- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Rivière-du-Nord
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $105,330.31
- Government Page
- Feb/16/23 12:04:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I agree with my colleague from Jonquière. He is very reasonable.
I would add to the list of the problems with this government the fact that it has been unable to issue paycheques properly for years. I have been a member of the House since 2015, and we have been hearing about the Phoenix pay system all this time. I was a lawyer before I became an MP, and I had business clients. If they had not been able to give their employees paycheques, they would have gone bankrupt and been taken to court. I will move on to other topics, but let us just say that this government has not proven it has the competence to manage the affairs of the provinces.
I would say that there are two big problems with this NDP motion. First, it does not respect the division of powers set out in the Constitution Act, 1867. We know that health is not a federal but a provincial jurisdiction. The federal government's role, with all due respect to my colleague opposite, is to transfer money to the provinces so they can manage their health care systems. As was mentioned, the federal government has no competence in many areas, certainly including health care. The federal government does not manage any hospitals, clinics or anything else to do with health care. It is dreaming if it thinks it can impose its vision on the provinces.
Second, there is the issue of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Supreme Court ruled that, under the charter, the federal government cannot restrict access to private health care in the provinces. I will talk about that in more detail later.
When I look at this constitutional problem, I realize that the NDP does not seem to understand that the feds have nothing to do with health. I was thinking about it this morning and thought it felt like a legend. The NDP dreams of a totalitarian federal government that controls everything and of a country where the federal government is all-powerful, like a supreme authority. That is the federal legend and the NDP's dream.
Mr. Mario Simard: Is it the myth?
Mr. Rhéal Fortin: Madam Speaker, the myth, the legend, that is what we are talking about today. Beyond the legend, there is a constitutional problem, because health is not a federal responsibility, but rather a provincial one. There is also a problem in relation to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects a certain number of rights. It protects privacy in section 7, among other things.
This is not the first time a situation of this kind has been brought before the courts. My colleague from Jonquière talked briefly about the Supreme Court of Canada's Chaoulli decision from 2005. The chief justice, Justice McLachlin, supported by Justices Major and Bastarache, agreed with the findings of Justice Deschamps. I quote:
[T]he prohibition on private health insurance violates s. 1 of the Quebec Charter and is not justifiable under s. 9.1...The prohibition also violates s. 7 of the Canadian Charter and is not justifiable under s. 1...While the decision about the type of health care system Quebec should adopt falls to the legislature of that province, the resulting legislation, like all laws, must comply with the Canadian Charter.
Again, it states that “the type of health care system Quebec should adopt falls to the legislature of that province”.
The Supreme Court wrote that over 15 years ago, but the NDP members did not read the Supreme Court decisions, and that is okay. I know they have other things to do, like dreaming up this legend of a totalitarian Canadian government and trying to promote it. That cannot be easy, and I would not want to be in their shoes. I understand why they might be busy.
However, it is still important to read the Constitution and the charter at least once, to know what we are talking about and to avoid such huge traps. The New Democrats set this trap for themselves by proposing, on the one hand, that the federal government meddle in provincial and Quebec jurisdictions and, on the other hand, that the federal government completely violate the provisions of the charter.
That said, is it a fatal error? Yes, interfering in provincial jurisdictions is a fatal error.
I do not think that the federal government has any business meddling in areas under provincial jurisdiction. It can try, but it will end up in court. After a few years, the Supreme Court will say, as it already has, that this cannot be done. The federal government can try if it wants. We shall see.
Is the charter question fatal? No, it is not. I must concur.
We could contravene the provisions of the charter and say, “Too bad for section 7, we are still going ahead with a measure that would prohibit nurses from accessing private health care.” Even if it violates the charter, it could be done. How would we go about it? It is easy. The charter contains just such a provision. It is section 33, which reads as follows:
Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.
The Chaoulli decision dealt with section 7. When I read the charter, I see that it can be overridden. Yes, what the NDP is proposing violates the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is a major sacrilege, clearly, but section 33 allows for the charter to be overridden.
The only problem is that just this week, mere hours ago, the NDP was getting all worked up and crying foul because Quebec had the nerve to use this notwithstanding clause to protect French and secularism in Quebec. Scandalized, our Canadian federal Prime Minister said that he would go to the Supreme Court and ask it to declare that the provinces cannot use the notwithstanding clause that his father gave them many years ago when he had this legislation passed. He said that they should have to go through the courts first and so on.
We argued that this did not make much sense since section 33 states, “Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature”. That is what Quebec did, that is what the federal government detests and that is what the NDP finds so outrageous and astounding. However, that is what the NDP will have to do if they want to follow their motion to its logical conclusion.
Are they going to follow their motion to its logical conclusion? Perhaps. If they do, we will bring back our motion, which they defeated this week. After all, a person cannot enjoy ice cream one day, be allergic to it the next, and then enjoy it again the day after. It either works or it does not.
If they want it to work, I am willing to consider it. There will still be the jurisdictional issue, which remains unresolved, but we could at least resolve the charter aspect. If they want to continue down that path, with that reasoning, we will follow their lead and allow them to apply for a charter exemption. We know that they are entirely within their rights.
However, if they persist in saying that we are not allowed to do it, it is hard for me to see how they can logically say to us that they want to contravene the charter and violate the division of powers.
Again, this legend exists only in the minds of my esteemed colleagues in the New Democratic Party or, should I say, the New Liberal-Democratic Party. I am not sure what to call it anymore.
1360 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/23 2:40:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the notwithstanding clause has basically only been used by Quebec, in order to protect and promote our national language and our unique values.
It is no coincidence that the Liberals and the NDP are attacking it today. They want to contest Bill 96, which protects French in Quebec, and Bill 21, which protects state secularism. They want to prevent Quebec from tabling any other legislation that they do not agree with.
The real problem is that Quebec is different and the notwithstanding clause allows it to live differently. Is that not what the Liberal government's real problem is?
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/23 2:39:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it seems complicated and difficult. Maybe my colleague should reread the Constitution, or perhaps read it for the first time. Nowhere in section 33 does it say that the notwithstanding clause represents the first or the last word. It is exclusively up to Quebec and the provinces. That is written in black and white. Therein lies the rub for the Liberals and the NDP. The notwithstanding clause guarantees in black and white that certain decisions can be made by governments other than the federal government, without having to ask its permission.
Is the real problem with the notwithstanding clause the fact that the Liberals do not get the last word?
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/23 2:37:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am going to talk about the notwithstanding clause, the only bit of autonomy that the Constitution guarantees Quebec and the provinces. It was the compromise that Prime Minister Trudeau senior came up with so that the provinces would agree to his Constitution, which, by the way, was never signed by Quebec. The notwithstanding clause gives Quebec and the provinces the right to make different societal choices without having them overturned by the courts or the federal government. Yesterday, Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau's son's Liberals and the NDP voted against that right.
Why is it that the Liberals and the NDP think that any little bit of autonomy for Quebec and the provinces is too much?
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 12:04:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Trois-Rivières. I have only one river and he has three, but we will still share the time equally.
Today's motion states, and I quote, “That the House remind the government that it is solely up to Quebec and the provinces to decide on the use of the notwithstanding clause.”
The notwithstanding clause refers to section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It gives elected representatives of the people in the Quebec National Assembly, the federal Parliament and the provincial and territorial legislative assemblies the ability to pass legislation that could contravene one or more provisions of the charter.
Section 33 reads, and I quote:
Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.
Then it goes on to say that the effect of the act in question is independent of the provisions of the charter, that the act will have to be renewed every five years or it will expire and that all of this is legitimate.
Others will tell me that that is obvious. They may say that all that has already been settled, that it has been enshrined in our legislation since 1982, so for 41 years now, and that, ultimately, in principle, we are now speaking to no purpose. I wish this motion did not have to be moved in the House today, because I too believe the matter has been settled.
However, we have heard the Prime Minister suggesting for some time that the notwithstanding clause can only be used after the courts have overturned a law.
This Prime Minister is suggesting that we allow people to waste their time and money pursuing needless legal proceedings only to ultimately be told that, win or lose, they have lost. They will have to spend tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars seeking a judgment from the Superior Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. If they are lucky enough to win, the government will say too bad, because with the notwithstanding clause, even when they win, they lose. That seems totally illogical to me.
Our courts are currently overloaded. They are so backed up that it can often take years before a trial begins. Who would want to make the backlog even worse? I have no clue. We should ask the Prime Minister why he is saying that. It seems so absurd to me. However, I would say that it is a fascinating position in some ways.
First, the Supreme Court ruled in Ford in 1988 that the National Assembly of Quebec is perfectly free to include the notwithstanding clause in any law it passes, if it wants to. It can do so pre-emptively, without waiting for a court to overturn the legislation first. The court does not have authority to judge the substance of the legislation or the legitimacy of invoking the notwithstanding clause. The court's only role is to determine whether the notwithstanding clause adheres to the prescribed form. In other words, it must be explicit and indicate the section of the charter from which it intends the legislation in question to derogate.
As we all know, the government of René Lévesque enacted the Act respecting the Constitution Act, 1982, which introduced, again in a pre-emptive manner, notwithstanding clauses for all Quebec legislation. In short, the act is clear, it has been in force for 40 years, and it has faced few or no challenges.
The Supreme Court has upheld the interpretation, but for some reason, the Prime Minister does not seem to be aware of it. I cannot wait to see how our Liberal colleagues will vote on this motion, especially the Prime Minister.
In a 2016 research note, University of Sherbrooke law professor Guillaume Rousseau counted 41 laws passed by the Quebec National Assembly that included at least one mention of the notwithstanding clause.
At least 11 of those laws are still in force. Furthermore, nine of the total 41 included exemptions from both the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.
In total, there were 32 exemptions from the Quebec charter and 18 exemptions from the Canadian charter. These are all statistics.
It is interesting to see some of the examples, including the Act respecting La Financière agricole du Québec, which provides for financial assistance to be granted to young farmers aged 40 and under. We agree that this is discrimination based on age. It is terrible from the point of view of the charter, but it makes sense to Quebec society. Therefore it was decided that the act would apply despite the provisions of the charter. The notwithstanding clause was invoked without any shirt rending whatsoever.
The employment equity act directs the government to give preference to people from under-represented communities. Again, this violates both charters; it is a form of discrimination. However, since Quebec society thought it made sense, the act was passed despite the provisions of the charter, by invoking section 33, the notwithstanding clause.
I also want to talk about small claims court, which was set up to ease the court process in cases that are less financially significant, with claims of $15,000 or less. The idea was that it does not make sense in a case with a $10,000 claim, for example, for people to have to wait years in court and pay a lawyer $20,000 or $30,000 to maybe get a ruling for $15,000 or $10,000. In small claims court lawyers are not authorized to represent clients. People represent themselves. The court makes a decision after having heard all the parties and looked at all the evidence. This goes against the charter, which recognizes the right to a lawyer. As a society, we thought it made sense. It was adopted with the use of the notwithstanding clause.
The Court of Quebec's youth division protects children's anonymity. In Quebec, this was considered important. I believe that it is the same everywhere in Canada. However, anonymity goes against the charter because trials are public. Recently, we saw a case that proved otherwise, but I will not talk about it, because I only have 10 minutes, and it would take me 20 minutes to talk about it. I was saying that under the charter, trials must be public. The youth division was created using the section 33 notwithstanding clause.
These are all choices made by the Quebec National Assembly. It had the opportunity to do so because of one thing. Although the federal government decided to pass the Constitution Act, 1982, behind Quebec's back, without Quebec's sign-off, it still had the decency to allow Quebec to get out of it using the section 33 notwithstanding clause. That was the agreement reached in 1982 between the Prime Minister of Canada and the premiers of the nine other provinces, without Quebec.
I would like to point out that in 1982, our current Prime Minister's father was there. Although he was not always considered to be a decent person in some ways, he did have the decency to say that even though he was doing this behind Quebec's back, he would give it an escape hatch.
Why is the current Prime Minister now questioning decisions made by his father back then? Why is he trying to undermine the autonomy of the provinces and of Quebec? I think that is appalling.
I was listening to my colleagues talk about various pieces of legislation in Canada that they do not agree with. I might not agree with decisions made elsewhere either. The fact remains that democracy is all about the right to pass legislation, and that includes the right to be wrong. We must not forget that.
A democratic state does not pass laws that suit the citizens of other states. A democratic state passes laws that suit its citizens, who are the subjects of that democracy.
I want to respect the democracy that allows the Ontario government or any other government to pass laws that may not suit us Quebeckers. I respect that. It is up to their citizens to decide. They hold elections there as well.
In Quebec, we want to avail ourselves of our right to democracy. We want our government and our National Assembly to pass laws that fit with our values and reflect who we are, without having to impose standards that the federal government has decided to impose on everyone, once again behind Quebec's back, without our consent.
1490 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, Bill C-295 is a bill that makes sense. It is a bill that we want to study in committee, that we want to support so that it moves forward. Like most bills in their original form, it is far from perfect, but it is worth examining.
In Quebec, like elsewhere in Canada, the pandemic tested us in ways we never wanted to experience. The worst of what we went through was the abandonment of our seniors. Some seniors had a much harder time during the pandemic than most people, particularly those living in long-term care facilities. They were sometimes left alone in wretched conditions. They were isolated from their loved ones. They were often inadequately fed or only given something to eat at odd hours. I think that is shameful. In this situation, we behaved like ungrateful children towards our seniors. I hope that this sort of situation never happens again. We have a duty to work on that.
In Quebec we have the law to combat elder abuse and the abuse of any vulnerable adult. This legislation provides for fines to be imposed and protects informants, because there are people in long-term care facilities who will testify and intervene to try to prevent certain situations from deteriorating. We need to protect those people. We must encourage people to blow the whistle on untenable situations. In Quebec, with this legislation to fight against abuse, we are able, or we try by giving ourselves the tools, to better protect people who assume their responsibilities and intervene in situations like that.
The federal government's legislation parallels Quebec's legislative provisions, but in my opinion, and at first glance, it is doing so within its own jurisdiction. For now, from what I have seen of Bill C‑295, I am satisfied. We will have to take a closer look at the bill. There are some aspects that could easily go off the rails. We know that the issue of protecting jurisdictions is relevant to almost every bill introduced in the House. We will have to look at this more closely, but I agree, at first glance, Bill C‑295 seems to stay within the parameters set for federal jurisdictions.
The bill refers to the Criminal Code, and that is obviously a federal law that was passed and amended under federal jurisdiction. That particular aspect seems to be appropriate. However, the bill must not push boundaries and lead to interference in Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdictions.
Having said that, I am somewhat concerned. When I look at Bill C-295, I am concerned that this bill will be considered as a panacea and that we will ease our consciences by believing that passing Bill C-295 means that we will have done what needed to be done to protect seniors and give them better living conditions. Everyone knows that is far from true. The federal government's first responsibility is to properly manage the taxes it collects. We know that the taxes the federal government collects far exceed the cost of its own responsibilities, which means that it must return some of that money to the provinces, especially for health care.
At first, 50 or so years ago, the federal government was paying around 50% of the health care costs of each province and Quebec. Today, the proportion is around 20% to 24%, and it keeps going down all the time. The provinces are calling for a health transfer equivalent to 35% of their expenses. That is a reasonable figure that takes into account all the formulas. I would even say that this figure is lower than it should be, but it is still too high in the eyes of the federal government. The provinces can no longer manage.
I was talking earlier about a scandal—elderly people left in beds without care, medication and adequate services for hours, people often not eating all day because there was no one to bring them a meal. These situations are unworthy of us as a society. They are 99% due to a lack of funding. The institutions are no longer able to pay the staff they need to take care of our seniors. How much longer will we tolerate this?
I think we have a responsibility to prevent this. The primary responsibility of the federal government is to give the provinces the excess money it has collected in taxes. It must transfer the money to the provinces so that the provinces can manage their health care institutions properly. That is the only way to address the problem.
I recognize that this bill is about looking after seniors, and of course that is commendable. I am certain that not one of the 338 members in the House would say that that is unimportant or that the money should be used for something else. We all agree it is important. However, we cannot lose sight of the fact that in order to run health care facilities properly and take care of our seniors properly, the money needs to be transferred. It is cruel and pointless to keep this money here in Ottawa when it is the provinces that need it. Health transfers are essential. We recognize this and the provinces are asking for it.
What is the federal government's response? It says there are conditions. It will transfer the money if we use it in a certain way, if we provide this or that type of care in a given facility, if we expand business hours, if we do this, that or the other thing. There are conditions.
Let us keep in mind that this money does not appear out of nowhere. It is tax money the government takes from Quebeckers. The government says it will give the money back, but only if they comply with its conditions. It can impose conditions when it has jurisdiction the other level of government does not.
If I give children pocket money, I may tell them they cannot spend more than a dollar on candy. I may impose conditions in an attempt to teach them to manage their money properly. The thing is, the federal government does not manage any health facilities. The federal government manages health care for indigenous people and veterans and looks after new drug approvals and quarantines, but it does not manage a single long-term care facility or hospital. What makes it think it has the authority to impose conditions?
The conditions that the federal government wants to impose on the provinces are very likely to do much more harm than good, not to mention that they will prevent a rapid resolution of the problematic situation that has continued year after year. The provinces do not have the money to operate hospitals. The federal government says that it will not provide funds unless the provinces agree to its conditions.
In my view, this stubborn refusal is unworthy of a responsible government and leads to situations such as those that occurred during the pandemic. I do not want to put all the blame on the federal government. We all have some soul searching to do, especially the governments of each province, and I am certain that is what they are doing. The Quebec law I mentioned earlier was passed specifically to prevent this type of situation from happening. That is a good example.
However, the money is there to provide dignified care for our seniors. I am asking our government to carry out its responsibilities, to be fair, to be responsible with respect to our seniors and to transfer the money to the provinces to provide better care.
Bill C-295 is a bill that we must study, that we are going to study and that we will probably improve. I think the idea behind it is good, and we will work hard on it.
1323 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am glad that we are here to discuss Bill C‑283 today. This bill reminds me of Bill C‑216, which was introduced by our colleague from Courtenay—Alberni not so long ago. We supported that bill, but unfortunately it was not supported by the majority of the House. I hope this bill will go a little further this time around.
Bill C‑283 makes certain amendments to the Criminal Code, including, for example, a provision that would allow a federal inmate to be sent to an addiction treatment facility if the court finds the inmate eligible.
The bill also amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to allow a penitentiary to be designated as an addiction treatment facility. When a court recommends that a person serve his or her sentence there, Correctional Service Canada will be required to ensure that the inmate is placed there as soon as possible.
In Quebec, we have long decided to favour rehabilitation. However, in 2014, 50% of prisoners in federal penitentiaries had a drug addiction problem. According to experts, drug addiction is what drives most of those people into committing a crime, which brings them back to prison, where drugs are very easy to get, despite what people might think.
In 2021, Frédérick Lebeau, president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers for the Quebec region, said, “There's a major issue, a problem of delivery [of drugs and other prohibited items] inside the penitentiaries. It's too easy. It's got to get harder.”
With the advent of drones, it will be easier than ever to deliver drugs into prisons. By 2020, officers at Donnacona's 451-inmate maximum-security penitentiary had detected 60 drones, but they estimated that was just the tip of the iceberg.
penitentiaries will have to implement new drone detection technology in November, but the union is under no illusions. Drugs will continue to come into prisons. In short, incarceration does not solve drug abuse problems, quite the opposite.
We must also take into consideration that recidivism rates among drug addicts is very high. When they get out of prison, many immediately try to obtain drugs and often turn to crime to finance their purchases.
Federal penitentiaries do a poor job of rehabilitating inmates, so this bill could be the step in the right direction that we have been waiting for.
According to a study by the Center for Interuniversity Research and Analysis of Organizations published in 2019, Quebec is an example to the world when it comes to rehabilitating inmates. According to the study, Quebec's reintegration programs for inmates in Quebec-run prisons reduce the risk of recidivism and perform significantly better than elsewhere in the world. These reintegration programs, which are not only aimed at drug addicts, reduce the recidivism rate from 50% to 10% among participating prisoners.
Quebec's drug treatment courts have existed since 2012 and have been so successful that they served as a model for a pilot project to address recidivism among drug addicts in France. By comparison, federal penitentiaries are failing miserably at the rehabilitation of inmates. According to the 2020 annual report of the Correctional Investigator of Canada, inmates in federal institutions do not receive useful training or work experience during their incarceration and do not have access to necessary care. In short, they are very poorly equipped to reintegrate into civil society.
Another fact to note is that indigenous people are overrepresented in federal penitentiaries. They represent less than 5% of Canada's population, but 32% of the prison population.
Worse still, according to the Office of the Correctional Investigator of Canada, women represent 50% of this prison population. Addiction issues and the absence of effective programs to treat them probably go a long way to explaining why indigenous peoples are overrepresented in our prisons.
In committee, during the study of the various bills that were passed previously, including on the issue of mandatory minimums, we saw that the need to curb the overrepresentation of indigenous peoples among inmates is a major concern for the government.
We did not agree that abolishing mandatory minimums would help reduce the percentage of indigenous people in prison populations. In my view, there is no logical corollary. The existence of mandatory minimums does not lead to more indigenous inmates.
The problem lies elsewhere, and this may be our chance to correct it. Bill C-283 would allow for an addict to be placed in custody and receive follow-up care in a place that specializes in treating addictions, which could reduce the risk of recidivism for the inmate and improve their chances of successfully reintegrating society.
Under this legislation, the onus would be on inmates to ask the court to put them in an addiction treatment facility. Inmates would thereby acknowledge their addiction, which we all agree is the first step toward healing. The court would then determine whether the inmates could serve part or all of their sentence in such a facility. The Bloc Québécois sees only benefits to this.
The Bloc will therefore vote in favour of Bill C‑283, just as we did last spring for Bill C‑216, which was introduced by the member for Courtenay—Alberni.
The bill, as it is worded, is not perfect, of course, so it needs amending. I am sure that the members of the committee tasked with studying it will be very eager to improve it.
927 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, yesterday there were another three shootings in less than six hours in Montreal, and the Government of Quebec has said that it has not yet received the money it was promised to combat gun violence.
Quebec is putting in the work. For example, it has announced a special patrol to combat gun trafficking in Akwesasne. Ottawa, however, has not even sent Quebec the money it was promised. How shameful.
When will the government finally transfer the money it promised Quebec? Montreal has a gun problem right now, not “one day”, “maybe”, “if we have the time”, “if it is not too hot” or “if it is not raining”. The problem is now. I also want to inform the minister that this has nothing to do with Bill C‑21.
143 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/9/22 2:54:22 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Quebec did not wait for Ottawa and just offered the Akwesasne Mohawk Police Service $6.2 million to patrol the St. Lawrence river for arms traffickers 24 hours a day.
It is a good thing that Quebec did not wait because Quebec's public safety minister informed us today that she still has not received a single cent of the money promised by Ottawa months ago.
She said that she is still waiting to sign the agreement with the federal government for the money it put on the table to have Quebec police forces address armed violence. She repeated her appeal to the minister. Where is the money?
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 2:58:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we would all like to believe that we are safe from gun violence and that our children are protected.
In Montreal, just last week, someone shot up a day care centre. Fortunately, there were no casualties. Fortunately, the day care centre was empty. However, gun culture is emerging in Montreal.
Again, we simply cannot allow the situation to deteriorate. The mayor of Montreal, the Premier of Quebec and the Bloc Québécois are once again calling for Ottawa to ban handguns.
When will the minister finally do what everyone in Quebec is waiting for him to do?
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, let me begin by reading the text of a motion unanimously adopted by the National Assembly of Quebec on May 26, 2021, nearly a year ago:
That the National Assembly strongly condemn the threats, violence and aggression against Jewish Quebecers, which have increased in recent weeks;
That it reaffirm that in a free and democratic society, all people may protest or express their opinions in a context of respect, safety and dignity;
That it reiterate the need to continue to hold a healthy and democratic debate on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict;
That, lastly, it recall that violence toward anyone is never acceptable.
Those are the words of the National Assembly of Quebec. As far as I am concerned, it is the supreme authority in Quebec. The Bloc Québécois is committed to defending these unanimous motions and will continue to defend them against all attacks. I read that out to illustrate that Bill C-250 is part of that process. Bill C‑250 is not perfect, but it is part of that process.
Hatred is a venom in the veins of society. Inciting and promoting hatred is akin to injecting this poison into the veins of our society.
Quebec adopted a secularism law specifically to allow each and every religious faith to be practised voluntarily and freely, without the appearance of government criticism, favour or disapproval. We want the government to be secular, and we want people to be free to practise the religion of their choice. To us, in Quebec, this principle is sacred.
Over the past few years, we have seen an increase in the number of anti-Semitic crimes. I saw that anti-Semitic crimes increased considerably in 2021, in the Montreal area in particular, but elsewhere as well, including the Vancouver area, as my colleague across the way mentioned, as well as in various parts of Canada and in the U.S. too, and probably throughout the western hemisphere. We have to work on not only reducing this disturbing trend, but stopping it in its tracks.
Obviously, it is not just hatred against the Jewish community that we must combat, but all hatred. Nonetheless, we have to start somewhere, and I think that the current situation deserves our attention.
There are different ways to promote hatred, and promoting Holocaust denial is one of them. There are no words to describe the Holocaust. I too visited some sites in Poland. I was speechless. The idea that a human being could do such things is unfathomable. I cannot even claim to be better than those who committed these horrific crimes. I think that, no matter how much we try to avoid it, these kinds of things can happen to anyone in any society. I understand that, in certain circumstances, any society can be faced with these types of dilemmas. I would almost say that I feel as sorry for those who perpetrated these atrocities as I do for their victims. It is unbelievable.
I feel a strong sense of solidarity with the Jewish community, and I sympathize with what it has to live with. It is unacceptable for anyone to deny the impact of the Holocaust, or sometimes the fact that it even happened, or to trivialize it. We must make sure that the Holocaust is never forgotten and that its importance is never diminished.
As I was saying, Bill C-250 is not perfect. It proposes a definition of the Holocaust. As I mentioned, I visited sites in Poland. I saw what it was like. Even so, I find it somewhat difficult to explain what it is. It is something so inhuman and senseless that it is hard to imagine. Therefore, I want to hear from experts in committee.
Perhaps the definition being proposed by my colleague from Saskatoon—Grasswood is fine, or perhaps it can be improved. I would like to hear from experts on how to define the Holocaust accurately enough so as not to diminish other genocides, yet highlight what happened at the time and ensure that it never happens again.
The committee also needs to hear explanations of the different potential definitions of the Holocaust as well as their negative effects. It is not that hard to guess, but I still want to hear from the experts.
My colleague across the way was talking earlier about someone in his riding who was wondering whether he should take down the mezuzah from his door and stop his children from wearing a kippah to the park. That is unacceptable. We certainly do not want that. These are the harmful effects of Holocaust denial and hatred of others. I want people to come talk to us in committee, people who might help us better understand the situation so we can respond to the problem more effectively.
We need to do all this while making absolutely sure that we do not fall into the trap of adopting provisions that conflict with the freedom of expression provisions in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As my colleague said, freedom of expression is in the charter. It is also in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. It is a principle we all hold dear, in Quebec as well as in Canada, and even throughout the western world. It is one of our most precious freedoms.
We have to be careful though. If I can put it this way, we will have to “handle” Bill C‑250 prudently and sensitively. This has to be dealt with. We have to address the situation, act on our responsibility and make sure we are responding to the concerns of the Jewish community. This community's concerns are shared by society as a whole in different ways and for different reasons. We all need to care about this. We cannot ignore what is happening in these situations.
We will have to be careful, but this is something that must be done. We also have to ensure that we do not duplicate what already exists in section 319 of the Criminal Code, which is quite clear. The provisions in Bill C‑250 may not have as broad a scope and may already be covered by section 319. If so, we will have to find a way to harmonize it all. We do not want to simply duplicate what is already in the Criminal Code; we want to supplement it, or to ensure that we have a text that the courts can interpret in such a way as to achieve the objective set out in Bill C‑250.
For all these reasons, the Bloc Québécois will be voting to send Bill C‑250 to committee so that we can work on it and so that, while we may never fully comprehend, we can strive for a better understanding of the tragedies that members of the Jewish community may endure, as well as the inhuman events that took place in the 1940s, particularly in the concentration camps in Poland.
1185 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/1/22 12:22:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly agree with my colleague.
I have been listening to my colleagues in the NDP say that we need to give more consideration to francophones outside Quebec and that the Bloc Québécois does not do that. I do not think that is true. On the contrary, I think that it is at the heart of the Bloc Québécois's agenda, since we have always been concerned about the diversity of all francophones in North America.
Would my colleague not agree with me that a strong Quebec, a francophone Quebec nation recognized as such and protected within the Canadian federation, would help these francophone minorities that are not given the weight they deserve in Canada as a whole?
The anglophone minorities in Quebec are well protected. However, the same cannot be said for the francophone minorities in western Canada. The Bloc Québécois knows this and has often stood in the House to say so. In my colleague's opinion, is the recognition that the Bloc Québécois is asking for today not a way of strengthening the influence of francophone communities outside Quebec?
200 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/1/22 11:16:51 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I wonder whether my colleague recognizes that Canada is a federation and that it is a contract, not a nation.
It is a contract reached initially between two nations, the French nation and the English nation. I am not ignoring the indigenous nations that were already on the territory, or the many other nations that joined us afterwards at different times and through different means. In the beginning, the Canadian federation was made up of two nations.
Does my colleague not recognize that, because of this, we need to maintain the viability of the two nations in the federation, if we do not want to confront Quebec’s fight for independence, which has long been on the table?
We do not want to cease to exist, and we wanted to be members of the federation. I personally never wanted it, but that is another story. At a certain point in time, we believed that we wanted to be members of the federation, and being members means preserving our identity.
172 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
