44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 2, 2023 10:00AM
- Feb/2/23 11:28:44 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few seconds to wish you a happy new year, good health, happiness, love and anything else your heart desires. I want to also send that message to my constituents in Saint-Jean, as this is the first time I have spoken in the House this year.
I am not going to put the Conservatives on trial for their motion today. I would like to believe that this idea stems from a genuine desire to reduce violent crime and prevent the proliferation of illegal firearms. I hope that I will not be put on trial either, despite the fact that I am going to describe the problems with this motion. In my opinion, it does not provide a solution. I will be disappointed if I hear, yet again, during question and comment period, that the Bloc Québécois has helped put dangerous criminals back on the street and refuses to admit that there is a problem. I hope that does not happen, but I will be sure to manage my expectations.
There are a few problems with the motion, and I will go through them one at a time. For instance, no distinction is made between correlation and causation. Some members have presented statistics showing an increase in certain crimes and said that this is caused by Bill C-75. That is correlation. There is a theory about that, known as the hemline economy theory. According to this theory, when short skirts are in fashion, the economy is doing well, and when long skirts are in fashion, the economy is doing poorly. If we were to rely solely on this index, we would probably all make some very poor choices in the stock market. Similarly, if a temporal correlation is the only correlation that exists between an increase in crime and the passage of Bill C‑75, then we are probably overlooking the real solutions to a multi-faceted problem.
Another problem is that some of the “whereas” clauses and demands in the motion are based on somewhat fallacious arguments, and some are not supported by any evidence. I will come back to that aspect when I go through the motion in greater detail.
The arguments raise another problem. We are hearing a lot of references to the case of Randall McKenzie, who allegedly killed a police officer in December while out on bail. If we look at this case more closely, we might find that it is not just him being out on bail that is the problem. Randall McKenzie had already been locked up and was released on bail with some of the strictest conditions possible. He was on house arrest 24 hours a day, he wore an electronic tracking device and he was allowed to leave home only for medical reasons or to get legal advice from his lawyer. The question is, what happened? How did he end up out in public when the company monitoring the GPS device should have sent an alert to have him immediately apprehended? There may be a problem there too. No one has raised that issue yet, but the analysis should go beyond the simple issue of bail.
I heard it said that if Randall McKenzie had not been out on bail, the police officer would still be alive. I am sorry, but we have still not heard all of the evidence in this case. The authorities are not certain that he is the one who pulled the trigger. There is a co-accused in the case, so the argument is perhaps a little thin. This is only a secondary point, I only wanted to mention it. However, it is perhaps a stretch to say that a life would have been saved if bail had not been awarded.
I would like to point out a fourth problem with the motion. Making it more difficult to obtain bail in the case of illegal arms possession will not dissuade people from procuring illegal arms. The motion will not have an impact on first offences with a firearm. Adopting the motion could leave us with a false sense of security.
I will quickly review some of the points in the motion.
The motion states, “That, given that, after eight years of this government's soft on crime policies, (i) violent crime has increased by 32%”. According to Statistics Canada, this number includes sexual assaults.
In recent years, thanks to greater awareness among other things, there has been an increase in the number of crimes reported, which contributes to the increase in this number. When we talk about violent crime in general, we are not necessarily referring to violent gun crime or cases in which the accused was awarded bail. That, however, is how the question for the government is being framed.
The motion states that “violent, repeat offenders are obtaining bail much more easily”. I still have not heard a clear explanation of whether this is true, and, especially, if it is related to the repeal of certain aspects of Bill C‑75 requested in the motion.
The motion also states that “five Canadian police officers were killed in the line of duty in just one year”. That is both deplorable and tragic. We should do something about that. However, no connection is made between the murder of these police officers and the bail system. Statistics are used to justify strengthening bail provisions, but there is not necessarily a rational link between the statistics and what the motion is asking for. That is deplorable. I think that the Conservatives could have been more thorough in presenting their motion.
One of the things the House is being called to do is the following:
(a) fix Canada's broken bail system by immediately repealing the elements enacted by Bill C‑75...which force judges to release violent, repeat offenders onto the streets, allowing them to reoffend;
As my colleague mentioned, there is a fallacy in this paragraph. There is nothing in Bill C‑75 or the Criminal Code forcing judges to release people. In fact, when we get right down to it, the only thing that forces judges to release people is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
There are two fairly specific rights in the following paragraphs of section 11 of the Charter:
Any person charged with an offence has the right...
(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;
(e) not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause;
The charter, not the former Bill C‑75, sets out that requirement for judges. The charter and the sections that allow for bail have established criteria.
Custody of an accused is only justified by the Criminal Code in certain cases, for example, “(a) where the detention is necessary to ensure his or her attendance in court”, such as someone with dual citizenship who is afraid of losing citizenship in another country, or “(b) where the detention is necessary for the protection or safety of the public”.
There are pre-existing criteria that judges can use to maintain institutional custody. Where “(c) the detention is necessary to maintain confidence”, the judge has the discretion to keep an accused in custody.
Section 515 of the Criminal Code also provides terms and conditions. For example, consideration must be given to “(iii) the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence, including whether a firearm was used”, which we already do, and “(iv) the fact that the accused is liable, on conviction, for a potentially lengthy term of imprisonment or, in the case of an offence that involves, or whose subject-matter is, a firearm, a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of three years or more.”
The Conservatives are saying that they want to, and I quote:
strengthen Canada's bail laws so that those who are prohibited from possessing firearms and who are then accused of serious firearms offences do not easily get bail;
However, that is already included in section 515 of the Criminal Code. Will that really change anything? It is a fair question. When we talk to criminal lawyers about the gun problem, we see that it is getting harder and harder to get bail when a firearm was used to commit a crime, so the motion contains some things that are already covered.
The motion seeks to repeal the former bill without really explaining what it is about. It attacks Bill C‑75, which actually does some other worthwhile things. For example, it creates a reverse onus for domestic violence. The accused must prove that they will not be a danger to the public if they are released on bail, whereas for other crimes the opposite is true. With regard to gun violence, the onus is already on the accused, or in other words, it is up to them to prove that they do not pose a risk to society.
As I mentioned, although this motion addresses a real and serious problem, it may not be the right solution. As I also mentioned, if a person makes their stock market decisions based on the hemline index, then they will likely make poor choices.
I think the same applies here. We need to have conversations about the best way to proceed so we do not opt for a bad solution to a real problem.
1610 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/2/23 11:39:51 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the real question is, should judges be told what to do more than they already are?
Generally speaking, when judges are told what they must do, such as with mandatory minimum sentences, those rulings often blocked by the courts because they do not comply with the Charter. That is a real risk, so it seems to me that may not be the best way to make sure potentially dangerous people are not freed. Maybe it would be better to figure out how we can ensure that people who are released on parole do not represent a real threat to the public and how we respect the right of people who are presumed innocent not to be wrongly imprisoned.
There are a lot of things to keep in mind here, including the fact that it now takes up to two and a half years to get a hearing. People can be detained that whole time before being found not guilty in the end. Would it not be better to do something like increase funding for the judicial system so that, if someone has to be held without bail, their trial can at least happen sooner? That could be part of the solution, and I may have other suggestions when people ask me questions.
214 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/2/23 11:41:57 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, to hear my Conservative colleagues tell it, as soon as someone commits a crime, even as minor as simple drug possession, they should automatically be detained so as to prevent any subsequent crimes. However, there are solutions that would be much more appropriate for this kind of problem. For instance, measures could be taken to ensure that conditions are respected and that, when there is a breach, the person is more easily returned to custody.
Many gun crimes are committed in the context of substance abuse problems. We should be looking closer at this aspect and offering the right services to the people who need them.
As I mentioned, Randall McKenzie was wearing a GPS tracking device. That is one of the strictest bail conditions that can be imposed. Obviously, he was able to leave his home without any alarms going off, without the GPS company notifying anyone, and without any police following him. There was obviously some sort of problem there, too.
There are several aspects of the problem that can be addressed without going for a solution that seems a little too good to be true, one that is too singular, one that risks giving the public the impression that the problem has been solved, when it probably would not be solved.
216 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/2/23 11:43:43 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I think that is obvious. My colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia demonstrated that as well. It is the topic of many discussions.
When we talk about bail, we have to remember that a crime was committed. What we want to avoid is the commission of an offence in the first place, before we even begin to talk about bail.
Can we address the root of the problem, which is currently the proliferation of illegal guns? I think we are only scratching the surface of the problem in a rather partisan way. As a result we are avoiding the problem and that is where I have to point the finger at the government. There is truly a much bigger problem we need to be addressing and that is where we should be focusing all of our energy.
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this is my third time speaking to this bill or the previous version, which was practically identical. I took the time to reread my speeches to make sure I was being as consistent with myself as possible, because sometimes I am not consistent with others. While rereading my speeches, I realized that, when the previous version was before us, I was already fretting about election rumours that gave us reason to believe the bill would never be passed, even though it had achieved broad consensus.
People always talk about how expensive elections are. I often explain that to young people when I am giving presentations about politics. When they tell me the latest election cost $130 million, I say that it actually cost a lot more because there are costs associated with our work as parliamentarians. We have to redo all the work on bills that died on the Order Paper because of the election. This bill is a prime example of that.
It costs farmers, who have had some tough years. The exemption for propane, which is pretty expensive, was extended for two years.
These are the same farmers who had to go through the propane crisis of 2019, when there was the strike at CN. These are the same farmers who had labour challenges during the pandemic. They had to wait a long time to get work permits for temporary foreign workers to finally arrive. Crops were lost. These are the same farmers who had supply issues during the pandemic. More recently, they have been burdened with additional fertilizer costs because of the war in Ukraine.
All of these problems could have been alleviated if this bill had been passed quickly, but no, an election had to be called so we could go back to square one. Again, all parties have exactly the same number of seats as when the election was called.
There are these problems that could be described as situational, and this is in addition to the structural problems that farmers are experiencing. It is getting harder and harder to recruit the next generation of farmers. Parents are having to work longer and longer, without knowing who will take over the farm. It was really tough for children who wanted to take over the family farm, until just recently when we passed a bill that provides for a tax exemption for those children. The Deputy Prime Minister had to grant an extension.
On top of everything else, there is climate change. Farmers are increasingly affected by climate change. That is precisely what this bill is all about. The Bloc Québécois is generally not very supportive of bills that would erode the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, but we are not dogmatic about it.
With respect to the application of the carbon tax to farmers, we recognize that it would be fair to remove the carbon tax from certain fuels essential to crop and livestock production. This is because the alternatives are still very expensive or in the early stages of development.
The Bloc Québécois generally adheres to the principle of a fair environmental and ecological transition. That means that we recognize that it would be unfair to require that all of the effort be made at once by the primary victims of the energy sector crisis and the challenges associated with climate change. I am talking here about farmers.
In recent years, farmers have had to deal with rather unpredictable weather conditions, trade disruptions and volatile world prices. The carbon tax is adding insult to injury because it reduces the net income of farmers by approximately 12%. The passage of the bill now before us could therefore help farmers to save millions of dollars.
What would this bill do essentially? It would amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, commonly known as the carbon tax. The act currently provides for the general application of a fuel charge, which is paid to the government by the distributor on delivery. There are already exemptions set out in the legislation for farmers for qualifying fuels. A “qualifying farming fuel” is defined as “a type of fuel that is gasoline, light fuel oil or a prescribed type of fuel”.
What Bill C‑234 proposes, on one hand, is to expand the definition of “eligible farming machinery” to include heating equipment, including for buildings that shelter animals. The definition of “eligible farming machinery” specifies the inclusion of grain dryers and we know that grain dryers operate primarily on propane. On the other hand, it expands the carbon tax exemption to products such as natural gas and propane, which we know are used in grain drying. In summary, two key farming activities are targeted: grain drying and building heating.
As we have already mentioned, we agree with this exemption being applied because farmers currently do not have any real alternative. There are plans for using biomass in heating and grain drying, but the technology is still in the early stages. It is expensive and does not apply to field crops and major cereal and grain production operations.
We could also consider the power grid, which at present is not really suitable as a realistic alternative. There would be so much pressure on the power grid that it would not be able to meet demand. We see that it takes several attempts with Hydro-Québec to get a grid that can adequately heat a small farm. Therefore, the transition cannot take place.
Generally speaking, the role of the carbon tax is to have a deterrent effect on the people who use it. However, what we have found is that it would have no such effect. Based on what representatives of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture have told us, the agricultural sector's demand for fuel is not really affected by the price of fuel. Consequently, the tax would not be effective, because it is supposed to act as an incentive for changing energy behaviour and adopting clean technologies and energy. Therefore, if the carbon tax on agricultural fuels is not an incentive for change, the only thing it does is place another financial burden on farmers. In the view of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, having to use fossil fuels is an additional financial burden.
I mentioned that farmers are feeling the effects of climate change. During the propane crisis immediately following the election, I remember it well, I was with my father on a combine—I indirectly come from a farming community—and the snow had covered the crops. They remained stuck in the machinery. The grain was extremely humid because of the rather poor climate conditions. Farmers were having a hard enough time with the prices because there was a propane shortage as a result of a strike and we could truly see the impact of climate change on crop yields.
Committee members worked to improve the bill, and I appreciate that. I think the MPs who worked on the bill worked well together. One amendment comes to mind that was put forward by the NDP and agreed to. They wanted precise wording in the bill so the exemption would not apply to anything and everything. The NDP suggested amending the bill to ensure that the subject buildings would not simply be buildings located on a farm, which would have included a principal residence that ought not to be exempt from the carbon tax. The members clarified the wording, and it was unanimously agreed to. It made sense. MPs managed to ditch the dogmatism and work together.
As my colleague mentioned earlier, a sunset clause was added to the exemption, which was reduced from 10 years to eight years, so that there would be an incentive to change how we do things, to change production methods, to invest more in research and development in order to come up with alternative solutions. The aim was to ensure that we would not think, “Oh well, now there is an exemption, so there is no need to change how we do things.” We know that, at some point, the exemption will come to an end and all the necessary work will have had to have been done beforehand. There is a desire to ensure that the carbon tax will, at some point, be effective again, that it will be a deterrent to using fossil fuels. All of this was done in relative harmony between the parties, and I applaud that.
I hope that the timing is right and that another election will not be called, killing the bill yet again, much to the chagrin of farmers.
1460 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
