- Member of Parliament
- Deputy House leader of the Bloc Québécois
- Bloc Québécois
- Saint-Jean
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 64%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $109,900.56
- Government Page
- Apr/15/24 4:41:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the debate that we are having right now is a follow-up to a debate that took place at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in December, where a motion calling for various things was adopted. I would like to read that list of things.
The motion called for the government to create “an Anti-Hate Crime Task Force to coordinate the protection of faith communities”, to remove “red tape and speed up access to the Security Infrastructure Program to protect communities at risk” and to evaluate “Canada's threat assessment in light of [the U.K.] travel advisory”, which is something that was in the news more at the time. The motion also called for the government to establish “a Foreign Influence Registry”. From what I understand, that task is being carried out under the guidance of the hon. member for Trois-Rivières. Let us hope that we will finally see, perhaps before the House recesses, the end of the tunnel on this issue, which is, unfortunately, long overdue. This would not just apply to the situation in Iran that we are discussing today, but to many other situations where, for example, foreign agents are conducting legitimate activities on our soil.
Finally, and this is what we are primarily debating today, the motion called for the government to designate “the IRGC as a terrorist entity under the Criminal Code and expel the estimated 700 Iranian agents operating in Canada”. Similar motions have been moved in various committees, including the committee on which I sit. The motion was brought back to the floor at the Standing Committee on National Defence and debated many times. It is still being debated today, but perhaps in a context dictated more by current events.
I understand that the Conservatives' decision to bring this motion to the floor today has to do with the attack that happened this past weekend, on the night of April 13 to 14, when several ballistic missiles and drones were fired at Israel. In this context, I would like to quote what our leader, the member for Beloeil—Chambly, said. Coming on the heels of the attack, I think his tone was very measured. That is the tone I will use to address the House today. The leader of the Bloc Québécois said:
The Bloc Québécois and I join those in the United States, France, the entire international community and among Israel's usual allies in calling on the State of Israel to refrain from launching a counteroffensive in retaliation for Iran's attack on its territory and its facilities. Insofar as there is a troubling risk of escalation that could involve the entire region and, above all, Iran's attack was a failure, suggesting that Israel remains capable of defending its civilian population, and while reiterating that Israel has the right to defend itself and that Iran must be denounced, we believe that it is appropriate for Israel to remain on alert, but not to provoke an escalation that will only hinder the peace process.
I think that is the appropriate tone we should be using. I hope that we use the same tone in this debate as well. It breaks my heart that Israel's General Halevi said only an hour or two ago that Israel would retaliate for what happened the night of April 13 to 14. As the saying goes, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
The idea behind the Conservatives' proposal to list Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist group is well meaning. However, as is often the case with other issues, the problem lies in the implementation, in the execution of what is being proposed. That brings to mind what my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith pointed out in her question to the member for Winnipeg North and subsequent remarks. If this is applied across the board, there is a risk that people who should not be on the list may sadly end up on it. Think of the conscripts, for example. In response to that, it was pointed out that most people currently in the IRGC volunteered to be in it. However, we do not know how this will be implemented in practice. We can think of situations in the past where Iranians were denied visas to come here simply because they had served in the military some 20 years earlier. That could happen again.
There is a possibility that we might end up targeting people who should not be targeted. Even people who should be protected could probably be caught in the net of an overly broad and insufficiently specific measure. This raises a question that needs to be studied, and that is the capacity to effectively implement this measure. So much the better if it is studied in committee in a few weeks' time. That will allow us to understand the full implications of the request, which is legitimate in substance, but potentially problematic to enforce.
It also raises a question about the resources needed to enforce these measures. Enforcement under the Criminal Code would take place on Canadian territory. We would not be targeting members of the IRGC who are still on Iranian soil. We would be targeting people who are here in Canada. The motion talks about approximately 700 people. However, considering that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada has lost track of some 1.5 million refugee claimants and does not know their whereabouts or whether they are still here or have left, I wonder whether the government is actually capable of successfully implementing this measure, or whether it will ultimately be just another purely symbolic threat that does not scare anyone, since it is never enforced. The question is worth asking, given the context.
Would it not it be better to ensure that sanctions are properly implemented? The question of sanctions against Iran has also been discussed on numerous occasions in committee. Once again, I can think of two problems with sanctions. First, do sanctions not do more harm to the civilian population than to the people they are intended to target, in this case, the IRGC?
There is essential work to be done in terms of the approach that is taken. For example, we might consider sanctions that will be aimed more at the media, those that deliberately spread disinformation abroad or that use satellites to rebroadcast certain television channels. As far as economic sanctions are concerned, should we be able to target specific individuals, rather than imposing sanctions that hurt the general population?
Second, as I mentioned a little earlier in a question to the member for Winnipeg North, once the decision has been made to introduce sanctions, is there any way to really prove that they are effective? Unfortunately, based on what happened with the sanctions against Russian oligarchs after Ukraine was invaded, for example, I get the impression that the government cannot walk the talk. It wants to impose sanctions, but it is unable to ensure that the right people have been targeted, that their bank accounts have been seized and their money frozen. Again, sanctions are probably a good idea, but the problem is enforcing them.
Perhaps we should start by focusing on more effective sanctions in the immediate term, even though this issue has been dragging on for a long time. Back in 2018, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights unanimously adopted a motion to put the IRGC on the list of terrorist entities. Should we not be taking advantage of the fact that, shortly, there will be substantive work done to ensure that such a measure does not cause collateral damage?
On the substance, I understand the idea. I agree with adding the IRGC to the list of terrorist entities. However, it would have to be done in a precise enough way to ensure that there are no people suffering as a result, when they certainly should not have to. It could end up targeting people we may have some obligation to protect. Again, the devil is in the details.
Is this currently the right forum to hastily discuss that? Unfortunately, I do not think so, especially when concurrence motions are being moved in the House at the last minute. However, I trust the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to do more substantive work after hearing from experts on the issue, so that we can come up with a measured and, above all, effective position. That is the most important thing when dealing with the kind of issue that is before us today.
1460 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am also pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-320, which was introduced by the member for Oshawa.
This bill is very much in line with other private members' bills that have been introduced by various members from various parties. These bills demonstrate that there is complete unanimity on this issue, unlike in many other areas. All parties agree when it comes to the issue of protecting victims and integrating them better into the justice system.
For example, I can talk about two other bills that were debated very recently in the House, including Bill C-332, which was introduced by the NDP member for Victoria and seeks to criminalize coercive control. That bill focuses more on partners or spouses in a family context. I would like to read the bill summary:
This enactment amends the Criminal Code to create an offence of engaging in controlling or coercive conduct that has a significant impact on the person towards whom the conduct is directed, including a fear of violence, a decline in their physical or mental health or a substantial adverse effect on their day-to-day activities.
This bill seeks to create a new offence for conduct that often occurs in a domestic context.
I was also pleased to rise to speak to Bill S-205, which was introduced by now former senator Pierre‑Hugues Boisvenu and has to do with intimate partners. Once again, by way of explanation, I want to read the bill summary as it appears in the bill. It states and I quote:
This enactment amends the Criminal Code in respect of interim release and other orders related to intimate partner violence offences. The enactment also provides for recognizance orders to be made when there is a reasonable fear of domestic violence.
This bill, which I spoke to in the fall, is rather large in scope when it comes to measures to protect victims of domestic violence.
The two bills I just talked about deal with keeping women safe and protecting female victims. We know that the number of femicides increased by roughly 7.5% between 2009 and 2019. My colleague from Shefford also mentioned this. There is a great deal of work to be done to protect women. That is also the purpose of Senator Boisvenu's bill. It talks about the use of electronic bracelets, but also about the obligation to give the victim a copy of the order regarding the accused and to ensure that the victim has been consulted about her safety and security needs when a bail decision is being made.
There was already a strong interest in ensuring that victims of domestic violence offences or sexual offences are given more information about, and also have a say in, an accused's release, should a peace bond be issued. The idea is to ensure that the victim is aware of the situation and that she can even be involved in the release process, in a way, by helping monitor the actions of an accused who is subject to certain conditions, such as maintaining distance. Unfortunately, law enforcement agencies do not always have enough eyes to ensure that release conditions are met. Perhaps this is one way to ensure better monitoring and enforcement of orders.
Bill C-320 has some minor nuances. In this case, we are talking about victims in general. It is not just about victims of sexual offences or victims of domestic violence, but would include the families of murder victims, for example. The definition of victim as set out in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act includes the direct victim, but it also stipulates that someone else can act on the victim's behalf. This could include the victim's spouse or the person who was their spouse at the time of the victim's death, someone who was cohabiting with the victim, a relative or a dependant. This means that the bill can apply to a broader definition of victim. What this bill does is make it mandatory to give the victim more information on certain aspects.
We are not calling into question the very concept of parole, for example. That is something that the Bloc Québécois supports, because we believe in rehabilitation. The parole system may not be perfect, but we must still support it in the sense that, in some cases, rehabilitation takes precedence over a very strict desire to simply keep people incarcerated when it is not necessary or appropriate and when there is a real possibility of social reintegration.
Under the bill, the victim must be informed of the eligibility dates and review dates applicable to the offender in respect of temporary absences or parole, and they must be given an explanation of how those dates were determined. The victim must also be informed when the offender is released on escorted or unescorted temporary absence, on parole and on placement, meaning when the offender is sent to a halfway house. The victim must be informed of the date on which the offender will be released and how that date was determined. In short, explanations are given regarding the parole system, temporary absences and orders to place the offender in a halfway house.
Without completely reforming the issue of parole, this bill ensures that the person does not learn through the media that an individual convicted of a crime committed against her or a member of her family was released without her full knowledge of the process, the mechanics of that decision. This will ensure greater confidence. In fact, I dare to hope that the bill will help give victims more confidence in the federal prison system and further involve victims in the process. If this transparency can make victims more confident, that can have an untold impact on certain aspects of the judicial process.
I mentioned this during the study of Bill S-205. One of the common problems encountered in court when the time comes to lay criminal charges against someone, and particularly in the context of domestic violence, is that the victim is often not a party to the case, but simply a witness. This witness is important because, often, they are the only witness the Crown can use to put someone in jail and proceed with a hearing. If the victim does not have sufficient confidence in the justice system, she may decide not to testify, for fear of retribution. It is often for these reasons that domestic violence hearings go nowhere, for lack of a victim.
This is an opportunity to improve overall knowledge of the justice system, from one end of the legal process to the other, as was done with the other two bills, and this one. We can help people understand the system better, have more trust in it and participate more in the process to ensure that those who have committed wrongdoing end up serving the sentence handed down for their actions.
However, we also need to ensure that better psychological supports are available. As soon as the institution is required to properly inform victims about the parole process, for example, this can retraumatize many victims. We must therefore ensure that there are sufficient resources and supports in place for these victims if we want to get this right. We will have to make sure that there is a useful purpose, but also that we think more about the victims in the sense that this bill puts victims at the centre of the process. We must not do just one part of the job. We have to make sure that the work is done properly and that victims are fully supported. Ultimately, we have to be able to say that the victim has been put at the centre of our concerns and is part of the judicial process. She is not just an outside witness.
This bill has good intentions, and that is why I am convinced that the parties decided to unanimously support it at second reading and in committee, and that they will support it now at third reading.
1356 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
- Nov/25/22 11:29:12 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we have the rule of law to protect ourselves from arbitrary decrees, to ensure that the law is enforced uniformly, whether or not we like the person it applies to. The minister just threw the door wide open for future governments to make arbitrary decisions.
Does he realize that a Conservative leader could have used the same argument against the indigenous demonstrations during the Wet'suwet'en crisis? Does he realize that he is giving the green light for another leader to use this argument against environmentalists blocking a pipeline, for example? Does he realize what a dangerous precedent he has just set?
105 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 2:20:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in her speech my colleague spoke a lot about how serious the situation was to justify the enforcement of the Emergencies Act.
She described a lot of situations that are indeed very serious. That said, I will not get into certain issues, such as the fact that a business was not able to deliver biscuits.
My question is the following: What would my colleague say is a necessary condition for act to be enforced, the severity of the situation or the fact that all other options have been exhausted?
91 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
