SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 232 - Oct/16/23

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

Oct/16/23 11:46:01 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-325

Madam Speaker, I address the House today as an MP, but also as a trained criminologist. We are talking about Bill C‑325, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. I will skip ahead and confirm that the Bloc Québécois and I, obviously, will vote in favour of Bill C‑325 so it can be studied in parliamentary committee. Now, let us have a closer look at the bill. As currently written, the bill contains only three provisions, but it will still amend two extremely important laws. We are not talking about minor laws here, but about the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. I would say that we need to be careful. I always find it worrisome to base a bill that would have such a major impact on our criminal justice system on just one particular case. Obviously, we need to avoid that dangerous pitfall. I am not trying to minimize the tragic death of 23-year-old Marylène Levesque, who was murdered by Eustachio Gallese while he was out on day parole for the October 2004 murder of his wife. What happened to Marylène Levesque is terrible and unfair. It never should have happened. I think we all agree on that. There is no need to discuss it. Bill C‑325, which was introduced by the Conservatives, would create a new offence for the breach of conditions of conditional release imposed in relation to certain serious offences, with a maximum sentence of two years or at least punishable on summary conviction. This bill would also amend the Criminal Code to preclude persons convicted of certain offences from serving their sentence in the community. Finally, this bill would also require the reporting of such breaches to the appropriate authorities. Those are good things. The Bloc Québécois generally supports this bill and would like to see it studied in detail and improved in committee. Let me explain why. The Conservatives think that this bill will fill the gaps resulting from the passage of Bill C-5, which allows offenders who commit certain crimes to serve their sentences in the community. However, that is not the whole truth. Some details have been left out. In our society, judges have the discretion to sentence offenders to serve their sentences in the community. Contrary to what the Conservatives would have us believe, judges do take their jobs very seriously. They make their decisions thoughtfully and meticulously, taking a multitude of factors into account. Furthermore, the Parole Board of Canada has the power to revoke parole at any time, and its decisions are not political. The Parole Board is entirely independent. In Mr. Gallese's case, his release conditions had been breached on several occasions prior to Ms. Levesque's murder, and unfortunately, his parole officer knew that. Worse still, we later learned that she allegedly encouraged him to visit sexual massage parlours, which, I am sure everyone would agree, is totally unacceptable. The Parole Board of Canada could have and should have revoked Mr. Gallese's parole long before this tragedy. How did we get here? Should we amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act based almost entirely on the circumstances surrounding the murder of Marylène Levesque, as the Conservative Party is eager to do? Obviously, I do not think so. Doing so could prove perilous for our justice system. In short, Bill C‑325 is commendable but flawed in several respects, for example when it comes to the offences set out in subclause 2(2) that would prevent offenders from serving their sentences in the community. The range of listed offences is far too broad and is worth scrutinizing and debating in committee, as is paragraph 742.1(c), which seeks to make it impossible to serve a sentence in the community for any offence that carries a maximum sentence of 14 years or more, including altering a firearm magazine. The issue is not whether the legislation resulting from Bill C‑5 is flawed, because it is, indeed. However, the solutions in Bill C‑325 are not entirely appropriate and may well call into question the integrity of our judges. The Conservatives' presentation on Bill C‑325 specifically refers to the case of Eustachio Gallese and Marylène Levesque. As a criminologist, I have a lot of problems with this. We do not have the luxury of quickly pushing through words and clauses that have the power to upend the lives of thousands of people. When we are responsible for the public's safety and well-being, our decisions should be based on verified, empirical data and on as many cases as possible, not on individual cases. What about all the other inmates with release conditions similar to those of Mr. Gallese who will never commit another crime? Let us consider that very large group of inmates. Who are we to dictate how they will serve their sentences based solely on one case, on one individual? That is not what our justice system is based on. Quebeckers and Canadians obviously deserve to have peace of mind, to feel safe as they go about their daily lives. They also deserve to be treated equally in the eyes of law. That is why I urge my esteemed colleagues to vote in favour of Bill C‑325, so that it can be carefully studied at committee and no comma, no inference, no legislative gap will be left to chance. The consequences would simply be too dire. I would also like to take this opportunity to inform the House that my colleague, the member for Rivière-du-Nord, will soon be introducing a bill to once and for all close the loopholes in the legislation resulting from Bill C‑5.

1005 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 232 - Oct/16/23

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

Oct/16/23 3:02:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the federal government is pushing aside the Quebec winners of a competition for designing the monument to commemorate the mission in Afghanistan. It is relying on public consultation. In fact, the experts at Léger studied that consultation. According to them, it in no way respects the scientific process. According to Léger, the results cannot be interpreted as the opinion of armed forces members. It is wrong to use these data as though they represent the general population. The government's efforts to push Quebec aside are also wrong. Will it award the contract to Daoust?

101 words

Context: House Hansard - 232 - Oct/16/23

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

Oct/16/23 3:04:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it was Leger that said that. Leger is the leading polling firm, and its experts are saying that the federal government's survey was unscientific and that the results are unusable. Even Louise Arbour, a former Supreme Court justice, had to intervene last Thursday to ask the federal government to abide by its own rules. The situation has reached that point. I know the government is desperate to shove Quebec aside at any cost, but for God's sake, there has to be a limit. Will the government abide by its own rules, listen to Justice Arbour and award the contract to the Daoust team?

107 words