- 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, I was saying that it took six months for Senator Gold to introduce the bill in the Senate. I do not blame him. It was the government's responsibility, not his.
The Senate passed the bill at third reading in two months, which seems more than reasonable to me. Three months went by between June 22 and September 19, because it was the summer. The bill arrived in the House on September 19, and 36 days later, here we are in the House for third reading of the bill. Thirty-six days is obviously not a lot of time to study a bill of this magnitude in the House. I find that disappointing.
What happened between October 28, 2022, and April 26, 2023? Was the government closed for business? Were there no ministers around who could work on drafting the bill? I guess not. I am very disappointed.
The only reason we are here today, being forced to ram through this bill, jeopardizing our parliamentary duty to listen to every citizen and group concerned about the bill, weigh their positions and arguments, and study the representations made in committee with care and attention, is that the government did not put in a modicum of diligence to satisfy the obligations imposed on it by the Supreme Court ruling. At no point, in the House, in committee, in the media or in a press release, did the government offer the slightest explanation for this delay. We received no explanation, no excuse, nothing. Again, it is disappointing to say the least.
Basically, the bill reinstates the principle of automatic registration, but with better guidelines and subject to certain conditions. Registration will now be automatic only for sex offenders sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years or more and for repeat offenders. In all other cases, there will be a presumption that the offender will be required to register, but it could be overturned if the individual proves that there is no connection between the order to register and the purpose of registration or that registration is totally disproportionate to that purpose.
Bill S‑12 therefore allows for greater flexibility and provides that judges may use their discretion to order whether those convicted of multiple offences during a single trial should, or should not, remain on the registry for life when their behavioural profile demonstrates an increased risk of reoffending.
The Bloc Québécois unsurprisingly endorses these amendments, which are in line with human rights requirements and respond to the Supreme Court's October 28, 2022 ruling.
With regard to the second component, Bill S‑12 proposes provisions promoting the participation of victims at the publication ban stage, when a ban is to be issued. On numerous occasions, witnesses have come before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights asking that we amend these rules and allow victims to intervene before a publication ban is issued.
Publication bans are issued to protect the identity and privacy of victims and witnesses. They are issued for their benefit, not for the benefit of the defendant or the benefit of the courts and prosecutors. The basic principle in Canada, and a cornerstone of our justice system, is to hold open trials. Not so long ago, we heard about hidden trials, secret trials. I do not think anyone wanted them. They certainly should not become the rule. Open legal proceedings are a guarantee of fairness and of trials that comply with the applicable legal provisions. Justice is done in public, not behind closed doors or in secret.
Obviously, the presence of the public and the media in the courtroom is critically important, as is the right to talk about the trial, the evidence presented and the issues at stake. Publication bans should be used only under exceptional and clearly defined circumstances. On several occasions, the courts have heard challenges to their validity, often raised by media representatives.
If these bans are to be issued only on rare occasions, it is quite understandable that the reasons justifying them must be very well defined and clear to everyone. The purpose of the bans must be to protect the identity and privacy of victims and witnesses, or at least seriously strive to achieve that objective. What is the current situation? At present, unfortunately, that is not always the case.
Bill S‑12 seeks to ensure that the people we want to protect are truly protected, and that they know they are protected. It seems to us that, at the very least, before issuing such a ban, the courts must ensure that the victims are aware that a ban is being sought and could be granted, that they understand the details of the ban and, finally, that they consent to it. How else could anyone claim that the ban is in their best interests?
Victims must also have the opportunity to request that the publication ban be modified or lifted. Victims may have consented to a ban for one reason or another but, for a host of other good reasons, they may later decide they want the ban modified or lifted. Logically, victims should be allowed to request such modifications if the ban is indeed in their best interests, as it should be.
However, as things stand, these bans are often issued without the victims' knowledge and, unfortunately, without their consent. Worse still, when they find out that a publication ban has been issued, the victims, whom the bans are intended to protect, are currently unable to request that the ban be modified or lifted. As if that were not enough, victims are even liable to prosecution if they violate a publication ban by speaking out about the assaults they have suffered or about their attacker's trial. The victim we want to protect becomes the culprit we want to prosecute. I agree with what everyone is probably thinking: That is insane and it has to change.
The purpose of Bill S‑12 is therefore to correct these incongruities and greatly improve the situation for victims and witnesses. From now on, judges will have to ensure that victims are notified when a publication ban is about to be issued and that they consent to it. If the victims are not present in the courtroom, the judge will have to ensure that the prosecutor has notified them and obtained their consent. Furthermore, victims will now be able to communicate with a legal professional, a health professional or a person with whom they have a relationship of trust without putting themselves at risk of contravening the publication ban. This is a necessary and welcome improvement. One even wonders how it could ever have been otherwise.
That said, our courts will face challenges. Sometimes, they will have to weigh the interests of the different parties if one victim wants a publication ban revoked or varied but other victims involved in the case disagree. The judge deciding the issue will have to consider the opinions and rights of everyone concerned by the ban. It will definitely take some imagination to word the ban in a way that satisfies and respects each person it needs to protect. This will be no small challenge, but nonetheless, it is a challenge we must meet. While it may not be perfect, I hope that Bill S‑12 will largely and adequately meet our legislative obligations.
1243 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/29/22 11:30:27 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, two sides can only end up agreeing insofar as they start by not agreeing.
If committees are created exclusively between parties that agree on every detail from the get-go, then what is the point?
By sealing their fate with a contract, these two parties have basically merged and no longer have the authority to unilaterally set the rules of democracy for other House bodies. They need to sit back down at the table with the real opposition parties and put an end to this monkey business.
When will democracy be restored?
94 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/29/22 11:29:10 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the House demanded that a committee study the dismissal of the scientists in Winnipeg.
Instead of providing the documents to the committee, the Liberals and their NDP accomplices decide to create their own committee, which will operate according to their own rules, without a single care for the other parties. Of course, since it signed a pact with the Liberals, the NDP is no longer a real opposition party. It is contractually tied to the government. So far, not a single actual opposition party has been consulted.
What is happening to democracy?
94 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 12:41:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first, I need to clarify something. The Emergencies Act was assented to on July 21, 1988, and it replaced the War Measures Act. I would agree that there are important, not to say fundamental, differences between them. However, both acts set out the manner in which we wish to articulate our interventions and responses to the worst situations, namely a public welfare emergency, a public order emergency, an international emergency or a war emergency. There is nothing ordinary or trivial about this act. It is the heavy artillery of legislation. It must only be invoked sparingly and with the utmost prudence.
Today, we must decide if using this act in the current situation is appropriate. Are we in a state of emergency? If the answer is yes, does the seriousness of the situation justify invoking the Emergencies Act? If so, as provided for in subsection 17(2), what area is affected by this state of emergency?
Subsection 17(1) of the act provides for the Governor in Council to declare a state of emergency after holding consultations under section 25. Pursuant to section 25, this means that “the lieutenant governor in council of each province...shall be consulted”. This exercise should usually make it possible to determine, with a modicum of reliability, if a situation exists in a province that requires us to invoke the Emergencies Act.
In the interest of being thorough, subsection 58(1) provides that the report on the consultations must be provided with the motion for confirmation of the potential proclamation. The Governor in Council's proclamation, dated February 15, 2022, states that the consultation under subsection 25(1) did take place, and it “declare[s] that a public order emergency exists throughout Canada and necessitates the taking of special temporary measures”.
What does that mean, exactly? Like all the other members of the Bloc Québécois caucus, I think that ratifying this proclamation at this point in time would be a grave error that could have worse consequences than the situation it seeks to address. Even setting aside the fact that no end date is given for the allegedly temporary proposed measures, there are plainly at least two big issues with the proclamation. First of all, and this is no small matter, it is clear that there is no state of emergency as defined in the act, which I think nullifies any argument for authorizing the proclamation under section 17(1). The definition of a public order emergency is set out in section 16 of the act and requires “a national emergency”. This national emergency is itself defined in section 3 of the act, which states that the situation must be such that it “cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada”. It also states that the situation must “exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it”.
However, the protests and the occupation in Ottawa and elsewhere in Canada have all been dealt with. The blockades have been removed and the offenders punished without the need to invoke the Emergencies Act. The existing laws and provincial and municipal powers to intervene were clearly sufficient. Moreover, the majority of premiers consulted by the Prime Minister confirmed that they did not need this act and made it clear that they were opposed to using it. In fact, of the 13 premiers consulted, only three said they supported invoking the act. How then can anyone seriously argue that the whole country is in a state of emergency?
The Premier of Quebec even said as much to the Prime Minister. Page 5 of the report attached to the proclamation says that “municipal police and the Sûreté du Québec have control of the situation”. It then says that “the use of the Act would be divisive”.
The least we can conclude from that is that the national emergency, which the act states is a condition for declaring a public order emergency, simply does not exist.
Furthermore, in the worst-case scenario, the report on the consultation with the provinces under in subsection 25(1) of the act would only justify the declaration of a public order emergency in the three provinces that were affected and that supported the declaration, namely Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, and British Columbia.
The premiers of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Quebec all said that they had the situation under control and did not support the invocation of this act.
Unless the government has no regard for these premiers, it certainly cannot claim that there is a national emergency in these seven provinces as required by the act.
As for the premiers of Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, the report merely states that they have not issued public statements. It would be pretty difficult to interpret that silence as a call for help or as approval to invoke the Emergencies Act.
As for Quebec, I will simply read the quote from the report on the consultations regarding the proclamation. It takes up just three short lines in an eight-page document:
The Premier of Quebec said that he opposed the application of the Emergencies Act in Quebec, stating that municipal police and the Sûreté du Québec have control of the situation, and arguing that the use of the Act would be divisive.
Under subsection 17(2) of the Act, the emergency, if it existed, was in only three provinces, so the proclamation should have stated that there was a situation in the provinces of Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, and British Columbia, rather than indicating that a state of emergency exists throughout the country, as appears in the third paragraph of the declaration.
The government's claim that the lieutenant governor in council of each province and the commissioners of Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut had been consulted and that it had therefore concluded that a state of emergency exists throughout the country inevitably suggests either a serious lack of judgment or equally serious wilful blindness. As the Premier of Quebec rightly said, this is not an inconsequential mistake, but a potentially divisive act. Do we really need this?
Moreover, it sets a dangerous precedent. This kind of law constitutes a serious argument to convince anyone that the Government of Canada has the power to control its territory. Invoking it on a whim anytime an unexpected situation causes headaches and creates major policing challenges actually weakens its impact. The most powerful weapons should be used only as a last resort. They tend to be more effective as a deterrent than when they are put to use.
Let us be clear. The situation that has been happening on Parliament Hill for the past three weeks is unacceptable in a democracy and should never have been tolerated this long. In a democracy, the right to express disapproval of our leaders' decisions and the right to assemble are sacred.
However, we must bear in mind that each individual's rights end where another's begin. Abuse of those rights is a violation that can and actually should always be punished. Have we reached the point of bringing out the heavy artillery? I do not think so. It might happen one day. We cannot rule it out. As I see it, this act should be delayed for as long as possible and be used as rarely as possible—ideally, never.
In conclusion, the invocation of the Emergencies Act at this point could be seen as a clumsy or perhaps desperate move on the part of a beleaguered Prime Minister trying to make it look like he took action to deal with a situation that is unacceptable in a democracy. Either way, it is a serious, dangerous move whose consequences will not be fully understood for years.
It is therefore my intention and that of the entire Bloc Québécois caucus to vote against the confirmation motion, and I urge my 306 colleagues, be they NDP, Conservative, Green, Liberal or independent, who also care about democracy and the rights we enjoy because of it, to reject this motion.
1393 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
