Françoise Boivin

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, March 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence.

I urge people to read the briefing notes on Bill S-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Nuclear Terrorism Act. These notes were written by Lyne Casavant, Cynthia Kirkby and Dominique Valiquet from the Legal Affairs division of the Parliamentary Information and Research Service and Holly Porteous from the International Affairs and Defence division of that same service. They do an extraordinary job because they explain things clearly, which the government often does not do.

Rather than attacking the opposition by saying that we are all fools who support criminals, perhaps the government should clearly explain its bills and what they are about.

This research, which was very well done, explains the threats that could come from Pakistan, Iran and other countries. It provides a good summary of the situation: who produces this material and who could be a threat. It is interesting to read and provides background information. These notes make Bill S-9, which seems very dry at first, easier to understand.

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, March 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House to speak to Bill S-9 at third reading stage. Members will recall that, at second reading, we recommended that the bill be passed so that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights could study it in depth.

I am always skeptical about the Conservative government having a bill introduced in the Senate, which is made up of unelected people who are not accountable to Canadians. The government is bringing some very important bills in through the back door, including this one, Bill S-9, which takes a step required to ratify international treaties.

However, we are talking about something that pertains to public safety, which is an important issue to the NDP in this House, because we believe it is our duty to protect the public. That is one of the main reasons why we are here in Parliament.

That being said, it is also very important to approve the agreements and international treaties that we sign. People must understand that we often proceed a step at a time. The process often takes a long time, even too long. We agree to treaties at international meetings. Then, representatives return to their respective countries and have these treaties ratified, which is the reason for Bill S-9. The purpose of the agreement and the international commitments made was to create a legal framework to ensure that nuclear terrorism would be properly dealt with as a criminal offence. This required a number of amendments to the Criminal Code.

We know that the Senate passed Bill S-9 on March 27, 2012. It amends the Criminal Code in order to implement the criminal law requirements of the two international treaties to combat terrorism. The first is the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, which was amended in 2005. We were already a party to this convention, which we initially ratified in 1980. When I say that things move at lightning speed, I am not far from the truth. The other treaty is the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, which was signed in 2005.

The bill contains 10 clauses that add four new offences to part II of the Criminal Code, making it illegal to possess, use or dispose of nuclear or radioactive material or devices or to commit an act against a nuclear facility or an act that disrupts its operation with intent to cause death, serious bodily harm or substantial damage to property or the environment.

The Senate passed an amendment to add making a device to the bill, making it illegal to use or alter nuclear or radioactive material or devices or to commit an act against a nuclear facility or an act that disrupts its operation with intent to compel a person, government or international organization to do or refrain from doing any act; to commit an indictable offence under an act of Parliament with intent to obtain nuclear material, radioactive material or a device; to obtain access to or control of a nuclear facility; or to threaten to commit one of these three offences.

Other amendments have also been introduced that stem from these four new offences and are no less important. The bill adds the definition—and this is important—of certain terms used in the description of the new offences, including “environment”, “nuclear facility”, “nuclear material”, “radioactive material” and “device”, and amends the definition of “terrorist activity”. A new section of the Criminal Code is also introduced to ensure that people who commit or attempt to commit one of these offences when they are abroad can be prosecuted in Canada.

Amendments are made to the provisions of the Criminal Code relating to electronic surveillance to ensure that those provisions apply to the new offences. The four new offences are also considered primary designated offences for the purposes of DNA warrants and collection orders.

Lastly, this bill also amends Canada's rule against double jeopardy, in other words being tried and convicted more than once for the same crime. Accordingly, if an individual has been tried and convicted for any of the four new offences outside Canada, the rule against double jeopardy will not apply when the foreign trial did not meet certain basic Canadian legal standards. In such circumstances, a Canadian court can try this person again for the same offence for which he or she was convicted by a foreign court.

There is a lot of information here. Some have described this bill as a technical bill. Indeed, it might seem quite technical, because it deals with concepts that are not familiar to us. Nuclear terrorism in Canada is not the kind of thing we talk about when chatting with friends. It is definitely not the kind of conversation we have every day.

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights took its role very seriously, considering the nature of the subject. We heard from some very interesting witnesses, including representatives from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and people from the Department of Transport, since nuclear material is transported in Canada.

People might be shocked to learn what goes on right under their noses, which they are not told about for obvious reasons of national security. Also, we would not want to let potential wrongdoers know when nuclear material is being transported from point A to point B.

The committee also heard from representatives of the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness regarding policies related to managing national security and from the RCMP regarding criminal operations involving national security and related investigations. Representatives from the Department of Justice also appeared, including the Minister of Justice, who spoke about this bill.

We were able to ask questions before the bill was sent to committee. We have mentioned the time it took for the government to introduce Bill S-9 and the fact that the bill was introduced through the back door, through the Senate. We wanted to know why it took so long, especially since this is a huge national and international priority and, according to some, is one of Canada's biggest problems and most serious threats.

We also wanted to know why, when they were drafting the bill, they did not think about the concept of making a device, which came up in the Senate. Nevertheless, I am more or less satisfied. As a lawyer, I appreciate hearing from people at the Department of Justice. They said that the concept of making a device was already included in the bill. However, since we cannot be too careful, they agreed to add the wording, which they had considered included in the existing terminology. That settled that.

We could also leave out the concept of autrefois convict. In other words, if someone is being prosecuted in a foreign country, this law would allow Canada to retain the right to prosecute a Canadian who has committed one of the new offences. The charter includes provisions to enforce this.

The answers provided seem satisfactory, even though there may be some concerns when we see how tests for compatibility with the charter go at the Department of Justice.

In light of our international treaty obligations, we will support the bill, as it stands, at third reading. That is my recommendation. I think that my NDP colleagues will do the same. It is extremely important.

Nuclear terrorism is a difficult concept to grasp. People need to understand. I asked the parliamentary secretary what is the biggest threat in terms of nuclear terrorism. I do not want to scare people here, but we have to be realistic. There are some malicious people out there. There is no doubt about it. We cannot bury our heads in the sand.

Nuclear terrorism threats can come in different forms.

According to the explanations we heard in committee, there are four categories: the use of a stolen nuclear weapon; the use of an improvised nuclear device made of fissionable material; the use of a radiological dispersal device, often referred to as a dirty bomb; and the sabotage of a nuclear facility.

Canada is indeed a country that is rich in uranium, but we must not bury our heads in the sand thinking that we are immune. The article Graham Allison wrote in 2005 entitled “Is Nuclear Terrorism a Threat to Canada's National Security?” comes to mind. The title is quite striking, and in the article, the author makes some comparisons between the United States and Canada.

Having grown up in the Outaouais region, I admit that this article sent a shiver down my spine even though I am not an especially impressionable person. Yet, the fact remains that we need to be realistic about what is happening in the world. The question that Mr. Allison asked on page 717 of the summer 2005 issue of the fissionable material was “What about Canada?” He had this to say:

A nuclear bomb going off on Parliament Hill in Ottawa would cause everything from the supreme court to the Ottawa Congress Centre to disappear; everything for several blocks past the National Archives and the Canadian War Museum would be left in rubble; and fires would consume the Canadian Museum of Nature. Tens of thousands of people would die immediately and the seriously injured would number in the hundreds of thousands. Fallout from the blast would be carried by winds across Canada, contaminating farmland and cities alike and creating thousands of additional casualties.

I mention this to put things into context. Clearly, we would never want something like this to happen. However, as I was saying, we must do our utmost to protect Canadians, particularly when fairly accessible areas are left in the hands of malicious people, which could result in this type of damage.

Given that I am from the other side of the river in Gatineau, reading something like this really put things into perspective for me. We tell ourselves that this would be tragic but that it has never happened and that we are the greatest country in the world and that people here are friendly, open and welcoming. Yet, this is a strange world we live in.

We need to strike a balance. We cannot resort to hyperbole or forget to respect individual rights and freedoms. We need to have balanced policies that protect public safety while respecting human rights. If we manage that, we cannot go wrong.

Ian MacLeod wrote a series of articles in the Ottawa Citizen while we were studying the issue in committee. He wrote:

Nuclear officials are preparing to secretly transport a toxic stew of liquid bomb-grade uranium by armed convoy from Chalk River to a South Carolina reprocessing site.

The “high priority” mission marks the first time authorities have attempted to truck highly-enriched uranium (HEU) in a liquid solution, prompting nuclear safety advocacy groups on both sides of the border to sound the alarm for greater government scrutiny.

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) has confirmed the plan to the Citizen. It follows Prime Minister[...]’s commitment at last year’s global nuclear security summit to return HEU inventories to the United States to lessen the risk of nuclear terrorism.

I asked the officials from Transport Canada and Public Safety Canada what they thought about that. My objective was not to find out what route the trucks will be taking. Obviously, we do not want to provide malicious people with a map and the details of when a given convoy will be leaving and tell them that no one should be in the vicinity. We are not that naive.

However, I want to be able to respond to questions I get from the people of Gatineau. When they read this news in the Ottawa Citizen, a local newspaper, some of my constituents telephoned or wrote to me, asking if they should be worried. As the member for Gatineau, I want to be able to tell them that they have no reason to be concerned, because our experts are doing everything they can to ensure that we have nothing to worry about and that every possible safety measure is taken.

I sincerely hope that is the case. However, I cannot guarantee it, nor do I think that anybody here in the House of Commons can. We are counting on protocols being followed and we hope that all security and technological measures will be implemented so that nothing serious happens. Canadians are lucky to have so many waterways, but we are well aware that nuclear waste would eventually make its way to us. I have always been worried that, sooner or later, nuclear materials could enter our water and cause problems.

I do not want to make a mountain out of a molehill, but I do want to emphasize the importance of Bill S-9 given the international treaty requiring states parties to take tough measures. We have to look at how we handle this type of material, facilities, storage locations and manufacturing facilities so that we can implement critical security measures. We need to amend the Criminal Code to ensure that the necessary measures will be taken should offences relating to nuclear terrorism occur, although we hope that will never happen.

I have always believed that prevention is key. I am not against harsh and specific indictments in such cases. Some of these new offences are liable to life in prison, which is the maximum penalty available in the Canadian criminal justice system and shows just how serious such cases are.

I would like to talk about one witness who really impressed me during the committee study of Bill S-9. His name is Matthew Bunn, and he is an associate professor of public policy at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University. He described the context of this bill:

Since the September 11 attacks in the United States, both countries have improved security for their own nuclear materials, helped others to do the same, helped to strengthen the International Atomic Energy Agency's efforts, and worked to strengthen other elements of the global response. But if the United States and Canada are to succeed in convincing other countries to take a responsible approach to reducing the risks of nuclear theft and terrorism at the Nuclear Security Summit in the Netherlands in 2014 and beyond, then our two countries have to take the lead in taking responsible action ourselves.

He also convinced me of the following:

Hence, it is important for both of our countries to ratify the main conventions in this area, the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, as the Seoul Nuclear Security Summit called on countries to do. As [we all know], the leaders at the Seoul summit set a target of gaining enough ratifications to bring the amendment to the physical protection convention into force by the 2014 summit.

That is why Mr. Bunn urged us to ratify these two conventions and pass Bill S-9. He was embarrassed by the fact that Canada is further ahead than the U.S in that regard. Canada has shown leadership in this matter, and I am pleased with that.

I will close by reiterating that, like it or not, the threat of terrorism is real. This does not mean that something will happen tomorrow and that we should create mass hysteria. However, we need reasonable and well-drafted measures. For once the government has a good bill, which it could have introduced directly in the House rather than in the Senate.

However, we must encourage the members of the House to work on protecting public safety and strengthening our role as an international leader.

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, March 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the idea of nuclear terrorism is a scary thought.

I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice about his conclusion.

What does he think is the most serious nuclear terrorist threat to Canada?

[Ethics, March 1st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, after coming up with laughable excuses to defend senators who lied about where they lived or campaigned for the party using public funds, the government is now trying to sweep the whole issue under the rug.

Questionable decisions are being made behind closed doors and then we are led to believe that everything is fine, that a review was carried out and that no one is guilty.

As long as the documents proving that abuse did or did not take place remain under wraps, Canadians will remain in the dark about the scope of the Senate swindle.

How much money was Senator Wallin asked to reimburse and why?

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, March 1st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to have a perfect answer to this question. It is the question that we must always ask and to which we must always try to find the most specific answers. We also have to give the people who are in a much better position than we are in this House the tools they need to solve this problem.

I have a great deal of respect for psychiatrists and all those who work in the mental health field. Unfortunately, here in Canada, they often get less than their due. Even my Conservative colleagues have to admit it. It is something that we are not used to dealing with and that we really do not understand.

I will never be able to repeat it enough: the danger with this bill is that we are making Canadians believe that the people who committed these offences are not patients, but prisoners. They are not criminals like Bernardo, for example, or like someone who coldly and with no regard for other people’s lives decided to commit unspeakable crimes. We have examples of this, here.

In this bill, we are talking about serious mental disorders. I cannot say it often enough: if we are not happy with the verdicts, we should discuss the verdicts. If we are reasonably satisfied with the verdicts, they have not been appealed and they are final decisions, the person is taken into care. What I think is that the system requires greater investment in protecting mental health. We have to be reasonably satisfied that the people in question are being well treated. However, it would be very sad to let people believe that we live in a society that is full of people who have been recognized as not criminally responsible because of mental illness and who are walking around in the open.

On the other hand, we have to ensure that these people and the victims are up to speed. There are some good elements in this bill, as I said in my speech. I just do not like how the stage is set, sometimes, because it takes some of the credibility away from the bill, with the kind of political speeches we are hearing about something as serious as mental disorders.

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, March 1st, 2013]

I temper my passion with reason, Mr. Speaker. I have scrutinized each and every clause of the bill. I will always react passionately, however, when someone attempts to tell us something is there that is not.

First off, both those questions have very simple answers. Public safety and protecting the public are a priority for Conservatives and New Democrats alike. Not once have I stated otherwise. I wish they would stop insulting our intelligence by saying the system never fails, however. To err is human. I agree that we should strive to reduce the possibility of error.

We have case law. As every lawyer in the House knows full well, whoever pleads their case in court must base their arguments on different aspects of the law, namely legislation, case law and doctrine. Those three things make up our legal system and ensure rule of law in Canada. Case law has already established that a judge must always consider public safety and protection of the public above all when deciding whether or not to release someone.

Is that rule consistently applied? That is another matter. Legislating more consistent application will not necessarily make it so. A judge or board will still be able to argue that, given the facts of the case, there is no threat to public safety, which does not necessarily mean something will not happen six weeks or six months down the line. There are never any guarantees when dealing with human beings.

This is why I object to these false prophets who walk around claiming to solve all the world's problems when, in fact, they have not done squat.

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, March 1st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-54, the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act.

The minister often introduces bills based on newspaper headlines, and I have often criticized this way of doing things.

We are all well aware of which incidents served as the basis for Bill C-54. For Quebeckers, it was the Turcotte case, and for western Canadians, it was the case of the individual with serious mental problems who decapitated passengers on a Greyhound bus.

All of these incidents can be described as gruesome. I am not saying that the media like to report on these sorts of events; however, these events do give the media graphic video images that are not always nice to see but that make it easy to stoke public opinion.

Before we begin examining Bill C-54, we must understand what this bill refers to. We are talking about people who will be found not criminally responsible because of mental problems. We cannot look at the provisions of Bill C-54 without looking at section 16 of the Criminal Code, which deals with mental disorders.

Section 16(1) of the Criminal Code reads as follows:

16. (1) No person is criminally responsible for an act committed or an omission made while suffering from a mental disorder that rendered the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong.

I would like to simplify this provision so that those listening to us will understand. This means that people who, because of a mental disorder, are unable to appreciate the quality of the act they have committed, whether it be murder or another type of assault, will not be found criminally responsible.

However, the Criminal Code presumes that every person is of sound mind, even though one sometimes has to wonder about that. Seriously though, the Criminal Code presumes that individuals are of sound mind.

Section 16(2) of the Criminal Code reads as follows:

(2) Every person is presumed not to suffer from a mental disorder so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility by virtue of subsection (1), until the contrary is proved on the balance of probabilities.

That is the problem in some cases. Dr. Turcotte’s case received a lot of media coverage in Quebec. People followed the trial with great interest because they wondered how such an intellectual man, a doctor, could have killed his children in the wake of a family break-up, of separation and divorce. When people do not follow the trial and do not understand the kind of evidence required, their imaginations get the better of them.

According to the Criminal Code, the burden of proof that an accused was suffering from a mental disorder so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility is on the party that raises the issue and must be proven on the balance of probabilities. The concept of mental disorder is very often the biggest part of the problem. It is not always very easy to prove.

I believe that background is important and that we should recall some previous decisions of the House. In 2002, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights tabled a report on the Criminal Code provisions on mental disorders.

After the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights tabled its report, the government decided to retain the current wording of the definition of the mental disorder defence under section 16 of the Criminal Code and the definition of “mental disorder” set out in section 2 of the Code.

Section 2 of the Criminal Code is still as important as it was then and provides that “mental disorder” is defined as “a disease of the mind”. It is up to the trial judge, not the jury, to rule on what constitutes a disease of the mind or a mental disorder.

Some people believe that juries determine that. They think that juries are not equipped to make that kind of legal finding, and they are right. That is why it is up to the trial judge to determine whether it has been proven on a balance of probabilities that the person had a mental disorder.

That definition has remained the same since the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its decision in R. v. Cooper in 1980.

A disease of the mind embraces any illness, disorder or abnormal condition that impairs the human mind and its functioning, excluding, however, self-induced states caused by alcohol or drugs as well as transitory mental states such as hysteria and concussion. In order to support a defence of insanity, the disease must, of course, be of such intensity as to render the accused incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the violent act or of knowing it was wrong.

So the test is quite rigorous. Mental disorder must be proven on a balance of probabilities. Those who have followed what is going on in criminal law or who have taken an interest in the matter and have followed trials in which such defences have been raised know that evidence cannot be provided by just anyone. It may be based on the facts so as to prove a certain type of behaviour, but the finding or establishment of scientific or psychiatric evidence is done by expert witnesses.

Incidentally, and here I am thinking out loud, it might be interesting to see how the assessments are designed. The trial judge assesses the independent status of the expert summoned by the defence or by the Crown and determines what kind of evidence was presented. That is part of the trial. Where the individual is found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder, it follows that he or she will be taken into the system to receive care.

I encourage people to read the February 2013 issue of the Barreau du Québec's Journal du Barreau. On page 8, they will find a column by the eminent lawyer Jean-Claude Hébert on criminal non-responsibility, mental disorder, prisoners and patients. When the public looks at these cases, they sometimes think they make no sense. The crime in itself is terrible; it gives us the shivers and makes us question human nature. Then we hear that the person was incapable of criminal intent to commit the murders in question because he or she suffered from a serious mental disorder. I do not mean a minor bout of hysteria because the person was in a bad mood. It takes much more than that. We heard some incredible things during all those trials which were often amplified by some of the media because that increases circulation or makes for good phone-in shows. When I hosted a radio phone-in show, I heard about cases that made people wonder what was going on with the justice system.

Our role as politicians and legislators is not to inflame the debate based on hearsay or statements we cannot really prove. Mr. Hébert touches on the extremely relevant point on whether we are talking about prisoners or patients. Here we are clearly talking about patients. These are people who have been acknowledged as suffering from a serious mental disorder. So if we think the verdict is wrong, Mr. Speaker, there is a solution. You know it as well as I since you are a distinguished jurist.

In the circumstances, if we are not satisfied, that means we can appeal the decision. And if the reported facts are accurate, I believe the Turcotte decision is under appeal. However, if the diagnosis and the judge's decision on the matter were well-established on a balance of probabilities, as provided for by subsection 16(2) of the Criminal Code, as I said earlier, the Court of Appeal will confirm the judge's decision. Otherwise, it will overturn it and rule that the person may not use that defence. It will tell the individual that he or she was aware, was not suffering from a serious mental disorder and, in the circumstances, may not be considered not criminally responsible.

However, we are not at that point. We are dealing with cases in which the individual actually has a serious mental illness and is taken into care by the state. Another system enters into play, therefore. That is what Bill C-54 is trying to do.

I have heard some more incredible things about this. First this was announced by the Conservative government more than three times: first, by the Minister of Justice himself, second, by Senator Boisvenu and, third, by the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, and then by the Prime Minister. We have heard all kinds of things.

After listening to the press conferences, I was eager to read the bill, since it seemed to solve all the problems for victims and all the problems of repeat offenders. I would also add, as an aside, that I am very eager to see the minister’s statistics.

Again, I really urge my colleagues to go and read the vaunted report I was talking about. It is the government’s response, so it is not just the recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, it is the committee’s recommendations and the government’s response to those recommendations. That report shows the low percentage of people who are found not criminally responsible, with all due respect to the Boisvenus of the world who think there are tonnes of them. There are not tonnes.

It is true that the percentage has risen over the years. However, and this is what it does not say, before 1991, if I recall correctly, when the amendment was made to the Criminal Code, the term was changed from “not guilty by reason of insanity” to “not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder”. At that point, summary conviction offences were also added, and this resulted in a lot of cases that had not been covered previously.

Obviously that had an impact on the statistics. According to the government’s responses, we are talking about a tiny percentage of cases where the individuals were found to be not criminally responsible. Of that minute number of repeat offenders, the minister talked about 28% of them who may have already committed an offence. The entire issue is now whether they had committed serious crimes when they had a mental disorder.

You know, as do I, that statistics can be made to say just about anything. So we have to look at this kind of case and stop playing the game that some of the media play. These are not subjects that should be played with to inflame the population. On the contrary, what is really happening has to be explained. We are dealing with something that no one in this House is familiar with, unless perhaps a psychiatrist was elected in the 2011 election, but I doubt that. Unless you are a mental health professional, these are cases that are sometimes incomprehensible in terms of the evidence involved.

I was working in radio at the time, and I recall a crime in my region. A woman had killed her husband, and there was some question of the whole issue of battered wife syndrome. Some absolutely unbelievable discussions ensued. People were surprised that someone could be acquitted of murder because of battered wife syndrome. The person in question was able to leave her home and function. It was proven that very serious mental disorders could arise out of that syndrome. Today, not as many questions are being asked about that syndrome. Things like that need to be toned down.

And so after listening to the press conferences, I thought that the Conservatives were going to delve into the concept from A to Z. The actual statistics show that there may be some exceptional cases in the system, but we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater every time there is a big headline in the newspapers, so they can take it out and about in the ridings.

It is so popular to say that the Conservatives are listening to people, that the issue is complicated, that they have done something, that they will be getting tough on people with mental disorders to make sure that they stay inside at least until they find it is reasonable to let them out.

I look forward to seeing what is going to happen in committee. My colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques very subtly announced that we were going to pass this bill at second reading. It is the sort of issue that deserves this kind of treatment. We always want to try to get rid of the irritants in the legal system for the victims, who are shortchanged in the legal system. They really are and I agree 100%. I do not think the victims will be treated properly with the band-aid solutions that we are getting from this government.

During the press conference given by the Minister of Justice, which Mr. Kennedy attended, Mr. Kennedy said he appreciated the efforts, but that we must not forget that victims must be cared for and given help. This is not what we are seeing in Bill C-54. A clause was added where they can, if they ask, draft something in writing. One of the victims who was with the Prime Minister said that she was unable to write. She said that she was still too close to the whole thing to be able to talk about what happened and so on.

This is not what we are hearing at the Standing Committee on Justice. What we are hearing is that when they are in the system and the trial begins, they become witnesses just like all the other witnesses. They are often treated with even less respect than witnesses in civil and commercial cases. Deals are reached between the Crown and the defence. Then, all we see is someone who is wondering what is happening; the case is closed. Why? Because there has been a deal between the Crown and the defence. I would not call that putting the victims first.

This is what I have been trying to say right from the start. If the government really wants to change things and give the impression that it is taking care of the victims, it has to stop coming up with band-aid solutions. They look okay but they do not do very much.

It is difficult to be against motherhood and apple pie. So when we hear that special care will be taken when a high-risk person is involved, I would like to send out a note of caution to the people of Quebec and people in other regions who have gone through this kind of thing. They may have been witnesses, through the media, to certain events. Will the bill ensure that someone like Dr. Turcotte would be considered high risk? This is certainly not the case when I take a look at the definitions in Bill C-54. It does not seem to come under any of the criteria at all.

I am not clairvoyant, but we have to admit that past behaviour is often a predictor of future behaviour. I can just see the senator touring all around Quebec and parts of Canada and telling people that they listened and solved the problem. I say that is not the case. The title of the bill indicates that this is a reform. The minister may be right in saying that it is a major change because he has made this criterion the most important one of all, except that was already the case in the courts. The courts repeatedly said that public safety was the most important criterion.

Do the Conservatives really believe that a court or a commission would not consider the risk to public safety before releasing a person who was found not criminally responsible for a horrible crime? Do they take the people who sit on commissions or on the benches for idiots? If the answer is yes—that is the impression we sometimes have—they should have made the entire exercise mandatory. What did they do instead? They made it optional. The Conservatives should stop saying that they are not satisfied with the courts and give them the authority to go out and see what is happening.

I will have a lot more to say about this in committee. This time, I hope the minister comes armed with statistics instead of empty talking points. I hope he brings the studies prepared by his department on the bill's constitutionality and compliance with the charter. I can see us keeping someone in prison who will file a writ of habeas corpus. I really do not want to hear that kind of debate.

For all these reasons, we will support the bill at second reading. However, we need to study the bill in detail because we do not want to have more victims. The Conservatives cannot say that punishing someone who is considered ill is a kind of victimization. In this case, all that can be done is to help them heal.

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, March 1st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his speech. I would like to ask him two questions.

First, is public safety not already a consideration of the courts and boards? Is that not the case already? If it is, this bill is somewhat redundant.

Second, many people are interested in another issue. Could the statistics minister tell the members of the House how many people who have been found not criminally responsible have gone on to reoffend and commit heinous crimes? We might be interested in seeing how many of these people became repeat offenders.

[Clarity Act, February 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to all of the debate on this issue. Clearly, this debate is in Quebeckers' genetic makeup. This is a key issue that is not always easy to address.

I listened to the comments made by the member of the Bloc Québécois who gave his speech a few weeks ago. Like many Bloc members, he is always trying to give the impression that only members of the Bloc Québécois or the Parti Quebecois can be proud or respectful of Quebec. As the member for Gatineau, what I often hear in what these members are saying is that, if we are not with them, then we are against them, and we are not sticking up for ourselves.

As a proud Quebecker, I think that, sometimes in life, there are issues that are even more important, such as respect for the rule of law. Everyone—at least everyone in the NDP caucus, since they supported the Sherbrooke declaration—recognizes that Quebec has the right to self-determination, that Quebec is a nation and that, as a nation, Quebec certainly has the right to determine the statute under which it wants to operate. However, even if Quebec is not a signatory to the Constitution, despite what the hon. member for Papineau thinks, Quebec signed administrative agreements and operates under a very specific legal framework.

Much has been written about the issue of a Quebec referendum. Often, it seems that people are walking on eggshells because they are so scared to talk about it. Yet, Quebeckers, the people of my nation, are more open than people may think. It is wrong to think that dotting the is and crossing the ts, or trying to see how Quebec operates will cause mass hysteria.

As the hon. member for Trois-Rivières was saying earlier, when I talk to the people of Gatineau, this is not the first question that I am asked, nor is it the second or the third. Frankly, I am rarely asked anything about it. However, the Bloc Québécois introduced Bill C-457. I am not surprised. That is also part of their genetic makeup. It was time it was done. Given that the Bloc Québécois held the majority of seats for Quebec in the past, I am surprised that the party waited for the mass influx of NDP members and the positive, optimistic offer that Jack Layton made to Quebeckers before it finally woke up and decided that it wanted to repeal the Clarity Act. The party took its time. If this is how the Bloc Québécois takes care of Quebec's interests, then I have some news for them. They introduced the bill, but now it is in our hands.

Bill C-457 is very simple and calls for the “Clarity” Act, introduced by the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, to be repealed. The word “clarity” is in quotation marks because this bill is anything but clear. It was drafted hastily and in a panic.

In 1995, the day after the last referendum in Quebec, all of Canada woke up and realized that the results were very tight. Oddly enough, no one was talking about 60% or 65%. Throughout the night, I was providing commentary on the results for a television station in my region. No one was asking me what would happen if the results reached the majority of 51%. Although we sensed that the results would be tight, no one told me that we had to wait for them to reach 60% or 70%.

There was already a sense of normalcy. We waited to see which side would get the majority at the end of the day. The federalists ended up being successful. However, we cannot forget history. In the House and in Canada and Quebec we often forget our history, which means that we repeat the same mistakes.

What happened? There was a wave of panic, because people realized that they could end up in the middle of a serious constitutional crisis. They were wondering what to do. People were wondering if it would be acceptable had the results been reversed.

Then came the brilliant idea that any government with no backbone, no sense of leadership and no idea what to do would come up with: it sent the issue to the Supreme Court to ask the court to rule on the subject. The Supreme Court rendered its decision in 1998 in the Quebec Secession Reference. What it said was very clear. It had to answer three questions. Under the Canadian Constitution, could the National Assembly, legislature or Government of Quebec effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally? Could they do so unilaterally under international law? Which would take precedence between domestic and international law?

In response to the first question, the Supreme Court said that, yes, negotiations would have to take place if a clear answer were given and if the result were clear. That would force the federal government to sit down with the province that wanted to secede. An obligation would be created.

The Supreme Court was extremely clear. The members of the House will have to decide how they are going to vote on Bill C-457 and how they are going to vote on Bill C-470 introduced by the member for Toronto—Danforth, who has the courage of his convictions and is very faithful to the constitutional law established by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court was very clear in its response: Canada's constitutional law forces the federal government to negotiate once a clear question receives a positive response and a clear result. That question is clearly defined in Bill C-470, so we would have no choice, but what did the Liberal government at the time—that great defender of democracy, values and respect for the charter, the party that cloaked itself in the flag—do? It passed the Clarity Act. I challenge anyone, even those with a law degree, to tell me, with a straight face, that the Clarity Act is a clear piece of legislation.

What it says is very clear: we might negotiate with you but we will look at the results and the question after the fact and then we will decide whether to sit down and negotiate.

Yet that is not at all what the Supreme Court of Canada told the partners in the federation. There must be some form of respect. Things start to get off track when people start to get worked up about Bill C-470. First, this bill does not impose a specific question on Quebec; however, it has the courage to warn Quebec. That is a good negotiating approach. When I negotiate under labour law, I do not tell the opposing party that I will see what I feel like discussing and, if I feel like it, I might talk about something, but then again I might not. Instead, I provide an agenda and I announce how the items on it will be dealt with.

Bill C-470 simply gives the other side, namely, the Quebec nation, two examples of questions that have been deemed appropriate. Those questions could not be overturned and the results could not be called into question.

As others have already mentioned, Canada agreed to allow Newfoundland to enter into the Constitution based on the 50% plus one principle. I am asking those who are telling me that the NDP's constitution requires two-thirds of the votes to leave me alone. If my Gatineau riding association wants to change the NDP's constitution, then a majority has to pass a resolution. Then, it can go to the next level. It is the same thing for Canada.

Once again, for those that think that this bill is not at all democratic, I would like to say that the Clarity Act is undemocratic. What is more, the legal vacuum that the Bloc Québécois is trying to create is even more undemocratic.

As a proud Quebecker, I would be pleased to vote for Bill C-470 and to vote against Bill C-457 and would like to tell Quebeckers that they were right to democratically elect all these people to represent them.

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, February 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate how measured my colleague's speeches are. It seems to me that she did not listen to a word I said or maybe what I said was lost in translation.

On the contrary, measures need to be taken to increase the number of women in the RCMP. However, women wanting to enter these somewhat difficult work settings need reassurance. We need to let them know that we are sending them to work in an environment that is free from every form of harassment. Stories such as what happened over the past few years are not very reassuring at all. And often we only see the tip of the iceberg.

There are some agencies that will come on behalf of the government to say that we must pass Bill C-42. What we are saying is that there were some serious flaws that could have been fixed with a bit of political will. The government shies away from fixing anything if it is the official opposition's idea. That is the problem.