Alexis Deschênes
Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“Madam Speaker, I am going to ask my colleague the same question I asked earlier. I hope I get an answer by the end of the debate. Bill C-9 contains interpretive clauses specifically intended to ensure that under no circumstances are individuals prevented from practising the religion of their choice or communicating the contents of a bibli…”
“Here is the first one: 11.1(1) For greater certainty, nothing in subsection 319(2) or (2.2) of the Criminal Code shall be construed as prohibiting a person from communicating a statement on a matter of public interest, including an educational, religious, political or scientific statement made in the course of a discussion, publication or…”
“Madam Speaker, in the drafting of Bill C‑9 , some interpretive clauses were added that, in my opinion, address the concerns of my Conservative colleagues. I am going to read them, and I want my Conservative colleagues to tell me what is missing from these clauses so I can reassure them.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my riding neighbour for his speech. My colleague represents a riding on the other side of our beautiful Chaleur Bay. I want to ask him a question. He brought up remarks made yesterday in the House. I was there. It was about 11:50 p.m.”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague has provided an accurate description of the turmoil and concerns that Bill C-9 has caused among the people. Does he not acknowledge that the government may have failed to explain Bill C‑9 properly, allowing the situation to escalate because of what appears to be incorrect information?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his great speech. I heard all of his demands for his province of Saskatchewan that Ottawa has not listened to. I heard him list the things that Saskatchewan is asking for and not getting. I have a serious question for him about something that is bothering me.”
The complete record
Every one of 461 lines we hold for Alexis Deschênes, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 10.
“It was meant to be useless and slow down business. That is why, today, we no longer need the approval of the Canadian Transportation Agency. I am sure that all the people who have worked at the Canadian Transportation Agency and who were appointed to it by this government feel that they have served no purpose all these years. (1655) When Alto submits proposals for the high-speed train route, they will be deemed approved by the agency, which raises the risk of errors and injustice. Furthermore, Bill C-15 grants Alto significant powers in terms of expropriation and the right of first refusal to speed up construction of the high-speed rail line. How it will basically work is that land is going to be expropriated now and assessed later. Alto will be able to expropriate land within a corridor 10 kilometres wide. That seems like a lot to us.”
“The public service makes mistakes; the government makes mistakes. If we decide to move even faster, we increase the chances of error. I spent 10 years in legal aid trying to correct injustices committed against citizens. Bill C-15 allows things to move even faster, thereby increasing the risk of error. What we are essentially saying is let us take the time to do things right. Let us make sure that real progress is made, because we are in favour of the high-speed rail project. However, let us make sure that real progress is being made and that we do not create a host of human tragedies. So what does this legislation say? It says, among other things, that Alto will not be required to get approval from the Canadian Transportation Agency. The Canadian Transportation Agency was probably useless anyway. That is probably why it was created.”
“To help people watching understand, it would have been possible to build high-speed rail network earlier, in the old world, before Mr. Trump and the current rush. However, certain rules had to be followed, rules that surely exist for good reason, such as ensuring that people's individual rights are protected. What is the purpose of the high-speed rail network act? Its purpose is to speed up projects. That is the government's direction. However, when people move faster, they take more risks, and when they take more risks, the risk of injustices increases. In our constituency offices, we all receive calls from citizens who are victims of injustices, who call us because their employment insurance cheque has not arrived, because their old age pension cheque did not come in, because their passport was lost. These things happen.”
“It was the 1960s, a time when, in the name of progress, everything had to move so fast that no one bothered with the human beings who were in the way. Then along comes Bill C‑5 , adopted under a closure motion in June, and now Bill C‑15 , which is still being debated in the House, and once again we find ourselves in a climate of haste. The high‑speed rail project has been on the table since the 1980s. This government has been in power since 2015 without making much progress on it. Now, suddenly, it has to be done, and done quickly and forcefully. Rushing as a strategy is dangerous and counterproductive. Let us look at how this Liberal government intends to proceed with Bill C‑15. Among other things, this bill “enacts the high-speed rail network act”.”
“Thousands of immigrants came from all over the world, and they did the work in abusive conditions, in mediocre living conditions. Fifteen thousand Chinese workers laboured on a project that ultimately injured and killed them. Six hundred people died during the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Hastiness is not conducive to progress. When I was a journalist, I did a few news stories on the people in Mirabel whose land was expropriated to mark the 60th anniversary. I remember the testimonies I gathered, and I saw first-hand that the scars were still there. I saw that these human tragedies—when someone is uprooted from their home, when their land is taken from them, even if they are compensated afterward—leave lasting marks.”
“Mr. Speaker, what is progress? In my opinion, that means moving forward as a society toward the common good. Was Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau's Mirabel Airport project a step in the right direction at the end of the 1960s? No, because the plan for an airport of the future fell through, but also and especially because it was rushed. With the massive expropriations carried out by the federal government in Mirabel, leaving 10,000 people displaced, 3,000 families uprooted, and 97,000 acres of land expropriated when less than 15,000 acres were needed, the project did not lead to progress. It created human tragedies. Hastiness is not conducive to progress. I have another example, which goes back even further. It is for my western colleagues. The Canadian Pacific Railway was also built quite quickly.”
“Mr. Speaker, my question for my colleague is this. What is his reaction to the public concern underlying our motion? People are afraid that their property will be stolen out from under them and that their rights will be violated. How does my colleague respond to the fact that we are being attacked, here in the House, for raising public concerns? We are being accused of spreading disinformation and resorting to petty politics.”
“Mr. Speaker, the people of Gaspé have been without Via Rail passenger rail service for over 12 years, a service that is essential for our community. Passenger rail service supports the regional economy, reduces greenhouse gas emissions and helps people get around. We are talking about 12 years of neglect by a Crown corporation that is largely funded with taxpayers' money and whose mandate includes connecting regions. I am therefore very pleased today to present petition e-6922, which has been signed by 3,437 people. This petition calls on the federal government to urge Via Rail to immediately restore passenger rail service between Matapédia and Port‑Daniel‑Gascons and gradually restore passenger rail service to Gaspé as soon as possible. I am very pleased to reiterate their reasonable expectations here in the House.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague for his resilience considering the challenges he has overcome, which have no doubt made him stronger. While we are talking about the rising cost of living, he is focusing a lot on the carbon tax. I have a question for him. Does he not recognize that global warming, the accelerating deterioration of the climate, the increased flooding, the increased droughts and the extremes we are seeing more and more frequently are affecting food costs? Our farmers are facing increasingly difficult conditions and cannot produce as much as they did before global warming caused such rapid climate deterioration. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his interesting remarks on the country's debts. It is well known and accepted by everyone: more debts equals less freedom. Now, my question is as follows. When the government has to address certain issues, is it better for the state to go into debt or for households to do so? What we are seeing is that household debt has increased fairly significantly in the last quarter. Does my colleague not think that, for measures like the one we are discussing today, it is better for the state to go into debt than for households to go even further into debt?”
“Mr. Speaker, I think that, like me, my colleague is concerned about the impact inflation is having on people. I would like to share that, shortly before Christmas, I was walking around Chandler, in my riding. I stopped at an arena to chat with people. One of the volunteers, who might have been over 65, came up to me, took me by the arm and asked me what we are doing here, because he cannot make ends meet on his old age pension. That is what inflation really means. It means people are eating less, or not eating as well, and it certainly means people are feeling stressed. We support the government's proposal, but we believe that more needs to be done. Would my colleague agree to work with us, the Bloc Québécois, to push for more money in seniors' pockets by increasing old age security for people aged 65 to 74?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague. I am willing to work with her on this important matter. There is a food bank near me in Gaspésie that has had to turn away people. Let us imagine these people, who must overcome their shame and who show up to get food, but who are unfortunately turned away because so many people showed up that the food bank worker had to screen applications. I spoke with this worker in December. It is heartbreaking. That is what we are talking about today. There are people who cannot feed themselves. It is not all their fault. Often, we hear that people are not working hard enough. That is not the issue. The issue is that food inflation has increased so drastically. That is a known fact. My colleague wants us to work together. The Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑19 .”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to wish my colleague a happy new year and a happy return to Parliament. Let us talk a bit about femicide, because the start of the year has been tragic. There have been several femicides, in Quebec at least. This bill will impose harsher sentences and make it possible to charge those who commit these heinous crimes with first-degree murder. Can my colleague tell us what this wave of femicides means to her? How can we come up with solutions together to work proactively to reduce violence against women?”
“Mr. Speaker, it seems a little presumptuous to think that we members of the House can foresee every possible scenario or that we can see things clearly from here that we can establish a rule that would be safe from any exceptions, in any scenario. The truth is that life in society is very complex, and all kinds of stories are uncovered in courtrooms. If judges are allowed to deviate from a minimum sentence in exceptional circumstances, I believe this is a way of ensuring that justice is better adapted to reality and that decisions are made in line with reality. Does my colleague not agree that we must ensure that judges retain a degree of discretion that allows them to deliver human justice?”
“This bill will allow women who are victims of harassment to go directly to the police and have charges laid. This will ultimately reduce the victims' suffering and also give them a sense of freedom, because victims often felt trapped. Does my colleague agree that this is a step forward for victims of criminal harassment?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on her speech. I want to talk to her about one specific aspect of Bill C-16 , which is a bill that we support. There is one measure that I believe will make a difference, and it involves criminal harassment. I was a legal aid lawyer for 10 years. I had clients who came to me who were victims of criminal harassment. However, because of the way the offence is currently worded in the Criminal Code, in order for a charge to be laid, the harasser had to know that my client feared for her safety. I had to write a formal notice, find the perpetrator's address and send it to him, saying that my client feared for her safety and that he had to stop or else there would be further penalties. Women are often the victims of harassment.”
“Mr. Speaker, my concerns lie with the poorest members of our society as well as social equity. My colleague addressed those issues. I would like to hear his perspective on a problem that is very important to us, one that we have been calling for a solution to for a very long time. I am talking about a comprehensive and major reform of EI to ensure that the seasonal sectors of our economy can function and that seasonal workers can be available when needed, without falling into financial insecurity and poverty between work periods. What is my colleague's perspective on our request for a comprehensive reform of EI?”
“Mr. Speaker, this is not the first concession the Prime Minister has made out of fear of Donald Trump. He abandoned the digital services tax, which would have forced American web giants to pay their fair share. Then he abandoned the anti-evasion measure known as the global minimum tax in order to spare the people who are financing the President's new ballroom. Today, he is abandoning our forestry industry by refusing to respond to its main request for support. When will the Prime Minister stop backing down on Quebec's interests and start defending them?”
“Mr. Speaker, today, the Prime Minister is meeting with Donald Trump in connection with the FIFA World Cup. He should not be talking about sports. He should be talking about the economy. He was elected on a promise to protect us from the American President. So far, not only is no one claiming victory, but yesterday we learned that the Prime Minister is giving up on our forestry industry's main demand in order to appease Mr. Trump. He is refusing to support our companies when it comes to countervailing and anti-dumping duties because he is afraid of the President. When will we see progress instead of concessions?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague's excellent speech. He basically expressed and illustrated a great irony. The recent trade war with the Americans has led to a bit of a surge in Canadian nationalism. At the same time, the current government is making a lot of concessions. The Liberals say they want to defend Canadian sovereignty, but they are aligning themselves with American policies on the environment and when it comes to the taxes on digital giants. They want “autocratization”, that is, a greater concentration of power in the hands of cabinet ministers. Does my colleague not think that this is yet another reason why Quebec needs to be independent now more than ever?”
“Longer sentences mean people staying in prison longer, which comes at a cost to the government. Longer sentences also have a negative effect on criminals' chances of rehabilitation. In short, there are serious questions about the usefulness of this bill and its effect on our criminal justice system, but we will nevertheless vote in favour of it at this stage to allow it to be studied in committee.”
“The meta-analysis covered more than 50,000 criminals and combined 226 recidivism rates measured at different times and in different locations across Canada. After controlling for various factors, the study concluded that the recidivism rate for sexual offences has decreased by more than 60% since the 1970s. Every repeat offence is one too many, of course, but the problem of repeat sexual assault is actually diminishing under the current rules. We can dig into this in committee and try to understand what the goal of the bill is, but when it comes to recidivism rates, things seem to be improving. The goal could also be to reduce crime, and that is a good thing too. However, here again, it has not been proven that harsher sentences reduce crime. In committee, we can also discuss the collateral effects of this bill if it is passed.”
“We can also discuss this in committee and look into the matter further, but at first glance, based on what I have just said, I think that this goal can already be achieved under the current rules. Personally, I believe that we can trust the justice system to ensure that the sentence is appropriate in each case. The goal could also be to reduce the recidivism rate by saying that harsher penalties are going to be handed down to repeat sexual offenders. Clearly, reducing the recidivism rate is a good thing. A study on this subject appeared in 2022 in Criminology & Public Policy, a scientific journal published by the American Society of Criminology. The study showed that the recidivism rate for sex offenders has fallen by 60% since 1970. This is a robust study that involved conducting a meta-analysis of 185 Canadian-based studies.”
“Consecutive sentences are therefore already one of the tools available to judges when sentencing defendants who have committed multiple sexual offences. In court, repeat offences are already taken into account, as are aggravating circumstances, for obtaining harsher sentences. The justice system therefore already has the tools to impose consecutive sentences when deemed necessary. Now let us discuss the merits of the proposal before the House. The Conservative proposal essentially aims to reduce judicial discretion so that consecutive sentences are automatically imposed on repeat offenders or perpetrators of multiple sexual offences. According to the preamble, the purpose of the bill is to ensure that sentences for multiple offences reflect the gravity of each offence and the distinct harm caused to each victim.”
“Judges have broad discretion to decide whether sentences should be concurrent or consecutive, but they must always respect the principle of proportionality and make sure the overall punishment is not excessive. The current rule of law strives to strike a balance by allowing for consecutive sentencing while requiring the justice system to consider all aspects of a sentence. (1845) In its 1996 ruling in R. v. M. (C.A.), the Supreme Court confirmed that judges have considerable discretion, but that they must respect the principles of proportionality and parity in sentencing. With regard to consecutive sentences, the court reiterated that their use must reflect the multiplicity of offences without leading to an unreasonable overall sentence.”
“As my colleague said, the Criminal Code already provides for consecutive sentences in the case of sexual offences against children, for example. Generally speaking, the Criminal Code says judges must consider consecutive sentences. They are not obligated to go that way, but they must always consider it. It is an exceptional measure, but it is available, and it is one of the tools judges can use to reflect the seriousness of multiple crimes. With consecutive sentencing, an offender convicted of several serious offences cannot get an artificial reduction in the length of time they must serve. This is what the Supreme Court has taught us. This option illustrates the principle that each offence deserves a separate penalty.”
“Behind today's debate on this bill are those people, those victims whom I am thinking of tonight, yet the bill deals with sentences for offenders. I would like to point out that the victims I represented over the years did not talk to me about the length of their attackers' sentences. They primarily talked to me about their desire to continue living and their need for support, assistance, counselling services and so on. That said, let us now look at how criminal law deals with offenders who commit multiple sexual offences. In general, sentences are concurrent. Typically, if an offender commits multiple offences, and if there are multiple sentences, they will be served at the same time, unless the law or circumstances justify consecutive sentences, which are served one after the other.”
“I saw the scars that sexual assault leaves behind, which are all too often permanent. I remember sensing the vulnerability, the feeling of brokenness, the weight that my clients carried around with them. We had to prepare for hearings together, and my clients would tell me how the assault had changed them. Some felt unsafe walking down the street at night, while others experienced flashbacks or found their relationships tainted by distrust. In every case, they carried the burden of injustice, and we fought together against IVAC to get compensation for their lingering pain or inability to work. Although we fought and won together, I never felt that our victories were enough to erase or repair what they had experienced. Their burden may have been a bit less heavy, but their existence was still affected.”
“I would like to begin by taking a moment to explain how our criminal law currently provides for consecutive sentences, because consecutive sentences are already possible and are imposed practically every day in courts across the country. I will then discuss the merits of the Conservative proposal to reduce judges' discretion so that consecutive sentences are automatically imposed on repeat offenders or perpetrators of multiple sexual offences. First, I would like to say a few words about victims of sexual offences. I practised law for 12 years, 10 of them in legal aid, and I had the privilege of representing many victims of sexual assault, particularly when they were involved in litigation against Indemnisation des victimes d'actes criminels du Québec, or IVAC.”
“Mr. Speaker, tonight we are debating Bill C-246 , which was introduced by my colleague from Lethbridge , Alberta. I commend her. This bill seeks to amend the Criminal Code to require that sentences imposed on offenders convicted of multiple sexual offences be served consecutively, that is, one after the other, in cases where multiple offences are committed against one victim at the same time and also where the offender is already serving a prison sentence for another sexual offence. The Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of this bill so that it can be studied in committee. We will then be able to examine this Conservative proposal more closely, but, as members will see, I already have a number of questions and concerns.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her presentation of the bill she is sponsoring. I just want to draw something to everyone's attention because I get the impression it was not mentioned. I may have missed a word or two. It is already possible to give consecutive sentences in the case of a repeat sex offender or someone who commits multiple sex offences. Under the current system, with the Criminal Code, arguments can be made to convince a judge to proceed in this manner. I must also say that, in our sentencing principles, the idea of seeking a fair punishment is already enshrined. Does my colleague have a study or arguments she can share to prove to us that if this bill were adopted, it would either reduce crime or reduce the rate of recidivism for sex offences?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to talk to my colleague about a specific aspect of Bill C‑15 . Last week, there was an announcement about the agreement between the federal government and Alberta and the possible construction of a pipeline. Bill C‑15 contains a kind of fast track that allows a minister to exempt a company from the application of almost every law but the Criminal Code. Given that announcement and the fact that my colleague is from British Columbia, can she share her perspective on this part of Bill C‑15?”
“Madam Speaker, I understand why the debate is getting heated, because what we are talking about is important. I am happy that my colleague is speaking out on behalf of seniors in her riding because I, too, have seniors in my riding who are contacting me and calling our offices. They tell us how hard life is for them because they do not have the ability to work to increase their income, in many cases, and they have to deal with the rising cost of living. What does my colleague think of the request we made to the government, though we did not receive a response, about increasing old age security by 10% for people aged 65 to 74 to give them a bit of a helping hand?”
“I cannot help but feel sad for the families and loved ones of murdered and brutalized victims, to whom my colleague promised to take action by dangling the prospect of a new law that has no chance of ever being enforceable. I can only share their bitterness about politicians who, once again and once too often, raise people's hopes only to let them down. That is why the Bloc Québécois will be voting against this bill.”
“I do not understand because, if the member is really serious about this, then he needs to do what needs to be done, but that is not what is happening. The other way to ensure that this bill, if passed, would be valid is to amend the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. To do so would require the consent of seven out of 10 provinces, representing more than 50% of the Canadian population. My colleague also did not propose this as a solution. What this means is that we are considering a bill that, in our view, is likely to violate the Constitution and is not applicable in our legal system. I say this with all due respect. The member is not proposing any solutions to make this possible.”
“It is degrading in nature in that it presupposes at the time of its imposition that the offender is beyond redemption and lacks the moral autonomy needed for rehabilitation. It seems highly unlikely that the Supreme Court would find that a parole ineligibility period of 40 years is in keeping with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In light of that, if my colleague is serious, then there are two ways to ensure that, if it is passed, his bill is valid and enforceable. We could invoke the notwithstanding clause and say that, in this case, we are going to override that section of the charter. I asked my colleague about that, but he did not seem to be committed to that course of action.”
“It is important to mention that the Supreme Court also rejected the proposal made by the trial judge not to impose a 150-year sentence without the possibility of parole, but to extend the period of ineligibility for parole to 40 years. The Supreme Court rejected this solution, which is being proposed today. I would like to briefly quote the Supreme Court: Section 12 of the Charter guarantees the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. In essence, the purpose of s. 12 of the Charter is to protect human dignity and ensure respect for the inherent worth of each individual.... the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment for life without a realistic possibility of parole...is, by its very nature, intrinsically incompatible with human dignity.”
“To summarize, in 2017, Alexandre Bissonnette entered the Quebec City mosque armed with a semi-automatic weapon. He killed six people and wounded five others. At trial, he pleaded guilty to all charges against him, including six counts of first-degree murder. At the time, there was a section of the Criminal Code that allowed for the periods of parole ineligibility to be combined. The mosque killer faced six consecutive periods of ineligibility for parole of 25 years. He therefore faced 150 years without parole. This case went all the way to the Supreme Court. In 2022, the Supreme Court struck down this section of the Criminal Code, saying that it violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”
“I think that would be a realistic approach to meeting the member's objective of not adding to the pain of the victims' family members and loved ones, and I think it deserves consideration. With all due respect, as the Bloc Québécois sees it, the solution proposed by my colleague today seems unrealistic and unconstitutional. I truly believe it is unfortunate to give false hope to families that have already endured a lot of pain. There is no realistic hope of this bill being enforceable. This brings us to answer the second question: Is it feasible? My colleague from the Liberal Party spoke earlier about the Bissonnette decision. This is a recent decision that was handed down in 2022. The Supreme Court explained the state of the law regarding sentences and the possibility of obtaining parole.”
“The goal is therefore to spare the bereaved from having to attend parole board hearings. That is why the short title of the bill is the “Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act”. (1400) What needs to be said in this regard is, first of all, that the presence of loved ones and family members at Parole Board of Canada hearings is not mandatory. From a human perspective, the need and desire of loved ones to attend is entirely understandable. From a legal perspective, however, their testimony is not directly relevant to the issues before the board. I have already suggested in the House that their testimony could be given through written statements or pre-recorded video testimony that could be played at each hearing, without necessarily requiring their physical presence.”
“He has said a few words about it and gave an interview to a Vancouver Island media outlet in which he explained his approach. My colleague already admits that a murderer who kidnapped and raped his victim beforehand would most likely never be granted parole after 25 years. However, the idea is to prevent the murderer from being able to apply for parole, because if there is an application, there is a hearing. If there is a hearing, the victims' loved ones and family members may have to relive the excruciating pain of being reminded of what happened. My colleague has already explained that the main purpose of his bill is not to delay parole, but rather, and I quote, “to ensure that victims are spared the pain of having to relive their trauma [and] prepare for hearings that may ultimately change nothing”.”
“The board then determines whether to grant parole and, if so, what conditions the murderer will be required to meet while on parole, such as reporting regularly to a parole officer, abstaining from alcohol or reporting any relationship with a woman. It should be noted, as my colleague has already pointed out, that parole applications for criminals are rarely granted. Currently, two-thirds of parole applications are denied, and many criminals throughout Canadian history have repeatedly failed to obtain parole or day parole. My colleague referred to Mr. Bernardo, who has already been denied parole three times, in 2018, 2021 and 2024. This is how our criminal justice system currently works for murderers. I want to come back to our questions. What are my colleague's motivations? What does he hope to achieve with his bill?”
“In the case of a murder preceded by a kidnapping or sexual assault, which is the focus of Bill C-235, the Criminal Code already provides that this type of murder, premeditated or not, constitutes first-degree murder, meaning it is punishable by life in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years. What happens after 25 years? Individuals convicted of first-degree murder can apply to the Parole Board for a review of their case and for parole. The Parole Board examines the inmate's file and then conducts a review based on the inmate's reports, risk of reoffending and risk to society, for example. If the conditions are met, the board will allow the inmate to defend their parole application at a hearing before the board.”
“If my colleague's bill were to pass, a person convicted of the abduction, sexual assault and murder of the same victim in respect of the same event or series of events could receive a life sentence without eligibility for parole for 40 years, if a judge so decided after considering the jury's recommendation. That raises two questions. What are the motivations behind my colleague's initiative? Is it feasible? First of all, let me take a moment to explain the current rules regarding parole for murderers. The Criminal Code already states that the minimum sentence for first- and second-degree murder is life in prison, with the possibility of parole after a certain period of time. First-degree murder means a planned, premeditated murder, whereas second-degree murder means an unplanned murder, such as a crime of passion.”
“Madam Speaker, we are debating the bill introduced by my Conservative Party colleague, who was elected in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford , in British Columbia. I salute him and I would like him to know that I have the utmost respect for him, despite the fact that I strongly disagree with his approach. His Bill C-235 proposes to amend the Criminal Code so that, in cases of murder preceded by kidnapping or sexual assault, the judge may impose a period of parole ineligibility that exceeds the current 25-year period and can instead go up to 40 years.”
“Madam Speaker, I want to repeat my question for my colleague. If he is truly serious about his initiative, then he must promise the victims today that if this bill passes and is later struck down, and if the Conservative Party ever forms a government, it will use the notwithstanding clause to uphold the bill.”
“Second, if this bill is passed and then struck down, is my colleague and his party prepared to use the notwithstanding clause to keep it in force, if he is serious about his initiative?”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I fully understand the emotional weight he carries. I have some questions for him, and later on I will explain why I think his bill will be difficult, if not impossible, to implement. I want to hear him on what he said, because he is aware that there are constitutional issues at play. There is a charter article against cruel and unusual punishment, and there have already been Supreme Court rulings on this. My colleague told us that Bill C-48 had been passed and that this meant that his bill would also pass. Bill C-48 dealt with bail, that is, the provisional release of someone who has not yet been found guilty, whereas Bill C-235 deals with parole for murderers. First, I would like him to explain how he manages to establish a causal link.”
“Madam Speaker, I want to explore this Conservative philosophy with my colleague to make sure I understand. Today, we are being told that we must respect the internal capacity of indigenous peoples, equip them, and allow them to develop. However, yesterday's announcement was about a pipeline project out west. The Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs says that it does not want the pipeline and was not consulted. The Conservative Party is not only supporting the Liberal government on this pipeline, but it is also saying that it needs to happen faster. Is that what my colleague meant by respect for the internal capacity of indigenous peoples?”
“Madam Speaker, the Liberal's ridiculous pipeline announcement yesterday betrays the climate and betrays voters who thought that voting Liberal would be greener than voting Conservative. It betrays the Liberals who went into politics to help the environment, and it betrays the victims of increasingly frequent natural disasters who expect their elected officials to behave responsibly. The question today is not why the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie left cabinet. The real question is how the other Liberals justify staying in this government.”