44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 2, 2023 10:00AM
- Feb/2/23 10:25:36 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my first university degree was a bachelor's degree in criminology.
During my studies, we would discuss being for or against parole, loosening or tightening restrictions and so on. As we progressed through the program, the better we understood the issues, the more we read and the more we relied on science and credible studies. By the end of our undergraduate program, we understood that this rigidity that the Conservatives want would not get us anywhere.
The best example is the United States. That country has the harshest and most coercive system in the world, with appalling incarceration rates and a drive to keep inmates in prison and on parole as long as possible. It just so happens that the United States is also seeing a jump in its violent crime rate.
What makes my colleague and the Conservatives believe that a tougher stance will result in lower rates of violent crime?
155 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/2/23 12:19:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his speech.
This is a very emotional subject. We all want disinformation to be set aside. To some extent, we all want to be able to rely on science and research to make changes. Clearly, Bill C‑75 is not perfect. We would like to comment on that.
We must focus on the good elements and work towards implementing them, which is not happening now, in my opinion. Furthermore, there is clearly a vote-seeking aspect to the Conservatives' motion.
I would like to ask the Leader of the Opposition what his reaction is when I talk about science and research. Carolyn Yule, a professor of sociology and anthropology—
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/2/23 1:32:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. I admire him greatly, but I do not agree with what he is saying. Bill C‑75 was not perfect. We all agree on that, on both sides of the House. There are some improvements to be made.
I would like my colleague's opinion on the remarks made by Carolyn Yule, a sociology and anthropology professor who studies bail. She says that there is no evidence to suggest that a tough-on-crime approach to bail would improve public safety.
Can we please trust these academics?
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/2/23 5:05:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my Conservative Party colleague from Lakeland. Not surprisingly, I will be sharing my time, but not the same views.
I want to put all this in context. Today is the Conservative Party's opposition day. The motion was moved by the member for Fundy Royal. It is a direct attack on Bill C-75, which was passed in 2019, three years ago already.
The Bloc Québécois feels that Bill C-75 is a good bill overall, but there are some flaws. We do not believe that there is such a thing as a perfect bill, to be honest. Eventually, at some point in the future, there will be amendments, additions or deletions made to certain elements of Bill C-75.
The day is winding down, and we have been discussing this bill all day. Everyone knows that the Bloc Québécois is opposed to the Conservative motion. Yes, we know there are real problems when it comes to crime, but the solutions proposed by the Conservative Party are not the right ones we need to make the changes that we will eventually have to make.
As we have been seeing all day, this bill really gets people fired up. Everyone's emotions are running high, and everyone keeps firing off demands. This bill also opens the door to a lot of misinformation. Certain groups of people hide behind their ideology, which, sadly, has nothing to do with science. Others adopt a more sensationalist approach and, as in the current case, appear to be electioneering.
The motion is based on individual cases. All day, we have been hearing about two or three specific cases: murdered police officers and a man accused of rape who is serving his sentence at home. I do not want to downplay these situations, but I do want to point out that these are all individual cases the Conservatives are talking about here today, cases they are using as justification for upsetting the apple cart and going back to square one with Bill C‑75. The Bloc Québécois is against that. We want to move on, and we will vote against the motion.
The Bloc Québécois thinks that there is a bit of bad faith involved in moving this motion and that our Conservative colleagues are trying to create a false sense of security. Repealing Bill C-75 as it was passed is not going to enhance public safety. That is just not true. Let us keep in mind that we are talking about laws, justice and social justice. The Bloc Québécois supports victims. We will always side with the poor and with victims, and we think that, in this case, it is inappropriate to pursue the repeal of Bill C-75.
The Bloc Québécois hopes that we can take a sensible, reasonable and balanced approach to such important bills. We are well aware that Bill C-75 is not a cure-all, but it meets a lot of needs.
Of all of the misinformation our Conservative colleagues are spreading, there is one allegation that really irks us. They are saying that Bill C-75 requires judges to release violent repeat offenders who can then go out and commit other crimes. That is obviously misinformation, and it is easy to prove it. The Conservatives keep making this argument, but it does not hold water for the Bloc Québécois. It is not true at all. Judges still have the final say in the cases they try.
Another thing that is based on misinformation is the presumption that the Canadian justice system puts the rights of violent repeat offenders ahead of the rights of law-abiding Quebeckers and Canadians. That has been repeated all day, but it is totally false. It is clear that the claim that the bail system puts the rights of repeat offenders ahead of the rights of other individuals is a complete falsehood.
Another claim that keeps coming up is that the bail system is bad. To us that is a false claim. Bail is a way of finding a balance between the presumption of innocence, which is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and public safety. That is why we think that statement is false. They are talking about things that do not exist, that are not there, that are purely made up.
Again, this is a very delicate exercise.
On what are the Conservatives currently basing their claim that we have to take an axe to Bill C‑75? Are they relying on empirical data? No, they did not present any empirical data today, absolutely none. Are they relying on peer-reviewed studies? No, they did not present any such studies today.
Of course, we have heard plenty of anecdotes about individual cases. We have been hearing about the same cases all day. However, that does not justify a major reform of a bill like Bill C-75. It is not possible and it is not logical. In a system like ours, to begin with individual points like this and reshuffle the deck would be madness. We could go round in circles forever.
Canada has a population of 35 million people. What do these individual cases represent out of 35 million people? I do not want to minimize the cases that have been put forward, but we cannot decide these things based on individual cases.
What is both interesting and useful about research and science is that they provide for studies to be done on large numbers of individuals. This is what validates research and why it can be presented and shared with some degree of certainty. Not all research results are perfectly accurate. At times, there are contradictory findings from one study to the next, but overall, this is what can be expected.
I want to touch on a couple of pieces of research. Earlier, in a question, my colleague referred to Carolyn Yule, a professor of sociology and anthropology at the University of Guelph. She is an expert in this area and has spent part of her life studying bail. The findings of her studies, of which there are several, suggest that a tougher approach to bail would not improve public safety.
That said, she is just a scientist, just a girl who does research and has spent most of her life studying this topic.
Furthermore, Jane Sprott, a professor of criminology at Toronto Metropolitan University, says that there is no reliable way to predict who will commit a violent crime, regardless of the type of crime. She says it would be fiscally irresponsible and unrealistic to increase the number of people in remand. This is related to what we are talking about today. She also states that pre-trial detention hurts a person's chances of not reoffending and their social reintegration. This is obviously contrary to Conservative values. I would also like to share one other small study, but I do not think I will have enough time.
Seeing as people are making assertions based on nothing, here is a big one: From 2006 to 2015, while the Conservatives were in power, crime rates dropped. Dig no deeper, and that sounds great. Three cheers for the Conservatives. The problem is that as soon as they lost power, crime rates started going up.
Is it fair to say the Liberals were responsible for what happened in that first year or two? No. It takes time for a law—
1291 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/2/23 5:16:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes, absolutely. I believe in our justice system. It is not perfect, but I believe in it. Judges are not normally appointed overnight. There is a series of steps. There is a selection process. These individuals have a great deal of experience. I have complete confidence in our system.
54 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/2/23 5:17:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to get that question from my colleague.
I would like to give an example. I did not have time to do so earlier. The incarceration rate of the United States is the sixth highest in the world. It incarcerates criminals in droves. It incarcerates 505 people per 100,000, compared to 85 per 100,000 in Canada. Are things better in the United States? Is there less violent crime than here in Quebec or in Canada? No, absolutely not. It is increasing.
Here is another example. There were 213 mass shootings in the first 145 days of 2022 in the United States. There are shootings in Canada, but we do not see numbers like that, even if you calculate it per capita.
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/2/23 5:19:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, preventive detention exists. A person can be detained longer if a judge has sufficient grounds to do so. That exists.
22 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/2/23 5:21:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am not questioning the numbers.
That said, we need to understand what is behind those numbers. We need to understand why bail was granted to people during trial or while awaiting trial. We need to allow time, but we need to see if there are reasonable grounds.
When this happens, assessments are made by criminologists to determine whether an individual is dangerous.
65 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
