Carole Freeman

[Charter of Rights and Freedoms, October 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure today of debating my colleague's motion, which proposes that the government amend section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to extend property rights to Canadians. Specifically, the motion wishes to strengthen the protection of property rights. My colleague stated that everyone has the right to enjoy their property and the right to not be deprived of their property without having the opportunity to be heard at an impartial hearing.

For all those listening, although this motion seems to meet a logical need, it is important to clarify something with regard to the protection of property rights. This is not the first time that such a motion has been put forward in the House and I think it necessary that all my fellow citizens have a proper understanding of why this motion is difficult to implement and has often been rejected.

In Canada's case, the federal government is governed by principles of common law which, among other things, prohibit expropriation without compensation, even though the criteria for compensation are not defined. However, in Quebec, the Civil Code clearly indicates that “no owner may be compelled to transfer his ownership except by expropriation according to law for public utility and in consideration of a just and prior indemnity”.

My colleague's motion proposes to amend the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to formally include property rights as a protected right. I maintain that this is a rather cumbersome process for various legal reasons.

My colleagues know that the Charter is an integral part of the Constitution. Consequently, it can only be amended or altered by a constitutional amendment. Based on this, a charter amendment that would permit section 7 to include a reference to property rights would have to be made in accordance with the general amending procedure established in section 38(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 that Quebec did not sign.

In layman's terms, for those who are not familiar with constitutional rules, the enshrinement of property rights in section 7, as moved in the motion by my colleague, would necessarily require the following conditions to be met: resolutions from the Senate and the House of Commons, and resolutions from the legislative assemblies of at least two thirds of the provinces, the latter representing at least 50% of the Canadian population.

The second condition means that either Ontario or Quebec would have to be one of the provinces supporting such an amendment, since, together, they represent more than 50% of the population of Canada.

In addition to these complications, there is subsection 38(3), which permits the legislative assembly of a province to opt out by passing a resolution of dissent to an amendment of the kind described in section 38(2) “prior to the issue of the proclamation to which the amendment relates.” A maximum of three provinces could opt out of such an amendment by passing resolutions of dissent. If there were more than three dissenting provinces, the amendment would not have the required support of two-thirds of the provinces and would therefore be defeated.

I want to come back to subsection 38(1), whereby once the authority for an amendment has been provided by the requisite number of resolutions of assent, the formal act of amendment is accomplished by a “proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada”. Under section 39, the proclamation is not to be issued until a full year has elapsed from the adoption of “the resolution initiating the amendment procedure,” unless before that time all provinces have adopted resolutions of assent or dissent.

The intent here is to allow the legislative assembly of each province sufficient time to consider the proposal. Under section 39(2), the proclamation is not to be issued if three years have elapsed from the adoption of the resolution initiating the amendment procedure.

As you can see by this brief explanation of procedure, the road to passing the motion is long and unpredictable. However, it is not just the legal aspect that poses a problem.

I would like to remind my colleagues and all of my fellow citizens that past attempts to change property rights often failed at the provincial approval stage. Let us not forget that during the first ministers' conference in 1980, before the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the federal government introduced a proposal to guarantee property rights. Some provinces vehemently opposed the proposal. In 1978, Bill C-60, which would have guaranteed the right to own property and not to be deprived of it except in accordance with the law, met with similar opposition.

In 1983, after the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Liberal government tried to reach an agreement with the opposition parties to introduce a resolution to enshrine property rights in article 7. Once again, the attempt failed.

The next significant development occurred in 1987, when the following motion was adopted: “That in the opinion of this House, the Constitution Act, 1982 should be amended in order to recognize the right to enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, and in keeping with the tradition of the usual federal-provincial consultative process”.

Now, let us leave aside the legal and historical facts and examine the logic underlying this motion.

Obviously, my colleagues and I agree that property rights are important, particularly because they provide security and predictability. As I said earlier, Quebec already has a framework for property rights and the deprivation thereof because it has a unique civil law system that balances property rights and the needs of the community, all without constitutional entrenchment. This indicates that Quebec does not really need the Canadian Constitution to provide a framework for property rights. In fact, Quebec has still not ratified the 1982 Constitution.

The question is what is behind this motion. This is not the first time Conservative or Alliance or even Reform members have introduced such a proposal.

Setting aside partisan or ideological considerations, let us imagine for a moment that this motion is adopted. What will become of municipal zoning by-laws, aboriginal land claims, environmental regulations and spousal property rights in case of marriage breakdown? The list goes on and on.

These are just some of the current rules that would have to be reviewed if property rights were included in the Charter. We can assume that these rights might impede the application of laws that create social cohesion and protect important social interests. We have only to think of the legislation governing land use planning, ownership of real property, the environment, and health and safety.

Nevertheless, the Bloc Québécois is willing to do its part and suggests that the federal government introduce rules, as Quebec has done in the Civil Code, on fair compensation for people who have been deprived of their property rights on the grounds of public convenience. Simple and accessible, the principle of full, fair, fast compensation likely could have changed many things and avoided any problems without requiring that these rights be entrenched in the Constitution. My colleagues will no doubt remember the whole saga around the expropriation of farmland in Mirabel to build the airport.

I will conclude by saying that for all the legal, historical and practical reasons I have mentioned, the Bloc Québécois will vote against my colleague's motion. This motion could have too many unforeseen consequences.

[Business of Supply, October 29th, 2007]

—the transparency is. I agree with my colleague that there really is no difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives. Fortunately, the Bloc Québécois is here to defend the interests of Quebeckers.

[Business of Supply, October 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her pertinent question. I wish to remind the House of what was conveyed in the speech the Prime Minister gave in December of 2005. There is such a huge difference between what he says outside this House and what he says in the House that I wonder where the clarity—

[Business of Supply, October 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. Once again, I would point out that my Conservative colleague has a special ability to raise issues that are not on the agenda. Perhaps he is not truly here in this House, listening to what people are saying. Perhaps he is not aware that today is the day the Bloc Québécois is devoting to talking about the federal spending power.

I am not sure how to answer because it seems to me that the question has nothing to do with this debate. However, in response to his assertion that there are 10 Conservative members, the votes have been tallied. I would remind him that there are 49 Bloc Québécois members from Quebec and that we are totally dedicated to representing Quebec in an utterly dignified, perfect way. He should start acknowledging that reality when he has something to say.

[Business of Supply, October 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today as part of the Bloc Québécois opposition day. Our motion pertains to a problem that has persisted, in our view, for far too long: the federal spending power. This power constitutes a serious intrusion into Quebec’s areas of jurisdiction. The division of powers was supposed to be firm enough to ensure that the majority nation, Canada, could not impose its views on our nation, Quebec.

I remember the Prime Minister first promising to eliminate the fiscal imbalance. The fiscal imbalance results, in short, from Ottawa raising more in taxes than it needs to assume its own responsibilities. As a result, when Quebec no longer has the tax room needed to finance its own activities independently, the problem cannot be resolved without reducing or even eliminating the federal spending power in areas that fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec.

In connection with our review today of these obvious intrusions by the federal government, the Bloc Québécois is proposing that the bill the government will introduce on the federal spending power should, at a minimum, give Quebec the right to opt out—with no strings attached and with full financial compensation—from any federal program, whether existing or not and cost-shared or not, which invades Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.

I should point out that the Bloc Québécois and successive governments in Quebec City have traditionally held that the federal spending power should be eliminated. The Séguin report, which was supported by all the parties in the National Assembly, recommended that “Quebec vigorously reiterate its traditional stance concerning the absence of a constitutional basis for ‘federal spending power’ since this ‘power’ does not respect the division of powers stipulated in the Constitution” and that “Quebec maintain its demand to exercise an unconditional right to opt out with full financial compensation in respect of any program implemented by the federal government in a field falling under provincial jurisdiction”. The Séguin commission was very clear that the problem of the federal spending power is closely connected therefore to any discussion of the fiscal imbalance. The exercise of this power is based on the surplus resources under the control of the federal government.

The Conservative government is hesitating, however, to do all that it promised and seems to prefer reserving this power for its own purposes. The Prime Minister fuelled a lot of expectations, however, on December 19, 2005 when he said, “We will work to eliminate the fiscal imbalance between Ottawa and the provinces”.

As I said earlier, eliminating fiscal imbalance involves eliminating federal spending power in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. I add that, in November 2006, Le Devoir quoted the Prime Minister as emphasizing the importance of eliminating federal spending power:

I have said many times, even since the election of this new government, that I am opposed and our party is opposed to federal spending power in provincial jurisdictions. In my opinion, such spending power in the provinces' exclusive jurisdictions goes against the very spirit of federalism. Our government is clear that we do not intend to act in that way.

This is what the Prime Minister was saying. Yet, despite all this goodwill, we read something totally different in the recent Speech from the Throne:

To this end, guided by our federalism of openness, our government will introduce legislation to place formal limits on the use of the federal spending power for new shared-cost programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. This legislation will allow provinces and territories to opt out with reasonable compensation if they offer compatible programs.

There are a number of nuances to be made here. First, the government says that it will limit spending power. Indeed, it will be limited and not eliminated. For the benefit of our viewers, limiting means that federal spending will be limited in new shared-cost programs only. The problem is that there are shared-cost programs, but very few of them. So they are announcing a limit to federal spending in areas that are exclusively Quebec's jurisdiction.

What Quebeckers must understand is that most federal spending in Quebec's jurisdiction goes not simply to shared-cost programs, but to blatant meddling.

Some of my colleagues will remember that, in the 1950s and 1960s, most federal spending in Quebec's jurisdiction was cost shared, such as hospital insurance, income security and many others. Well, now, shared-cost programs are increasingly rare. The number of unilateral initiatives by which Ottawa meddles directly in matters not in its jurisdiction has grown since 1996. Now, Ottawa uses conditional transfers to the provinces to get them to act on its priorities.

Meddling takes other forms as well, such as the Conservatives child tax benefit and the taxable $1,200 benefit. I would point out too that there are only two shared-cost programs: the infrastructure programs and the agriculture policy framework.

Another surprising nuance, the government will limit its action to new programs only. Previous shared-cost programs were few in number, and only the government's new creations will be affected. They are certainly reining in the power.

I would also draw members' attention to a specific point. During the 2005-06 fiscal year alone, the federal government spent no less than $55 billion in areas outside its jurisdiction. That is quite a lot, since each time Ottawa puts a program in place or spends in an area that should be Quebec's, Canada decides how Quebec society will be organized.

In addition, when the government tries to limit this power with a minimum of restrictions, it adds more with its "reasonable compensation" for new shared-cost meddlings.

In fact, however, what does "reasonable compensation" mean? What assurance will we have that it is full compensation? In fact, we should take it to mean that Ottawa reserves the right to punish the provinces refusing to take part in its new programs.

And finally, as if that were not enough, we have the completely absurd situation of this government reserving the right to impose Canada-wide standards, even in areas that are not under its jurisdiction. In simple terms, the right to opt out partially from new interferences would be available only to provinces that are compatible. The more perspicacious among us will guess that if Quebec makes choices that are different from Canada’s, well that will be the end of the right to opt out.

After all that, I am wondering where the openness is in this federalism.

In fact, Quebeckers have to understand that the situation as regards our autonomy is deteriorating. Two years ago, Canada controlled 18% of the Quebec government’s budget. With the increases in transfers announced in this year’s budget, Ottawa has now control over 22% of Quebec’s budget.

I would point out to my fellow citizens that this will reach a quarter of Quebec's budget two years from.

But the Bloc is calling on Ottawa to agree to simply stop spending in areas under Quebec’s jurisdiction, in particular by eliminating the federal spending power outright, because Quebec has always disputed the legitimacy of that power, and by giving Quebec the right to opt out with no strings attached and with full compensation from any federal program in an area under provincial jurisdiction.

For all of the reasons that have been stated, it is obvious that the Prime Minister’s good intentions were not to be found in the recent throne speech. But the Bloc Québécois is aware that Canadians do not want to completely eliminate the federal power to interfere, because they want the central government to be able to set directions and priorities for the entire country in respect of everything.

That is why our motion is proposing a flexible compromise, by saying that Ottawa should, at a minimum, give Quebec alone a full right to opt out in respect of all federal spending that impinges on areas that are under the jurisdiction of the provinces.

The major advantage of this motion is that our Canadian friends will, if they want, be able to continue denying the division of powers for themselves, but not for us in Quebec.

I will conclude with these words from René Lévesque, which offer an incisive summary of my thinking:

We have lost count of the “national” projects that Ottawa intends to impose by using its spending power, on issues as varied as daycare, forests, parks, etc. We are seeing a mutation, in the deep sense of the term, of what the essence of Canadian federalism has been these past few decades: the provinces' areas of jurisdiction are no longer ever considered exclusive by Ottawa, which arrogates the right to intervene for every purpose to impose its “national” standards in this field, supposedly for the greater good of all Canadians.

[Ohtli Award, October 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Ms. Louise Guinois, a resident of Saint-Isidore, was honoured on September 13 by the Consul General of Mexico for her voluntary work with Mexican seasonal workers in Quebec.

Founder of Fraternité québécoise mexicana and organizer of community events for Latin American workers, Louise Guinois has been given the Ohtli Award by Mexico’s Secretariat of Foreign Relations for her dedication to Mexican communities in Quebec, especially the one in her riding.

Ms. Guinois' concern for the well-being of migrant worker is a testament to her great humanity and represents a model of civic values for all citizens of Châteauguay—Saint-Constant.

Our congratulations to Ms. Guinois.

[Exporail, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on May 8, the Railway Association of Canada told the government that it supported the idea of recognizing Exporail as a national museum given that its collection, infrastructure and staff are of international calibre.

Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women explain why Exporail, with all the support it has received, is not on par with the Canadian Human Rights Museum in Winnipeg, which has been recognized as a national museum?

[Criminal Code, June 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question and the many comments that preceded it.

My colleague's concerns are exactly the same as those of the Bloc Québécois. We advocate a very preventive approach based on restorative justice. We believe we have to find ways to support people through prevention. Once an accused is found guilty, we have to give him all the support needed to lower the rate of recidivism. We share these concerns and that is what we are working on.

[Criminal Code, June 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-23 at third reading. The bill aims to amend the Criminal Code in a number of ways.

Briefly, the bill is essentially a complete update of many aspects of the Criminal Code. The goal of the amendments proposed in Bill C-23 is to contribute to the smooth functioning of the criminal justice system, which will facilitate the day to day functions of those who work within the system. The amendments contained in the bill fall mainly into three categories: criminal procedure, language of the accused and sentencing.

Several criminal procedure amendments serve to clarify the application and purpose of certain provisions, as well as to improve procedural efficiencies by permitting the use of modern technology and rationalizing existing provisions. Here is one of many examples. The bill proposes amendments that would refine the jury selection process to better protect the impartiality of prospective jury members, as well as sworn jurors.

Concerning the language rights of the accused, the amendments in Bill C-23 would resolve many problems that arise from a poor understanding of sections 530 and 530.1 of the Criminal Code by the accused, members of the bar, the prosecution and judges. I would remind the House that those sections guarantee the right of all accused persons to have their preliminary inquiry and trial before a court that speaks the official language of the accused and to have a crown prosecutor who speaks the language of the accused. Accordingly, the amendments proposed in the bill also follow up on court decisions requiring that the charging document must be translated into the language of the accused upon request.

Lastly, concerning sentencing, the technical amendments proposed in Bill C-23 aim to clarify the intent of certain sentencing provisions and improve efficiencies in the application of certain court sentencing processes. For instance, one amendment would provide that an impaired driving offender subject to a driving prohibition order would only be permitted to drive if he or she were registered in an alcohol ignition interlock device program and in compliance with the conditions of the program. This amendment is intended to make it clear that the offender must not only be enrolled in the program, but must also comply with all the terms of the program during the driving prohibition period.

In committee, my colleague for Hochelaga and I scrutinized this bill. As I was saying, Bill C-23 is fairly technical and does not lend itself to partisanship. In general, the amendments suggested resulted from meetings and consultations with professionals from the departments. Crown attorneys consulted police and defence attorneys, among others. In addition, federal, provincial and territorial officials met to discuss this matter and then made recommendations to their immediate superiors.

After obtaining some clarifications from the government and witnesses, the amendments to the bill were often unanimously approved by members of the committee. Furthermore, the amendments made by committee members were minor and very specific to the language of the accused.

I want to say that Bill C-23 is a good bill. The amendments help the judges in their work by providing more discretion. These measures will provide judges with better tools to do their work properly, namely to determine the most appropriate sentence that, at the same time, will best serve the objectives of deterrence, reparation and rehabilitation. For example, Bill C-23 provides the power to delay sentencing so that an offender can participate in a treatment program approved by the province. In other words, the accused may finish his rehab program or an appropriate treatment program prior to sentencing.

Up to this point, my colleagues and I have all too often witnessed the denial by this minority government of the importance of rehabilitation. This is deplorable because rehabilitation is key to reducing crime in general. Furthermore, by removing judges' prerogatives to order sentences in the community would cause Quebec and the other provinces to assume the additional financial burden of having to imprison more people, while that money could be better spent on rehabilitation and prevention. Therefore, Bill C-23 is a step in the right direction.

I will add that the Criminal Code should be revised regularly so that people can have confidence in the justice system because they know that it is in step with new realities and that when mistakes are made, they are corrected without delay.

I remain convinced that my colleagues in my party and in the House share my point of view about justice and the administration of justice.

Bill C-23 is also interesting because it will harmonize the rules of service. According to the principles of natural justice, it is unthinkable that an accused person might be brought before the courts without knowing exactly why the law is concerned about him. When one is brought before the courts, one must not only have a clear idea of the charge, but one must also have complete access to the evidence.

In addition, Bill C-23 adds a number of aspects that I find interesting, including the use of telecommunications to forward warrants to be executed in a different jurisdiction than the one where the search took place and changes to the process with respect to the challenge of jurors in order to help preserve their impartiality. There is also the power to order an offender in custody not to communicate with identified persons and the creation of an offence for failing to comply with the order, which increases protection for victims.

These are good procedural advances, which will only accelerate the legal process. For many of these provisions, it sometimes takes many years before the effects are felt. From time to time, it is necessary to adopt a legislative measure like this bill in order to make these technical amendments. Criminal law is not unchanging; it is constantly evolving.

That is why we agree that Bill C-23 makes sense, since it has the virtue of clarifying the provisions of the Criminal Code and simplifying certain legal procedures. That is why the Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill C-23 and will support it at third reading, in order for it to get to the Senate.

I will close by saying that Bill C-23 is not something we are used to seeing from this minority government in matters of justice. My colleagues know full well that Conservative bills on justice often have an American brand of conservative ideology, in other words, policing instead of prevention. Apparently Bill C-23 came from the last Parliament. It is a bill that the government has taken over from the previous government and that was supported by the Bloc Québécois during the previous Parliament.

I would add that my party defends the Quebec vision of justice based on fairness and balance between the offence committed and the punishment. The only way of achieving that is to entrust these duties to magistrates, and to independent persons. For every category of crime the punishment has to fit and be fair. These are the values we defend here.

Quebec understands that, which is one of the reasons it sent a majority of Bloc members to the House of Commons, in other words, to defend the values of the nation of Quebec. We will be sure to affirm these Quebec values very soon during the national holiday on June 24; we will honour it by celebrating proudly.

[Health, June 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, last July 25, the Conservative government announced that victims of hepatitis C infected before January 1986 and after July 1990 would be compensated as soon as possible, subject to the approval of the provincial courts. Ten months later, the victims are still waiting and are calling for a settlement to be made as quickly as possible.

Could the Minister of Health tell us if he intends to set up an emergency fund to pay some of the victims most affected by hepatitis C?