André Bellavance

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, May 8th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, it gives me no great pleasure today to talk about Bill C-38, given its content.

Over the past few days, many people have expressed outrage over this bill, which is not only the budget implementation bill, but also an omnibus bill that the papers have described as “mammoth”. This bill contains an assortment of poison pills. Yesterday I slipped up and used a mixed metaphor when I said, “poisoned snakes”. But actually, the government is trying to force a bunch of snakes down our throats. This bill is riddled with poison pills.

I understand the people who say that they are outraged by Bill C-38, and I sympathize with them. However, we cannot say that we are surprised by the way the Conservatives are acting because this is far from the first time that they have introduced a bill full of poison pills. What is more, they have pulled a stunt like this before with another budget implementation bill. You were a member of Parliament at that time, Madam Speaker, and you will surely remember how the government in power, a minority government, introduced a budget implementation bill that, for example, did away with public servants' right to strike, jeopardized pay equity and abolished public financing of political parties.

At that time, the government thought that none of the opposition parties would dare to force an election on the basis of such issues. Yes, the opposition parties took a stand. The Prime Minister at the time had no choice but to prorogue Parliament. Imagine. To avoid being defeated, he undemocratically prorogued Parliament and shut down the House. Once again, this was a major crisis triggered by this government. Thus, we cannot be surprised by the way this government is acting; however, that does not mean that we should not denounce this type of behaviour.

Yesterday, media representatives asked me what the point was, since the Conservatives have a majority and will do whatever they want. Personally, I think that, if the bill were split, as we and the official opposition have already requested, every committee affected by these measures could examine the bills individually. Thus, each committee would not be required to consider a huge bill that is over 400 pages long and affects approximately 70 existing laws, and to push it through as quickly as possible. If we took the time to examine each of the measures, we would have the opportunity to discuss them and to have people testify in committee, which would change things. Canadians and some activist groups can, from time to time, find a way to counter the government's regressive attitude.

As I was saying earlier, there are a number of measures in the implementation bill that have nothing to do with the budget. Some of these measures were a complete surprise, such as the increase in the retirement age from 65 to 67 and changes to the famous Bank Act, on page 340 of Bill C-38, a measure that once again is compelling Quebec to intervene.

Quebec's justice minister, Jean-Marc Fournier, wrote a letter on April 19 to Canada's Minister of Finance, stating that the minister was once again opening the door to a legal battle between Quebec and Ottawa. The budget implementation bill contains a section on banks, which would no longer be subject to Quebec's consumer protection law. Once again, Ottawa knows best, and Quebec's consumer protection law, which is tougher than the federal law, will no longer apply.

I would like to quote part of Minister Fournier's letter in order to show the extent to which the federal government is interfering in Quebec's jurisdictions. This is what Mr. Fournier wrote to the finance minister:

...we wish to inform you of our concerns with respect to your proposal. The federal Parliament cannot decide in a peremptory manner that provincial laws do not apply to a given sector.

That is clear, quite clear, thank you. It slipped under the radar. The Bloc Québécois rose in the House to ask this question when its members finished scouring through this thick bill. The Bloc got its hands on Minister Fournier's letter to the Minister of Finance. It is completely unacceptable that Quebec may be forced to go to court again, as it did recently on bills such as the Senate reform bill and the bill to end the long gun registry. It has come to this.

That is how relations between Ottawa and Quebec, and probably between Ottawa and other provinces, are run. The dispute with Aveos, for example, affects Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec and those provinces have decided to turn to the courts to make the federal government listen to reason. This is no way to manage things. I would like Quebec to become a country so that we can manage our affairs the way we see fit. We would not have this type of problem with this Canadian government that does not listen to reason and always wears blinkers when it comes to the rights and jurisdictions of the provinces, including those of Quebec.

If, like Minister Fournier, who is a federalist Liberal in Quebec City, we are saying that we do not see ourselves reflected in this Canada, then there is a problem. I think that the government has to realize that.

This bill amends the Bank Act. That should be a whole bill unto itself that we could discuss at length ahead of time. Instead this bill is getting lost among a hodgepodge of other measures that have nothing to do with the budget implementation bill.

We are also going to run into problems with regard to food inspection. I was privileged to be a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food for a number of years, including during the crisis that was triggered by an incident at an Ontario company where the food inspection process had failed. Unfortunately, 22 people died of listeriosis. We all remember when that happened in 2008. It sent shock waves across Canada and even around the world, because Canada had always had an excellent reputation when it comes to food inspection. We were affected by this type of problem as well.

At the time, the government wanted the companies to handle food inspection themselves. It was not enough for this government to disregard the recommendations in Ms. Weatherill's report; now it has decided to use this budget implementation bill to reduce the number of inspectors. I think that public health is far more important than any savings that might result from cutting the number of inspectors.

To our great surprise, this has been included in a budget implementation bill. It should be up to the Standing Committee on Health and the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food to examine these issues if the government wants to make any changes to food inspection. It has no business hiding them in Bill C-38.

The bill also includes ridiculous things concerning the Governor General, for instance. The Bloc Québécois strongly believes that the Governor General should pay income tax, just like everyone else in Canada. The government simply replied that, from now on, the Governor General would pay taxes. Then it doubled his salary. This has been included in Bill C-38. His salary is being increased from $137,500 tax free to $270,602 and, in the end, the Governor General is going to make more money than he did before. This behaviour is insulting.

This bill also talks about the oil sands. Furthermore, it officially buries the Kyoto protocol. Regarding the oil sands, the budget confirms—as though it needed to—the Conservatives' desire to accelerate the development of the oil sands. For instance, division 1 of part 3 enacts a whole new piece of legislation on environmental protection, whose purpose is to expedite the approval of large projects, particularly those involving oil sands exploitation. Why is this in a budget bill? One has to wonder. It is up to Environment Canada and the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to examine these issues.

There are many other measures like that. It is clear that we formally and strongly oppose Bill C-38, as so many people do. This bill needs to be split so these issues can be examined separately.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act, May 3rd, 2012]

Madam Speaker, again, what we are hearing this morning from this bulldozing government is quite scandalous. What is more, the minister is trying to teach us a lesson. He is telling us how to intervene during debates. Unfortunately, this government has developed a bad habit of using time allocation, especially when we are talking about a bill that is 425 pages long and amends 60 or so other pieces of legislation.

The thing that gets me the most—and this is what I want the minister to address—is that there is a pile of new measures in the budget implementation bill that the government has said nothing about before and a pile of poison pills.

Is the government really doing this to muzzle the opposition and the general public on a pile of measures that we will only later realize were insidiously rammed through by this government in the budget implementation bill? I would like the minister to answer that question directly.

[Conservative Party of Canada, May 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, one year after the majority Conservative government came to power, the Quebec nation's worst fears are coming true.

This government is bulldozing its way through its legislative agenda with military efficiency. Its model of justice and democratic reform has led to a litigious relationship with Quebec.

The Conservative government is pursuing an all-Canadian economic policy that supports the industries it likes, while turning its back on Aveos, Electrolux, Mabe, RockTenn and others. It is ripping up the Kyoto agreement and once again preparing to centralize the regulation of financial markets in Toronto.

The other federalist parties are also complicit in Canada's management. Blithely appointing a Supreme Court judge and an Auditor General who are not bilingual, celebrating the failure to award contracts to the Davie shipyard, and increasing the number of bills that intrude into Quebec's jurisdiction show once again that Quebec is being neglected.

The Bloc Québécois is going back to work, with heart and soul, to plan a Quebec that is the master of its own destiny and to share that vision.

[Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, May 1st, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question and comment.

In fact, the Bloc Québécois would not support this kind of bill if the aim were to have people become vigilantes and start running around the streets with weapons to arrest thieves. That is obviously not the case. This was necessary to remedy a flaw that became particularly apparent in 2009.

As I said, I had not heard about a lot of cases. This is not a bill that would necessarily have been brought forward if charges had not been laid against an honest store owner who decided to make an arrest himself. Fortunately, it went well. He arrested the person who had come back an hour later after already committing a theft in his store; he tied him up and he called the police. He did his job. But charges were laid against the store owner, and that is what was unjust.

Bill C-26 simply clarifies the reasonable time a person has for arresting someone. The fact that it happened an hour earlier does not mean that a person has to let a thief who has the gall to come back to their business get away with it. You do not know what they are going to do; you have reason to believe they are going to keep stealing or committing more serious crimes; and you do not know whether they are armed or not.

Therefore it was not proper to lay charges against that store owner, but that is what happened. By clarifying the situation, we will ensure that in future, charges will not be laid against people who are fully entitled to defend their property and their person.

[Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, May 1st, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Compton—Stanstead for his question.

Obviously, I cannot speak for the Conservative Party. The Conservatives are usually fairly uncompromising, not only in committee, but also here in the House. However, as I said, this bill is balanced. That being said, there is always room for improvement. My first question is about reasonable time. What is reasonable and what is not?

In Mr. Chen's case, it was an hour after the crime took place. In that case, his intervention was completely justified. But what if a person intervenes a week or two after the crime is committed? I know a person who went to the home of the person she believed had robbed her, but that is not the right thing to do. She could have put herself in physical danger and there could have been a fight. Instead, she should have called the police and reported that she suspected the person had robbed her. She should not have gone there herself.

People have to trust the justice system. Judges are capable of judging cases on their merits. As my colleague from Compton—Stanstead said earlier, things will have to proceed on a case-by-case basis to prevent people from playing private detective because they believe that the law will protect them if they intervene. Intervention must occur within a reasonable time. People should not step in for the police.

[Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, May 1st, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on Bill C–26. This is a rare event. For once, the Conservative Minister of Justice has introduced a balanced bill that is realistic and even includes a number of recommendations from the opposition parties. For once, we can be glad to have a bill before us that will probably receive unanimous support. The Bloc Québécois intends to support this bill.

The problem with the current legislation was also identified. Everyone gave the example of what occurred in 2009, in Toronto, when Mr. Chen, a store owner, arrested someone who had stolen from him. It became apparent that the law was problematic when charges were laid against the store owner.

In my opinion, what happened to Mr. Chen is not a frequent problem, but the situation really upset a lot of people, and with good reason. It was important to amend the legislation so that what happened to this store owner would not happen again.

The law already gives people the right to defend themselves and even to arrest somebody they catch committing an offence on or in relation to their property. Bill C-26 allows such arrests to be made within a reasonable time after the offence and even to extend this period of time. That is a big difference. In the case we have been talking about since the beginning of the debate, Mr. Chen made an arrest one hour after the offence had been committed. He noticed the thief when he came back to his shop one hour later. That takes the cake. A person would have to have some nerve. It makes perfect sense that the shop owner decided to catch and tie up the thief and call the police. He did what needed to be done.

Nevertheless, we have to ensure that we do not become a wild west society when it comes to protecting our property. That must always be considered, first and foremost, the job of police officers. It is possible to defend oneself and even to make an arrest without being charged as Mr. Chen was. The bill will correct this situation.

Fortunately, even though charges were laid against Mr. Chen, the judge did his job properly by finding that there were no grounds to charge him with anything. It could therefore be said that justice was done and that the individual was ultimately not charged with making an arbitrary arrest or breaking the law, even though the arrest was made one hour after the crime was committed.

The matter did not finish there, and that is a good thing. It was raised not only by the government, but also by the opposition parties, which introduced bills, made recommendations and acted to ensure the situation did not happen again. In my opinion, Bill C-26 corrects the injustice—and it can be called that—that occurred when charges were laid against a person who was ultimately only defending his property.

The right of self-defence is important, but we should not become vigilantes, and our streets should not become the wild west. By clarifying the law, we are solving a problem that perhaps did not arise frequently, although once is undoubtedly once too often. We are therefore in favour of this bill, although some questions still remain about the actual enforcement of the new provisions of the bill, particularly those respecting the time that may elapse between when the crime is committed and when citizens arrest the offender.

It is normal to allow citizens to protect themselves and their property, if they act in a reasonable manner without using excessive force. Ultimately, this is all a matter of self-defence. Far from promoting a society in which every individual takes justice into his own hands, the Bloc Québécois advocates a measured approach whereby citizens are entitled to defend themselves but are of course encouraged to call upon the police to protect them and to arrest criminals. We do not believe Bill C-26 runs counter to that principle.

As I said earlier, intervening or making an arrest ourselves must be a last resort, because our physical safety and that of those close to us may also be compromised if we decide to take justice into our own hands.

However, there are circumstances in which we have no choice and must absolutely ensure that the person who is attacking our family or our property is stopped. I do not always want to talk about things that happened to me, but when I was younger, three individuals broke into my parents' home. I was alone with my young girlfriend at the time—I believe we have all done that. I say young girlfriend, but I was young too. I was very much afraid at the time, not just for my physical safety, but for that of the person who was with me that evening.

I had a vague feeling that there was more than one person in the house because I could hear them walking and talking. I knew that alone, without a weapon of any sort, there could be a problem. Outnumbered, I could possibly lose a fight, if it came to that. Gripped with fear, I decided to take action. I did not necessarily intend to show myself, to try to confront these people, but I wanted at least to let them know that someone was home, that I was armed and that I would deal with them if they did not get out. I was not armed, but they did not take a chance and they ran away. That was how I handled the situation.

However, what would have happened if these people had looked all around the house? If I had remained silent, they would have ended up in my bedroom. Whether we like it or not, we are all afraid that the people who are with us will be attacked by these individuals. I could have become much more violent and I would have done anything to defend the person who was with me. It is quite normal to react that way. At the time, I also did not have access to a telephone; I could not call the police. I do not know if cell phones existed back then; in any case I did not have one at the time. I was a teenager. It obviously all depends on how you look at it and on the circumstances.

In that sense, there is nothing to suggest that the current legislation was applied inappropriately, as I was saying. Other than Mr. Chen's case, very few cases have been brought to our attention where self-defence came as a delayed reaction. The legislation advocated proceeding with an arrest or an intervention if the perpetrator is caught red-handed. In Mr. Chen's case we know that he reacted an hour later, but what about people who see the same thief who stole from them 24 hours later? I think the justice system needs to find a balance between what is reasonable and what is not, when it comes to how much time passes after the offence.

Let us not forget the case being used to justify this measure, namely that of the Toronto store owner who arrested a thief and then was charged with assault and forcible confinement. The store owner was acquitted, as I was saying earlier. The judge did his job. Nonetheless, Bill C-26 clarifies this situation.

I will not list all the changes in Bill C-26, but there are some important ones that we need to talk about here in this House. The bill completely changes the part of the Criminal Code on self-defence and protection of property. In fact, the bill amends sections 34 to 42 of the Code. Those sections are being replaced by what may be called a simpler system. That is not a bad thing. The bill also significantly amends the right of property owners to make a citizen's arrest under section 494 of the Criminal Code.

It seems to me that Bill C-26 no longer separates the various self-defence clauses according to the attitude of the person invoking self-defence, namely whether that person provoked the attack or whether it is a question of an attack against the person citing self-defence or a person under his or her responsibility. Everything has been combined under one section—section 34—which lays down a general rule that reads:

A person is not guilty of an offence if

a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;

b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and

c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.

It was important to clarify this measure. These changes were and are adequate. That is why the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-26.

[Privilege, April 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to speak longer about this issue, because the House leader of the Liberal Party was very eloquent and clear. However, the response by the House leader of the official opposition was disappointing.

Everyone, every man and woman, knows that opening another person's mail is a crime. The right thing to do would have been to return the package to the Liberal House leader, but that was not done, unfortunately.

Your response can be very simple and the hon. member could even think it up without your intervention. He could simply buy—with his own money, not out of his budget—more of the objects that were in this box addressed to the Liberal member, give him these objects, and of course, apologize for opening the other member's mail. If that is done, the case is settled.

[Privilege, April 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I will be addressing the same point and I will be brief.

The leader of the Liberal Party spoke eloquently in his presentation on the fiasco that the whole plan, the whole program to purchase these F-35 jets represents.

However, I have to add one thing: it is very rare for this government to admit that it has made an error. That has to be recognized. The Conservatives have been in power since 2006, and even when they were in a minority position, never once did they admit that they had made an error. This time, they have done that, more or less, by transferring or, if you like, shovelling the entire matter over to the Department of Public Works. They are so prideful, however, that they have decided to call it the F-35 Secretariat.

So to them, this does not mean reviewing the competition process, seeing whether there was a real need to buy these jets, and also reviewing the entire defence or even foreign affairs policy. And that means that after all the information we have had from the Auditor General and the statistics provided by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, we can be certain that not just this House, but the public as a whole has been misled by the Conservative government in this matter.

Ultimately, what we have to remember, and I will conclude on this point, is that it is the public who will be paying all those billions of dollars in this whole F-35 fiasco.

[Firearms Registry, April 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, a survivor of the École polytechnique shooting, Nathalie Provost, summed up yesterday's deplorable vote in the Senate quite well: “Something we built has just been demolished with a simple vote.”

With its majority, the Conservative government is ignoring the victims and insisting on preventing Quebec from setting up its own registry using the data that Quebeckers have already paid for. Nonetheless, the Conservative government cannot ignore the Government of Quebec's application for an injunction.

Will the Conservative government have the decency to wait for the ruling from the Superior Court of Quebec, which is hearing the case as we speak, before it starts to destroy the firearms registry, especially the data?

[The Budget, April 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned cuts at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. This government has been in power since 2006, and there has hardly ever been anything for agriculture in its budgets. Now things are worse than ever because the department is going to be hit harder than most by the cuts.

The member for Hull—Aylmer also mentioned cuts at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. I would like to remind the House that around the time of the listeriosis outbreak, which killed 22 people, the government wanted the industry to self-regulate and conduct its own food safety inspections. The Conservatives still seem partial to that ideology even though people died during the outbreak.

Rather than cut funding for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, what does my colleague think the government should do to ensure the safety of all Canadians?