- 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
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
Madam Speaker, the Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec spoke out against the government's source hunting. It fears that Ottawa is discouraging whistle-blowers when it should in fact be protecting them. It is concerned, and rightly so, because Canada has the weakest whistle-blower legislation in the world. According to the International Bar Association, Canada ranks 50th out of 50.
That is why the Bloc Québécois has introduced Bill C‑290 to better protect public servants who blow the whistle.
Will the government support our bill instead of basically going on a witch hunt trying to track down sources within its own ranks?
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 7:38:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke. I am sorry that I misquoted him. He has become a member of the big club of misquoted members. I believe we are all unwilling members of that club.
On the issue of protecting interpreters, if it had not been urgent and if we had had this discussion about the substance and form, we could probably have put in place more mechanisms to protect the interpreters. One that comes to mind is the communication of complaints concerning the misuse of electronic equipment by parliamentarians. When there is feedback, do we really have a good way of ensuring that the interpreters let us know so we can fix it?
Even worse, the Bloc Québécois made a recommendation at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. It recommended that rigorous measures to protect the health and safety of interpreters be implemented as follows: by improving working conditions to prevent injuries, by providing good equipment, by having a rigorous protocol for the use of technology, by having a better process for reporting technical difficulties.
That recommendation was not even put to a vote in committee, let alone included in the motion before us today. They could have taken the time to ensure better protection for interpreters. As I said, there was no need to rush this motion. Doing so will hurt the people who help us do our job well every day. That is absolutely deplorable.
250 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/9/22 10:42:54 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-9
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech.
I had the opportunity to speak at second reading of this bill, and I listened to the speeches given by my other colleagues.
One point that kept coming up from the Conservative side was about protecting victims. It was pointed out that, in the review process, victims' views were perhaps not sufficiently taken into account in cases where a sanction was warranted, but not necessarily removal.
However, an amendment adopted in committee would allow for victims to at least be notified of the reasons why their complaints were not successful.
Does my colleague think this is a step in the right direction? Could Bill C-9 not have done a little more to protect victims?
125 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
We just heard him say that we need to remember the darker moments in our history. Sometimes, there is some degree of politicization involved when we want to protect something. We were talking about workers' rights in the case of the Rossland Miner's Union Hall. It took time for funding to be granted to protect and promote it.
In the future, should we not find a way, if not in this bill then in another, to ensure that there is no politicization of the historic sites we want to protect, so that all sites are protected, not just certain ones depending on which party is in government?
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague from Drummond for his very interesting speech.
I would like him to tell us about the financial aspect of protecting different sites. It is one thing to designate them, but they must then be looked after, maintained, improved and preserved, and the problem is that, often, there is not enough money for that.
Would my colleague like to take a closer look at this issue when the bill is studied in committee after second reading stage?
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, while Quebec is in the midst of debating Bill 96, Ottawa is trying to thwart one of the bill's main measures.
Ottawa's Bill C‑13 would prevent Quebec from applying the Charter of the French Language to federally regulated businesses. We need to protect the French language in Quebec, yet Ottawa is protecting the English language at work. On top of that, the Liberals are in a rush. They just moved closure on Bill C‑13 to limit debate as much as possible.
Is this because they are afraid Quebeckers will rally against this bill, which does not protect the right language in Quebec?
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from La Pointe-de-l’Île for his speech.
This morning, in her speech, the Minister of Official Languages talked a lot about the importance protecting francophones in minority situations. I asked her a two-part question. I asked her whether she thinks French is in jeopardy in Quebec and, if so, what new measures Bill C-13 brings in to protect it. She recognized that French is in jeopardy. Her answer to me was that the government was going to protect the right of francophones to work in their language.
I would like my colleague to comment on that.
Is that something new and is it enough to protect French in Quebec?
122 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the minister talked a lot about the importance of protecting French in minority situations, in other words, outside Quebec.
I would like to hear her opinion on whether French is also in jeopardy in Quebec. Can she point to even a single measure in Bill C-13 that improves the status of French specifically in Quebec?
58 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
