hanging. Household servants who stole something from the house could receive the death penalty. Those crimes were abolished because they were so unreasonable and the penalties were no longer being enforced. The jury refused to be complicit in imposing such harsh sentences.

This brings us back to the present situation. Juries can still refuse to enforce the Criminal Code in a more modern way. If jury members really believe in all good conscience that enforcing the Criminal Code is unacceptable, they can reject it.

The last time this was clearly applied in recent times was in the Morgentaler case. Dr. Morgentaler performed abortions, which was strictly prohibited by the Criminal Code. He was prosecuted in a trial by jury. The evidence that he was indeed performing abortions was clear, but the jury refused to enforce the Criminal Code. The jury said it would not be complicit with the politicians who had passed the legislation, which they considered to be flawed and poorly drafted, legislation that punished a crime that was only in the politicians' heads. The jury said no. That is the danger with Bill C-54 and its whole underlying philosophy—that we are going to be tough on crime, scare people and impose extremely harsh minimum sentences to punish crime.

Judges will say to themselves that the cases are theirs, that they will keep a certain distance and that they are not puppets who are incapable of any independent thought. We saw this with the Firearms Act. Someone had gone to a friend's house, taken the friend's revolver and was playing with that illegal weapon. He committed a crime. However, the judge ruled that there had to be criminal intent and that the law, as it was written, was unacceptable. He struck down the law.

A judge can strike down a law, and so can a jury.

When it comes to crimes committed by people with mental health issues, it is important to understand that, when faced with the absolute horror of the crime, members of a jury always tend to say that an individual of sound mind would never have done such a thing. A good example of this is the case of Dr. Turcotte, who murdered his two children.

All the lawyers and prosecutors who are under the obligation to present proof beyond a reasonable doubt have encountered this problem in these types of cases: the jury cannot accept that a man of sound mind would do such a horrific thing to his children.

Dr. Turcotte took full advantage of this human reaction. That was the basis for his defence. It was a jury that decided his fate. It is easy to say that the judge should have done more, but there is always the risk that the jury will be unable to accept that a person of sound mind could commit such atrocities.

This risk hangs over every trial involving serial killers. That is why prosecutors must be well prepared. They must prove that the crime was premeditated. Often, if the prosecutor can prove that the crime was premeditated, the jury sees that it was not a moment of temporary insanity. The person planned, organized and committed the crime. In the case of Dr. Turcotte, the jury did not find that such was the case.

With the notion of “beyond a reasonable doubt”, only a glimmer of doubt is needed for the person to be proven innocent. This poses another problem: the use of media coverage of the amendment to the Criminal Code for political purposes. We must not kid ourselves. There is a party in the House with a “tough on crime” agenda. That is fine. However, it is a bit ridiculous for the government to say that it is going to be tough on criminals and then turn around and make cuts to police budgets. This is not the first time that this government has contradicted itself.

People who commit crimes must be punished. Our Criminal Code does just that. However, some changes had to be made. Parole after one-sixth of a sentence and the two-for-one credit for time served before sentencing did not make sense.

It is fine to pass a law, but the reality is that we have to enforce it. Whenever we express the slightest doubt, we are accused of supporting pedophiles or cyberpedophiles and being anti-law.

Legislation and the law are two different things. So are legislation and justice. In the House, we are committed to justice. We are being asked to pass bills whose only objective is to let the minister say that the government will prevent such and such an incident from happening. I am sorry, but in the case of Dr. Turcotte, it would not have changed anything. Furthermore, leaving a rope in Dr. Turcotte's cell will not solve the problem.

By the way, I would like to point out that counselling a person to commit suicide is a Criminal Code offence. The Conservatives might want to inform some senators of that. It would be useful sometimes if people would read the law, not just defend it. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, especially for those in Parliament who claim to champion Criminal Code amendments.

This is obviously a sad case. I have very little time left, so to sum up: this law will not change anything because the jury still remains the judge of the facts.

[Business of Supply, April 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the declarations of intent by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment. However, just as one swallow does not a summer make, one declaration does not a commitment make.

In Montreal, we clearly heard the Minister of Natural Resources say that he does not believe in environmental problems or global warming. Paradoxically, at the same time, he said that the government would be building pipelines in Quebec. Credibility is a major problem, as it is for the Liberals. They said that they support the environment, but after losing the election, the Liberal prime minister's chief of staff said that the environmental debate was just for show, that they did not believe in it, and that they got political mileage out of it.

The Conservatives have a somewhat similar problem. They say something, contradict it and then think that we should believe them. Which is it? Will you set real standards to protect the environment or not?

[Business of Supply, April 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is staggering to see a party claim to be anti-pollution champions, when all we ever got was empty rhetoric.

Naming your dog Kyoto is the only Kyoto-related thing you ever did.

Will you stop talking and start taking action?

[Business of Supply, April 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this issue is about the distinction between legislative power and executive power.

To the NDP, this is not even an issue. We are happy with our system. This issue came up today because the Liberal Party wants to rush to the aid of people it sees as frustrated Conservatives. It is up to those individuals to decide whether they are frustrated or not.

To date, party discipline has been in line with the legislative power. MPs have been able to speak freely on private members' bills. Some NDP bills were passed thanks to the support of Conservative members, and some Conservative bills have received the unanimous support of the House. That power exists.

How does this new resolution make a significant distinction between legislative power and executive power?

[Combating Terrorism Act, April 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this question is quite simple.

This bill resurfaced under somewhat bizarre circumstances. The opposition was given a day during which it was supposed to talk about a topic that could be embarrassing for the government: parliamentarians' right to speak. Some Conservative parliamentarians want to talk about the right to abortion, but the Prime Minister does not want them to. It seems he wants to be re-elected.

This bill resurfaced at a critical moment when Canadians realized that, in fact, terrorism is dangerous. There was an attack in Boston and the threat of an attack in Canada.

Was this bill introduced to protect Canadians or just to amplify the Conservatives' political role as the self-professed saviours of Canada?

[Combating Terrorism Act, April 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, effectively combatting terrorism requires competent, qualified police officers who receive the support they need from the government and effective legislation.

They are responsible for defending democracy, and they are very good at doing so. This government is only looking for publicity. Its only objective is to make itself look good by claiming to be combatting terrorism.

Less work will get done, at the borders, at airport security and in the field, because of the Conservatives' budget cuts.

[Combating Terrorism Act, April 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this bill has only one objective, and it has nothing to do with observing the age difference between a minor and an adult or the difference between a Canadian citizen and a foreign national. It has only one objective, which is to bring in an unfortunately partisan policy.

The Conservatives want to appear to be the champions of anti-terrorism. They knowingly introduced this bill at a time when people in Boston were victims of an act of terrorism and when Canadian authorities were uncovering terrorist plots. There is a reason we are talking about this bill today.

The government wants to come off as the guardians of Canada. That is not the case. They are not good guardians for Canada. The good guardians are the ones who stopped the terrorists, certainly not the people over there who create obstacles by cutting funding and prohibiting the authorities from accessing internationally relevant information. The government violates all of our own most fundamental laws.

At what point will we see children being sent to prison for what the Conservatives arbitrarily consider to be an act of terrorism?

[Combating Terrorism Act, April 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the objective of this bill deserves to be examined, and we must look at what has happened in the past.

In his book On War, Von Clausewitz defined war as “an act of violence to compel our opponent to fulfill our will”. What is the will of terrorists? It is quite simple. They want to force us to give up our rights, our freedom of press and our democratic right to elect our leaders. That is their objective. Our response must be to reinforce those values and absolutely not to abandon them. That is the issue here.

This situation makes me think of a chicken farmer who witnesses his chickens being killed by a fox and decides to punish the chickens instead of going after the fox. We must combat terrorism. Our best weapon to do so—the strongest and most reliable weapon—is democracy.

We have a police force that is organized and able to democratically defend our society against acts of terrorism. It is perfectly able to do so. Canada has not yet experienced any acts of terrorism because our police forces have been able to prevent them from happening with our existing legislation. Democracy is precisely what we are talking about today.

Winston Churchill once said that democracy is the worst form of government—except for all the others. This means that there are no others. This is our system and we must defend it. We value democracy and we abhor terrorism.

It is a devious, treacherous adversary, and when it attacks, Canada must respond appropriately. We arrest terrorists and judge them based on our laws, not theirs.

This situation is particularly controversial. As we know, the legislation expired six years ago, in 2007. For the past six years, it has not been in force and it has never been used since 2001. There was not one investigative hearing or any situation in which authorities needed to resort to recognizance with conditions. This speaks volumes about the effectiveness of this bill.

I have the sinking feeling that this bill is being used because certain things in the media have created a sense of insecurity among the population. It is very troubling to know that some young people were recruited in the Toronto area to participate in terrorist activities in Algeria. It is also troubling to find out that people who were in Canada were preparing to commit a terrorist attack against a VIA Rail passenger train. That is pure terror.

It is only normal for people to be afraid. What is not normal, however, is to see a government that feeds this fear and uses it to give itself additional powers that work against the population. It is abusing its own population because terrorism exists. That is what terrorism is. Using people's natural sense of terror to give oneself additional powers that take away people's rights is also a form of terrorism.

The parliamentary secretary talked about the NDP amendment concerning people who have served in a foreign army that is illegally occupying another country. One of the objectives of this bill is to prohibit people from leaving Canada to serve in a foreign organization.

Consider the following three examples. A young Syrian returns to his country of origin to serve in the Syrian army against the rebels. Is that young man a terrorist?

A young Canadian does his Israeli military service in the occupied territories. Is that young man a terrorist? A young Somali returns home to participate in a religious war against the people he calls infidels. Is that young man a terrorist?

Terrorism will not be defined by the acts committed, but by the people targeted by these acts. Are the perpetrators considered to be insignificant? They may or may not commit these acts. We will use our judgment and our international values to establish who is and who is not a terrorist. However, all three will do exactly the same thing—use violence to force people to obey their orders. That situation requires clarification, something that this legislation does not and will not provide, because that is not what the Conservatives want.

The NDP is opposed to this bill for good reason. It is an ineffective piece of legislation. It does not target terrorism; it targets the civil rights of Canadians. Once again, the Conservatives are using a dualist turn: if you are not with us, you are against us. That is from a speech by George W. Bush, the loser. The government has adopted a loser as its model. That says a lot about this government, which is an assortment of losers, people who cut police budgets, withdraw into themselves and believe that all other countries are enemies with which they must not speak, instead of fighting terrorism effectively by increasing police resources and entering into international agreements for the exchange of information. The government is telling us that we have no choice and that we have to sacrifice our rights so that they have the means to fight terrorists. Fortunately, our police do not need this government. Our police manage to carry on without this government, which hinders them by taking away the resources they need and access to information.

Bill S-7 therefore violates civil liberties and human rights, particularly the right to remain silent and the right to not be imprisoned without a fair trial. According to the spirit of those rights, the weight of the state should never be used against an individual to force him to testify against himself. Yet here we are with Bill S-7. There is a reason why, in 2001, the first version of the bill had a sunset clause. It was a protection to ensure that the violation of our rights would not lead to the definitive loss of our rights. In 2007, the act fell into disuse. I can guarantee you that terrorists were not roaming the streets spreading terror the next morning. We did not have that problem in 2007.

There is an imbalance between security and the fundamental rights violated under this legislation. There is the case of Mr. Arar, who was deported to Syria where he was tortured. That is the epitome of stupidity. Everyone agreed, and unfortunately, we have not learned our lesson. We had nothing to gain from sending that man to be tortured. He was not a terrorist. As the parliamentary secretary himself admitted, the problem is that this piece of legislation is so broad that it can be applied to people who are not suspected of terrorism in the slightest.

The NDP is against terrorism. We are so opposed to terrorism that we are against the Conservatives. They are the ones who create false fears and blow them out of proportion to punish Canadians for having rights and using them.