Andréanne Larouche
Shefford, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I would also like to join my colleagues in wishing the member a happy retirement. As women in politics, she and I help make up barely 30% of Parliament. I truly wish her a wonderful retirement. Although we do not always share the same values, we live in a healthy democracy.”
“Mr. Speaker, with just two weeks to go before July 1, hundreds of people still cannot find housing and are at risk of becoming homeless. Municipalities are investing to address the unprecedented homelessness crisis, including Montreal, which has tripled its budget. Quebec has also increased funding for this issue in its latest budget.”
“Mr. Speaker, June 15 is World Elder Abuse Awareness Day. At a time when fraud targeting seniors is gaining attention, let us remember the importance of staying vigilant and taking action against the various types of abuse, including financial abuse.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a quick comment and then a question for my colleague, whom I thank for her speech. I will add my thoughts on this democratic issue. While the government was busy manufacturing its majority, it did not accept any of the 11 recommendations from the Bloc Québécois.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to echo the sentiments of my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord and reiterate another point. Certain groups have written to us because there has been a great deal of disinformation coming from the Conservatives.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I listened carefully to my colleague. Does he believe that the amendments proposed in committee will really ensure that the bill effectively addresses this hate speech that should not even be happening in the first place? Does he believe we have the necessary tools to tie all this together properly?”
The complete record
Every one of 640 lines we hold for Andréanne Larouche, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 13.
“Their work is complex, involving legal, scientific and financial aspects. Having met with representatives of these organizations on numerous occasions, I can say that one of their problems is the lack of recurring funding to help them fulfill their mandate. Among the recommended priorities is the renewal of the natural heritage conservation program, or NHCP. There is also talk of conservation investment funds and improving ecological grants. These organizations are the ones who are actually protecting the land, day in, day out. (1820) Land donations provide better tax advantages than monetary donations. Motion No. 15 addresses this imbalance. The solution it proposes is tax parity, which would result in more stable funding and a larger number of projects.”
“I have mentioned that the federal government has a part to play and that Quebec is doing its bit. Now, I would like to highlight some organizations that are working really hard, and I want to acknowledge that they are key players in this fight to protect our land and sea. These organizations have practical, on-the-ground expertise. With the Fondation SÉTHY, I actually had the chance to go into a bog in Saint-Joachim-de-Shefford and talk about biodiversity. I even got to vacuum up spiders. It was a fascinating experience to witness the richness and diversity of our region's peatlands and to observe and catalogue the species of spiders. It provided a very interesting insight into the environment. I tip my hat to these organizations for their in-depth knowledge of the field.”
“The government pledged to protect 25% of the country's lands by 2025 and 30% by 2030. It is worth noting that we are currently at approximately 13.8% for land protection and 15.5% for marine protection. There have been repeated delays and sometimes a lack of consistency. The government announces ambitious targets, but does not always give itself the resources needed to meet them. What we want is to send a clear message that the federal government must do its part. In Quebec, 17% of the territory is protected. Quebec is already taking action. We also want to emphasize that protecting the territory falls under Quebec’s jurisdiction. It is clear that Quebec did not wait for Ottawa to act and that it must be able to continue doing so based on its own priorities. That is important.”
“There really is a sense of urgency. What we want to do in the House is elevate the debate and talk about the major biodiversity crisis, which is on par with the climate crisis. We must not forget that. We talk a lot about climate change, but the biodiversity crisis is also important. Here are some key figures. There are one million species that are at risk and 75% of terrestrial habitats have been altered. These figures are based on international data. We want to take meaningful action and talk about food and drinking water supply. Biodiversity also has an impact on health. We do not talk about that enough. Without biodiversity, the conditions necessary for life simply cease to exist. Finally, we want to remind everyone that the government has made commitments.”
“REHY and especially the Fondation SÉTHY are working very hard on the conservation issue. I applaud them for being truly vital partners in conserving our land. Let us come back to the motion. Of course, tax incentives are a great idea because the government cannot simply rely on the generosity of the private sector. The government also has to do its part. It cannot simply leave this to the private sector. We need to protect biodiversity, but that is not just an option. It is a collective responsibility. It is clear that there are various stakeholders who can play a part in protecting this biodiversity. It is rather intimidating to speak to this motion when my colleague from Repentigny does such a great job as our environment critic. We have discussed this issue, and he would be better suited to talking about it than I am.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise with great pleasure and interest this evening to speak to the motion moved by my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi , who is also my riding neighbour. We met at a different point in our lives when he was mayor of Bromont. We have known each other for some years. This is a very good motion and we are going to talk about it. The Bloc Québécois supports Motion No. 15, which is a strategic recognition. I want to commend the conservation organizations for being vital partners in this type of motion. The member and I share a number of environmental organizations in our ridings, including the Fondation SÉTHY, or the Fondation pour la sauvegarde des écosystèmes du territoire de la Haute‑Yamaska, and REHY, or the Regroupement environnement Haute‑Yamaska, which is made up of organizations with some connection to Brome—Missisquoi.”
“Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Every year, seasonal workers fall victim to the EI spring gap, which is when workers in fisheries, forestry, tourism and many other sectors go without income for weeks. For over 10 years, the Liberals have been promising comprehensive EI reform, and they will need to keep their promise, but seasonal workers need 15 more weeks per year right now. When will the Liberals fix the EI spring gap once and for all?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yet another impressive speech. He mentioned in his remarks that one of the factors being cited is that Canada is lagging behind internationally, particularly in comparison to countries such as the United States, New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom, France and Italy. Can my colleague talk about what could have been done or whether there are good practices elsewhere that Canada could have emulated instead of potentially violating people's privacy?”
“Mr. Speaker, earlier, I listened to the Minister of Justice talk about Bill C‑22 and say that he had carried out consultations. Bill C‑22 is a second attempt at legislation, following Bill C‑2 . Observers say, however, that it only fixes some of the problems for which last year's bill was widely criticized. Lastly, many observers and experts were not consulted. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.”
“It is an important step, but we must also ensure that a comprehensive system is put in place to support it. We will also need more resources and a truly systemic review of how we can address violence against women and femicide.”
“I would also point out that we need to address cyber-violence because that also disproportionately affects women. In conclusion, we will really need to be very strategic. Of course, we support the bill because we recognize that improvements have been made. However, it is also important to continue ensuring that the law is consistent. Above all, we need to go further. Let me be clear: We must take effective, consistent and victim-centred action. There is only one way to do that. We must continue to listen to victims, survivors and their loved ones. As I said earlier, we must listen to the organizations that work with victims every day. I, along with the members of the Bloc Québécois, pledge to keep listening to them. This bill is not an end in itself.”
“There are still too many obstacles for victims, who are afraid that they will not be believed. Financial dependence also keeps victims trapped in a cycle of violence because they are afraid that they will not be able to afford to escape and that they will lose custody of their children. We need to take action. The system is seen as ill equipped to deal with such situations and is even often exploited by abusers. The system must instead work to help victims break free of the cycle of domestic violence. It must not be yet another obstacle for them to deal with. What is more, we are seeing that new technology is having an increased impact on violence. It provides new ways to control victims, including location tracking, digital surveillance and online harassment. The law really needs to evolve to keep pace with these new forms of violence.”
“Lastly, it is also important to consider the relationship between Quebec and the federal government. Quebec has a solid system of community-based networks. I would like to take this opportunity to commend all the groups and employees within these community networks who work every day to help women who are victims of domestic violence and coercive control. They perform small miracles. They have recognized expertise in addressing domestic violence, but the reality is that resources are insufficient and these organizations are under pressure. It is important that they receive increased resources. The federal government needs to provide financial support, not just pass legislation. However, this must be done while respecting Quebec's jurisdictions. These organizations know the reality on the ground in Quebec.”
“For example, there was the issue of classifying the murder of an intimate partner as first-degree murder. We also wanted to avoid legislative redundancy, because several offences already exist, such as harassment, threats and assault. Adding sections to the Criminal Code does not always guarantee better justice. That is why we need to address something else at the same time: There is not enough enforcement. Not as many charges are being laid, with increased reliance on section 810, which was studied at committee. Does that really protect victims? This needs to be examined further in order to improve things. The problem is not so much the lack of tools as it is the way they are being used within the current justice system. Tools already exist in the Criminal Code.”
“Current criminal law struggles to fully acknowledge the reality of coercive control, and that is what absolutely must change. (1135) Our contribution to Bill C-225 includes tougher sentences, specific mention of intimate partners and the addition of the coercive conduct criterion. That was one of the proposed amendments. Then there is the increased focus on repeat offences, which is crucial. Those changes meant the bill was improved in committee. We worked very hard, and it was the result of cross-party collaboration. I want to highlight that out of respect for the victims, their families and their loved ones, while also keeping survivors in mind. The Bloc Québécois brought forward what I would describe as constructive criticism. We wanted to ensure consistency with criminal law.”
“Furthermore, one in three women will experience domestic violence in their lifetime. These figures are truly disturbing. In Canada, one woman is killed every six days. Not surprisingly, the most vulnerable groups are indigenous women, racialized women and women living in poverty. I could also include women in rural areas, where resources are more limited. The most vulnerable pay the highest price for the cracks in the system. We really have to act. It is also important to understand that coercive control is a form of violence that involves repeated acts of control and intimidation. Since it is a pattern of behaviour, gathering evidence is obviously not easy. The legal system is also ill equipped to deal with this problem.”
“The Bloc Québécois supports the bill because it takes a rigorous and consistent approach, while respecting Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. Thanks to the amendments proposed in committee, we can say today that this bill must move forward. However, the problem is not just that there is a shortage of laws, but that these laws are not being adequately enforced. The federal government keeps coming up with legislative changes without fixing the cracks in the system. At this point in my speech, I would like to share some statistics. Only 36% of family violence cases and only 5% of sexual assault cases get reported, which clearly points to a loss of trust in our institutions; 95% of domestic violence cases involve coercive control; and about 117,000 victims report domestic violence every year in Canada, 80% of them women.”
“In fact, it was not until I proposed a study on coercive control at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women and parliamentarians from all political parties showed up outside the House for a press conference last fall to tell the government that it needed to take action on the issue of coercive control that things got moving. Meanwhile, at least the study of Bill C‑225 was coming along, and the Standing Committee on the Status of Women got a chance to debate it. There is a clear consensus on the seriousness of domestic violence, and all parties are willing to take action. As the work in committee showed, all parties were able to work together and propose amendments to move the bill forward and improve it.”
“Collins, introduced a bill to criminalize coercive control. The bill passed in the House and even made it to the Senate. No bill on coercive control had ever made it that far before. Unfortunately, the bill died on the Order Paper when the election was called in 2025. That delayed the criminalization of coercive control, even though the National Assembly of Quebec has been calling for this for a long time, particularly since the publication of the “Rebuilding Trust” report. The National Assembly wanted to take action in Quebec to prevent any further femicides, but since the Criminal Code is federal legislation, the National Assembly said that it is the federal government that must act. By talking about this issue again today, we can drive home a message that should have been sent a long time ago.”
“Mr. Speaker, this morning we are debating Bill C-225 , which amends the Criminal Code. This bill is also known as “Bailey's Law”, sadly in memory of a young woman who was strangled to death. It was a horrific crime, and femicide still occurs far too often. Rising to speak to these femicides is always upsetting. I want to thank the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola for introducing this bill, which we had the opportunity to study at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. We were moved by the testimony we heard and want to express our sympathy to the family. This was a horrible murder. The committee meetings got very emotional. We must do something about this. There is one thing, however, that I find somewhat regrettable. We discussed femicide and the problem of coercive control in the last Parliament. The member for Victoria, Ms.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola for introducing this bill. I work with him on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. We realized that amendments needed to be made when we examined this bill in committee after second reading. I would like my colleague to talk more specifically about the importance of improving recognition of coercive control, which was a topic of discussion in our committee meetings. We have talked about this for far too long, but nothing seems to have come of it. What difference would that make for victims?”
“It took some hard work in committee, which is why I want to acknowledge the efforts of my colleague, who succeeded in getting his committee to call for this independent public inquiry. That is what we are debating today in the hope of shedding light on all this.”
“Mr. Speaker, first of all, as I said, there has been a loss of expertise within the government. It has been shifted to external consultants. Perhaps the government should have listened more closely to the public servants who raised concerns about the Phoenix system. It is clear that their comments were not taken into account. I would also like to address the fact that the government tried to downplay the situation. There was talk of 85,000 cases. Initially, that was not what the minister told the House, and it took a few weeks before we got the truth. We finally managed to obtain this information about the 85,000 cases in committee. We were told that it was zero point something per cent. At first, the Liberals downplayed it and refused to answer questions during question period.”
“Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question. That is probably also a big part of the problem. During the last election campaign, the Bloc Québécois called for cutbacks in the use of outside consultants, because it leads to both money being wasted and contracts being awarded under questionable circumstances. Furthermore, it leads to a loss of expertise within the public service. Modernization is certainly necessary, but, as my colleague said, we must also stop constantly turning to outside consultants, because we lose a great deal of expertise that way, and that is how we end up with financial scandals and cost overruns. We should also listen to public servants.”
“Yes, seniors deserve respect, but we also need to think about the taxpayers who are footing the bill and who feel as though their money is always being squandered.”
“Madam Speaker, of course, we have to modernize our systems. The problem is that this modernization was poorly planned and poorly executed. In my speech, I raised a lot of questions that could have been asked beforehand, questions that we still do not have answers to. The reason we are calling for an independent public inquiry is so that we can find out what was not done properly in the planning stages and what could be fixed. It seems as though the government is putting more energy into sweeping this problem under the rug than it is into solving it. First, there was Phoenix, with its cost overruns and federal employees speaking out. Then, there was the ArriveCAN app. It has been scandal after scandal.”
“There have been failures elsewhere, such as in Ontario. That, too, has been mentioned. The government was unable to take this into account to avoid repeating those mistakes. We know there was even a National Assembly motion in support of an independent public inquiry because Quebec's MNAs also want to get to the bottom of this. It is a matter of respect for seniors and for taxpayers.”
“Essentially, the minister is saying that seniors themselves are to blame. The reason for the delays is that they are not filling out their forms correctly, so they should stop using paper forms. We all know that digital literacy is an issue. For people in general in our society who have to use these systems, switching from paper to online is not that easy. It is more complex than that, and the government must recognize that this is an issue for people. There is also the wait time to get help over the phone. It is supposed to take 20 to 25 minutes, but in reality, people are waiting an hour or more. I have Conservative colleagues who have cases in their ridings where people report having waited longer than the expected 20 to 25 minutes. Finally, we also know that seniors in rural areas are underserved. I have one last thing to say.”
“All of this could have been prevented with better planning, and that is what we are criticizing the government for. There are major demographic issues. There were 7.5 million seniors in Canada in 2023, and that number is expected to rise to nearly 20 million by 2066. Seniors will make up 30% of the population. The other issue that should be investigated through an inquiry is the fact that the system is already in trouble, and demand is set to skyrocket. Will the system be able to handle it? We also know that this will have knock-on effects on other federal systems, such as EI, which is governed by much more complex legislation. The application forms are very complex, but when someone ends up collecting EI, that is a critical time in their life. If people entitled to EI do not get their EI payments, what happens then?”
“The system does not take our separate pension systems into account. There are real human consequences. Some seniors are waiting up to nine months for their first payment. We also know that some payments are late or incomplete. The amounts are sometimes wrong, with some seniors receiving overpayments. What will the tax implications be? We do not really know yet, but we know that there will be some. Still, given the systemic issues that have been identified, we know that there is inconsistent data. That is what we are being told. We are hearing about direct deposits, tax data and the fact that information is missing from some files. Those are the answers we are hearing. We are told that there are problems accessing certain proofs of residency, for example, and that officials are dependent on systems built 50 or 60 years ago.”
“In fact, I commend the public servants who said last June that problems were on the horizon and that seniors were not getting their benefits. Again, it was whistle-blowers within the public service who spoke out about the situation. It was the public service union that spoke out against it. We know from their testimony that training for public servants is insufficient, that there are daily computer glitches and that this is affecting mental health. As my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue also mentioned, we also know that there are problems with the French language and translation, making the public servants' jobs harder. The system is not designed to take into account Quebec's unique linguistic reality, the French language, or our distinctiveness when it comes to social programs, given all the programs we have.”
“According to internal tests, the accuracy rate is allegedly 99.9%, but again, there is a contradiction between the successful tests and the on-the-ground reality of widespread delays. The 85,000 cases we knew about at the start were too many, and there are still 63,000 outstanding. Those cases involve people who need their pension to pay for rent and groceries. It is far from a luxury for everyone. We know that there are tragedies unfolding. What is the reality on the ground? What is the reality behind the widespread delays? That is another area we would need to explore. As far as human resources are concerned, although 5,300 employees have been trained, 93% of public servants have given the system a failing grade.”
“The estimated operating costs are about $60 million per year, but officials are unable to provide the cost per transaction or the actual operating costs. It would be useful to look at these aspects as part of an independent public inquiry. A system was built without anyone knowing how much it would actually cost to operate. (1120) That is what we asked about, and we hope to get answers. This morning, in committee, we said we wanted some potential solutions and some answers. If we do not get them there, we will need to get them through an independent public inquiry. In terms of the migration and deployment, 7.5 million beneficiaries are being transferred to Cúram.”
“This was revised to $2.5 billion, an increase of more than 43%. According to one estimate, the costs could reach $3.4 billion. The actual expenditures incurred by 2025 are expected to be $4.4 billion. Currently, the figure being quoted is $6.6 billion, and we could very well reach that amount. We now know that the cost of the project was underestimated from the beginning. Even worse, the Auditor General raised the alarm about the cost overruns back in 2023. Things always have to come out in the media before this Liberal government takes action. The government will not intervene until it has no choice. I will come back to that. The main problem I wanted to highlight first is the fact that the project cost was underestimated from the beginning.”
“The minister said the number of cases has dropped to 63,000. Here is an important definition: A case is considered delayed when it has not been processed by the date of eligibility or within 60 days. With Cúram, these timelines have been significantly exceeded. Let us turn to the system's performance before and after Cúram. Before Cúram, 87.5% of benefits were paid within the first month, and the government target was 90%. It is not clear whether the current performance is better, and there is nothing to show a clear improvement. We are starting to have questions that may come up in an independent public inquiry, such as the one we are calling for today in the House. There is also the issue of ballooning costs that we would like to examine closely. The original estimate in 2017 was $1.75 billion.”
“They worked very hard on research and investigative work. They, too, knowing that I was concerned about the situation of seniors, told me that some seniors would experience hardship because they would not receive their benefits or would receive them late. Of course, we are aware of the scale and scope of the system. It is a fact that between 7.1 million and 7.5 million seniors collect OAS. It is also a fact that $9.4 billion is paid out annually. Projections show that 9.4 million seniors will be receiving this pension by 2030, for a total of $105 billion in benefits. Obviously, one might ask what the situation is with delays and backlogs. In January, there was a backlog of 85,537 cases. We were told that, in February, that number was down to 69,180. According to other internal sources, 69,000 seniors have been impacted.”
“In the case of Phoenix, money was not being paid to the people who needed it. In the case of ArriveCAN, there were cost overruns that were brought to our attention during the pandemic. Now we have the Cúram fiasco. I would like to point out that the first person to alert me to the situation was Nathalie Sinclair‑Desgagné, whose work in the Standing Committee on Public Accounts I would like to commend. Since she knew that I was concerned about the situation of seniors, she warned me at the start of 2025 that some seniors would have a hard time receiving their benefits. She also brought my attention to cost overruns associated with the new pension management program, Cúram. It was then that my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue , whom I commend, and his assistant Jean-François picked up the ball.”
“Madam Speaker, I want to address this issue with a great deal of compassion today. I will start with a bit of history. After I was first elected in 2019, I was deeply affected by one of the first cases I dealt with in my office. It was the case of a young woman who came to my office in tears, carrying her infant in a car seat. I handed her a tissue box and invited her in. This mother, who had just started her maternity leave and had a baby to support, was not getting her benefits as a federal employee because of the new Phoenix pay system. This woman was going through a profound personal crisis, when she should have been spending this time cherishing her little one. That really stuck with me. Then, during the pandemic, ArriveCAN came along. Once again, there were problems.”
“It must be possible for reasonable people, informed of the context and circumstances, to interpret these statements as such. Does my colleague believe that a protest meets these criteria? Does she not believe, rather, that a protest does not meet these criteria and that the rulings are clear?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to make a comment before asking my question. I have been listening to this debate, and clearly, the federal government is out of touch with Quebec's unique circumstances. In Quebec, we understand that secularism is a progressive value that is deeply rooted in Quebec's values since the time of the Quiet Revolution, given our history. It is a very modern and very current principle. I will now ask my question. For an individual to be convicted of promoting hatred under the provisions of the Criminal Code and the case law, the bar is pretty high. It must involve a public speech that is made wilfully and that targets an identifiable group based on prohibited discriminatory grounds and that expresses hatred in the sense of profound detestation, including statements that expose groups or individuals to the hatred of others.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is being proposed despite the fact that the committee had demonstrated its good faith by proposing an interpretive clause. The committee even set aside Bill C-9 to study Bill C-14 at the Conservatives' request. The committee studied Bill C-14 and then went back to Bill C-9, thinking everything would be fine, but no, even though their request was granted, the Conservatives continue to filibuster. They will say that they are not filibustering, but let us call a spade a spade. They are filibustering. They are acting in bad faith. In the current circumstances, when hate crimes are on the rise and it is important to send a clear message that people cannot hide behind a religious exemption, the Conservatives continue to filibuster.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am trying to understand how it is acceptable, in a secular society like Quebec, to argue that someone should not be criminally prosecuted under a religious exemption even if there is a hateful intent behind it all. That is unacceptable. Quebec has chosen secularism. It is unacceptable, but that is our current reality. This is not misinformation. The Criminal Code allows someone to defend themselves by invoking the religious exemption. It is absurd. Does my colleague truly fear that, if he decides to read excerpts from his holy book or even display a symbol of his religion without any threat of violence toward anyone, Bill C-9 will infringe upon his freedom of expression?”
“Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister criticized us for not attending a briefing on Cúram. However, that briefing session was held today, and we were in attendance. The bottom line is that Cúram is still causing problems. Tens of thousands of seniors are still without their old age security benefits. The bills keep coming. Cúram continues to cause the same problems, and thousands of people are still anxious and worried. What are the Liberals waiting for? Instead of holding briefings to defend their bad system, when will they set up a commission of inquiry?”
“That is why the Bloc Québécois will support this bill so that it can be studied in committee, where its principle will, as always, be carefully reviewed to ensure that the core principles are upheld and, most importantly, that they actually strengthen victim protection.”
“Since 2022, these courts have been rolled out in 24 cities across Quebec. They include specialized training for judges and judicial stakeholders, a specialized division of prosecutors and judges, support for victims to help them better understand their rights, and changing the layout of courthouses to ensure victims are welcomed safely and appropriately. In conclusion, sexual assault is a serious crime that must be denounced and strictly punished. Victims need to feel that their words are heard and that their suffering is recognized. Bill C‑246 therefore raises important issues.”
“Harsher penalties are not the only solution, either. We often hear this at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. It is important to remember that increasing penalties is not in itself a solution to reducing crime, because crime is influenced by multiple factors, such as social conditions, inequality, support for vulnerable people and resources allocated to prevention. (1745) In closing, I want to talk about Quebec's example of using specialized courts. Quebec chose an interesting approach after the #MeToo movement. An expert panel drafted 190 recommendations to improve support for victims in the report entitled “Rebâtir la confiance”. In 2021, the Quebec National Assembly even unanimously passed a motion to create courts specializing in sexual and domestic violence.”
“It is clear, then, that mandatory consecutive sentences could, in some cases, lead to sentences that would be considered disproportionate. Another consideration is interaction with minimum sentences. Many sexual offences already carry mandatory minimum sentences. Combining mandatory minimum sentences with mandatory consecutive sentences could result in extremely long sentences that no longer take special circumstances into account. How would this be viewed by the system? As for case law, there is the Bissonnette case. The Supreme Court ruled on the issue of consecutive sentences in the Bissonnette decision. In that case, a man had murdered six people at the Quebec City mosque in 2017. In the end, the Supreme Court ruled that imposing consecutive sentences violated the principle of rehabilitation, so that case law already exists.”
“Some judges already have the discretion to impose such sentences when the situation warrants it. There is also the principle of proportionality. The Criminal Code establishes proportionality as a fundamental principle of sentencing. According to this principle, the sentence must reflect the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The bill could potentially limit judges' ability to tailor the sentence to the specific circumstances of each case. Another thing in the Criminal Code is the totality principle. This principle provides that judges must ensure that combined sentences are not excessive. The totality principle requires that the overall sentence remain proportionate to the overall culpability of the accused.”
“Obviously, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the bill in principle and wants it to be studied in committee, because sexual offences are serious crimes that require serious penalties. Consecutive sentences can be an acknowledgement of the seriousness of each offence and of each victim. This acknowledgement is important because victims of sexual assault often show tremendous courage in coming forward to report their attacker. We are well aware of this, but we do have some reservations. There are several factors that raise concerns. Consecutive sentences already exist. The Criminal Code already provides for the possibility of consecutive sentences. Section 718.3 provides that sentences may be served consecutively when the offences do not out of the same event or series of events.”
“In short, this does not necessarily signify an increase in the number of assaults committed, but rather an increase in the reporting and visibility of these crimes, which is a good thing. The objective of Bill C-246 is to amend the Criminal Code to require that sentences for certain sexual offences be served consecutively rather than concurrently. In other words, when a person commits multiple sexual assaults, the sentences would be served one after the other, rather than at the same time. The offences covered include sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, sexual exploitation, incest, sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon and aggravated sexual assault.”