- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Rivière-du-Nord
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $105,330.31
- Government Page
- Nov/30/23 5:13:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first, I would like to thank my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, who always asks really good questions. It is not always easy to answer them, but they are always important questions.
That being said, I will answer both components of his question.
First, the bill defines a repeat offender as someone who has committed “an offence in the commission of which violence was allegedly used, threatened or attempted against a person with the use of a weapon, and the accused has been previously convicted, within five years of the day on which they were charged for that offence, of another offence in the commission of which violence was also used, threatened or attempted against any person with the use of a weapon, if the maximum term of imprisonment for each of those offences is 10 years or more”.
We simply want to avoid being taken for a ride. A repeat offender is someone who, every two, three or five years at most, repeatedly appears before the courts, charged with using a firearm to commit a violent offence. We believe, without presuming this person guilty, that there is a very good chance that they are dangerous for society. We are saying that the judge will have to take this into account before releasing them.
That does not mean that the judge is obliged to reach a particular decision. To answer the second part of my colleague's question, the judge does indeed retain some discretion. However, the onus is reversed. Individuals found guilty of a gun crime two or three years ago will have to prove that they are no longer too dangerous to be released. The judge will have all the necessary discretion to release them or not, but the onus will be reversed during the judicial process. The Crown will not be required to prove that such individuals are dangerous and must remain in custody. The individuals themselves must prove that they are not dangerous and that they can be released.
338 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I was listening to my colleague who is introducing this bill and he said that he sides with the victims. That is good. I can assure him that the Bloc Québécois does as well. It always has and always will side with victims. The Bloc also sides with society. We must never lose sight of the fact that our justice system is not just about avenging a victim or punishing a criminal. The purpose of our justice system is to build a safer society where life is good and everyone feels comfortable.
Respecting victims' rights is important. I truly believe that. However, we must also respect the rights of people who have committed crimes. What I just said may seem contradictory, but it is not. We often lose sight of the fact that most people who are sent to prison today will get out at some point. What type of individual do we want to see leave our prisons in five, 10, 20 or 30 years? Do we want these people who committed crimes at the time of their conviction to be comfortable in their role as criminal and to consider resuming the same type of life and behaviour upon their release? Would we not rather want these people to be rehabilitated over the years? That is what I would want.
We have all lost people or been harmed in some way. We have been victims of various crimes in different ways. We must never lose sight of the importance of rehabilitation. We must never lose faith in human beings and in society, even though there may be times when we want to do just that. The Bloc Québécois sincerely believes that we must stay the course on rehabilitation.
Obviously, the Bernardo affair is haunting this debate. My colleague spoke about this earlier. Had it not been for the events of last spring when Mr. Bernardo was transferred from a maximum-security facility to a medium-security facility, we probably would not be talking about it today. This bill might not have been introduced. Members will recall that Paul Bernardo committed crimes in the early 1990s that we will never be able to understand as a society. Can he ever be rehabilitated? I do not know. One thing is certain. The crimes he committed will never be considered acceptable in our society.
In September 1995, he was sentenced to life in prison for his crimes. That amounts to a minimum of 25 years of incarceration before he can apply for parole. It has been about 30 years since he was sentenced. He can apply for parole, but is he likely to get it? It is not up to me to decide, but I have not seen anything in all that I have read or heard about him that would lead me to believe he has been rehabilitated and is ready to reintegrate into society.
As I was saying earlier, last May, he was transferred from a maximum-security to a medium-security penitentiary. I have not seen or heard anything to convince me that Paul Bernardo has been rehabilitated. That being said, is it possible that he has been rehabilitated? Who am I to decide? Thank heavens the decision is not mine to make. We have established authorities, specialized courts and a process to assess these things, and I have faith in the people who handle it all.
The Parole Board of Canada does important work. It decides whether a prisoner can or cannot reintegrate into society, and it grants escorted or unescorted temporary absences, depending on the stage of the sentence. The decision is up to the Parole Board of Canada.
It has the exclusive power to grant, deny, cancel, terminate or revoke day parole and full parole. It also has the power to authorize or approve temporary absences. It is not I, nor is it the Speaker, nor is it my Conservative colleague who makes those decisions. The Parole Board is an independent administrative tribunal, a so-called quasi-judicial tribunal that, as part of the Canadian criminal justice system, makes quality conditional release and record suspension decisions. It makes clemency recommendations and manages the whole process.
The board contributes to the protection of society by facilitating the timely reintegration of offenders as law-abiding citizens. Public safety is the primary consideration in all parole board decisions. I want to emphasize the “timely reintegration” part because, regardless of what people want or would like to see in a perfect world, here in Quebec and Canada, we no longer hang people who commit crimes like the ones Paul Bernardo committed. We do not electrocute them either. We put them in jail. We try to rehabilitate them. Sooner or later, 90% or 95% of them are released. As I said earlier, that is important, essential even. If we care about keeping our families, our children, our neighbours and society in general safe, it is important—indeed, crucial—to ensure that they are rehabilitated by the time they are released.
The purpose of Bill C-351 is to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act in order to take away the discretion that Correctional Service of Canada officers currently have to change the security classification of individuals deemed to be dangerous offenders, as well as those convicted of more than one first-degree murder. The security classification is what will be used to determine the setting in which the individual is detained. What services can be provided to try to rehabilitate them? What conditions must be met in order for the individual to be eligible for visits, either under escort or alone, or for parole? I do not think it is wise to think that they are always going to have a maximum-security classification. This individual will be detained under maximum-security conditions, but one day, they may be released without a rigorous, step-by-step rehabilitation process. That goes against my belief, my faith in the human race. I think that even if we do not want to do it, we have to do everything we can to rehabilitate these people.
In closing, I would like to mention that Anne Kelly, the commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada, appeared before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security yesterday. She told us that Bill C‑351 could make things more difficult for the people who manage our penitentiaries. If inmates know ahead of time that they will never be downgraded from a maximum-security classification to a lower one and get into a lower-security penitentiary, they may lose all motivation and interest in rehabilitation. If we want these people to rehabilitate themselves, they need to see a light at the end of the tunnel. They need to believe that by working hard and by being good citizens, they will one day be able to see their families, friends and loved ones again and reintegrate into the community, ideally to become active members of society again.
1185 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to start by thanking my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for making it possible to pass Bill S‑12 in a reasonable enough time frame that should hopefully allow it to get through the legislative process fast enough for the existing legislation to be amended before the deadline set by the Supreme Court. I think everyone on the committee worked seriously and diligently, and I would like to thank them all.
Having said that, Bill S‑12 has two components. The first is the component required by the Supreme Court pertaining to the national sex offender registry. It is a response to the Supreme Court ruling handed down on October 28, 2022, in R. v. Ndhlovu, which struck down two provisions of the Criminal Code, namely section 490.012 and section 490.013(2.1).
The court held that registering offenders who are not at risk of committing a future sex offence is disconnected from the purpose of registration. The court pointed out that the purpose of registration is to capture information that may assist the police in preventing and investigating sexual offences.
The Supreme Court gave the federal government one year to remedy the situation, and that time is up next week, on October 29, 2023. If the amendments are not passed by then, then offenders will no longer have to register with the national sex offender registry. Clearly, we all want to avoid that.
Obviously, the House of Commons fast-tracked the legislative process to meet that deadline. What I am wondering is why the government waited until April 26, six months after the Supreme Court ruling, to introduce this bill. I would remind the House that the Supreme Court delivered its ruling in R. v. Ndhlovu over a year ago on October 28, 2022, and ordered that the Criminal Code be amended by October 29, 2023.
On April 26, 2023, Senator Gold introduced a bill in the Senate, six months after the Supreme Court delivered its ruling. Bill S‑12 was passed in the Senate at third reading on June 22, meaning the bill took two months to get through the Senate. Six months elapsed between the time when the government found out that it had to amend the law and the time when the bill was introduced, another two months elapsed between the time when Senator Gold introduced his bill and the time when it was passed at third reading in the Senate, and a further three months passed before the bill arrived here in the House of Commons—
449 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/20/23 5:32:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question and I congratulate her on her cabinet appointment.
I simply do not understand why my colleague is telling us that this is so important and urgent when her government let it slide for six months. Now, at the eleventh hour, a month before the expiry of the one-year period granted by the Supreme Court, the government is telling us to get a move on. I do not know what to tell her.
Yes, it is important to us, and I am certain that the same holds true for my NDP colleagues and even my Conservative colleagues. While we may have differing views, we all want Bill S-12 to pass. At least, I believe that is the case.
I do not want to put words in their mouth, but I think we all agree that the national sex offender registry is important and that it is important to allow victims to weigh in on publication bans.
Why am I being told to get a move on? The Supreme Court decision was handed down 11 months ago. Now is an odd time to ask.
195 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/20/23 5:29:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I have also worked with him on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and have always appreciated his interventions. We do not always share the same point of view, but there is always respect there, and that is very helpful.
That said, to answer his question, I have to say that I do not understand either. My answer to these groups is that there are really only two ways to interpret this way of doing things.
It may be that the government considers that the national sex offender registry is not important, as was the case the day before yesterday with Bill C-48, when the bail provisions did not seem important. Indeed, that is how it is with many other bills: just not important. Since it is not important, bills keep getting pushed back and dealt with when it suits them. If it never suits them, it is no big deal.
If it is not because the subject is not important, then it is because the procedural rules are not important. They think the opposition members are not that bright. They know the opposition will say yes to anything, so, at the eleventh hour, they tell us the bill has to be passed. Then the opposition says, oh, the national sex offender registry is so important that we have to set aside the House's procedural rules. That is what the government hopes. Let us call that option B.
Here is my question for the government. Is it A, the government does not give a fig, or is it B, the government does not give a fig about parliamentary rules?
284 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/20/23 5:23:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague on being named Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. I can assure him of my full cooperation, as far as Quebeckers' interests permit.
I understand his question. I, too, am often surprised when we spend days debating things we agree on. This debate, however, is not a needless debate. The sex offender registry is serious. I do not want to engage in needless debate. I want to study the bill in committee. I want to listen to the opinions of experts, reread the bill and hear the minister give us explanations.
My colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, may think that examining the bill amounts to needless debate, but I cannot agree.
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/20/23 5:03:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, indeed, these are debates that speak to us and that may be why we end up spending more time on them than on other bills.
That being said, I must say that this bill seems not only welcome, but essential. The sex offender registry helps police officers in their work. It allows them to better monitor repeat offenders and serious offenders.
The Bloc Québécois will support Bill S‑12. Are we going to propose amendments in committee? We will see. Essentially, I think that it is a good bill. The first thing I will do is thank Senator Gold for introducing this bill last spring and ensuring that the Senate moved quickly.
Two months can seem like a long time, but it can also seem short. In parliamentary life, bills that are introduced and adopted at third reading at the end of two months are few and far between. I think there was some diligence on the Senate side. I want to commend that diligence and thank the hon. Senator Gold for his work.
After it was passed by the Senate on June 22, the bill is now before us this fall. I spoke about it in the questions I asked earlier. I would have liked to hear from the minister. I understand that that will not be possible today. I hope that we will be able to get some clarification on the timelines over the next few days.
That being said, it is a good bill that will provide better safeguards and strike a better balance between the rights of victims and the rights of the accused. It is important to remember that we have a legal system where people are presumed innocent until proven otherwise. We want offenders to be rehabilitated, especially in Quebec, where a lot of legislation has been passed in that regard. We want these people to be able, in many ways, to improve the behaviour and attitude that caused the problem and reintegrate into society. We want them to become or get back to being active members of society. We believe in rehabilitation.
In that sense, one could argue that the sex offender registry could, in some ways, thwart rehabilitation efforts by sending offenders the message that, not only are we going to punish them for the crime they committed, but we are also going to add their name to a registry for a certain period of time. How do we resolve that dilemma? I think that exceptions need to be made for some crimes.
We can see that in the bill, when we talk about sexual assault, we are not talking about someone who drank a little too much in a bar and patted their boyfriend or girlfriend on the behind. We are not talking about a crime that could be described as accidental or even trivial, as some might say. We are talking about repeat offenders who have frequently been convicted of sexual offences, or people who have sexually assaulted children.
I do not know of anyone in society, at least among my friends and contacts, who claims that sexually assaulting a child is not a serious crime. I know people who were sexually abused as children. I can say that it leaves a mark on people for their entire lives. That said, it does not always mess them up. Not everyone ends up on medication for the rest of their lives. Yet it does leave a mark in all cases.
I believe that someone who is unable to control their behaviour and takes the liberty to assault a child deserves an appropriate punishment and also that society protect itself a little better from them. In that sense, the sex offender registry allows police to track and monitor those individuals. I think that is a good thing. That said, not everyone is registered the same way.
The Supreme Court made a ruling last year. In about a month, it will have been a year since that ruling was handed down. The court indicated in that ruling that the automatic registration of all sex offenders contravenes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I think that ruling was well founded. Bill S-12 seeks to remedy the problem by saying that offenders will not be automatically registered, indiscriminately, in every situation. Only offenders who have been sentenced to more than two years in prison for this type of crime, including offences against children, and repeat offenders will be subject to mandatory or automatic registration. That covers automatic registration. I think that, in such cases, automatic registration is a good idea.
Now, for the other offenders, we are told there will be a presumption. That means that the Crown will not be asked to prove that an individual needs to be registered. There is a presumption that the individual has to be registered. The individual will be asked to prove that there is no need to register them on the sex offender registry because their offence is completely unrelated to the objectives set out in the legislation that creates this registry or, still, because their registration would be completely disproportionate to the crime they committed.
I will give an example. A person who touches someone else's bottom at a bar has committed sexual assault and could be sentenced for it. Does that warrant adding this person to a sex offender registry for life? I do not think so, but it is debatable. We have to make a distinction between that crime and the crime of raping a 12-year old girl, for example.
Bill S-12 will in some way balance the process of adding offenders to the registry by making registration automatic for serious crimes, while allowing individuals who commit less serious offences to show the judge that registration is unnecessary for a given reason. If it is shown that this registration would have absolutely no bearing on the registry's objective of assisting the work of police officers or that it would be completely disproportionate, the individual will not be added to the registry. This does not mean they will not be convicted. A trial will be held, and if the individual is found guilty, they will be sentenced. In this case, the offender would be sentenced but not added to the registry.
I think this is an acceptable and honourable compromise that would let us improve the registry provisions. In this regard, I think we can only applaud the Supreme Court's ruling last year, as well as the introduction of this bill by the hon. Senator Gold.
Now, Bill S‑12 does more than that. It also enhances victim participation in legal proceedings. I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for some time. We have done studies on this issue, including a review of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. Many victims testified that some of them wanted to be more involved in the trial, to be better informed and to be called upon by the Crown prosecutor when there were important decisions to be made. Other victims said they would rather stay home and not be involved in their attacker's trial. Both positions are valid. I think we should respect the victim's right to participate or not. That is what this bill provides for.
I was talking about participation in the broad sense, but there is one thing in particular that victims want a say in, and that is publication bans. A number of years ago, provisions were adopted whereby, in some cases, the judge can order a ban on publication of proceedings. In such cases, the identities of those involved remain unknown so as not to identify the victims. The goal was to prevent victims from being identified if they did not want to be, from being stigmatized and from having to answer for acts that were not theirs, but their attacker's. The intent was to ban publication of proceedings. There is also another point at which in camera proceedings can be ordered, but we are not talking about that right now; we are talking about publication bans.
At the time, that was done in good faith to help victims, and everyone likely agreed it was a good idea. Victims now tell us that, in some cases, they are glad there is a publication ban. In other cases, however, they do not want one. There are victims who want to talk about the crime committed against them, either with journalists, on television, or publicly, through social media and other venues. Then there are victims who feel it is therapeutic to talk about their experience. However, as things stand, if they do so when a publication ban has been issued, they are contravening the ban and could face consequences. Victims have told us we should let them decide. If we are doing this to protect them, as we claim, we should ask for their opinion. If they do not want to be under a publication ban, one should not be issued. If they want to seek a publication ban, then one can be issued.
I think this is a wise approach that will help improve federal criminal legislation, in other words, the Criminal Code. I can only applaud this provision of Bill S-12. This is consistent with the report tabled by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights last December. I can confirm that this is consistent with what we heard from witnesses in committee. I think it makes sense.
What this provision will do is require the Crown to consult with victims before issuing a publication ban. As I think the minister said earlier, if there are two victims, and one of them wants the information withheld but the other wants it published, the court will have to take that into account and ensure that the identity of the victim who does not want to be identified is protected, while allowing the identity of the victim who does want to be identified to be released. There will be a process, with the court having to weigh the best interests of the victims when the time comes. I think there is a way to do it. Victims will then have a say on whether a publication ban is issued or not.
What is more, they will be able to ask to have the publication ban lifted, if one is imposed. Initially the victim may not want to be identified, so a publication ban is a good idea, but after three months, six months, a year or three years, the victim might say that enough time has passed for them to have processed their thoughts and that they feel like talking about the crime that was committed against them. That was not the case before, but now victims will be able to ask for the publication ban to be lifted, which, again, seems reasonable to me.
Lastly, this bill will allow victims to get updates on their attacker's case. Is the offender in prison? Where is the offender? Victims will be able to get information from correctional services and will then be informed about the individual's release date, parole conditions, and so on. This will help victims prepare themselves for the possibility that the offender might be released, enabling them to protect themselves or intervene when the time comes.
I feel these are reasonable, desirable provisions that are consistent with what victims asked for and with the report tabled by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in December.
I will now come back to the current government's inaction. I do not know how to say it anymore, because I feel like I am repeating myself, and people will think that the member for Rivière‑du‑Nord is like a broken record that just keeps repeating the same thing over and over. That is not it. The member for Rivière‑du‑Nord has been dealing with the same government for eight years, and he feels that the government is dragging its feet on this issue. I say this with all due respect for the Minister of Justice and his predecessor, because I am convinced they mean well, but I have no idea what the holdup is. Nothing was done for six months. My colleague from the Conservative Party was asking earlier what they have done, and rightly so.
I would like to hear a member of cabinet, or even the Prime Minister himself, offer an apology for the delay and the fact that this has fallen through the cracks. I cannot even imagine what excuse they could possibly come up with. I would like an explanation because this has become a nasty habit, one that causes enormous harm, especially to victims. Right now, there is a distinct possibility that we will no longer have a sex offender registry as of October 29. It is going to expire. The Supreme Court said so last year. We cannot blame this on the court. It gave the government a year to take action. That took six months, and even then, it was not the government that took action, it was a senator.
What is going on with this government? Is there anyone still at the controls? I would really like to know.
Earlier, the Minister of Justice said he hopes the opposition will collaborate because the bill needs to pass by October 29. I completely agree. I want to say that we will collaborate in order to once again ram the provisions through so they come into force quickly. This week, the bail provisions in Bill C-48 had to be rammed through. However, ramming things through has negative consequences. The procedural rules and principles we have adopted do serve a purpose.
Do not try and tell me that studying bills in committee is pointless, because I will take it personally. If that is the case, our work over the past eight years has been for nothing. Others have been here longer than eight years. For example, my colleague, the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, has been here for almost 40 years. Who is going to tell him that his work has been useless all this time? I doubt it. People worked to draft these rules and have us adopt them. Was their work all for nothing? I do not think so. The rules must be followed.
There are exceptions, of course. This week, Bill C-48 was one of them. It was an exception to the principle of presumption of innocence. The bill would involve keeping someone in prison before they are even convicted. That is far from the presumption of innocence, but we agreed that this was an exception that was justified in certain cases. That is what we did, and the bill was passed.
Now we are being asked to do the same for the sex offender registry. I am not suggesting that the registry is not important. It is very important. We would like the registration requirements to be amended, as proposed in Bill S‑12. However, I am very upset and worried about yet another government attempt to ram things through the parliamentary process.
I do not want to refer to the presence or absence of a member in the House, but maybe the minister could stand up here at some point and explain to us why, for the second time in two days, parliamentary procedures are being rammed through.
How come the government twiddled its thumbs for six months in this case, until a senator suddenly said it needed to be done, and now, we are being told to wake up, agree with him and pass this as quickly as possible?
They cannot be serious. I would like the government to take this seriously because the government is asking us to take it seriously. I feel like saying that we will take it seriously if the government could also take things kind of seriously when it comes to passing bills that are introduced in the House.
2715 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 11:35:01 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, if the topic were not so serious, this kind of argument would make me smirk.
For weeks, or even months, the Minister of Justice has been trying to convince us that minimum sentences have no effect on the criminals who commit these offences.
Now they want to convince us that increasing the maximum sentences will impress them. I do not think so.
I think that what offenders do not want is to get caught. They do not want to go to prison, period. If a minimum sentence for the crime they are committing does not make them think twice, I do not think that a maximum sentence of 12, 14 or 20 years is going to change anything.
That said, Bill C-21 primarily addresses the issue of legal guns by restricting certain provisions, but it does not in any way address illegal arms trafficking, which the government is being asked to contain.
157 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
