44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 7, 2022 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, Quebec's Bill 96 makes federally regulated businesses subject to the Charter of the French Language, but the Liberals' Bill C‑13 contradicts Bill 96 and gives businesses the choice to make French optional.
For the Quebec Community Groups Network, offering this choice already goes too far. Yesterday they demanded that only the federal legislation apply, so that its businesses can continue to operate in English only. Does the minister believe that her allies such as the QCGN care one bit about the decline of French in Quebec?
94 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
As I have said many times, our government is the first to recognize that French is in decline in Canada, including in Quebec.
That is why we are moving forward with an ambitious bill, one with teeth, to ensure that we can do our part. The federal government wants to take responsibility and make sure that we are doing everything we can to address this situation, as it is a top priority for the government.
84 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 3:02:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, once again, we have been very clear that our government is the first federal party to recognize that French is in decline in Canada, including in Quebec. That is why we are moving forward with an ambitious bill to address this situation.
What is really disappointing is that yesterday, at the Standing Committee on Official Languages, we saw time being wasted in the first hour of the committee meeting. Rather than taking the time needed to begin a thorough analysis of Bill C‑13, we saw members of the opposition, including the Bloc, simply waste that time.
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 9:04:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on his use of French in the House. I thank the interpreters for helping me understand the member's speech. I wish I were half as good as he is.
I want to dive into the environmental piece. You ended on small modular reactors—
52 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 9:06:25 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-4
Madam Speaker, I should let you know that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.
I want to start by congratulating my colleague from Kings—Hants on his French. He delivered half his speech in French earlier, and it was really impressive. I want to congratulate him and encourage all my colleagues to learn the second official language. By “second official language”, I do not mean that French is the second official language, but it is the second language of an English speaker. In my case, English is my country's second official language. I just wanted to make that clear.
We are here to talk about budget items and votes for various departments, including Justice Canada. As we all know, my colleague from Fundy Royal moved a motion about that department. As a result, we are talking about judicial processes, the administration of justice in Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada and decisions that affect everyone.
More specifically, I want to talk about a decision handed down a few weeks ago that had broad repercussions across the country, especially in the region where I am from, Quebec City. The Supreme Court of Canada struck down a law on consecutive sentencing that had been duly passed by this Parliament in 2011 and had been in force until the Supreme Court's ruling.
This decision is in connection with the Quebec City mosque tragedy that occurred on January 29, 2017. I will recap those sad events. Anyone who was directly or indirectly affected by this incident remembers exactly where they were when they heard the news. People were gathered at the mosque, united by their faith, their charity and the communion of spirit, when a crazed gunman, a nameless criminal, walked in and emptied his gun, killing six men at that mosque. Our thoughts are with the 19 injured worshippers who survived, and with the loved ones of the six people who lost their lives.
At the end of the trial, the Hon. François Huot, the trial judge, handed down a 40-year sentence, which might have surprised some people. As I was saying earlier, a law had been passed by Parliament allowing for cumulative sentences. A criminal who killed three people would be sentenced to three times 25 years.
I want to say that this is a Canadian law. All too often, I have heard people refer to it as a Conservative law. This law was passed by a Conservative government, but it was kept in place by the current government. To be more specific, the 2011 law was applied up until 2015 by the Conservative government, for more than three and a half years. However, this law remained in force from 2015 until the recent ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada, which is almost seven years. Therefore, this law was accepted and applied by the current Liberal government for almost twice as long as the previous Conservative government.
I wanted to clarify that because, as I was drafting this speech, I came across articles that described the law as a relic of the Harper era, as though that were a bad thing. God knows Canada sure had some good years when the Conservative government was running the country.
If the Liberals hated the law so much, all they had to do was set it aside and repeal it, just as they did in other cases. In fact, during this government's first months in power, the Hon. Rona Ambrose, our leader at the time, gave me the tremendous responsibility of being our party's labour critic. In that capacity, I spoke to Bill C‑4, which repealed two laws governing transparency and democracy in unions, laws that had been passed under the previous Conservative government. The duly elected Liberal government had made a campaign promise to repeal those two laws. Having won a majority, it introduced a bill and repealed them. However, the Liberal government chose to maintain the consecutive sentencing law that is still attributed to the Harper era.
Let us get back to the sequence of events. Justice François Huot pronounces a final guilty verdict and imposes a prison sentence of 40 years, in other words, 25 years plus 15 years. He rewrites Canada's cumulative sentencing law as he sees fit, noting that he was uncomfortable with the “25 years plus 25 years plus 25 years” approach. He says himself in his ruling that he adapted the law as he saw fit and imposed a sentence of 40 years. It was a fairly extensive document, 246 pages long. He also examined the case law in more than 195 countries.
The Court of Appeal was asked to review that ruling. It struck it down. The three judges found that this was a bad piece of legislation, that it was unconstitutional. In the end, the Supreme Court ruled against this law, saying that it was totally unfair, unconstitutional and ultimately—and I am paraphrasing here—had no place in the Canadian judicial process.
One can disagree with a law, even a law that has been upheld by the Liberal government. However, there is a reality when it comes to crime, when it comes to murder, or what we call mass murder. I dislike that expression, but there is no doubt what it means: a compulsive killer emptying a gun on innocent victims. We have seen it too many times in our country. Once is one time too many. Having been through the mosque attack—I knew some of the people—I say we must think of the victims. This is about more than just the court case, the robes and the Supreme Court. It is about more than the legal process and the courts. We are talking about men and women who are suffering.
I would like to read an article by Dominique Lelièvre that was published in the Journal de Québec on Friday, May 27, just a few hours after the Supreme Court decision. The author quotes survivors and victims' loved ones:
Orphans of the Sainte-Foy mosque may pass their father's killer on the streets of Quebec City 20 years from now, laments the Muslim community, which is disappointed in the Supreme Court's decision....
“In our opinion, this ruling does not consider the magnitude of the atrocity and the scourge of mass killings proliferating in North America, nor does it recognize the hateful, Islamophobic and racist nature of the crime,” said Mohamed Labidi, president of the organization [the CCIQ], at the mosque on Sainte-Foy Road where six worshippers were brutally gunned down in January 2017.
“Although we are disappointed in this decision by the highest court in the land, it does enable us to close this legal chapter. Now we want to focus on the future.”
What troubles the survivors and the victims' loved ones most is that the children of these victims might one day encounter the murderer.
“That is the biggest fear of the victims' families. The Parole Board might delay his release and take this into account, but that's our real fear, that the orphans who will become men and women will come face to face with their father's killer when he is free,” said Mr. Labidi. He vowed to stand by these children when the time comes....
When contacted by Le Journal, Aymen Derbali, a father who was left severely disabled after miraculously surviving being shot seven times during the attack, said that he “respects” the court's decision, although he was “very disappointed” in the ruling.
“What worries me as a citizen is that this encourages future criminals to commit mass murder, since the sentence would be the same,” he said.
All the same, this decision was the culmination of a long saga that will help him close this painful chapter of his life. He wants to dedicate all of his energy to his family, to his children's future and to his humanitarian aid projects.
“I'm turning the page. I started this process a little while ago, but with this decision... Finally, there was a decision. The law will be enforced the same way across Canada,” he said with a sigh.
...
Boufeldja Benabdallah, the co-founder of the CCIQ, suggested that the court did not sufficiently account for the pain experienced by the victims' loved ones, compared to the offender's right to rehabilitation.
“The Supreme Court made a purely legal observation that, in our opinion, did not take into account the humanity of these families. It took into account the humanity of a murderer who will have to be rehabilitated later on.... Today, it feels like the balance has been upset,” he said.
Now that all the legal appeals have been exhausted, he says that he wants to do something worthwhile by continuing to advocate for communal harmony, which he says has grown immensely in the past five years, like a healing balm on the scars of the tragedy.
People did not just come the day after the attack but reached out to us over the past five years, and we too made the effort to reach out to them.
1572 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
