Carole Freeman

[Criminal Code, February 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate on Bill S-211, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (lottery schemes), introduced in the Senate by Senator Lapointe, to regulate the use of video lottery terminals. With this measure, Senator Lapointe, whom I very much admire, is trying to help compulsive gamblers. The Bloc Québécois is also concerned about this social problem.

Senator Lapointe's efforts are laudable and praiseworthy. I am sure I speak for all of my hon. colleagues when I say that, at some time or another, we have all been in certain public or private establishments where these machines are present, and seen or come across individuals, individuals of all ages, who are victims of compulsive gambling. Perhaps someone you know has such a problem. I have met some such individuals in my riding. Their situation is sometimes tragic, and I could not help but be moved.

Whether obsessed with bingo, horse racing, video poker or video lotteries, compulsive gamblers gamble for various reasons. Often it is for an emotional release, escape from their problems or the expression of a need. In many cases, they hope to win a large sum of money, which would earn them the admiration and respect of others, and would boost their self-confidence.

However, after losing their entire wager, they feel the need to try to get back the money they lost, which pushes them into a spiral of debt. According to a study conducted by the Université Laval, 83% of compulsive gamblers incur debt. The debt for a third of the men was between $75,000 and $100,000 compared to $15,000 on average for women.

I believe that video lottery terminals play a significant role in this addiction phenomenon. A relatively high number of people are addicted to these machines largely because of their programming. A study published in the scientific journal Neuron shows that they exploit certain weaknesses in the cognitive process the same way subliminal advertising does. I must point out that in Quebec, efforts have been made to limit the impact of video lotteries. I will discuss this further a little later.

Accordingly, the purpose of Bill S-211 is to limit the social problems related to the use of video lottery terminals. It is a noble objective to improve the lot of these individuals, an objective that is certainly shared by my peers in this House. That is why I am in favour of the bill in principle. However, I believe it is important to take into account the impact of Bill S-211, because underlying its apparent simplicity are consequences that should be carefully considered.

Bill S-211 suggests a way to curb the problem of compulsive gamblers by limiting access to video lottery terminals. To that end, it proposes three things: reducing the number of establishments operating video lottery terminals by limiting them to designated locations such as race-courses, casinos or betting theatres; amending the Criminal Code to make it an offence for any establishment outside the specified locations to operate this type of machine; and third, allowing three years after this bill comes into force for the various governments to develop a strategy to ensure an effective transition.

No one is against virtue and that is why I support the initiatives to reduce, if not eliminate, human suffering. That is the goal of Senator Lapointe's bill, but I think it is important to take into consideration some of these aspects that will undeniably have an impact in the short term. I am talking about future negotiations between the federal and provincial levels of government that will be held after Bill S-211 is passed. It is also important that the initiatives taken so far by the provinces, namely Quebec, be respected.

Accordingly, Bill S-211 certainly deserves to be thoroughly examined in committee. I hope that my colleagues will lend an attentive ear to my concerns about this bill.

I spoke about respecting provincial jurisdictions. Provincial control over lotteries came about as a result of a long battle between the two levels of government. The most important event in that struggle is the agreement reached in 1985 whereby the federal government transferred its power to the provinces and territories, on condition that they did not grant operating licences to third parties. Since then, the provinces and territories have managed their lotteries as they see fit.

I would like to mention what Quebec has done in the area of video lottery terminals to combat gambling addiction and minimize the social costs associated with gambling.

Before the Société des loteries vidéo du Québec was created in 1994, it was estimated that Quebec had between 30,000 and 40,000 illegal video lottery terminals. There was little or no regulation of these terminals, which were available to all segments of the population and often controlled by organized crime.

With the creation of this subsidiary of Loto-Québec, the number of VLTs was reduced to 14,000, which were located in 3,260 licensed establishments in 2005. I would like to point out that the number of terminals and establishments has been decreasing steadily since 1997.

In addition, Quebec has adopted a series of social measures to combat pathological gambling, including prevention programs, technical limits on terminals, strict rules to limit encouragement to gamble and direct assistance for compulsive gamblers.

Loto-Québec has gone even farther, with plans to reconfigure its network to reduce the current number of video lottery terminals by at least 31% between 2004 and 2007. This would eliminate 1,000 bars, restaurants and taverns from the current number of licensed establishments, especially in the poorest areas of Quebec.

However, if it is adopted as is, Bill S-211, by amending the Criminal Code, would open the door to the federal government in what today is a provincial and territorial jurisdiction. That could affect the balance that was achieved with the 1985 agreement with the provinces. Of course, the three-year period for coming into force would ease the transition, but might it not affect Quebec's current strategy against compulsive gambling? Would it not trigger another lengthy legal dispute between the two levels of government? I would like hon. members to look at this in more detail in order to develop measures to complement the Government of Quebec's initiatives.

Relations with Ottawa and respect for provincial jurisdictions are not the only things worrying me. Senator Lapointe wants to improve the lot of compulsive gamblers and, at the same time, the quality of life of society in general.

With regard to the situation in Quebec before 1994, I have the following question: if Quebec is responsible for appropriately operating these video lottery terminals, is it not participating in the fight against organized crime by depriving it of a guaranteed source of revenue? If we concentrate terminals in specific locations, will we not again be making way for the financing of organized criminal groups? My colleagues agree with me that these groups do not have a conscience when it comes to compulsive gambling. Furthermore, they do not have the resources the provinces do to curb this phenomenon. I hope to meet social groups that can answer these questions at the committee hearings.

We shall have to see how Ottawa will make up the revenue that the provinces lose by drastically cutting the number of video lottery terminals. We must also consider minimizing the financial losses of small establishments that own these machines. I believe that we are opening the door to lengthy negotiations that should be part of a federal-provincial agreement. If we do not succeed, we run the risk of having organized crime take hold of small operators.

As I mentioned, I care very much about the well-being of my constituents. I therefore wonder about the impact of Bill S-211 on compulsive gamblers. Reducing the number of machines will likely diminish the appeal for gamblers. However, if we criminalize illegal operators, will we not make it more difficult for gamblers to admit their gambling problem? I think a preventive approach, although it may not solve the entire problem, remains the best approach here, rather than tougher legislation.

I will close by saying that, in spite of the concerns I outlined here today, I remain sympathetic to Bill S-211. For this reason, like my party, I hope it passes second reading, so we can further study the impact I mentioned and hear witnesses on the issue. We will therefore vote in favour of this bill at second reading, and we plan to propose constructive amendments in order to strike a balance between the collective well-being and respect for provincial jurisdictions, especially for Quebec.

Compulsive gambling is indeed a serious problem that has significant repercussions on the friends and families of gamblers, and on the entire community. Bill S-211 shows an understanding of this problem, but does not prohibit video lottery terminals. Indeed, I feel this activity could benefit from greater regulation, since its repercussions are clearly significant and stir our conscience.

[Judicial Appointments, February 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the former Minister of Justice did not beat around the bush when he said in the same speech that the courts were doing what they pleased and that that had to stop. He added that Parliament had the duty to bring legislation in line with Canadians' opinions and values.

Yet is it not true that this government's real agenda is not to impose Canadians' values on the judiciary, as it claims, but rather to impose old, right-wing Alliance and Reform values?

[Judicial Appointments, February 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in a speech he made in 2003, the President of the Treasury Board denounced the secret process of appointing Supreme Court and appeal court judges. He called for a review of the process and said he wanted more Canadians with different backgrounds to get involved.

Will the President of the Treasury Board acknowledge that when he said he wanted more Canadians with different backgrounds to choose judges, he really wanted people who think just like him to have complete control over the judicial appointment process?

[Judicial Appointments, February 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister constantly repeats that he will respect the Constitution and rigorously respect the powers of the provinces.

How can the Prime Minister be believed when he says that he will respect the powers of the provinces when he is not even able to respect the independence of the judiciary, which is the very basis of democracy?

[Judicial Appointments, February 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the frontal assault that this government is conducting on the judicial system is without precedent in Canada and the only rationale is its right-wing ideology.

How can the Prime Minister justify the fact that while his government advocates a laissez-faire approach and the free market in economic matters, as he showed in the Boeing case, when it comes to the judiciary, he advocates the very opposite, excessive government intervention?

[Criminal Code, February 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part today in the debate on the second reading of Bill C-35 to amend the Criminal Code to reverse the burden of proof in bail hearings for individuals arrested for having committed firearm-related offences.

Since arriving in this House, I have commented on several government bills pertaining to justice. With regard to this new proposal, I believe that it is essential to put Bill C-35 into context because this bill lacks a solid factual foundation to determine if it will be effective with respect to firearms-related offences.

At present, it is up to the crown to prove that the accused must not be released on bail because he or she represents a danger to society. In the Criminal Code, the burden of proof rests with the accused only in very specific cases.

I would like to provide the context for amendments suggested by Bill C-35. First of all, there is reverse onus at the bail hearing for certain firearms-related offences. The accused will have to prove that he should not be detained prior to his trial. The bill adds two factors that the judge must take into account in making a decision to release the accused or to place him in custody for the duration of criminal proceedings. These two factors are the use of a firearm and an offence that involves a minimum prison term of three years or more.

In this sense, the Conservative government's bill seeks to broaden the existing range of exceptions that reverse onus. As I mentioned earlier, the accused bears the burden of proof for certain, specified offences, such as breach of release conditions, involvement in organized crime, terrorism, trafficking, contraband or drug production.

If this bill passes, it will add to these cases, which we consider serious, another set of exceptions in which people accused of committing a crime with a firearm will have to prove to the judge that they can be released without fear for society. This is very difficult to prove, especially for someone accused of attempted murder, discharging a firearm with intent to wound, sexual assault with a weapon, and so forth.

As I was saying, I have had a chance to study some of the government’s justice bills. Once again, Bill C-35 raises considerable concern because it is of the same ilk as some of the previous ones and falls back on the rhetoric of toughening up the law, instead of looking at crime prevention, in order to give the impression that the government is doing something.

This demagogic approach is apparent in the repeated government gestures in the area of justice. For example, they attack judicial discretion, make lists that fail to deal with the particular realities, and concentrate on repression when there is no scientific basis for it. Here once again, they are attacking the basic principles of our justice system. These gestures make me wonder, therefore, what they are doing and the reasons for this bill.

I would like to focus on two concerns that I think pose a threat to our current legal system. First—and this is something we have already seen in previous bills—Bill C-35 undermines judicial discretion in sentencing. In the British legal tradition, it is incumbent upon the Crown to show that a person cannot be released because of fears for public safety. I do not believe that putting the onus on the individual in the legal system is the right way to proceed or that it affords the opportunities to which everyone is entitled. We know very well that there are already exceptions in very serious cases, but they should not be made the rule.

At present, judges can impose any reasonable conditions they consider appropriate, such as curfews or a prohibition on the consumption of alcohol or drugs. They can attach other conditions as well, such as the need to appear before a law enforcement officer at certain times, remain within a certain geographical jurisdiction, and provide notification of any change of address or employment.

Secondly, there have not been as many studies of release on bail as of other facets of the criminal justice system. We might not have answers to even the simplest of questions, beginning with this one: how many people accused of committing a crime with a firearm are actually released on bail?

With regard to this glaring lack of relevant information, I wonder about a press release issued on November 23, 2006, in which the Prime Minister mentioned that more than 1,000 crimes had been committed with a firearm in Toronto alone. According to his police sources, 40% of these crimes were committed by someone who was on parole, bail, temporary absence or probation. Why does this government mix all the release categories together to justify Bill C-35, when its bill specifically targets people who are on bail? Does the government have any relevant statistics for this particular release category?

I would also like to mention the article in the November 24, 2006, issue of La Presse indicating that even the Montreal police could not say how many crimes involving firearms were committed by repeat offenders.

What is more, according to Tony Doob, a criminologist at the University of Toronto, the statistics in this area do not tell the whole story, because someone could be out on bail as a result of simple theft, a situation Bill C-35 would not address. People accused of offences involving firearms are already faced with something like reverse onus. The expert adds that the question is whether the bill will make it possible to imprison a dangerous person who would not otherwise have been incarcerated.

Speaking of relevant statistics, I will add that there are more people behind bars awaiting trial than people serving sentences. According to Statistics Canada, in 2004, there were 125,871 Canadians in prison awaiting trial, while 83,733 people behind bars were serving court-ordered sentences. I can therefore conclude that the main objective of the bill—to reverse onus in the case of release on bail for all people accused of crimes involving firearms—lacks judgment and clarity.

For all these reasons, I am opposed to Bill C-35, even though there are some exceptions.

[Hélèna Arpin-Couillard, February 9th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on January 7, Hélèna Arpin-Couillard of Châteauguay celebrated her 100th birthday at Résidence Youville. The event was marked with great ceremony by her family: seven children, 24 grandchildren and 41 great-grandchildren.

Mrs. Arpin-Couillard is still in wonderful shape today and remains quite independent. An active centenarian, she is able to enjoy her hobbies and follow her favourite hockey team, the Montreal Canadiens. A dedicated fan, she never misses a Canadiens game.

I want to acknowledge the 100th birthday of this woman, who has lived in Châteauguay-Station all her life and has seen our beautiful community grow and develop. It is a pleasure to have the members of this House share in this special moment honouring someone who is cherished by all those around her. She is a true witness to our local history, and she inspires respect and admiration.

Happy birthday, Mrs. Arpin-Couillard.

[Business of Supply, February 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I have to say that I agree with him when he says that we should ask experts to do the math. It seems to me that it is very difficult for the governing party to properly assess the costs and the many problems that we have with greenhouse gases.

I agree with my colleague. We really need experts to help the government, otherwise we will never see the end of it.

[Business of Supply, February 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my honourable colleague for his question on polluter pay.

Obviously, for years now, Quebec has been making enormous efforts to meet the targets, while other provinces are making I would say incredible efforts to pollute more. We could mention, for example, the tar sands and all the pollution already produced and yet to be produced.

The problem is, who will pay now and later to clean all this up?

As we know, Quebec is sharing costs up to 25%. So, we are making enormous efforts to try and have clean energy and reach our targets. On the other hand, we have the polluters. I think they should pay more and certainly not have any tax benefits. They should also be cleaning up the mess they are creating right now.

[Business of Supply, February 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

For more than a decade, the international scientific community has pointed out the urgent need to do something about climate change before it is too late. It is now one minute to midnight.

All members of this House have surely noted that nature is showing obvious and worrisome signs of climate disturbance. The number of abrupt and severe weather events such as tropical storms, hurricanes, droughts, forest fires and so forth, is on the rise.

The accelerated melting of the ice cap at the North Pole is so severe and rapid that, along with raising sea levels, it is endangering all polar fauna and upsetting all geostrategies in this sector. We are not dealing with a time span of one or two centuries, but rather one of only 50 years.

Smog episodes last longer and occur more frequently in our major cities. Smog advisories are often issued in the Greater Montreal area in which my riding is found.

These are but a few examples and they do not adequately express the extent of the problem or the need to take action. The list of repercussions arising from global warming is long and quite overwhelming. I refuse to be an alarmist. However, it is disturbing to observe these events and to realize that the impact of these changes will be even greater for my children.

Scientists from around the world unequivocally sounded the alarm recently in the conclusion to the report drafted by 550 experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, held in Paris on January 26. They revealed, to no one's surprise, that our planet earth is warming faster than anticipated. What is the cause? No doubt about it—human beings and their activities that generate greenhouse gases.

Unfortunately, there are still naysayers who hide behind biased arguments to justify a laissez-faire approach. It is sad to see individuals trying to use economic arguments to circumvent Kyoto. Even the recent report from Nicholas Stern, former chief economist of the World Bank, recommends that every country invest up to one per cent of GDP in the fight against climate change to avoid economic losses of up to $7,500 billion globally. These losses are equal to 20 times the amount needed at present to counter this phenomenon.

But some will still try to deny the facts. Unlike those who see the Kyoto protocol as a “socialist scheme”, I am proud to see that Quebec wants to do its share for the whole planet and for all the future generations that will live on it. The Quebec nation wants to be part of the progressive movement that Kyoto represents and join the concert of nations in fighting climate change.

We in Quebec believe that the Kyoto targets are achievable. We believe that climate change is an inescapable reality. Quebec's achievements on this issue are unequivocal: in 2004, it had the best record in Canada for greenhouse gas emissions, at 12 tonnes per capita. This is clearly below the Canadian average of 23.7 tonnes per capita.

Moreover, between 1990 and 2004, while greenhouse gas emissions in Quebec increased by 6.1%, they increased by 39.4% in Alberta and by 61.7% in Saskatchewan. And I must point out that the increase recorded in Quebec was largely due to the transportation sector, which is a major problem in all industrialized countries.

Far from letting the situation get worse, and avoiding the kind of lethargy shown by the federal government, Quebec developed its own plan to fight climate change, but it is still missing $328 million to meet its reduction target of 6% below 1990 levels. I remind members that this is a target that was negotiated by the federal government and that is important to a vast majority of Quebeckers.

That is why I join my party in asking that the federal government give immediately to Quebec the $328 million it needs to meet the Kyoto protocol targets. I find it deplorable that Quebec's efforts in fighting climate change are hindered by the current federal government. In refusing to give that money to Quebec, the Canadian government is sending a clear signal that it is not willing to encourage those provinces that truly want to make an effort to meet the Kyoto targets and that have developed plans that differ from the ones proposed by the federal government.

I was mentioning earlier the observable trends in climate disturbances and the concerns that they raise. I was saying how these changes were drastic and sudden. It is sad to see that even though Quebec is making every effort to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and limit environmental damage, it remains stuck in a situation where the federal government is taking very little concrete action to reduce greenhouse gases and other provinces are reluctant to hurt their corporate polluters. Does Quebec need to prove that had it been sovereign, it would have achieved its goals many years ago?

Indeed, the federal government’s inaction in dealing with greenhouse gases needs no scientific proof; the facts speak for themselves. During the 13 years they were in power, the Liberals dragged their feet to the point that they forgot the Protocol targets. They increased the number of voluntary-based programs, which were not very successful, instead of opting for real solutions such as the territorial approach that we are proposing, or the implementation of a carbon exchange. In the end, greenhouse gas emissions increased by a third on their watch. Moreover, at that time, the Liberals refused to give Quebec the $328 million needed to meet the Kyoto protocol targets.

The then environment minister insisted on imposing funding conditions, which derailed the negotiations, even though the Government of Quebec was the only one to clearly indicate its intention to meet the Kyoto targets. While his own plan was far from effective, as evidenced by the close to 30% increase in greenhouse gas emissions under the Liberal reign, the leader of the Liberal Party preferred to lecture Quebec.

Since the Conservatives have taken office, the situation has become chaotic. Having eliminated programs introduced by the Liberals, they then turned around and revived them in order to look green. Moreover, this government completely stopped using the word “Kyoto”, because it was becoming synonymous with “unattainable”, if not suggestive of a vile “socialist scheme” that would ruin Canada sooner or later.

Certainly, we should not expect change anytime soon. The Prime Minister himself, in an address delivered on Tuesday, February 6, before the Ottawa Canadian Club, again contrasted environmental action with economic development, whereas Quebec has everything to gain by setting large reduction targets. I remind the House that Quebec's industries are already world leaders, with processes and technologies based on clean transport and energy.

I emphasize once again that it is this government, in which the ministers directly concerned do not believe in the Kyoto protocol, that is now trying to look green, although it is unable to meet its own deadlines for the determination of targets. In this regard, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities said on October 15, 2006, that the $328 million was a promise of the previous government. He noted that there had been negotiations, but that they derailed and that the Conservative approach was different. He even added that there would be no negotiations other than those he had had with the Quebec Minister of Finance on the whole infrastructure program.

The intransigence of the federal government has to be compared with my party's proposal for a territorial approach, which is a flexible solution. In fact, the federal government should abide by some basic principles, namely, honouring our international commitments, fairness in the level of effort imposed and full respect for Quebec's jurisdiction. These are three principles that Ottawa has consistently ignored in the climate change file.

That is why my party demands that the federal plan include a mechanism that would allow a bilateral agreement with Quebec based on a territorial approach. Such an agreement should give Quebec the financial tools it needs to implement the most effective measures for reducing greenhouse gas emissions on its territory.

We have proposals for respecting the Kyoto protocol, which would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 6% compared to 1990. We are proposing that the federal government impose strict greenhouse gas emission standards on motor vehicles, give allowances to those who buy ecological vehicles, provide major financial support for renewable energy development, eliminate tax breaks for oil companies, and give subsidies to organizations which help reach the Kyoto targets.