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 6 of 10.
“Madam Speaker, this is no time to celebrate. The Canada-Alberta oil deal announced yesterday is climate betrayal. We were worried that the Liberals might announce one new pipeline in the west. Instead, they announced that there could be several, in addition to the Trans Mountain expansion, to extract at least 1.4 million more barrels of oil per day. The Liberals are also openly threatening to impose their oil fantasy on British Columbia in one of the worst documented cases of predatory federalism. This is exceptionally aggressive, in terms of both climate change and respect for the provinces. How can elected officials who claim to be progressive—”
“Madam Speaker, what is going on right now is rather ironic. In fact, it is beyond irony. It is black comedy. Here we have a Liberal bill that we agree on, which talks about reconciliation with indigenous peoples and the need to consult them in advance. However, just yesterday, this same government announced an agreement to shove a pipeline down the throats of indigenous people in British Columbia that they do not want. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that. Does he not understand how resentful, if not completely alienated, all indigenous peoples in western Canada feel when they see that this government, which says that it wants to consult them before implementing international treaties, is announcing a pipeline and saying that it will consult them after the fact?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on the question from my colleague who just spoke about temporary immigration. I want to know what my colleague thinks about the request made, particularly by chambers of commerce, but also by many businesses, including some in my riding. They want a grandfather clause or some other measure to allow some sort of exception for temporary workers already on-site who speak French.”
“Mr. Speaker, no, they are not making any progress in the fight against climate change. While Canada places far down the list of the world's worst performing countries, the Liberals are trying to sink it even lower. At the very moment that Canada was disgraced in front of the whole world at COP30, the Liberals were negotiating with Alberta to build another pipeline for western oil. As if investing $34 billion of public money in the Trans Mountain pipeline was not enough, they want another one. When will the Liberals stop pandering to the voracious greed of oil billionaires?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister loves to travel, yet he snubbed the UN climate change conference in Brazil. He chose not to show his face, meanwhile Canada was being criticized by the entire planet for its environmental backtracking. Canada won the fossil of the day award, a disgrace worthy of the oil monarchies. Canada was also ranked 61 out of 67 countries for its poor climate performance, proving that just when we think the country has hit rock bottom, it can still sink lower. Why are the Liberals abandoning the fight against climate change?”
“Can my colleague listen to my heartfelt appeal and work with me to convince this government to finally address this injustice and ensure that seasonal workers in the Gaspé region and elsewhere finally get an EI system that works for them?”
“Mr. Speaker, on Monday, I spent time with 60 seasonal workers in Grande‑Rivière, in my riding in the Gaspé region. Together, we realized that this budget does not say anything about EI reform. There is, however, an increase in the number of weeks for long-tenured workers. That is nice for them. They might be able to make it to the end of the year. However, in my riding, people are seasonal workers. It is not their fault. It is the nature of the work that is seasonal, not the workers. These people experience the EI spring gap year after year. They work from morning to night, cracking crab, facing insecurity and uncertainty, wondering if they will have enough employment insurance benefits to make it to the next season.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to share his opinion on the following issue with the House. The deficit is very high. The government could have increased its revenues with the digital services tax. Recently, there have been job losses at one of Quebec's largest private broadcasters, TVA. The government could have not only generated revenue with this digital services tax, but also invested in our culture and protected our media outlets, which are ultimately the architects of our democratic space, where we can stand up to web giants. Instead, the government decided to eliminate this tax. What does my colleague think about that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I share some of his views, particularly with regard to the government's lack of rigour in presenting this budget, which really involves some creative accounting. Every member who stands up is telling the government that the way it is presenting the numbers makes no sense. I have a question for my colleague about fiscal restraint. The deficit is very high. We are dismayed by it too. It is $78 billion. When it comes to the sound management of public funds, would it not have been a good idea for the government to cut subsidies to the oil industry? The government is giving some $10 billion per year to an industry that pollutes and that is contributing to the acceleration of global warming. More importantly, this industry is very profitable and has absolutely no need of public funds.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question about something that is of great concern to us in the Bloc Québécois. At the end of Bill C-15 , which is quite lengthy, there is a part that gives a minister the power to decide that a law will not apply to certain companies. This greatly expands the minister's discretionary power. It may even be a step toward arbitrary use of power. It also follows up on Bill C-5 , which was passed here under closure, unfortunately. I would like my colleague to explain why we should continue this trend of giving so much discretionary power that, should a minister agree, some companies will be able to sidestep the application of the law.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague's speech. The Bloc Québécois shares some of his views, including on the fact that the deficit is very high and that public funds must be used wisely. One of the expenditures in this budget is subsidies for the oil industry. Roughly $9 billion a year is given to the oil industry. It seems to me that if there is one sector of the economy that should be able to function without subsidies, it is the oil industry. How can my colleague reconcile his desire for a well-managed budget with subsidies for the oil industry?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for taking the time to explain his vision. Bill C‑15 includes legislation on the high-speed rail network to govern the high-speed rail project. We are in favour of this project. However, I would like to remind the House that in the Gaspé there is a rail line being refurbished from Matapédia to Port‑Daniel‑Gascons and that Via Rail, which is funded by taxpayers in Quebec and Canada, refuses to resume service and provide Gaspé residents with what they deserve and what they are paying for through their taxes. Via Rail is refusing to fulfill its duty of providing regional connections. Does my colleague agree that we should call on Via Rail to finally do what it is paid to do?”
“Mr. Speaker, illegal lobster fishing is putting the species at risk, and that is what concerns fishers the most. They want to protect the resource so that their kids and grandkids get to fish too. We can do something about illegal fishing; all we need to do is enforce the law. All that the fisheries stakeholders who appear before the committee are asking is that officers be allowed to do their work without political interference or reprisals. My question is simple, and the answer needs to be clear. Will the government ensure that these fisheries officers are able to enforce the law?”
“Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Radio-Canada's Enquête aired a shocking report on lobster smuggling in New Brunswick. This is troubling for the people of Gaspé and for the Maritimes as a whole. The problem is all the more serious given that, for the past several weeks, troubling revelations have come to light at the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans about political interference in fisheries officers' efforts to combat illegal fishing. Officials from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are reportedly keeping experienced officers from doing their job. Why are senior department officials intervening to prevent the law from being enforced?”
“Mr. Speaker, there is one thing missing in this budget that we would have liked to see. It is the renewal of the fisheries fund. I come from Gaspésie. In the Gaspé Peninsula and the Magdalen Islands, the fisheries fund has historically made it possible to invest $40 million to spur innovation and promote scientific research. The fund's goal was to ensure that the fisheries sector remained up to date on the issue of new technological advances. This time, the fisheries fund was not included in the budget. It was not renewed. Can my colleague explain why that is?”
“Should they ask for bank statements? How do they know someone has the ability to care for a vessel? Those are very relevant questions. How long will they be responsible? My colleague actually answered that question earlier. That is a question the seller has to ask. If someone sells a vessel and the buyer appears to be solvent and responsible, but then sinks the vessel six months later, can the seller still be held responsible? Those are questions worth asking. I would reiterate that we agree with the principle. We want to prevent the transfer of property that ends up being yet another wreck. In closing, I believe we must act to prevent yet more wrecks from polluting our coasts. Let us ensure that the Corfu Island is the last of its kind.”
“The bill goes even further by stating that not only may the vessel not be sold if the owner knows that the buyer lacks the resources to look after it, but neither may it be sold if the owner is reckless as to whether the buyer has the ability to look after it. That is interesting. Cases like these have been documented before. A broken-down ship is a whole lot of trouble. The owner has to find some way to offload it. It can be tempting to simply sell it off cheap to someone who will make the best of it or use it for shelter. That has happened before in some places on the west coast. Now, a seller would be required to ensure that a buyer has the ability to properly care for the vessel. How are they supposed to do that? That is something the committee will have to discuss. What will be expected of the seller? How far would they have to go?”
“The Bloc Québécois supports the idea of making it easier to prosecute someone who deliberately sinks a vessel or is complicit in deliberately sinking a vessel. Basically, by broadening our powers and being more vigilant, we can avoid creating problems that will last for decades. Once a vessel is abandoned and sunk, it takes decades to get rid of it, and sometimes that cannot even be done. Another of this bill's improvements is to amend the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act by proposing a new section 34.1 concerning transfer of ownership. It clarifies that owners of a vessel will now be prohibited from selling the vessel to someone knowing that this person lacks the ability, resources or intent to maintain, operate or dispose of the vessel in a manner that prevents it from becoming wrecked or abandoned.”
“The proposed amendment clarifies that it is not only illegal for a person who owns a vessel to simply sink it and pollute the area, but it is also illegal for someone to allow another person to do so. The explanation I received from my colleague was that this change was in response to a court ruling. Basically, that is how it works. When this situation arises, it constitutes a criminal offence and the offender ends up in court. Someone argued that, under this provision, a degree of intent was needed for the person to be found criminally responsible. This amendment is intended to close that loophole. If it does indeed close it, I totally support it. However, when I read the clause, I am not sure I understand that this is what it does. I will have questions to ask about the clause and its effect.”
“(1840) Bill C-244 seeks to amend two laws, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act, to enhance the protection of marine areas by providing for increased liability for damage to marine areas. That means the owners' liability. The first proposed change would amend the provision that says “no person or ship shall dispose of a substance” to add “or allow the disposal of”. This may seem like gibberish, so I will provide some context for those tuning in. Under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the term “disposal” means the disposal of a substance at sea from a ship, an aircraft, a platform or another structure.”
“This story shows that abandoned vessels are a major problem that needs to be better managed. Tracking down the owners is often difficult. The cost of removing vessels is often too high. Public funds are available to help, but it is insufficient given the number of vessels that need to be removed. These vessels also pose risks to maritime safety when they are in shipping lanes. They also pose environmental risks, given the oil leaks that can occur, as we have seen. How do we make sure that what happened with Corfu Island does not happen again? I think Bill C‑244 is a partial attempt to answer that question, and that is why the Bloc Québécois supports it and will be voting in favour.”
“The Canadian Coast Guard is now in charge of the wreck and believes that it poses little risk to the environment and the population but remains dangerous to visitors. The question Magdalen Islanders are asking is: What are they going to do with the rest of the Corfu Island ? It is not a pretty sight. It is the remains of a wreck stuck in the sand on the Magdalen Islands. The Coast Guard says it cannot get rid of it until it can ensure that the benefits of removing it outweigh the environmental risks associated with the operation. That is where things stand. I am still getting emails from Magdalen Islanders who want to know what is going on with the Corfu Island . In short, the archipelago is still dealing with this ship 62 years after it ran aground.”
“The hull refused to slide easily enough, and the wreck had to be cut up, but only the part that was above the sandy section could be cut up. To this day, about 10 feet of the ship remains stuck in the sand dune, on the Magdalen Islands, on what is now known as Corfu beach. The wreck is subject to shifting sands, which sometimes exposes small, sharp metal parts, and has recently caused oil spills. Two of those oil spills happened this summer, in August. They were minor, at roughly 500 millilitres, but still. For the people of the islands, who love their natural environment so much, seeing small traces of oil in the sea is worrisome and troubling. Since 1996, 186 operations have been carried out to recover oil from the Corfu Island . Since 2015, 200 litres of oil have been recovered, but some still remains.”
“I would like to tell the story of the Corfu Island that unfolded in my riding, the beautiful Magdalen Islands, to give members an idea of what we are talking about today. The SS Corfu Island ran aground on December 20, 1963, on the West Dune of Cap aux Meules Island, in the L'Étang-du-Nord sector, with 27 Greek sailors on board. It was December and there was an intense blizzard. Through courage, ingenuity and islander rescuers' desire to help, tragedy was averted. In the end, all the sailors were rescued, but the Corfu Island became a wreck filled with heavy oil. In 1966, three years after the shipwreck, a Quebec City company won the contract to demolish the hull of the Corfu Island and send it to the scrapyard. However, executing the contract proved difficult.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his Bill C‑244 , which will allow us to address an important topic. When we leave dry land and set sail, the ship that carries us transports us to another world. Things are different at sea. The horizon stretches out all around us, the air is salty, and the sky is vast. Boats are a gateway to other places, but they do not last forever. Boats wear out, break down, sometimes run aground and become wrecks. Sometimes boats are abandoned. In Canada, there are thousands of abandoned boats. Some are still afloat, moored like ghost ships in ports. Others have already sunk and become wrecks. What do we do with these abandoned boats? They pose a clear environmental risk.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his work and for his speech. We will indeed be able to work across party lines on this bill. My question concerns one of the clauses. The bill, which is fairly specific and targeted, includes four clauses. One of the clauses amends the Canadian Environmental Protection Act prohibition that no person may dispose of a substance in the sea, which encompasses the sinking of ships, by adding “or allow the disposal” of a substance in the sea. What purpose does this addition to the act serve?”
“Another project involved installing fishing gear that allows right whales to pass through, rather than getting trapped. The fishing gear allows them to pass through. What does my colleague think of the Liberals' oversight or unwillingness to renew the fisheries fund for Quebec and for the Atlantic provinces?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on a subject that is of great concern to me as the member for the Gaspé region and the Magdalen Islands and the Bloc Québécois critic for fisheries and oceans. I know members of the Conservative caucus are also concerned about this. There are a number of things missing from the budget, which fails to respond to a number of crises. In particular, the fisheries fund has not been renewed despite being of paramount strategic importance to Quebec, among others. With additional support from the Quebec government, this fund finances projects that promote innovation and scientific research. One example of the work made possible through this fund are the scientific tests conducted to better define the start of the lobster fishing season.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech and for her comments, particularly on trade and the importance of market diversification. My question concerns a topic of great importance to the people of the Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands. That topic is the fishing industry. The Quebec fisheries fund is a $44‑million fund that the federal was investing in. It was stimulating innovation and funding scientific research aimed at improving the productivity of the fisheries sector. Can my colleague explain why the renewal of the fisheries fund was not included in the budget tabled this week?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on a subject that I think we are both concerned about, and that is the government's failure to renew the fisheries fund. Personally, my interest centres on the Quebec fisheries fund. For her, the Atlantic fisheries fund will be top of mind. This is a fairly big disappointment considering that this budget fails to address a number of crises, particularly in terms of housing, seniors' purchasing power and health care. As for the fisheries, a fisheries fund is meant to allow for innovation and scientific investment. Can my colleague explain to the House why renewing the fisheries fund, both in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, should be a priority?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a fairly specific question. I represent a riding where many people fish for a living, and I am the Bloc's fisheries critic. One of the big surprises in this budget is that there is nothing to renew the fisheries fund. The fisheries fund is approximately $40 million. The Government of Quebec provides 30% of that, while the Government of Canada provides 70%. This fund encourages innovation. It pays for scientific projects. Ultimately, it allows the fishing industry to modernize and to be more productive and grounded in science. There is nothing in the budget about this fund. Why is that?”
“It is a tradition, and traditions need to be handled with care. Those beautiful July mornings spent fishing for cod off the coast of Sainte‑Thérèse‑de‑Gaspé are moments when we feel at peace and in touch with nature. We have to protect those moments, because they are precious.”
“What impact would my colleague's proposal have? Will we end up with a single season across the board? What happens if stock conditions are different? Would it be good public policy to take away the flexibility to adapt to the reality of fish stocks? Not all species are present in all areas at the same time, because fish migrate. Generally speaking, I strongly prefer decentralized public policy-making, because it ensures that decisions that apply to individuals are made by officials who are as close as possible to the places affected by those decisions, since they are in touch with local realities. As I said, the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-237 so that it can be studied in committee. However, we will need to be convinced of the proposal's merits. This recreational fishery is important to us and to the people back home.”
“If there is a problem with the regulations that apply to Newfoundland and Labrador, are there not other ways for the member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas to facilitate recreational fishing in his province without negatively impacting recreational fishing on the Quebec side? The benefits remain to be seen. There are also risks. Could managing recreational fishing by species rather than by stock and region complicate matters? Currently, in my own riding, recreational fishing seasons vary. If I am in the Gaspé Peninsula for recreational groundfish fishing, I can go from April 15 to June 23, July 9 to 16, and August 8 to October 1. If I am in the Magdalen Islands, still within my riding, the dates are different. Why? From what I understand, fishing seasons are based on stock estimates, on what is happening, on interactions with other species.”
“He also expressed his dismay at the Liberal restrictions imposed on Newfoundland and Labrador families, who, he said, could only fish on weekends, while commercial fishing was in full swing during the week right before their eyes. Again, we will have to look at this in committee. We will see how our colleague defends the advantages, but harmonizing the fishing seasons is an important aspect that will have to be studied seriously. Will harmonizing fishing periods standardize the closing and opening dates in all Atlantic provinces, including Quebec? That is an important question. If so, what are the benefits?”
“I appreciate the comments of my colleague from the governing party about the current state of the cod fishery, in Quebec at least, where things are quite simple and where cod can be fished recreationally without too much red tape. We can also debate that in committee. There are several questions around the central point of this bill, namely the harmonization of recreational groundfish fisheries. First, what are the benefits? When my colleague introduced his bill, he explained that the measure was intended to put Newfoundland and Labrador on an equal footing with the other Atlantic provinces for this type of family fishing without affecting commercial fishers.”
“It is because the principles enshrined in the Fisheries Act are principles that I think everyone supports. Now we have to ensure that the minister is legally obligated to take them into consideration. If she does not and we amend the Fisheries Act to say that she must, Canadians will have the recourse they need to challenge decisions in court. As long as section 2.5 remains in its current form, the addition proposed by Bill C-237 would have a fairly limited impact. We could still debate it, though. The monitoring system is something that will have to be studied. Obviously, when it comes to fish stocks, we want to make sure that we have objective data so that we can understand the status of the stocks and have recreational fishing catches recorded at the same time.”
“Section 2.5 entitled “Considerations”, which the bill seeks to amend, clearly lists the things that the minister may consider, without requiring the minister to do so. It already includes a number of key principles. The bill is proposing to add “the importance of stability and predictability for those who engage in recreational fishing for groundfish”. That will have to be debated. Does this principle deserve all the importance it is being given, over and above all others? The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans is already debating the idea of restricting the minister's discretionary power and ensuring that section 2.5 require that the minister take these factors into consideration. (1810) Why are we leaning toward this proposal to limit the minister's discretionary power?”
“Finally, the bill proposes that, within one year of the bill being passed, the Minister of Fisheries must, “in consultation with key stakeholders, develop a monitoring system to record, by species, the number of fish that are caught, as well as the time at which and place where they are caught.” As previously mentioned, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill so that it can be debated in committee. However, we will be watchful and will debate the merits of the bill. We still want to allow for debate. I will now address a few points. I will start with the amendment to section 2.5 of the Fisheries Act, then I will talk about establishing a monitoring system and then, most importantly, the harmonization of recreational groundfish fishing seasons.”
“The bill also proposes to add section 43.01 to the act, requiring that “a close time or fishing quota fixed or varied” be published “on the Internet site of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans at least two months before the day on which it comes into force.” The bill also proposes adding, with respect to persons and entities that must provide information or documents to the department under section 61 of the act, “the number of fish caught by any person each day...and the total number of fish caught by that person”.”
“Under the proposed amendment, all provisions of the Fisheries Act, and not just those relating to the protection of fish in their habitat, would be covered by the report that the minister would be required to table on the administration and enforcement of this act. The bill also proposes to add, under the regulations that may be made by the Governor in Council, that under section 43 of that act, the regulations must “provide for the harmonization, across Atlantic provinces, of close times in Canadian fisheries waters of the Atlantic Ocean that are used for recreational fishing of groundfish”.”
“More specifically, this bill proposes to add “the importance of stability and predictability for those who engage in recreational fishing for groundfish” to section 2.5 of the Fisheries Act. This would be another factor that the minister may, but is not required to, take into consideration in making decisions. In addition, the bill proposes to amend subsection 42.1(1) of the act to read, “The Minister shall, as soon as feasible after the end of each fiscal year, prepare and cause to be laid before each house of Parliament a report on the administration and enforcement of the provisions of this Act.” This amendment affects the part of the act that states, “relating to fish and fish habitat protection and pollution prevention for that year”.”
“This bill proposes to amend the Fisheries Act to, among other things, provide for the management of the Atlantic groundfish fisheries by harmonizing fishing periods in the Atlantic Ocean, where the recreational groundfish fishery takes place. This same bill also seeks to amend the minister's reporting obligations in respect of the administration and enforcement of the provisions of the act. Moreover, it would require certain individuals to provide information or keep records or other documents under the act. Finally, the bill requires the minister to develop a monitoring system to record the number of fish caught by species, as well as the time and place where they were caught.”
“Mr. Speaker, it was a foggy July morning in Sainte‑Thérèse‑de‑Gaspé, back home in the Gaspé region. The boat glided slowly over the calm waters of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. We left the harbour, passing by a Coast Guard vessel. Seagulls watched us from a distance. The cliffs were peaking through the fog as we headed out to sea. The atmosphere on the boat was relaxed. The salty air permeated though us, filling us with happiness. We cast out lines, began fishing and the morning flew by. We were enjoying our recreational cod fishery. Roughly three months later, I find myself here talking about the same subject. Bill C‑237 , an act to amend the Fisheries Act with regard to Atlantic groundfish fisheries, was introduced in the House for first reading on September 22.”
“For example, when family members come to give a statement at the first PBC hearing, their testimony could be recorded and resubmitted at the next hearing. It could be transcribed and resubmitted at a later hearing. This would ensure that the victims' viewpoint is heard, without burdening them. We are going to vote against the bill, but we are open to discussion and to taking legislative action in support of the legitimate wishes of families who have lost a loved one under horrific circumstances.”
“It should also be noted that, as the John Howard Society of Canada has pointed out, testimonials have no real legal impact on the PBC's decision. According to the John Howard Society of Canada, the parole process does not in any way involve holding the offender accountable for the crime they committed, because their sentencing hearing already took place during the trial. The purpose of a parole board hearing is more to determine whether the offender has begun a rehabilitation process that allows for a possible reintegration into the community. That said, two things must be taken into account: first, the pain felt by the victims' families, and second, their desire to testify. The Bloc Québécois will vote against the bill. However, we are open to discussing the matter. I would argue that alternatives may exist.”
“If the Conservatives believe that people who commit murder are beyond redemption, they should go for broke and propose the death penalty, and then there will be a debate on that. Right now, however, they are using bills to try to change the system. Let me get back to what I was saying at the beginning. There is a problem that needs to be fixed, and I think we need to be sensitive to victims' families, who are forced to go through such a terrible ordeal when they have to face the murderer to oppose their parole. What else can I say about that? First of all, we completely understand why families feel they have a duty to testify before the Parole Board of Canada, or PBC, but it is important to point out that this is not mandatory.”
“Ninety-nine per cent of day parole supervision periods were completed without reoffending, while 97% of full parole supervision periods were completed without reoffending. What we are seeing is that people are being rehabilitated and the objective of the act, namely balance, is being met. Sentences need to be fair: They must not be too lenient, but they must also allow for the offender to work toward rehabilitation. Those are the problems I see with my colleague's proposal, Bill C‑243. Several of the Conservative Party's initiatives in this Parliament give me the impression that they are beating around the bush. What they are really trying to do is amend the Constitution. I would therefore say to the Conservatives that they should come straight out and ask to reopen the Constitution.”
“The other problem is that, when we look at the statistics, the existing parole system seems to be working. It is not true that a person who is found guilty of first-degree murder gets a life sentence. There is a possibility of parole after 25 years. However, that is not guaranteed. The offender must go before the Parole Board of Canada. According to a 2023-24 report, only 32% of parole applications were granted. This report also shows that parole seems to help with one of the objectives of the law, rehabilitation. That is the case, for example, when day parole is granted. Day parole is when a murderer or someone convicted of another crime is allowed to leave the prison during the day but has to return at night.”
“It far exceeded human life expectancy. The Supreme Court also stated: “A life sentence without a realistic possibility of parole presupposes the offender is beyond redemption and cannot be rehabilitated. This is degrading in nature and incompatible with human dignity. It amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.” That is the instruction of the Supreme Court. If anyone here does not like it, we can change the Constitution. However, those are the instructions we have at this time. (1250) Is the solution put forward in Bill C-243 likely to be challenged? Yes, definitely. This is not exactly the same thing as consecutive sentences, but it still has the same objective of delaying and restricting not the right to obtain parole, but the right to apply for parole. That is one problem with this solution.”