Serge Ménard

[Firefighters, June 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that we will support this motion to erect a monument. It is surprising that we have to vote on such a motion today. In my opinion, such a monument should have been built a long time ago.

We honour those who gave their lives during the war. Each year, we also pay tribute to police officers who died in the line of duty. Firefighters are also heroes for peace. They deserve to have a monument, because they risk their lives. I should point out here that, while they risk their lives, they do so while making increasingly better judgment calls and actually risk it only when it is justified to do so.

Personally, I have had a lot of contacts with that profession and that I knew a little something about, like everyone else. I saw firefighters from very close up once, when my neighbours' house was burning. Heavens, I was happy to see the equipment they had to prevent the fire from spreading from house to house on our street. However, it was as Quebec minister of public security, a position I held for several years, that I got to know them better.

The first thing that struck me was the young people entering this profession. In many cases, it is very much like a calling, passed down from father to son, and even from father to daughter nowadays, since there are more and more women in the profession, and eventually from mother to son and from mother to daughter. They are entering the profession as if they were called to do so. All want to be heroes one day. They also believe they will have the courage to overcome obstacles if lives have to be saved. They also share the values of solidarity characteristic of the calling. They develop esprit de corps, team spirit.

In recent years, I have noticed in particular that they can increasingly make a distinction between courage and temerity. We can say that temerity is not courage. Every firefighter I know and have met was courageous.

One function I fulfilled every chance I had—almost yearly while I was the Minister of Public Safety—was to award decorations for bravery. It will come as no surprise to members that nearly half the decorations for bravery awarded were awarded to firefighters. The time I was most impressed and most deeply moved was when I awarded one of these decorations to a firefighter who had entered a room in flames. He had just heard that there was still an infant in that room. There were active flames, but he entered the room anyway and was engulfed in flames himself. He did, however, manage to protect the baby and take it out of the room.

Sadly, he will be disfigured for the rest of his life. He suffered many burns to his face, which could be corrected surgically, but only to some extent. He will also have lifelong disabilities affecting his limbs and, thus, his movements. But that was a truly extraordinary feat, an outstanding show of human solidarity. Today, the infant has grown into a child. This firefighter is still an adult, but one with disabilities.

Other firefighters have lost their lives under difficult and unpredictable circumstances. There was a terrible accident in Warwick, Quebec, where four firefighters were approaching a fire. A propane tank exploded and killed all four.

We would like to see the fewest possible names on this monument. However, despite all the precautions, despite the increasing professionalism of this job, a fire is in itself something out of the ordinary, and during the course of extraordinary events, accidents happen. People have to take well-planned initiatives and be ready to risk their lives.

Not only will this monument be erected in memory of those who have died, but it will also recognize those still living who display the same bravery as their lost colleagues.

Another thing that struck me is that the firefighting profession is increasingly becoming a true lifesaving profession. The most recent tragedy in Quebec occurred on June 6 and involved a young volunteer firefighter who was practising water rescue exercises. I noticed that among the decorations I have presented, several were bestowed on firefighters for acts of bravery, many of which occurred on the water. These acts require not just bravery, but a remarkable tolerance to pain. Some of these rescues took place in frigid waters.

Firefighters learn to save lives in a host of circumstances. They know what to do, and they do not hesitate to jump into icy water when necessary to rescue someone who would have lost their life.

Over time, this trade is becoming more professional and better developed, but the values of the past, including human courage, remain necessary. The dangers facing firefighters are increasingly varied. Other members have alluded to the toxicity of the products with which they may come in contact.

I also noted that we can trust them. We do so increasingly, and I hope that we will do it even more. Indeed, we must be able to trust this network, which is there to serve us and to take quick action under all sorts of circumstances, when lives are in danger.

In fact, these professional rescue workers are the first to respond. A number of them are now learning how to use defibrillators. Firefighters are usually closer to people than ambulance attendants and can therefore be on the scene more quickly.

I was very impressed when I travelled to New York to visit a fire station, just as I had visited a police station. I wanted to see how the role of firefighters had expanded significantly when they became true rescue workers. One thing that struck me in New York was when they told me that, most of the time, they would change crews on the road, because there were so many interventions. I have always remembered that some of the firefighters I met were among the 350 who died in the World Trade Center. This shows once again the great courage of these professionals.

The role of firefighters is growing and expanding to include prevention. I have noticed their professionalism in this regard as well. They are trying to broaden their knowledge in order to reduce the loss of human life.

Obviously, we fully support having a monument built. I am sorry it comes so late. In my opinion, it should have been done a lot sooner. Obviously, I want to see as few names as possible on it. Still, firefighters, like our war heroes, must be remembered because they are our heroes in peacetime.

[Info-Cult, June 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 25th anniversary of Info-Cult, an organization whose unique, intelligent and exemplary efforts in Quebec help prevent the exploitation of vulnerable people by cults.

Generally, the leaders of these movements use so-called new religions as a front for abusing their members. They exploit members' vulnerability, take over all their assets, or even require sexual favours. Mutilation and death can even be the final outcome. Everyone will recall the tragic events associated with the cult of Moïse Thériault as well as the Order of the Solar Temple.

The way to limit, if not totally eliminate, this type of exploitation is by amassing objective knowledge based on facts and making these known to the public. Info-Cult has been doing just that for the past 25 years.

The people at Info-Cult can be proud of what they have accomplished. I respect and congratulate them for all their efforts over the years. Long may they continue. Let us hope that it does not take another dramatic event like the Solar Temple mass suicides before the importance of such a worthwhile undertaking gains proper recognition.

[Maher Arar Inquiry, June 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am beginning to think the government is creating commissions of inquiry in order to avoid answering questions.

This decision, both thoughtless and deplorable, resulted in Maher Arar's ending up in Syria and being tortured.

How could the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness allow CSIS to go over the head of a minister in making decisions?

[Maher Arar Inquiry, June 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, last week, we learned that the U.S. had proposed to Canadian authorities that Maher Arar be returned to Canada, but that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS, said no.

How could the government say no and refuse to ensure the safety and protection of a Canadian?

[Public Safety, June 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, over $500 million was spent to speed the movement of truck traffic across borders, so that security measures are not excessively detrimental to our economy. In the meantime, the RCMP is dragging its feet when it comes to checking the criminal records of candidates for federal public service jobs. People are waiting at least four months and sometimes even over a year before their fingerprints are analyzed. As a result, a number of applicants lose employment for which they were deemed qualified, and many students are not able to take the summer job in their field of study.

Is it too much to ask that people be treated with the same care and speed as trucks?

[Criminal Code, May 17th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, rather like the speaker before me, the member for Northumberland—Quinte West, I have a hard time linking the aim of this bill and the methods it employs. I do not know the member for Langley's experience in criminal law, but he made a number of surprising statements.

First, the fine to be imposed for an initial offence is $1,000 or three months in prison, but not both. In the case of a second offence, the fine is $5,000 and for a third, it is $10,000. Is it really such a good idea to tell the judge the matter is to be resolved by fines?

I do not know who prepared that composite sketch of a car thief. I have had 27 years in the practice of criminal law, and I can say that the individuals involved in car theft vary considerably. They can be organized groups that get hold of cars, dismantle them and sell the parts. Then there is a real problem that must be dealt with in Montreal, Vancouver and near the major ports, where individuals slip luxury cars quickly into containers and sell them outside the country. The problem is many-faceted. There are also many young people who steal cars, young men, in particular. Men and women are equal, but young men are more attracted or fascinated by cars and are keen to drive them. That is another motivation.

What message is sent with the establishment of minimum fines and the reduction of the maximum sentence? That is what the bill does. Today, there are few cars costing less than $5,000. The maximum sentence for stealing a car worth over $5,000 is 10 years.

Must we explain to the hon. member the reasoning used by the appeal courts on the severity of crimes? Appeal courts have always held that this was the legislator's responsibility and the legislator's decision is based on the maximum sentence allocated to a specific type of crime. The hon. member says this is a serious crime, but wants to decrease the maximum sentence. So he sends the message to the legislator that it is only half as serious. I am absolutely certain that is not his intent, but that is objectively what he is doing within the current sentencing philosophy in Canada.

He then seems to move on to some magical thinking. He says that we are very soft in Canada. How can he say such a thing? What would give him an idea of the severity with which we impose sentences in Canada? If I were to give the number of people imprisoned in Canada, compared to our total population, and compared that to the ratio in other countries, would that give a good idea of how harsh our country is compared to others?

I would like you to know that, according to the most recent statistics, Canada is not one of the harshest countries in the world. We have 101 people in prison per 100,000 population. That is higher than the figure for the EU, which is 87, and France, 77. Do we really feel less safe if we are in France? There is one other possible question: do we really feel safer in the U.S. than in Canada? Their figure is 689 per 100,000 population. They have even managed to beat out Russia, where there are 673 people in prison per 100,000 population.

Canadians feel less secure in the United States. They are mistaken, except on one point. The fact is that the rate of homicides in the United States is significantly higher than it is in Canada. In my opinion, it is due much more to arms control—which we had already in part and now have completely—than to incarceration.

In addition, one of the countries where people are safer and where fewer cars are stolen is Japan. There, 50 people per 100,000 inhabitants are in jail, therefore, half of Canada's figure.

I think these are false impressions, but I understand them. Over the years, I have worked in criminal law as a crown prosecutor and defence counsel. I know full well that, fundamentally, the public is very badly informed about crime. For example, we all have the impression that crime is on the rise, generally. According to the statistics, however, it is decreasing.

I wanted to speak of another criterion, that of the minimum sentence which will reduce offences. Here again, if I mentioned a minimum of seven years' imprisonment, would you not consider this a significant minimum with the potential to discourage people from doing the illegal act it sanctions? Consider that, when I first started practising law, I had never heard of marijuana. It was not mentioned. That gives you an idea of my age. I was called to the bar in 1966. I learned about marijuana in the course of my duties as a lawyer. By the end of the 1960s, beginning of the 1970s, marijuana had spread in Canada. Still, no plant grown in Canada was fit to be consumed. So everything came from outside the country. The minimum sentence for importing marijuana was seven years.

First, people are not aware there are minimum sentences. Even I, a criminal lawyer, would have trouble naming the 30-odd minimum sentences in the Criminal Code. So, people are not aware of them. Crimes are committed for completely different motives. Reasonable people are discouraged by harsh legislation, but they are rarely if ever the ones committing crimes. People would commit such crimes if there were no laws at all. Reasonable people are not the ones committing crimes. Crimes are impulsive actions committed by certain segments of the population.

One of these days, I will tell the House about the inquiries I conducted as the Quebec minister of public safety and responsible for Quebec prisons. These inquiries focussed on the kind of people in prison. Their past is a major factor. So, it is a fantasy to believe that minimum sentences work.

The other example that should convince the House is the death penalty. This is the most radical sentence there is, right? It was the penalty for murder. Since Canada abolished the death penalty, has the homicide rate increased? No, it has decreased. So there are other factors involved.

My final example is appropriate, because it goes in the other direction. There are mandatory minimum sentences for repeat drinking-and-driving offences. These minimum sentences have not changed in 15 years. The legislation has not been tightened. Yet, in 15 years, we have made remarkable progress in lowering the number of drinking-and-driving offences. How? Through increased enforcement, in particular, and education.

Teenagers are a good example. When they have a party, they are responsible enough to choose a designated driver. When I was a teenager, this was unheard of. So education and other means have reduced the number of offences.

The member raised an important issue. Auto theft is not important solely when it is a crime committed by young people, but also when it is also committed by organized crime. However, as the member for Northumberland—Quinte West explained so clearly, there are numerous sentences prescribed for the terrible and very serious cases he described involving fatal hit-and-runs.

This is a good bill, but these are terrible ways to attack the problem.

[Alan B. Gold, May 17th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, Alan B. Gold, a former judge, passed away on Sunday. He was a great humanist who loved both social harmony and classical music.

He was a great judge and an effective judicial administrator. Beyond applying the law, he was, for me, the incarnation of one of the ideals of the judicial system: peaceful conflict resolution.

Justice Gold gave expression to this intrinsic value through his great talent as a negotiator. The strikes by longshoremen at the Port of Montreal, Canada Post workers, Vidéotron employees and the Oka crisis were all mediated by him and are conclusive evidence of the importance he ascribed to social harmony.

He was considered a wise, empathetic, funny and simple man who had an extraordinary sense of civic duty and was a example for us all. Our society has suffered a great loss.

[Criminal Code, April 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-215, its essence being to add minimum sentencing for the use of a firearm in the commission of an offence.

First I want to explain why—I know, but few people seem to realize—legislated minimums are ineffective. In Canada, we have striking examples of this.

The most striking example is that of marijuana. When I passed the bar in 1966, I had never heard of marijuana. I heard about it when I started practising for the federal crown. The number of marijuana related charges had increased significantly. At the time, marijuana was not grown in Canada any that could be found here did not have any hallucinatory effect.

Marijuana arrived during what was called the flower power era, with the hippies and all that. It started becoming immensely popular at the end of the 1960s and during the 1970s. All this marijuana came from outside Canada. What was the sentence for importing marijuana into the country? It was seven years. Frankly, if the minimums had been effective I think they would have prevented much of this drug from entering Canada.

However, my experience as a criminal lawyer made me realize that almost no one who risked importing marijuana—most often, mules on behalf of others—knew that the penalty was a minimum of seven years' imprisonment. In fact, much of the time, people are not even aware that there is a minimum sentence.

Later, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the provision of a minimum sentence for importing marijuana. No marked increase in marijuana use, which had peaked, ensued. This level remains unchanged today.

The second very clear example demonstrating that minimum sentences are not effective is the death penalty. Since Canada abolished the death penalty, murder convictions have continued to drop. In fact, the murder rate has continued to decline. Once again, this clearly shows that the deterrent effect of very harsh sentences has almost no impact on the offence rate.

There is a third example. This is an increasingly rare offence. In fact, the legislation has not really been amended to make the penalties harsher, but rather there have been changes in terms of enforcement and, above all, public awareness campaigns. I am talking about impaired driving.

There were minimum sentences, and there still are. They are the same, that is 15 days in jail, I believe, for a second offence, and three months for a repeat offence. We have, however, seen a considerable decrease in the number of offences.

I remember when the police started using roadblocks and roadside testing. The success rate was about 10%, that is, 10% of the people stopped were driving impaired. Today the figure is barely 1%. Today there are fewer people driving impaired, as a result of this sampling and all kinds of other measures, such as more severe sentences, stricter enforcement of the law and the use of roadblocks, but above all changing attitudes.

This is not surprising, when we know that, in the end, dissuasion and dissuasive penalties generally have limited results.

Those who are calling for harsher penalties really believe that, if the risk is greater, people will likely think twice before committing a crime. Anyone who has a bit of insight into criminal nature will realize that this has relatively little impact. Evidence and experience from the past can teach us some things.

For example, I remember a case in which a British Columbia appeal judge referred to the fact that there was a time when England hanged pickpockets. At the hangings, the fascinated spectators would be robbed by other pickpockets.

In addition, if the imposition of stiffer sentences and greater use of incarceration did indeed reduce crime, one would expect the country with the highest number of incarcerations would have a lower crime rate. According to the latest available statistics, which are from 2001, Canada imprisons 101 persons for every 100,000 inhabitants, and the United States, 689 persons for every 100,000 inhabitants, or nearly 7 times as many.

Do we really think the crime rate is lower in the United States than it is in Canada? In fact, general criminality is comparable. The net increase in the United States is in homicides, where an individual's chances of being a victim are three and a half times greater than in Canada. And yet, some states still retain the death sentence.

In addition, there is the fact that people are poorly informed about what goes on in the courts and give it only passing thought. When people judge criminals in order to have them sentenced, they realize it is much more complex than they thought.

Another example is the rate of crime and incarceration in France of 70 persons per 100,000 and therefore lower than in Canada. In France, however, juries determine the sentence in addition to guilt, while in Canada they determine guilt only, and judges subsequently impose a sentence.

When we consider individual cases, we realize that the problem of sentencing is much more complex than it first appears, and so we think that harsher sentences will lower the crime rate.

There is, however, one measure that makes a difference and that is gun control. Long before the legislation was introduced by Allan Rock, the former justice minister, we controlled guns, especially pistols, in use in Canada.

Canada's crime rate is three and a half times lower than that of the United States. They say this will not prevent the real criminals from getting hold of weapons. Perhaps, but people who commit crimes using a gun, people who kill, are not necessarily hardened criminals. There are all sorts of reasons why they are driven to commit a crime, including anger or jealousy.

According to the statistics, there are eight times as many women shot by their spouses in the United States as in Canada.

It must also be acknowledged that a minimum sentence means, necessarily, accepting that there will be some injustices. There will be cases where the judge will be convinced that the minimum sentence is too severe, but will have to impose it. Setting minimums indicates a lack of confidence in our judges. I know that some of the public share that view.

Generally, we have limited information about what goes on in our courtrooms. I can remember reading some newspaper articles on sentencing that I found enlightening. The author compared the number of reasons given by judges to justify sentencing to the number reported in the press.

Judges would give 7 to 12 different reasons to justify a sentence. However, the papers would report only two or three and generally the most sensational.

Nonetheless, if some sentences handed down by judges seem unreasonable, which is possible in a country as vast as ours, these sentences can be appealed in a court of appeal. In my opinion, to convince us that a minimum is important, a case should not be heard in first instance. Cases should be limited to those before the court of appeal.

Furthermore, this legislation borders on the ridiculous because it adds 15 years to life imprisonment for certain crimes. The author did not seem to know that the minimum sentence for murder is life imprisonment. He wanted to add 15 years to the life sentence if murder is committed with a firearm. The difference in the various sentences handed down according to type of murder lies in the length of time before being eligible for parole.

It seems the author of this legislation never heard of that. It is as ridiculous as in the United States, where they hand down sentences of 200 years in prison, or three life sentences, and so forth. Here we would have that same anomaly, life in prison plus 15 years.

[RCMP and Law Enforcement in Canada, April 12th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, in my opinion, the subject of tonight's debate is extremely broad. I thought it would be more useful to select a single aspect and talk about it in detail.

So, I will talk about something that is extremely important to the RCMP, even if it is not currently in the news. I am talking about protecting women from the sexual advances and sometimes even abuse they may be subject to within the organization and how such cases must be handled.

My goal is not to cause undue problems for the government, but rather to contribute to improving human relations within the important organization that the RCMP is. My goal is to convince the government to act.

I want to talk about the case of Sergeant Blundell, with the RCMP in Calgary. He specialized in infiltrating criminal gangs and he apparently got numerous murder convictions because he gained the trust of the murderers. It also seems that, to gain this trust, he felt it was necessary to have a female officer come along and pretend to be his girlfriend. Drinking alcohol was always part of how he gained the trust of his targets and, sometimes, started before they arrived. Most of the time, the evening ended at a hotel where, coincidentally, there were never two rooms available and, once, not even two beds.

Four of these female officers complained that Sergeant Blundell made sexual advances over the course of the evening and specifically after the targets had left, when his words and actions became increasingly aggressive. Apparently Sergeant Blundell ripped the blouse of one of the complainants in an elevator in order to touch her breast. Another complainant was allegedly so inebriated that he managed to take full advantage of her.

The four female officers filed a complaint and sued the RCMP for damages they alleged suffering. In their court action, they complained of the many obstacles they met in pursuing their complaint and the little cooperation they had had from the authorities.

The woman the accused took advantage of complained in July 1999 and was told she would have to meet the investigators. The meeting did not take place until September 2 and, again, in a hotel room. Two months later, on November 23, she was asked to make her deposition again, this time before a video camera. Three months later, on February 22, she was asked for another statement. This time when she wanted to use an office, she was told to make her statement in the corridor of a hotel in front of the elevator doors. She was asked for another statement on May 4, 2000, and another on May 18.

Prior to the hearing of the adjudication committee, she was unable to meet with the lawyer who would be arguing her case. She asked to reread her statements before testifying. She was not permitted to do so. The committee concluded after a very thorough examination of the evidence that the policewoman had consented to the sexual relations. It criticized both those involved of unprofessional conduct, but decided that no infraction of the code of discipline was involved.

I acknowledge finding the decision convincing. However, after reading all the allegations in the female officer's case about the difficulties caused her before she submitted her claim to an adjudication committee, I must admit I have serious doubts, especially since the committee seemed quite unaware that the relationship was between superior and subordinate. In addition, it seems to me, as a former criminal lawyer, that it was material to present what is known as similar act evidence. The preliminaries in all three cases seemed so similar. This was, however, not done.

In the case of the two other policewomen, the matter will be on the basis of admission. The committee hearing it advises that discussions between lawyers continued for a long time before the prosecution and the defence agreed on a presentation of the facts.

In essence, Sergeant Blundell acknowledges having touched the private parts of one of the women and grasped the breast of another, when none of this behaviour was part of the infiltration scenarios.

After expressing shock at the behaviour of Sergeant Blundell, the committee imposed a warning: cancellation of one ADR day and a recommendation of counselling from a specialist. I believe an ADR is a paid day when the constable can attend to personal matters for certain reasons.

The committee took it for granted that the sexual touching by Constable Blundell—his rank at the time—was done without the consent of the female officers, even if the admissions made no reference to that point. It appears obvious under the circumstances.

It must, however, be realized that this absence of consent is of considerable importance, since deliberate sexual touching without the consent of the person touched constitutes a sexual offence under the Criminal Code. I believe that counsel for Sergeant Blundell was perfectly aware of that in the course of the long discussions that led up to the joint statement of facts. At any rate, I learned that all of these facts, including the allegations of the fourth policewoman which were not supported by sufficiently credible evidence to justify an adjudication committee, were submitted to the office of the Crown in Calgary, where it was concluded that there were no grounds for criminal proceedings.

The final outcome was, therefore, a warning and possibly the loss of a day's pay. I would point out that, in Quebec, when a police officer is alleged to have committed criminal conduct, this must be assessed by the Crown prosecutors of a district other then the one in which the officer works. The purpose of this is to avoid the possibility that those required to pass judgment on the officer may have developed a friendship with him through working relationships.

Before concluding, I will add that the four policewomen all complained about the many persistent pressures they and one of their spouses have been under not to follow through with their accusations. They have also suffered greatly from these incidents at their workplace. So, they pursued their court action and, in August, a press release came out, announcing, amid almost total indifference from the press because of the summer holidays, that there had been an out of court settlement to the mutual satisfaction of all parties. The release added in cryptic fashion that the allegations of the prosecution had not been proven in court. That goes without saying, since there was no trial.

One cannot say, however, that the RCMP management was insensitive. It had one of its senior officers, Chief Superintendent Ian Atkins, investigate the entire matter. Superintendent Atkins produced a voluminous 114-page report containing 11 recommendations. I requested this report. An almost completely expurgated copy of it was provided to me. In fact, the only remaining fragments deal with discussions about points of law concerning the interpretation of the act and regulations. I know that 11 recommendations were made but have the text of none.

I understand that there might be a wish to keep some police investigation techniques in murder cases secret, but it is obvious that when this document was expurgated, there was another philosophy at work. It is this philosophy that has to be changed, the idea that in law enforcement organizations, the weaknesses and sins of members have to be hidden, things worked out behind closed doors, the dirty linen washed in private, as they say. This is the same philosophy that seems to have existed in the Church at one time with regard to pedophilia. The modern and reassuring approach should be that when members of a respectable organization commit an error in judgment, and more so when they commit a crime, they should be treated the same way as other individuals guilty of the same improprieties. And this should be able to be done in all transparency.

After thoroughly examining this pathetic and, I hope, rare case, I cannot help but be very concerned about the situation for women in the RCMP. I believe that any reasonable person reading all the documents available on this matter would share this concern. Only the establishment of a clear and transparent policy could reassure us.

For the first time in its history, the RCMP is accountable to a woman, a lawyer. I am sure she would not want us to continue to worry and that she would want a policy to be established and disseminated in order to help potential sexual abuse victims within the RCMP. I am confident that I can expect that of her.

[Supply, April 7th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I cannot seriously believe that, in light of the Gomery commission, these are your fears about what will happen in connection with the search for the answers everyone has been waiting for, including the Liberals, when they were in opposition. It is not an issue all that different from what has been going on currently in the House.

I am, however, absolutely certain that times are changing. Canada's level of education has risen considerably. It will be possible to find juries, well instructed by judges, capable of making decisions.

In any case, we are perhaps at the start of an appeal process. It could well be a long one, so that, if another trial is ordered, it will probably be held long after the findings of the commission of inquiry. This would not be the first time, either, that a person was put on trial following a commission of inquiry.

I myself think today, as most of the jurisprudence demonstrates, that the best jury is not the least informed. The best jury is an informed one, which gets tonnes of information in the press it has not got the time to verify and, while it sits in court and hears testimony, it is in the best position to decide on the evidence. It is perfectly capable of differentiating between prejudices it might have acquired from scanning the papers and evidence to which it gives careful attention during the trial. Generally speaking as well, it follows the judge's instructions carefully and honours its promise to judge only on the evidence.

The idea that legal proceedings are currently holding up a commission of inquiry—one which you appear to consider useful—strikes me as totally illusory. That is why I do not understand your resistance today.

We, and Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada especially, have everything to gain by bringing the rivalry between CSIS and the RCMP to light and finding out who is involved in infiltration and a lot of other things.