Serge Ménard

[Justice, March 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is thanks to the Bloc Québécois and its defence of Quebec's model for fighting youth crime that in the young offenders bill introduced today, the government specifies that no minor will be imprisoned with adults.

Does that not suggest that under the current system, minors can be imprisoned with adults, contrary to what the Conservatives said during the election campaign?

[Justice, March 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government paid for the distribution of several studies that slam the government's policies in the fight against crime. The government's bogus solution, minimum sentences, are especially criticized, because they “undermine the legitimacy of the courts and the prosecution process” and undermine “equality before the law”.

If the government considers those studies credible enough to be widely distributed, why does it not implement their recommendations and, for starters, stop proposing more minimum sentences?

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, March 9th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that no one here doubts the danger posed by the substances targeted in the bill introduced by the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country.

I am extremely surprised that this government has not yet realized it, especially since two government members are themselves convinced. I am surprised that it has not already included these substances in the schedule of prohibited substances.

I appreciate the response I received. Sometimes, if we can approach legislation in a non-partisan manner, we can work more intelligently. I already understood there was a small difference between the offence set out in the legislation currently before us, which was introduced by the hon. member, and the offences set out concerning other substances that are considered dangerous.

As for other substances, basically, here is what is prohibited: the possession, manufacture, import and above all, possession for the purpose of trafficking—a more serious offence than simple possession. This corresponds to the philosophy of all Canadian legislation that prohibits substances, including narcotics and other kinds of drugs considered dangerous.

This bill has one new aspect, and I would like to elaborate on that part of it. The new aspect is the creation of an offence regarding the possession of certain substances with the intention of manufacturing methamphetamine or ecstasy. The essence of the crime is therefore the intention. I understand that intentions are proven based on circumstances, but one must be familiar with the substances used to manufacture methamphetamine, also known as “ice”, and ecstasy.

The ingredients for methamphetamine include a surprising number of substances. These substances are found in over the counter preparations such as remedies for coughs, colds and allergies. These remedies contain pseudoephedrine and ephedrine. Other substances are found in acetone, rubbing alcohol, isopropyl alcohol, iodine, ether-based starting fluid, gas additives such as methanol, drain cleaners (sulphuric acid) and lithium batteries. I do not think that people are going to open batteries to extract the lithium and then use it in the recipe for “ice”. It is also found in rock salt, matchbooks (red phosphorus), sodium hydroxide, paint thinner, aluminum foil, glassware, coffee filters and propane tanks. These items can be found in almost any home in varying quantities. That is what increases the danger of selling these substances. You do not need specialized knowledge to make them; these substances are easy to find.

In this case, not only do you have to find these substances in someone's home but there must be circumstances that establish that these substances were collected with the intention of manufacturing drugs. Obviously, the intent must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

In the case of possession for the purposes of trafficking, you must prove that there were two intentions: the manufacture and the trafficking of the substance. The intention of a person who has collected all these substances surely is not just to use them but also to deal in them.

Does this offence, which is slightly different from others already set out in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, make a significant contribution to the fight against the use of these two substances?

Why has the government not yet amended the schedules, which, I believe, could be done by order in council or by regulation? Why have these substances not yet been listed in the schedules?

I am not just a father anymore. Eight and a half months ago, I became a grandfather to twin girls. Every day, I understand that Bernard Landry was speaking the truth when he so often said that becoming a parent makes one wise, but becoming a grandparent makes one mad. If I do crazy things now and then, it is because I have reached that stage. All the same, the greatest happiness we can experience is to see our children feel the joy we felt when they were born.

I heard my children talk about these drugs well before they were ready to get engaged and married, which they both did eventually. These drugs have been on the market for a long time.

I do not think that the member's proposed measures are the best way to make these drugs illegal. I realize that he is proposing a nuance that might apply to existing offences, such as possessing anything intended for use in the production of dangerous substances. This nuance may apply to other substances listed in the act that the member wishes to amend.

I know that a private member faces a lot of obstacles when trying to do something he feels is important. I want to give him a chance to defend his bill before the committees in the hope that someday, the government will understand the problem and do what it should have done years ago.

All the same, this bill enables the member to add an important nuance to this kind of offence by specifying that it is not the distinct use of harmless substances such as lighters, gasoline additives and exhaust pipe cleaners that is prohibited, but the accumulation of such things with the intent to produce something dangerous.

I will certainly offer my support and that of my party to further his bill. I think that we should applaud and thank him.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, March 9th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it would not have taken much for the member to convince almost everyone in this House, if they had been here, of the dangers of these drugs, and the importance of prohibiting the trafficking and production of them.

However, there already is legislation that makes these drugs illegal. The member referred to that act and has proposed some amendments. This act has four schedules, in which drugs are classified according to how dangerous they are.

Why have these substances not been added to the schedules of the act before now, which would have made them illegal substances? Why do we need a new act to amend the schedules of another act?

[Alexandre Bilodeau, March 9th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, a Quebecker won the first gold medal on Canadian soil. Alexandre Bilodeau grew up in Rosemère, in a riding that bears the name of the great artist Marc-Aurèle Fortin. And Alexandre showed us that he too is a great artist.

Freestyle mogul skiing is an extremely demanding sport. His dangerous backflip with two twists, which he was the first to master, is a beautiful but dangerous jump. The rest of his run and the second jump were executed with perfect control, as though it were an easy feat.

The perfection of style gave us an aesthetic show of great beauty as well as an extraordinary sports performance. Too bad it was so short.

But it was tremendously rewarding for Alexandre, and for his family and friends who gave him so much support and encouragement.

This stunning victory revealed a charming person surrounded by an enthusiastic big brother, his best friend, an elated sister, and lovely parents, a family that has already touched our hearts.

[Petitions, March 8th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I was already standing to move a motion before you called the items. I would like to move my motion now.

This is a very short motion and I suspect all hon. members will agree with it since I do not know any MP in this Parliament who would disagree with abolishing as quickly as possible the chance for an inmate to get parole after serving one-sixth of his sentence in some cases. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-434, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (day parole — six months or one sixth of the sentence rule) be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole, deemed considered in Committee of the Whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage, and deemed read a third time and passed.

This would abolish the chance of parole at one-sixth of the sentence.

[White collar Crime, March 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, Earl Jones' victims had the unpleasant surprise of being required by Revenue Canada to pay tax on profits they have never received. While Revenu Québec promises to be accommodating, the member for Lévis—Bellechasse says that a determination will be made on a case-by-case basis and within the parameters of the law. But it is precisely the Income Tax Act that is problematic.

Will the Minister of National Revenue change the law to allow these victims to deduct the losses resulting from these fraudsters' schemes?

[Committees of the House, March 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I feel extremely confident about asking the House for unanimous consent to pass a motion. I know of not a single member of the House who does not believe that we should eliminate the provisions that allow people sentenced to jail time to walk away after serving just one-sixth of their sentence, particularly when the courts have recently handed down some of the harshest sentences for some of the most serious frauds ever committed in Canada and when the media are suggesting to everyone that they should divide those numbers by six. The purpose of Bill C-434 is to eliminate two little provisions in existing legislation. That is why it is one of the shortest bills ever.

I therefore request the unanimous consent of the House to adopt the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-434, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (day parole — six months or one sixth of the sentence rule), be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole, deemed considered in Committee of the Whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at the report stage and deemed read a third time and passed.

Consent would demonstrate the unanimous desire of the House to get rid of these provisions as quickly as possible.

[Firearms Registry, December 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Suzanne Laplante-Edward, mother of Anne-Marie Edward, who was killed when just 21 years old in the École Polytechnique massacre, deplores the fact that the Conservative government is perversely dismantling the firearms registry. By relaxing firearms controls, the Conservatives are attacking, and I quote, “the monument erected in memory of our young women.”

When will this government acknowledge that the firearms registry helps prevent violence against women?

[Firearms Registry, November 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I met with officials from the federation, and a number of them told me that their wives did not agree.

The Government of Quebec is urging the federal government to transfer this responsibility, and the funds that go with it. Quebec believes in gun control.

Will the Prime Minister comply with this request from the Quebec nation?