Serge Ménard

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, April 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I was not prepared to talk about this issue this morning, but I can say that I agree that members of the RCMP should have the right to freedom of association, a right that has been recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada. There is an officer whose name I have forgotten, but I remember the case well because I have read it several times and talked about it often. I could not find it in my computer's memory this morning, but it is there somewhere.

In the past, the Bloc Québécois has introduced private members' bills to enable people to exercise their right to free association. The officer whose name I have forgotten lost his case, but he lost it on the grounds that the union would have been part of the general public service union. The Supreme Court's decision rested on the fact that if there is to be a police union, it must be separate from public service unions because its members may, in the course of their duties, find themselves in certain positions. However, the Supreme Court ruling did not say that they do not have the right to form a union.

Therefore, I agree completely. It has occurred to me that, should I have the opportunity to introduce a bill, this subject would be my second choice, my first being the protection of journalistic sources. We will support a bill if it is well written and complies with the framework the Supreme Court has set out. Frankly, I think that your party is one of the reasons for this delay because this case was before the Supreme Court before 2006, even before 2004. I think it happened in the last millennium.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, April 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. colleague about the RCMP not having adequate resources at this time. Not only does it lack resources, but it is constantly being given new duties. But that is not the issue here. I also completely agree with the previous speakers who denounced the way the RCMP was treated at the time of the last wage increase. RCMP members were told they would receive a certain wage increase, and that amount was later reduced. It seems to me that when a promise is made, it must be kept. True, in private companies, where some people were especially well paid, employees agreed to reductions, but again, those wage reductions were negotiated. We have not yet reached the point where wage reductions are necessary in the public service. When a promise is made, people have every right to expect that that promise will be kept.

Now the RCMP faces other problems. In my opinion, some duties should be given to independent agencies. For instance, forensic laboratories come to mind. We would see increased credibility if those labs did not report to the police forces, given that they are called upon to testify in courts of law where they must appear completely independent and unbiased towards either the prosecution or defence. Furthermore, they have so many duties that turnaround times are getting longer and longer.

I learned this week that the RCMP's budget is being reduced this year. I had the figures yesterday—I do not remember the exact number—but it is several tens of thousands of dollars anyway. I do not understand such decisions. However, that is not the problem at issue in the bill before us. For this bill, we hope to reach a consensus to bring forward the necessary changes.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, April 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is concerned about how members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who have reached retirement age are treated. Many of them have had to make major sacrifices in the name of freedom and justice. Many of them have put their own lives and safety on the line. The Bloc is also aware that the RCMP is having some recruitment problems, and we believe that recognizing years of service with provincial or municipal police services could be part of the solution.

To ensure that all members of the RCMP receive just and fair treatment, the Bloc Québécois will support this bill at second reading so that it can go to committee. That way, we will hear what various witnesses have to say and we will be able to take a thorough look at parts of this bill that raise issues. Studying the bill in committee will give us a chance to call witnesses from various groups so that they can all have their say about Bill C-18.

During this time of economic crisis, and given the fragile state of public finances, the Bloc Québécois is also concerned about sound management of public funds. That is why we are committed to a thorough examination of the viability of the RCMP pension fund and all possible financial repercussions of this bill.

On March 9, the Minister of Public Safety introduced Bill C-18 at first reading. Bill C-18 amends the pension plan created under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act. Principal changes to the act provide the necessary powers to broaden past service provisions and to implement pension transfer agreements. Past service means buying back years of service for entitlement to a full pension. Bill C-18 sets the cost of buying back service according to actuarial rules. According to information from the Library of Parliament, the member is responsible for the cost of buying back past years of service. Buy-back can be financed through the member's former pension plan.

This bill contains a number of very technical provisions. I share the view that promoting lateral entries from one police force to another is a good thing. In general, I share the concerns of the members who have already spoken that people who have been in a job for a certain length of time and who are no longer happy do not perform at their best. When they stay in a job just because they want to keep their pension benefits, they do not perform at their best. If they are allowed to change jobs and transfer their pensions, they will start their new jobs with new enthusiasm, contribute fully and be much more effective. The various technical provisions will be studied in committee.

The RCMP divisional representatives in Quebec have some concerns. For example, until a legislative change was made, the time spent in training by cadets, as recruits are known, was included in their pensionable service. According to the RCMP divisional representatives in Quebec, though, the definitions in Bill C-18 still do not recognize the years RCMP cadets spent in training. According to the RCMP, this is an anomaly, because under Bill C-18, recruit training in provincial and municipal police forces would be recognized when officers join the RCMP, at least, for all the officers coming from police forces in Ontario and Manitoba.

The Bloc Québécois will look at all of this in committee and will benefit from the testimony of the stakeholders. Many members of the RCMP will soon be receiving their pensions. The figure of 1,600 was mentioned. These police officers will have to be replaced. It is important that potential members continue to know that they are exposed to certain risks, but that those risks are offset by attractive salaries and pensions.

Therefore, we want this bill to go to committee so that we can hear all the stakeholders.

[Gun Registry, April 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I do not see why mandatory minimums would have better results than the 7-year minimum prison terms for importing marijuana 20 years ago.

The Conservatives want to abolish the gun registry and the Liberals and the NDP dither because they have no party line on the matter. In fact, the Liberals and the NDP are giving in to the Conservatives' blackmail.

Will the government end its obsession with abolishing the registry or will it give Quebec the authority to manage the gun registry for itself? That is what the Government of Quebec and all stakeholders are asking for.

[Gun Registry, April 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, everyone in Quebec agrees that the gun registry is vital to the integrated and effective fight against crime. The Prime Minister's new light version is no better than his member's bill. The goal is the same: to abolish the current gun registry. The Prime Minister has even asked Canada's hunters to push for abolition of the registry.

Why does the Prime Minister refuse to listen to the survivors of the Dawson College shooting, such as Mr. Kadhim, who wrote a letter asking him to maintain the gun registry?

[RCMP, March 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, a link between tasers and deaths is becoming increasingly clear, especially when an individual is shocked repeatedly with blasts lasting more than 15 seconds. The RCMP's written guidelines used to state, “Unless situational factors dictate otherwise, do not cycle the CEW repeatedly, no more than 15-20 seconds at a time, against a subject.” But just days before appearing before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, the commissioner has that sentence stricken from the guidelines.

Was an explanation provided to the minister to explain this odd move, and does this not affect his confidence in the commissioner?

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, March 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to provide a little history lesson for the previous speaker.

I am old enough that I had never heard of marijuana when I started practising law in 1966. I heard of it when I became a crown prosecutor. At the time, the marijuana grown here was not very strong at all. It did not have any THC, the active ingredient.

I saw the marijuana phenomenon begin around 1966 and continually increase in the 1970s. All the marijuana consumed in Canada came from elsewhere.

And what was the minimum sentence for importing marijuana? Seven years in prison. I saw people sent up for seven years. The time came when that just did not make any sense and they stopped doing it. But I saw people sent up.

Do the members not think that seven years was enough to be dissuasive? And if seven years was not enough, does this not prove that prison is not dissuasive. People do not even know what they are risking.

[Gun Registry, March 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec has created joint forces like the Wolverine squad and has achieved spectacular results in the fight against criminal organizations such as the Hell's Angels.

Quebec believes in the motto ”not tough on crime, but smart on crime“. Moreover, the youth crime rate is 50% higher in Canada than it is in Quebec.

Why would Canada not emulate the successes in Quebec rather than the failures in the United States?

[Gun Registry, March 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the crime rate in Quebec is one of the lowest in Canada, and the homicide rate five times less than the U.S. rate. The battle against crime is waged far better by a whole set of measures, such as well-targeted police actions and prevention programs, than by tougher sentences . Minimum sentences mean nothing to criminals.

Quebec believes that gun control is an essential element in an integrated and effective battle against crime. Why deprive it of this when it is getting better results than others are?

[Gun Registry, March 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, last Saturday the Prime Minister called upon all hunters to lobby their MPs to vote in favour of a private member's bill which would considerably weaken the gun registry. This bill has angered everyone in Quebec. For example, the head of the Police Brotherhood has expressed his outrage at this desire to reduce the control over firearms.

Since the Conservatives do not want this registry, are they going to follow up on the request by the Government of Quebec and transfer to it the necessary powers and resources to enable it to maintain the registry within Quebec?