- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Rivière-du-Nord
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $105,330.31
- Government Page
Mr. Speaker, this feels a bit like Groundhog Day. I have sat in the House since 2015, and there is a recurring debate between the Liberal and NDP vision of opposing mandatory minimum sentences and the Conservative vision of applying this policy to as many offences as possible. I think we need to reflect on the issue, which is no small matter, but we also need to find ways to be effective, to adopt legal rules, legislation and regulations that are in line with the values of the society in which we live.
The Bloc Québécois is opposed, in principle, to systematically adding minimum sentences to the Criminal Code. Prison time is often essential, and our courts do not hesitate to use it to punish numerous offences. However, there are other penalties, other solutions besides prison, that exist and that deserve to be considered.
It is certainly not a question of being more tolerant when an offence is committed. On the contrary, we believe that the values we hold must be reflected in the laws we adopt and that these laws must be enforced and complied with by all. When our rules are broken, a fair and consistent consequence must follow. However, we must never forget to be imaginative when we think about how our justice system should be structured. Might I suggest that we be daring? We are here to legislate.
The Bloc Québécois believes that our justice system must help build a functional society that effectively brings together a safe, equitable and fair system for everyone. It is our responsibility as legislators to put in place laws and regulations that ensure that all people can walk the streets freely and safely.
What a great success it will be if we manage to stamp out crime one day. I am too old to believe in unicorns, flying horses and other magical creatures, but I will never stop working to make our society better. That is why we believe that when people break our laws and must be sentenced, we must always strive to rehabilitate them wherever possible. Rehabilitation is not a magic pill; it is an objective.
Our job as members of this legislature is to find ways to punish those who should be punished, prevent them from doing harm and, if possible, get them back on the right track. Last year on January 13, the 13 provincial and territorial premiers wrote a letter to the Prime Minister to remind him of his duties in this regard. They called for a reverse onus on bail for the offence of possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm. Obviously, we need to take that into account and be vigilant.
The question remains: How do we take effective action? The Supreme Court of Canada struck down many of the mandatory minimum sentences passed by a previous Parliament. The situation had to be fixed. Many minimum sentences were abolished. However, our Conservative Party colleagues keep demanding at every opportunity that we reinstate these minimum sentences in the Criminal Code. I could let this behaviour bother me, given that, as I said at the outset, the Bloc Québécois is not a big fan of mandatory minimum sentences. Instead, I choose to take it as a call to work, an invitation to examine the issue of how to enforce our laws and impose the most appropriate penalties on offenders.
In committee, I proposed an alternative to minimum sentences, something that would reconcile the neo-liberal or “liberal-democrat” vision, that is, the vision of the Liberal Party and the NDP, with the position at the other extreme, in other words, the position of our colleagues in the Conservative Party.
Why not include a provision that would allow courts to depart from the mandatory minimum sentences when exceptional circumstances allow? We would then have the minimum sentences some people want so badly, but we would also have a safety measure, a safety valve, that would allow a judge hearing a case to determine, in certain circumstances, that the mandatory minimum sentence is inappropriate. By justifying the exceptional circumstances, courts could waive the mandatory minimum sentences. Is this the best solution? Probably not. There could be others. However, it is one solution, and I think it deserves to be considered.
There is another possibility. Why not consider adjusting the sentences to include a transitional period during which the inmate could be released, but required to wear an electronic tracking device? For example, for a one-year sentence, the person could spend a year, a year and a half or two years behind bars. The period could be discussed. Then the inmate could be released, go to work, carry on with their social and family activities, resume a “normal” life, or as normal a life as possible, but under constant surveillance.
How could this individual get away with resuming their criminal activities under that sort of surveillance? What criminal organization would want to use the services of such a compromised individual? According to the statistics, when a member of any criminal organization is sentenced to three, four, five or 10 years of prison, that person is almost automatically taken back as soon as they are released. They are told that they have served their time and can come back to work. For example, they may be asked to go get three Mercedes from Westmount and two Ladas from another neighbourhood.
However, if the individual were wearing an electronic monitoring device when they were released, I am not convinced that the most powerful criminal organizations would want to use that individual's services. That is another option, a second alternative. Once again, is it the best option? Maybe it is or maybe it is not, but it is worth considering.
As I was saying, I am going to consider our Conservative colleagues' invitation to address the issue of minimum sentencing as an invitation and opportunity to think about and work on improving the Criminal Code.
The Bloc Québécois is therefore willing to send Bill C-381 to committee and work on bringing it into line with the values of safety and security, justice and appropriate consequences for wrongdoing, while seeking to create a better society in the short or medium term, in other words, a society made up of law-abiding people and, when necessary, people who have been rehabilitated.
1083 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/27/23 11:45:50 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, our children are usually what gives our lives the most meaning. They are the apple of our eye. They make us laugh, cry and dream. They are society's most precious asset. None of us would want to see them hurt or saddened by the words or actions of others for anything in the world. All we want is to protect them from harm. Anything less would be concerning.
Guiding and nurturing them sometimes requires a bit of strictness and discipline. Because we love them, we sometimes have to protect them from themselves, or from the harm they might cause others and then soon regret. The Criminal Code states that every parent or schoolteacher “is justified in using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child, as the case may be, who is under his care, if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances.”
Should we be concerned or happy about this provision? That is the question. I think that if we really love our children, we should thank the legislator who included this provision. There are many examples showing that words, hugs and sweetness are not enough to discipline a child. Sometimes they need to know that if they step out of line, a responsible adult will look after them.
There are many examples of this. Imagine a child who loses it and has a tantrum in the classroom, then destroys equipment around them and forces the teacher to leave the classroom with the rest of the class. Imagine a number of children fighting and punching each other in the face. Imagine a child hitting, spitting on or biting a teacher. I am not making this up. I did not see it in a horror movie. My wife experienced something like this again this morning and she was just telling me about it before I arrived in the House. This was not an exceptional morning. It was not an isolated incident. This is a reality that all teachers face almost every day.
Teachers are in tears and they no longer know what to do to discipline children. We now have specialized educators who are called into classrooms to take control when kids run amok.
Last week I was reading a Radio-Canada article that said school personnel in New Brunswick increasingly have to resort to protective equipment. When long-sleeve jean jackets are not enough, teachers turn to Kevlar clothing. When I read that, I felt like I was reading science fiction, but this is not science fiction. It is happening now, today, in 2023, in our classrooms in Quebec and in Canada.
What do we do with that? Of course I am against physical punishment. I do not think you should hit a child to get even or punish them, but using reasonable force to discipline them and keep them on track is something I think should remain. I do not know how we will function without it. Are there parents in the House who never had their arm squeezed by their mother or father? Are there parents in the House who never did that to their own children to calm them down during a meltdown?
Once again, we are talking about reasonable force. We are talking about “using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child, as the case may be, who is under his care, if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances.”
Of course, a teacher hitting a child with a ruler makes no sense. It is not reasonable or necessary and should be prohibited. The Criminal Code already contains provisions dealing with assault, which apply as much to parents and teachers as to anyone else.
What we are talking about here is what goes on in a family, in a home or in a classroom when a child loses control. It takes an adult to help them regain control. If we let children do whatever they want, we should not be surprised later to find we live in a chaotic society, and it will be our own fault.
Currently, teachers in Quebec are in negotiations with the government. That does not concern the federal Parliament. I would not ask it to resolve the dispute. They are asking for a number of things and I am convinced it is the same everywhere in Canada. They are asking of course for better salaries, as well as a better teacher-student ratio. Increasingly, there are too many students in classrooms and teachers have trouble controlling their classes. They are also asking for support. In classrooms, there is an increased need for specialized professionals in every field.
Today, the NDP, the party we are accustomed to seeing side with union members, working to improve their living conditions, finds itself on the other side of the fence. I was very surprised to read this bill and see that it came from the NDP. To my mind, it would be logical and reasonable for the NDP to side with parents who have trouble controlling their children and to side with teachers, who are asking for support, who are asking to be able to control their classrooms. Teachers are asking for time to teach; they cannot take it any more.
I mentioned my spouse earlier. There are plenty of other people who have told me that they have trouble spending even half their class time teaching. They spend all their time disciplining the kids. They have no choice. Teaching math is impossible when everyone is shouting and arguing. This is not normal. We are going to have to make drastic changes in our society, but we are not there yet. We are not here to decide how to educate children.
Still, regarding the idea that acts of parental or teacher protection should be considered criminal acts going forward, in other words that teachers should be prosecuted if they decide to separate two boys who are punching each other in the face in the schoolyard, I doubt anyone would even want to send their kids there. What would we say if, as parents, we went into the schoolyard and saw our daughter or son being punched in the face by another child, while the teacher was looking on and simply telling the kids to stop, because it is not nice? We would tell that teacher to step up and do their job and that we have entrusted them with the responsibility of looking after our children; we would ask that teacher to look after the children properly. That would be perfectly normal.
I do not see how we could support such a bill. I do not even see how we could it refer to committee to debate it and try to amend it, because there is nothing to amend. One clause in the bill says it would repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code. Not only can this not be amended, but, with all due respect to the sponsor, this would be a waste of our precious time in committee. There are so many things we need to address at the Standing Committee on Justice. We do not have time to look at everything. I have submitted requests for us to work on certain topics such as criminal groups. We do not have time to deal with that. We do not have time to deal with judicial appointments. There are so many things we are having a hard time working on because we do not have enough time. We would have to work on this for who knows how many meetings. As I was saying, we would not even be able to amend this bill. We have come to the conclusion that this does not make sense. We cannot stop parents and teachers from raising children. The world has gone mad.
Again, with all due respect to the sponsor, I am sure that this bill was well-intentioned and done in good faith. Unfortunately, this bill is as bad as the children running amok in classrooms, if not worse. I invite members to vote against the bill.
1363 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/20/23 5:27:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I totally agree with her that it is illogical and absurd to punish victims of sexual offences for talking about the crime.
That is what I meant at the beginning of my speech when I talked about the second part of the bill, which will probably, at least in my opinion, solve this problem.
I will therefore obviously support this bill, including the part that will let victims have a say in deciding whether or not a publication ban should be issued in their case.
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
