44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 27, 2023 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, I gather that my colleague said the Conservatives are going to vote against Bill C‑52, partly because a number of entities were left out of it. He specifically mentioned the Canada Border Services Agency.
I do not think we should necessarily vote against a bill because something is missing from it. We should pass it at second reading instead to send it back to committee, where constructive proposals can be made to improve it. I get the impression that the Conservatives are the ones missing out on a great opportunity here.
I would simply like to know what my colleague wishes to see added to Bill C-52 in regard to the Canada Border Services Agency.
To criticize a bill is one thing, but to make constructive proposals is another. Unfortunately, I did not hear any such proposals in his speech.
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/27/23 11:15:24 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about a young athlete from my riding who recently took part in the World Rowing Sprint Finals, which were held in Barletta, Italy, earlier this month.
Ella-Rose Duval developed an interest in rowing in 2020 while watching the Tokyo Olympic Games. Just two years later, she competed in the Canada Games and then qualified for the World Games, but this time in coastal rowing. At this rate, I would be willing to bet that she will fulfill one of her dreams, which is to compete in the 2028 Los Angeles Olympic Games, where this discipline will be included for the first time.
At just 17 years old, Ella-Rose Duval also impresses academically. At the top of not only her class but her entire school, she maintains an overall average of no less than 98%. She has also been awarded the Governor General’s Academic Medal at the bronze level, and the Quebec Lieutenant Governor's Youth Medal, also at the bronze level, in recognition of her volunteer work.
I would like to sincerely congratulate Ella-Rose and wish her continued success.
191 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/27/23 11:25:08 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Radio-Canada has revealed that the Liberals are considering reviewing immigration thresholds for 2026 because of the housing crisis.
The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship has even confirmed that he plans to say more on November 1. However, Ottawa is still reviewing its thresholds without talking to Quebec and the provinces, despite the fact that Quebec and the provinces are the ones responsible for health care, education, French language learning, infrastructure, and more. The provinces alone know what their capacity is to successfully welcome immigrants.
Will the government commit to consulting them and adjusting its thresholds based on their capacity to accommodate immigrants?
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/27/23 11:26:16 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is odd. Yesterday, when the Bloc Québécois said that we needed to review immigration levels, the Liberals accused the Bloc of being against immigration, but when the Liberals are the ones reviewing those levels, like they are currently doing, then that absolutely does not mean they are against immigration. When they do it, then it is okay, but when someone else does it, it is bad.
On Tuesday, on the Bloc Québécois's initiative, we will discuss immigration targets. I wonder if we will be able to have an intelligent debate without the Liberals suggesting that everyone except them is intolerant.
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, just like my colleague from Joliette, who eloquently covered many points just before I rose, and my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord, who also spoke during the study of this bill, I too reiterate the Bloc Québécois's support for Bill S-205.
The goal of this bill, offering better protection to victims of domestic violence, is definitely commendable. As we know, statistics show the sad reality of a dramatic rise in femicides and domestic violence. Just between 2009 and 2019, domestic violence offences spiked by 7.5%. Given this situation, we, as parliamentarians, have an obligation to act. Bill S-205 is a step in the right direction, even if I can already foresee a few issues about what is covered in the bill.
I will only address some parts of Bill S-205 because it covers a lot of ground in many different areas. I will not go over the entire bill; I will just focus on certain parts.
Bill S‑205 would add to subsection 515(3) of the Criminal Code the new subsection (3.1), which reads as follows:
Before making an order under subsection (2) in respect of an accused who is charged with an offence in the commission of which violence was used, threatened or attempted against the accused's intimate partner, the justice must ask the prosecutor whether the intimate partner of the accused has been consulted about their safety and security needs.
This ensures better safety for the victim because the prosecutor will have to consult the victim about her needs, which will likely allow them to make better recommendations thereafter, even better requests of the judge with respect to the various parole conditions that the accused might have.
This could also improve the victim's sense of security. We know that victims are not party to criminal hearings, they are witnesses. Unfortunately, often victims end up withdrawing out of fear. They no longer want to testify and, since they are the only witness or at least the key witness in these cases, then these cases could get thrown out. This bill also ensures better administration of justice, in a way, by having a double effect, by also protecting the victim.
Bill S‑205 also adds an item to subsection 515(14) of the Criminal Code. Subsection (14.1) is added, which reads as follows:
Upon making an order under subsection (2), the justice must ask the prosecutor whether victims of the offence have been informed of their right to request a copy of the order.
The fact that the victim is fully aware of the conditions imposed on the accused for his release may not only reassure the victim, but also ensure that these conditions are respected. In order for the conditions to be respected, someone must monitor the accused. It would be impossible to keep a constant eye on the accused, but the victim, for example, would know if the accused approached her, thereby failing to comply with this or that condition. The victim can then report that the conditions have been violated. In a way, the victim is included in the enforcement of the conditions imposed on the accused.
There is also an additional condition that I think is the crux of the bill. When Senator Boisvenu speaks so passionately about his bill, he presents it as the electronic monitoring device bill. That is the key measure in the bill, at least in his view.
We know that releases can come with certain conditions, including reporting at specified times to the peace officer or other specified person; remaining within a specified territorial jurisdiction; notifying the peace officer or other specified person of any change in address, employment or occupation; abstaining from communicating, directly or indirectly, with any victim; and depositing all passports. The bill adds a new condition, that of wearing an electronic monitoring device, if the Attorney General makes the request.
There is a lot to say on that last point. When the bill gets to committee, it would be a good idea to analyze how things were done in Quebec, since Quebec already has a similar system in place for offences falling under its jurisdiction, where the accused would be sent to a Quebec prison if convicted.
Since the system is already up and running, it would be good to take stock of this option's implementation. Ultimately, if the bill moves forward, that would allow for alignment between the relevant federal and provincial measures. However, it would be nice to learn from past mistakes or missteps based on what was done in Quebec.
What is more, I am concerned that having the accused wear an electronic monitoring device that makes it possible to geolocate them provides a false sense of security. I will give what is, unfortunately, a very real example. Members will perhaps remember the police officer who was killed in December 2022 by an individual who was released on bail after committing gun offences. The individual was in a car with a partner, and a police officer was killed.
One might wonder how that person was able to leave their home, despite the fact that they were wearing a GPS monitor. Why did the monitor not alert the authorities? Why were no precautionary measures taken and why did the police officers who stopped him not know that they were in the presence of a person who was wearing a GPS monitor? One has to wonder about the company that makes those monitors. Is the warning system adequate? Once an alert is triggered, are there sufficient resources to ensure the safety of the victim? We must not be lulled into a false sense of security because the accused is wearing an electronic monitoring device. There is a whole series of other measures that need to be implemented. I would just like to warn the House about that.
Some of the other release conditions listed in the bill deserve further study to see if they can actually be implemented. It is one thing to have a bill filled with good intentions, but if it is impossible to implement on the ground, it is nothing but an empty shell.
I am thinking of the obligation to abstain from consuming drugs, for example. This condition already exists. To prove this, the person will have to provide, for the purpose of analysis, a sample of a bodily substance prescribed by regulation. That is an additional condition. It can be done at the request of a peace officer, if he or she has suspicions, or at regular intervals.
We have to wonder if this condition passes the charter test, specifically when it comes to the invasive nature of certain screening tests. It is one thing for alcohol, but for certain drugs, it can involve a blood sample, a urine test, a saliva test or a hair sample, which can be fairly invasive. We need to weigh the desired result against a minimal infringement on human rights. It would be interesting to hear constitutional experts on this.
Another condition is being created in relation to the section 810 order, and that is to refrain from using social media. I understand the intention behind that, but I still wonder about the balance between the end goal and protecting privacy rights. This condition could be included in the order without any actual follow-up to determine whether it is being respected. In that case, however, it would become a bit of a bogus order.
How would we ensure compliance with that order? Do we monitor the accused's phone and computer use? Is that not too invasive and excessive? Is that not an invasion of privacy? Does the end justify the means? Should we rely on victim reporting instead? If the victim sees a social media post and knows that there is an order prohibiting the accused from using social media, she could notify the police, for example. I am curious to see how this could be implemented.
Finally, there is another aspect that I would like hear from constitutional experts about in committee. I am talking about the reverse onus for release. Under Bill C‑75, which was adopted four years ago, if a person has already been charged with and found guilty of a violent crime against a domestic partner, then that person has to prove that detention is not justified. Under the new bill, we would add the case where a person has already been absolved of a crime against an intimate partner. We might wonder whether that passes the charter test when the onus is reversed not following a conviction, but following an absolution.
There are some elements that might be interesting to analyze. In any event, the bill generally has an absolutely noble objective. I look forward to seeing how the work in committee will unfold when it comes to the different aspects I have raised.
1501 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
