- 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
Madam Speaker, Bill C‑321 would amend existing provisions governing sentences for assault when the victim is a health care worker or first responder. The victim's profession would be considered an aggravating circumstance.
This bill is based on recommendation 3 from the Standing Committee on Health's report on violence facing health care workers in Canada, which was tabled in June 2019. The committee recommended that the government “amend the Criminal Code to require a court to consider the fact that the victim of an assault is a health care sector worker to be an aggravating circumstance for the purposes of sentencing”.
A number of groups, including the Canadian Medical Association, the Ontario Medical Association, the British Columbia Nurses' Union, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Concerned Ontario Doctors and the Canadian Nurses Association, have said they support this measure.
The report was tabled in the House on June 19, 2019, so the Trudeau government did not respond to the study before the dissolution of the House and the election. That is why it is back before us now.
Where are we at now? Obviously, assaulting someone who is providing care to a sick or injured person is unacceptable. That goes without saying. The assailant must be punished severely, and the sentence must send an equally serious message. We all agree on that. However, there are already Criminal Code provisions that cover this.
Subparagraph 718.2(a)(iii.2) states that any offence committed against a person who, in the performance of their duties and functions, was providing health services, including personal care services, must be considered to have aggravating circumstances. That applies to any offence, regardless of who the victim and the offender are.
This means that, if passed, Bill C‑321 will merely reiterate that assaults and threats of assault against these workers may be punished more severely.
That is commendable. However, that being said, we need to be careful when determining that one category of citizens should receive special protection. Obviously, we care a lot about making sure that all those who dedicate their lives to caring for, treating or saving their fellow human beings from some sort of danger are well treated themselves. We want them to know that their dedication does not go unnoticed, that it is recognized, and we want them to be able to do their job safely.
However, there are other members of our society who also deserve our respect and attention. I will not give an exhaustive list because I will likely forget someone, but what about our teachers? What about the support staff in our schools? What about day care workers? Many of us who worked in the field of education are well aware of the fact that teaching in 2023 is a far cry from teaching 50 years ago. I think my colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, who was a school principal not that long ago, could tell us all about that.
Should those who dedicate their lives to educating our children not be given the same consideration? What about those who spend their lives working in soup kitchens or shelters to help the most disadvantaged members of our society? Times are tough. Everything costs more. There is a labour shortage and a housing crisis. There are major problems, and the people working in those areas also need to be recognized and protected.
What message would we like to send to all those who work in a plant, at a courthouse, at a store, at a restaurant or in the public service? What would we say to them, that their work is not important enough? I am sure that is not what we want.
Let me remind this House that in 2015, Bill S‑221 introduced by Senator Bob Runciman was adopted and was rather similar to the current bill, but drafted to the benefit of public transit operators. It did not have a deterrent effect on the violence against bus drivers. Other than a momentary decline in 2016, the statistics on this have not moved, except during the COVID‑19 pandemic. In Quebec, work injury cases recognized by the Commission des normes, de l'équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail went from 21 in 2014 to 22 in 2022.
Finally, I would add that our priority must continue to be to assure everyone that we want to keep the workplace, and society in general, safe and healthy. Prevention, and healthy, rewarding living conditions, must never be sacrificed in favour of legislative deterrents. They must be complementary approaches.
In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois believes that acts of violence against health care workers and first responders are concerning and that we need to discuss this. We need to find solutions that make it possible for these people to safely do their essential work.
Does Bill C-321 propose a perfect solution? Probably not, but it surely deserves our attention. For that reason, we will be supporting this bill so it can be studied in committee, ultimately improved and, if appropriate, passed.
868 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/23 2:58:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, according to the media, four victim advocacy groups backed Quebec's concerns. We cannot ignore them. The minister has the right to make a mistake, and it would be honourable to admit it. I would remind him that, at the time, everyone seemed open to the Bloc Québécois compromise, including the experts who appeared before the committee.
Therefore, we will be introducing a bill that would restore minimum sentencing for firearms offences and prohibit conditional sentencing for sexual assault while allowing the courts to make exceptions, with justification, in exceptional cases. Can we count on the Minister of Justice to be open-minded? I am not addressing the quarrelsome minister who is always bickering, but the Minister of Justice.
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 11:25:25 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I will start where I left off.
The bill summary reads as follows:
This enactment amends the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to, among other things, repeal certain mandatory minimum penalties, allow for a greater use of conditional sentences and establish diversion measures for simple drug possession offences.
For the Bloc Québécois, which has consistently advocated for diversion, rehabilitation and giving judges the discretion to determine appropriate sentences, this looks like motherhood and apple pie at first glance. However, as is often the case in the House, that pie was made with rotten apples that no one wants to eat. I am very pleased with the diversion measures. Too many people who need health care more than anything are unnecessarily crowding our courthouses and prisons. As unfortunate as addictions are, they need to be treated, not punished. This flawed and harmful paradigm needs to be set aside.
The same is true for conditional sentence orders. They are not a magic bullet, far from it. If they are used appropriately, and I have no reason to believe that our courts would be incapable of making sound decisions, they too will lead to better rehabilitation.
Most of the minimum sentences slated for repeal should be, and I applaud this expression of confidence in our courts. Judges who preside over trials hear very detailed adjudicative fact evidence, so they are in a better position than anyone else to determine the appropriate sentence for any given situation. I have faith in them.
That said, Bill C‑5 is overly broad. Quebec and Canada are experiencing a widespread gun crime crisis, but the government's only solution is to abolish minimum penalties for some of these offences. I will go through some of them.
Section 244(1) of the Criminal Code states the following with respect to discharging a firearm with intent:
Every person commits an offence who discharges a firearm at a person with intent to wound, maim or disfigure, to endanger the life of or to prevent the arrest or detention of any person — whether or not that person is the one at whom the firearm is discharged.
That is pretty serious. The Criminal Code currently provides for a minimum penalty of five to seven years for these crimes if they are committed in association with or at the direction of a criminal organization.
Armed robbery is liable to a minimum penalty of four years pursuant to section 344 of the Criminal Code.
Subsection 346(1) of the Criminal Code defines extortion with a firearm as follows:
Every one commits extortion who, without reasonable justification or excuse and with intent to obtain anything, by threats, accusations, menaces or violence induces or attempts to induce any person, whether or not he is the person threatened, accused or menaced or to whom violence is shown, to do anything or cause anything to be done.
If a firearm is used in those offences, the minimum sentence is four years.
There are others, including robbery with a firearm, discharging a firearm with intent to wound, maim or disfigure and extortion with a firearm, but for those three examples, the Criminal Code currently sets out minimum sentences.
Are judges capable of applying the appropriate penalties for these offences? Honestly, I think so. I think our courts are quite capable of hearing the evidence and determining what is appropriate in these and other cases. However, at a time when gun violence is on the rise, especially in the Montreal area, but also elsewhere in Quebec and Canada, I think this sends the wrong message.
That is certainly not what I would call wise use of the power to legislate. The government could have proposed diversion and rehabilitation measures, as well as the repeal of certain minimum sentences, with the exclusion of crimes as serious as those committed with firearms. It could have done that.
At the start of the study of Bill C‑5, the Bloc Québécois asked that the bill be split in two so we could study diversion in one bill and then the minimum penalties issue in another bill. We could have passed one bill quickly and worked on the other, perhaps crafting it to reflect what Quebeckers and Canadians would want it to include. Unfortunately, the government is being obstinate, which I do not quite understand. In fact, I would say I do not understand it at all.
It seems that we will unfortunately also have to accept the rotten apples if we want to have the remedies of diversion and conditional sentencing and the elimination of certain minimum mandatory sentences for very specific offences. It is very disappointing to see the democratic process being taken hostage, and one day it is going to backfire. In the meantime, let us hope that the government will become a little wiser. Whether the government is Liberal or Conservative, let us hope that it will happen, and that one day it will accept the opposition's arguments. Even when the opposition parties disagree and their position may seem unfounded, it is often well-founded and represents the opinion of a large part of the population. Let us hope that the government will one day accept the opposition's arguments and split this type of bill so we can discuss each provision objectively and effectively in the best interests of the people of Quebec and Canada.
For now, given the circumstances, the Bloc Québécois will have to vote in favour of Bill C-5. We will support it because, once again, we believe that diversion is essential for the entire justice system. We need it. We will vote in favour of Bill C-5 because we believe that conditional sentences are judicious and essential to the proper functioning of our courts, to the proper functioning of the entire justice system and to the rehabilitation of many offenders. We will vote in favour of Bill C-5 because eliminating some of these minimum penalties is also essential to the justice system and to rehabilitation.
While we will vote in favour of Bill C-5, we will be holding our noses over this denial of democracy that the government is perpetuating by refusing to remove from Bill C-5 the provisions that will undermine the fight against organized crime, the fight against the daily and rampant shootings on our streets.
1088 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
