- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Rivière-du-Nord
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $105,330.31
- Government Page
Madam Speaker, next time I will remember to ask for a lectern.
As I was saying, child sexual abuse has a significant connotation. It is pedophilia. When people talk about pornography in today's society, there is apparently some ambiguity around that word. The meaning and significance of pornography vary considerably from person to person. Some people may consider certain actions pornographic. Some actions, some audiovisual material and some books may be considered pornographic by some and art or just sexuality by others. To some people, it is not that at all.
I think we can live with some degree of ambiguity with respect to pornography. That may be a subject for another time in another place, but child pornography is something else entirely. Child sexual abuse is unacceptable in our society, and I think it is important not to mince words. The Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑291 because we think it is essential.
The point I want to make about pornography is that it has everything to do with the participants' consent. Child sexual abuse is totally different.
Let us look at the statistics. We are told that, in Quebec, the number of victims under the age of 18 has grown faster than the number of adult victims in recent years. We are talking about an annual increase of 9.5% in cases of child pornography, cases of sexual assault against children. Meanwhile, the number of crimes involving pornography or sexual assault against adults increased by only 4.3%. That is a lot. I am not saying that it is not significant. I simply want to emphasize the fact that what we consider abusive, namely sexual assault against adults, increased by 4.3% and we find that unacceptable. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that, for children, that increase amounted to 9.5% a year.
I think we need to take action. There are all kinds of ways to do that. I am thinking about the possibility of educating children on the topic in schools and the need to make adults more aware of this problem. All sorts of measures can be taken as part of the administration of justice to ensure that children are better protected.
In the federal Parliament we work with the Criminal Code. Yes, we may need to review some provisions of the Criminal Code, impose harsher sentences or find other approaches. One thing is certain, what Bill C-291 is proposing is no minor matter, unlike some bills that simply seek to change the terms that are used without doing anything that has a real impact.
At the same time, I think we have to keep the issue of the healing process in mind. In the current system, an adult who sexually assaults a child could be charged with sexual assault or with using child pornography, without any real understanding of what that means. Often, children will feel responsible for acts that should be blamed on the adult who abused them.
During the victim's healing process, it is important to ensure that the victim does not feel responsible in any way. This is important. It is equally important, for the victim's sake, that we ensure that the abuser is blamed and identified as the perpetrator of the acts.
I think that being accused of having consumed, used or sold child pornography is already a serious matter. Being accused of child sexual abuse is much more serious, much more significant. Young victims will understand that the burden of what took place falls not on them, but on the abuser, the person who is accused of child sexual abuse. I think that will help in the healing process.
In closing, Bill C-291 is not a panacea. I said earlier that perhaps we need to review certain provisions of the Criminal Code in terms of how we deal with the offenders in question, but we also need to ensure the sound administration of justice.
We recently passed a bill that requires training for new judges who will be appointed in the federal system. They will be required to take training on sexual assault law. This is important. We want to avoid a repeat of what happened in 2017 with former judge Braun, who made wholly unacceptable comments about a young girl, saying that she should perhaps feel proud, or something like that, to have been forcibly kissed. It was unacceptable and despicable. The Court of Appeal refused to hear his appeal, as did the Supreme Court. We never want to see anything like that happen again. Training for judges is therefore important.
The bill we passed is important, but there is still more to do. Quebec and the provinces will no doubt follow suit with measures to ensure that kids in our schools and adults who work with young people are very aware of this issue. The federal Parliament has done its job with Bill C‑291, and I congratulate the member who introduced this bill. I think it will be good for everyone.
I will conclude by wishing everyone a happy holiday.
863 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I was saying that in the case of Bill C-291, words carry weight.
We are debating replacing the term “child pornography”, which is currently used in the Criminal Code, with “child sexual abuse material”. The RCMP proposed the use of the term “child sexual exploitation material”.
Whether we use the term child sexual exploitation or child sexual abuse, I think that we should clarify these actions or describe them for what they really are.
Pornography in our society—
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, Bill C‑291 is a bill that could, in other circumstances, be described as practically useless. It only changes some words. Changing the title of a bill and the name of a crime in the Criminal Code may seem rather inconsequential.
In this case, there is absolutely nothing inconsequential about it. In this case, we are talking about holding criminals responsible for their actions.
67 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/21 12:05:10 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, Bill C‑5 is important. It was introduced during the previous Parliament when it was known as Bill C‑22. The two bills are substantially the same, with some minor differences. What really makes Bill C‑5 different from Bill C‑22 is context. Society is in a completely different place now.
In my mind, Bill C‑5 might be better off being split up. The debate over diversion and the debate over minimum penalties are two completely different debates. People could be very much in favour of one and against the other. If we want to be able to work effectively on this bill, all members of the House need an opportunity to speak to each of the aspects of the bill. We should be able to agree with one aspect and disagree with the other.
That said, the Bloc Québécois has historically been in favour of decriminalization. We believe that rehabilitation is an essential step to eliminating crime in a society. We can never completely eliminate crime, of course, but rehabilitation would at least help make our society better and more in line with our values.
The Bloc Québécois believes in rehabilitation. This can be seen particularly in Quebec's young offenders legislation, which facilitates diversion. For example, young people who have broken the law are asked to do community work, to engage in activities with various organizations.
I know of a case where a young man who shoplifted and vandalized the wall of a convenience store had to meet with the store owner, clean up the wall and do some work for the store. They ended up fully reconciled. While the young man and the convenience store owner may not have become great friends, they developed a relationship that was probably conducive, if not essential, to the young man's rehabilitation. There are other positive experiences and cases like that one. That is why the Bloc Québécois believes that diversion has a role to play and it has historically agreed with this principle.
With respect to minimum penalties, the courts must be able to exercise their power freely and judiciously. The Bloc Québécois has always believed that minimum penalties are a hindrance, but that is not always the case. In some circumstances, minimum penalties can be a way of sending a clear message to offenders. We need to look at this aspect of the question. However, generally speaking, we do not think that minimum penalties contribute to a healthier society. On the contrary, we believe that they may have given rise to some highly regrettable situations.
I remember one case in the Lower St. Lawrence region of Quebec. An 18-year-old man had a 16- or 17-year-old girlfriend. Both families were aware of the relationship and approved of it. Everything was fine. However, for one reason or another, they found themselves in court, and the young man was found guilty of corrupting a minor. The judge said he hated to do it, because the situation did not warrant it, but he had no choice, because there was a minimum penalty in the Criminal Code, and he had to impose it. At the time, this caused an uproar and a certain amount of frustration in Quebec, and for good reason. I was one of the ones who felt that, in a situation like that, not only did the minimum penalty not help, but it hindered the judicious exercise of judicial power. For this reason, the Bloc Québécois has historically also been in favour of the abolishment of minimum penalties.
That being said, I am speaking from a historical point of view, but we are now in 2021. The situation is not the same as it was in 2020, 2019 or 2018. I could go back as far as 1867.
Circumstances are changing, and the law is changing. There is a reason we pass laws here in Parliament and in the legislative assemblies of Quebec and the provinces. We are continually passing laws because circumstances change, society evolves and, as a result, the laws must be adapted to fit our different realities.
What is the context surrounding Bill C-5?
I think that it is important to discuss it, because that is our job as legislators. We cannot simply pass a law that will apply to everyone without considering the consequences. We cannot pass a law until we evaluate the context in which a decision will be made concerning Bill C‑5. What is going on in Montreal in 2021?
On January 4, 2021, a 17-year-old boy was injured in a shooting in the Saint-Michel neighbourhood of Montreal. On January 31, 2021, a 25-year-old man suffered minor gunshot wounds in the Rivière-des-Prairies borough of Montreal. On February 7, 2021, 15-year-old Meriem Boundaoui died from a gunshot wound to the head in Montreal.
On July 5, 2021, 43-year-old Ernst Exantus was shot dead in Montreal North. He was known to police for his ties to organized crime. On July 26, 2021, a 22-year-old woman was injured by glass shards when her vehicle was shot at. On August 1, 2021, an 18-year-old man sustained gunshot wounds to his lower body during a dispute between groups. On August 2, 2021, three people were killed and two others were wounded in a shootout in the Rivière‑des‑Prairies borough of Montreal.
On September 1, 2021, once again in Rivière‑des‑Prairies, a man was shot during an attempted murder. On September 10, 2021, 35-year-old Patricia Sirois was in her vehicle with her two young children when she was shot dead by her neighbour, a 49-year-old man from Saint-Raymond. On the night of September 24 to 25, 2021, a 19-year-old woman was shot dead in her vehicle.
On September 26, 2021, once again in Rivière‑des‑Prairies, 33-year-old Yevgen Semenenko was found dead near a vehicle with bullet holes in it. On September 28, 2021, a man was shot as he was walking down the street in Mount Royal. On October 25, 2021, a 25-year-old man was shot and wounded in Montreal.
On November 14, 2021, in the Saint‑Michel neighbourhood of Montreal, 16-year-old Thomas Trudel was shot dead as he walked home. On December 2, 2021, in the Anjou borough, 20-year-old Hani Ouahdi was shot dead in a vehicle; a 17-year-old boy in the vehicle was also wounded. On the same day, in Coaticook, Quebec, 80-year-old Jeannine Perron-Ruel was shot dead by her 38-year-old neighbour. On December 3, 2021, in Montreal, a woman in her fifties was injured at home by a bullet that came through her window. On December 6, 2021, an 18-year-old man was shot and wounded in a Laval library.
I have just listed 18 incidents that took place in Quebec in 2021. Were there more? Probably. I found 18 after a quick search.
Were there others outside Quebec? Probably. I would be surprised if crimes of this sort and gunshot victims were found only in Quebec. There are undoubtedly others. In any case, in the past 11 months, there have been at least 18 incidents involving as many, if not more, gunshot victims.
On September 21, the mayor of Montreal asked the federal government to institute gun control measures.
On November 22, the City of Montreal reiterated its request, and the Quebec government said that it wanted to increase pressure on the federal government regarding gun control at the border and banning handguns.
Many debates have taken place in the House in recent weeks, and I have taken part in them. We demand that the government take responsibility, because Quebec and certain parts of Canada are turning into the wild west.
We want the government to set up a special task force. Illegal firearms are flooding into Canada via the St. Lawrence River through the Akwesasne reserve, which borders the U.S. and the St. Lawrence. Quebec and Cornwall, Ontario, are just across the river.
We need a special task force. Currently, we can do little to prevent arms trafficking because there are too many jurisdictions involved. We need a special joint task force made up of U.S. agents, peacekeepers, the Ontario Provincial Police, the Sûreté du Québec and the RCMP to fight these crimes effectively. It could be funded by an investment from the federal government. For example, we could have five boats patrolling this part of the St. Lawrence 24-7. I can guarantee that the problem would be solved within a year. There would be no more firearms crossing the border there. They might cross elsewhere, but we will fight them where they are.
We need to take concrete action. We demand investments in the fight against arms trafficking and the creation of a joint task force. A bill against organized crime could be tabled, like the one I introduced in the House in 2016 during the 42nd Parliament. Unfortunately, the bill was rejected for reasons that, in my opinion, were not justified, but I will not reopen a debate from the past. Maybe the bill could be reintroduced, because organized crime, arms trafficking and the government's complacency on gun control are causing immense harm and putting Quebeckers in an unsafe and vulnerable position. We cannot let that happen, not in 2021.
I read out a list of 18 incidents. I explained that cities in Quebec and the provinces are demanding that the government take action. What did the government do? The latest incident I mentioned happened on December 6, when the 18-year-old man was shot and wounded in a library. A library seems like the ideal place to find peace and harmony, yet this young man was shot and wounded in a library on December 6. While we have been debating the topic for weeks, on December 7, the day after that particular shooting, the Liberal government chose to table Bill C-5, the bill we are considering today, for first reading. This bill aims to divert certain offences away from the justice system and to abolish certain minimum penalties, including for offences involving the possession and use of firearms and the commission of certain other crimes.
As I said, the Bloc Québécois has historically been in favour of abolishing mandatory minimum penalties. However, I am starting to seriously wonder about the Liberal government's timing. If the Liberals were tabling Bill C-5 and creating a joint task force; if they were proposing to deploy river patrols starting Monday to put an end to the arms trafficking; if they were investing in the creation of a special unit to patrol the entire border of Quebec and the other Canadian provinces to fight arms trafficking; if they were adopting a bill like the one proposed by the Bloc Québécois in 2015 to create a list of criminal organizations and treat members of these organizations in the same manner as members of listed terrorist organizations, so that if someone in organized crime is caught with a firearm, he gets his comeuppance; if that were what they were proposing, I would feel less uneasy voting in favour of Bill C‑5.
Right now, I am feeling very uneasy about the government's timing and its complacency in the face of an almost unheard-of situation that is threatening not only people's quality of life and ability to thrive, but the very survival of our youth on the streets of Montreal.
Once again, we are not in the wild west. This is not the 1600s or 1700s, when cowboys rode around with guns, shot at each other for no reason and were summarily hanged because a trial was too much trouble. It is 2021. I think that we should be able to agree on the importance of keeping our teenagers and the entire population safe, and we should not have to discuss it. We need to do something about it.
Once the government has done something about that, then we can talk about diversion programs. In fact, we could talk about it at the same time; we could talk about it now. With respect to minimum penalties, we need to abolish many of them. The Supreme Court itself has said so, and far be it from me to go against it. I think that it is entirely justified: some need to be abolished, and others need to remain in place.
Bill C‑5 warrants a good, solid discussion in committee. We need to review the details of this bill, but the government needs to step up, for goodness' sake. We cannot tell citizens that we are going to do away with minimum sentences when there are people going around with guns, yet nothing is being done to stop gun trafficking and people keep getting shot at week after week on the streets of Montreal. That would be absurd. If the government is serious and really wants to get tough on crime, then we would be talking about diversion programs because we want to rehabilitate young people, and we would be talking about doing away with minimum sentences because we want judges to be able to do their job effectively and judiciously. Most importantly, the government needs to get tough on crime by taking responsibility and putting an end to firearms trafficking and the gun violence we have been seeing over this past year.
We will take responsibility and work effectively in the public interest. I am here for one thing. I want to represent my constituents and Quebeckers, and I will not keep silent on this issue.
2359 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
