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 8 of 10.
“We will get there, Mr. Speaker. This government's decision to repeal the carbon tax outside Quebec in the middle of an election campaign meant that nearly $4 billion was refunded to people who had not even paid it. I understand that my colleague from the Conservative Party was probably opposed to carbon pricing, but does she agree with me that giving away nearly $4 billion in election handouts in the middle of an election campaign, when that money had never been paid, was bad public policy?”
“Mr. Speaker, I was congratulating my colleague on her speech, firmly rooted in the reality of her constituents. I would like her opinion. We in the Bloc Québécois think that the government is mismanaging public finances and that our deficit is much too high and is the result of several bad moves. One of those bad moves made by Mr. Carney's government was to cancel the carbon tax—”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, which is firmly rooted in the reality of her constituents. I want her opinion because we in the Bloc Québécois also think that this government is mismanaging public finances and that—”
“Mr. Speaker, let us hope that the Prime Minister 's trip to Washington next Tuesday will be more fruitful, because so far, Canada has been negotiating so poorly that it is easier to import European lumber into the United States than Quebec lumber. In the meantime, the assistance for the sector is stuck in Ottawa's coffers, while Quebec's entire forestry industry is in jeopardy. Tariffs have caused the price of lumber to drop by 15% since July across the board, even for companies that do not do business in the United States. Our sawmills are operating at a loss, even when they sell domestically. When will the federal government get the financial support out the door?”
“Mr. Speaker, our forestry industry just got more catastrophic news. Donald Trump just announced an additional 10% tariff on our lumber, on top of the existing illegal 35% tariffs. This is devastating news, especially since the funding that the Liberals announced at the beginning of August has still not been released. Unifor is calling on the federal government to wake up. Its Quebec director says that the industry urgently needs help now, not two weeks from now. When will the federal government finally implement a real strategy to support our forestry industry?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech. I have a question for him. Although we agree on the general objective of securing our infrastructure, we have concerns related to individual freedoms and the right to privacy. What guarantees can my colleague give us that information collected by the federal government will not be used for purposes other than the purpose it was collected for?”
“Madam Speaker, the issues raised by my colleague and the proposal his party is putting forward today touch on fundamental rights enshrined in the charter: the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty by an impartial court, and the right to liberty. In this context, since we are dealing with fundamental guarantees that define our rule of law, it is important to remember that, even if we seek to crack down on crime, we do not want to become a police state where people are imprisoned without sufficient evidence. Why is my colleague so eager to fast-track this bill?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to comment on the Bloc Québécois's proposals. We believe the government should take aim at criminal organizations and give police forces the tools they need to do more damage to criminal organizations and do it faster. Those tools include creating an organized crime registry, prohibiting criminal organizations from parading around with their recognizable logos, facilitating the seizure of assets and creating a specific offence in the Criminal Code that makes it a crime to recruit young people to commit offences.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is promising legislation to reform the parole system and the bail system in particular. The notwithstanding clause would allow the government to exempt this law from being attacked on the basis of fundamental freedoms. Section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the presumption of innocence as well as the right not to be denied bail. Would my colleague be willing to immediately dismiss the notion that the Liberal government might use the notwithstanding clause in the event that its bill is at risk of being challenged?”
“My question for my colleague is this: What is missing from the Criminal Code that prevents us from ensuring that dangerous individuals remain in prison?”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about certain events that took place in his region. I want to talk to him about a decision handed down yesterday in my region, at the New Carlisle courthouse in the Gaspé. A man with no prior criminal offences was charged with sexual assault with a weapon, forcible confinement, assault and criminal harassment against three alleged victims over an extended period of time. After he was charged, he was taken into custody. He has remained in custody since last April. Yesterday, he tried to get bail. His request was turned down and he is still in prison. Why is that? It is because a number of tools already provided in the Criminal Code make it possible to keep inmates who pose a danger to public safety in custody, even if they have not yet been found guilty.”
“Mr. Speaker, criminal law is always a fascinating topic of study, because two principles are pitted against one another: the imperative need for society to prevent crime versus the imperative need to avoid devolving into a police state where individual freedoms become meaningless. It is vital that we proceed with caution. The law clerks will probably ask the Conservatives whether they want to invoke the notwithstanding clause for this bill. That kind of discussion could take place in committees.”
“Mr. Speaker, the underlying causes of crime are very complex. Would legislative changes impact certain individual cases? We cannot rule that out. However, the clients I represented, who were accused, never took the time to read the Criminal Code before committing a crime. Essentially, they were people who were suffering from addictions. We know that there are environmental factors that also need to be addressed. I am talking about the housing crisis, overcrowding, addictions and mental health issues. I think that, when it comes right down to it, the best way to fight crime is to have a state with a social fabric like Quebec's, which could perhaps be further improved.”
“Mr. Speaker, what the Bloc Québécois believes is that we need to crack down on criminal organizations. That is the priority. We need to find ways to make their lives more difficult because these people destroy lives and make people feel unsafe. How can we do that? The proposals we have put forward will help to accomplish that. As for the rest, we went over subsection 515(10) of the Criminal Code. Having argued this in court, I can say that judges already have quite a few legislative tools that they can use to make informed decisions and to weigh the various interests at stake, including the protection of the public, the risk of reoffending, and the right to liberty and to be presumed innocent.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very relevant question, because there is indeed a risk. If this bill passes and I am still a criminal defence lawyer, I will certainly challenge its constitutionality from day one. It will be challenged on the grounds that it contradicts the fundamental freedoms enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If this bill is rushed through, we will not have the opportunity to discuss it. Changes can certainly be made, but if we rush things, we run the risk of winding up with less robust legislation that will be ripped apart by the first judge to take a closer look at this situation.”
“These elements can be cited under the current system. Paragraph 515(10)(c) also states: (iv) the fact that the accused is liable, on conviction, for a potentially lengthy term of imprisonment. The Conservatives' bill may be intended to reassure the public, but it has the potential to create injustice. In addition, it seeks to add elements that already exist in the Criminal Code. In closing, it is important to note that the Conservatives' bill clearly contradicts some sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 7 states: Everyone has the right to life, liberty Section 11 states: Any person charged with an offence has the right: ... (d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty... (e) not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause; This bill raises a number of significant constitutional issues.”
“(b) where the detention is necessary for the protection or safety of the public It is already there. We are being asked to add something that is already there. (c) if the detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, having regard to all the circumstances, including (i) the apparent strength of the prosecution's case, (ii) the gravity of the offence, The Conservatives' bill also refers to this issue. They would like detention to become automatic for certain serious crimes. However, judges and Crown prosecutors already have all the necessary tools at their disposal under the Criminal Code to recommend detention for an accused, even if they have not yet been found guilty, when the charges are very serious. This is already possible when certain circumstances are met, such as the use of a firearm.”
“The Criminal Code already stipulates that accused persons are typically released unless they are accused of serious crimes, in which case they can be detained. That is possible under the current system. We have to fight this idea that our system is a revolving door: arrest people, give them a slap on the wrist, let them go so they can commit more crimes and then see them again two days later. That is not how it works. Subsection 515(10) states: the detention of an accused in custody is justified only on one or more of the following grounds: (a) where the detention is necessary to ensure his or her attendance in court If the person is considered likely to flee from justice, they can be detained. That is already provided for in the Criminal Code.”
“For the record, but also to enlighten the House, subsection 515(10) of the Criminal Code already sets out the circumstances in which an accused may be detained. An accused is a person who has not yet been convicted. Anyone can see why it is important to have those criteria in place: charges may prove to be false. Sometimes the police receive complaints that turn out to be unfounded. It always comes back to the presumption of innocence. The basic premise of our criminal justice system is that the state must avoid perpetrating an injustice, even if that means some cases are not brought to justice. That is how our justice system works. It would rather prevent injustice than act too hastily.”
“The motion actually calls for an “expeditious...study”. Obviously, we do not agree with that. We will not pass a bill that attacks our fundamental freedoms under closure. They will plead urgency, but if we fast-track a bill that will result in greater injustice rather than greater justice, can we really say we served the common good? Second, certain aspects of the Conservative bill are nothing more than cosmetic changes. I will not get into the specifics. Nevertheless, I would like to point out that the bill seeks to amend subsection 515(10), which provides guidance for judges when determining whether or not to release an accused person. We are being told that public protection must be one of the criteria, but it already is. As I learned during my legal studies, normally, “Parliament does not speak in vain”.”
“However, imagine if a police officer arrests someone and accuses them of committing a crime. Even if this person says they did not commit the crime, they will be put into prison where they will spend many months in remand pending trial before they can prove their innocence. Does this still feel reassuring? (1115) If the government puts more people in jail before they are found guilty, do people still feel more secure, or does that rather open the door to a new form of insecurity and the risk that one could end up in jail on trumped-up charges for a crime they did not commit? That is what the Conservative bill is all about. It is an attack on the right to liberty and the right to the presumption of innocence. I would like to come back to my reasons. First, we are being asked to fast-track this bill.”
“We also propose facilitating the seizure of assets by means of a reverse onus, to prevent the depletion of assets when an individual belonging to an organized crime group is arrested. In addition, we propose prohibiting criminal organizations from wearing their emblems or symbols. Right now, criminal organizations parade around with total impunity and actively promote their organizations. We are calling for the creation of a specific offence to criminalize the recruitment of young people into crime. As we saw recently in Quebec, this has become the new modus operandi for organized crime. This is ruining lives and destroying families and we must get tougher with those who are exploiting our youth. In response to legitimate security concerns, the Conservatives are calling for a jail not bail act. Some people might find this reassuring.”
“When the news broke yesterday of the murder of a gangster who was gunned down in broad daylight in a Laval coffee shop, that was exactly our reaction. It should be pointed out that when they are arrested, the suspects will not be released. The Criminal Code already stipulates that anyone charged with murder must remain in custody while awaiting trial. Still, the feelings of insecurity among some of our fellow citizens is understandable. We in the Bloc Québécois are proposing a number of measures to tackle criminal organizations, such as establishing an organized crime registry, similar to the terrorist entities list. This would make it easier to prove cases where a crime is committed for the benefit of a criminal organization.”
“Firstly, expediting the study of a bill that threatens our fundamental freedoms would represent a departure from democracy and a dereliction by the legislature of its duties, which we will fight against. Secondly, the Conservative bill also proposes some superficial amendments to the Criminal Code that would change nothing. Thirdly, the Conservative bill is inconsistent with sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and as such it raises constitutional questions that call at the very least for serious study. Before detailing our reasons, I would like to say a few words about the sense of insecurity that some of our fellow Quebeckers may be feeling and that the Conservative Party is trying to exploit. Of course, every time a crime makes the headlines, we are all shocked and outraged.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Rivière‑du‑Nord . Today we have before us a Conservative motion asking us to proceed with an expeditious study of a bill that attacks the most fundamental rights of our fellow citizens. Who in the House protects every person's right to liberty? Who in the House protects every person's right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty under the law in a fair and public trial by an independent and impartial court? Who in the House protects every person's right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause? We will do that. The Bloc Québécois will oppose this Conservative motion. We have several reasons for doing so.”
“Madam Speaker, we in the Bloc Québécois already raised our concerns earlier regarding respect for provincial jurisdictions. That is a crucial point. Another important point is the protection of civil liberties. I was reading the testimony of the Privacy Commissioner who spoke at length when we were studying Bill C-26 about the risks of confidential and personal information unintentionally ending up in the hands of the government as a result of the bill's implementation. My question for my colleague is this. To what extent will the Liberals take these concerns into account to ensure that information obtained for a legitimate purpose is not used by other federal government departments and agencies?”
“Madam Speaker, I also congratulate my colleague on her speech. She raised a number of very relevant points, particularly regarding the centralization of power within cabinet, which has ultimately resulted in a law marked by numerous ambiguities. Of course, the Bloc Québécois wants to ensure that we have the means to deal with cyber-attacks, but we are very concerned about Quebec's jurisdiction being respected. Given the excessive centralization of authority within cabinet, is my colleague prepared to work with the Bloc Québécois to ensure that the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces are respected?”
“Madam Speaker, Quebeckers in the regions are concerned about the Canada Post reform, because every time Ottawa talks about modernization, it means cuts to services in the regions. Yesterday's announcement that the government is lifting the moratorium on the closure of rural post offices is being seen as a betrayal, and the end of home delivery outside major centres, especially in winter, is very bad news for people with mobility issues. What will the government do to make sure that Quebeckers in the regions do not lose any services?”
“Madam Speaker, the minister's role is to bring together competing interests to come up with solutions. The minister did exactly the opposite in the Canada Post labour dispute. He dropped an atomic bomb on the negotiations by reforming Canada Post without consultation and without bothering to inform the workers. The result is that we now a full-blown general strike. No one is getting their mail. Once again, SMEs have to reinvent their operations overnight. Everyone is left to fend for themselves. What is the minister doing to make amends?”
“Madam Speaker, I salute my colleague, who represents a neighbouring riding. Between us lies the magnificent Chaleur Bay. We have something else in common. Our ridings have aging populations. Seniors are particularly vulnerable to financial insecurity. Many of them cannot increase their income, so the rising cost of living is hitting them hard. They are having to make virtually impossible choices. The Bloc Québécois wants to increase old age security for seniors aged 65 to 74. Doing so would cost $3 billion a year. It is a meaningful way to help seniors. What are my colleague's thoughts on that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we are able to talk about the cost of living, because it is true that there is a lot of financial insecurity. I may have said this before, but before I was a member of Parliament, I was a legal aid lawyer. I served the most vulnerable people. I am thinking of one of my clients, who was between 65 and 75, lived alone and was having a hard time paying her mortgage. I fought alongside her to make sure she did not lose her home and end up homeless. The problem was not that she did not want to pay her mortgage; it was that she did not have enough income. With the rising cost of living wreaking havoc on grocery prices, she did not have enough money left over. I would like to know what my colleague thinks of our proposal to increase old age security for people aged 65 to 74.”
“Mr. Speaker, this government is obviously against the Act respecting the laicity of the State. Essentially, with the path it is taking, it does not need to attack secularism head-on. That is what it decided. It said that there are several other parties before the Supreme Court who will do so. However, by attacking the notwithstanding clause, which was perhaps a way for the Liberals to avoid adding fuel to the fire, they are not only attacking the democratic decision that we made in Quebec on how we live together, but they are also attacking the power of Quebec and the provinces within Canada. That is even worse.”
“Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform my colleague, although I am sure she already knows, that Alberta currently wants to use the notwithstanding clause. It is considering it. What the government is doing here, like with this debate, is far from being a distraction. We are in the process of discussing to what extent the provinces will be able to decide for themselves how they want to live and how they want to act. If this debate continues in the direction the Liberal government is taking it, what will happen if the Supreme Court agrees with its argument is that the provinces will be less equipped to deal with all the challenges of our time, including the economic crisis.”
“Mr. Speaker, I took the time to read Jean Chrétien's comments. Mr. Chrétien kind of answered my colleague's question by saying that the notwithstanding clause is a compromise. It is a compromise that Mr. Chrétien and Mr. Trudeau could both live with. What Mr. Chrétien said to those who feared that things would get too out of hand is that vigilance is always required and that there are ways for lobby groups to fight it out in the political realm. What is happening here is quite scandalous. There is a notwithstanding clause, a limited option for democratic freedom that is used very sparingly. This government is going further than any other Liberal government to once again shut down this option for Quebec.”
“This shows the real state of affairs. Canada is working against Quebec's distinctiveness. It will always push further and further. It will never stop. However, Quebec is a people, a language and a territory with its own colours. It is a nation with its own values, and one day, I am certain, a majority of Quebeckers will agree that the only way to achieve true freedom is to be our own country.”
“He went on to say that: [I]t is a way that the legislatures, federal and provincial, have of ensuring that the last word is held by the elected representatives of the people rather than by the courts. When former prime ministers Pierre Elliot Trudeau and Jean Chrétien are being quoted to defend provincial autonomy, things are not going well. That is because Ottawa's appetite for centralization is stronger than ever before these days. We need to take stock of what is happening right now. This provision, which was not enough to convince Quebec to sign the 1982 Constitution, is now too important for Ottawa to tolerate. This space of democratic freedom for Quebec is now treated like a historic mistake that the federal government wants to correct. The more time passes, the more the federal government wants to shackle Quebec.”
“On April 19, 2017, he told the CBC that he was in favour of the notwithstanding clause because he believed that we need it and that we could not rely solely on the courts. He said that this was the reason why he was happy that we had a notwithstanding clause. In his view, judges know, when they make their rulings, that governments may object to them. There is more. I will now quote Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who was also quite satisfied with the notwithstanding clause: I must be honest and say that I don't fear the notwithstanding clause very much. It can be abused as anything can, but the history of the Canadian Bill of Rights Diefenbaker had adopted in 1960, it has a notwithstanding clause and it hasn't caused any great scandal. So I don't think the notwithstanding clause deters very significantly from the excellence of the Charter.”
“[...] It should be clear, in conclusion, that the compromise reached by the Prime Minister with the nine Premiers [Quebec never signed on] maintains the principle of a full, complete and effective constitutional Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It does not exclude rights which have previously been guaranteed. In fact, the charter has been improved because unforeseen situations will be able to be corrected without the need to seek constitutional amendment. For those who remain concerned about the override clause, let me remind them that it has been said that “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance”. In this last sentence, Mr. Chrétien could have been speaking to those who are now members of the Liberal government. Forty years later, the former prime minister still had not changed his mind.”
“To fully understand what is happening, let us take a step back. On November 20, 1981, during the debates surrounding the adoption of the parliamentary sovereignty clause, the Liberal Minister of Justice at the time, Jean Chrétien, addressed the House: The purpose of an override clause is to provide the flexibility that is required to ensure that legislatures rather than judges have the final say on important matters of public policy... It is because of the history of the use of the override clause and because of the need for a safety valve to correct absurd situations without going through the difficulty of obtaining constitutional amendments that three leading civil libertarians have welcomed its inclusion in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”
“It must be said that most bills of rights contain a notwithstanding clause. Quebec's has one, Alberta's has one, Saskatchewan's has one. Even the Canadian Bill of Rights contains a notwithstanding clause. It is a bill that applies to areas of federal jurisdiction. It was adopted in 1960 under the leadership of Mr. Diefenbaker, and section 2 contains a notwithstanding clause. If the federal government were so concerned about the possibility of this clause being used, it could have started by amending this law itself in the House of Commons. (1305) However, what worries the government is not so much notwithstanding clauses in general, but rather the possibility that Quebec may express its difference. That is why the government only wants to define the parliamentary sovereignty clause that applies to Quebec.”
“That is why Quebec, even though it is subject to it, never signed on to the 1982 Constitution. However, for several Canadian provinces, this was the compromise that made the Constitution acceptable. Today, this Liberal government wants to shrink this small space of democratic freedom. It has asked the Supreme Court to limit how the parliamentary sovereignty clause can be used. Since it is not courageous enough to propose negotiating with the provinces, it is asking the judges to do its job. It argues that, without new limits, Quebec could commit dangerous abuses. This is an extremely condescending view of Quebec, and it is really nothing new. It targets Quebecers because, if the Liberal government were truly concerned about the overriding of fundamental rights, it would start by cleaning up its own laws.”
“For example, it has done so to provide benefits to the next generation of farmers, to promote the employment by the government of people from under-represented communities, to improve access to justice with the small claims court and to protect the identity of young people in youth court. All these social advances, which Quebec wanted, were unable to be put forward because of individual rights enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Thus, the parliamentary sovereignty clause is a small window of freedom through which Quebec democracy can express itself. It is a way of resisting the uniformity imposed by the Canadian courts. For René Lévesque, who suffered the night of the long knives when the patriation of the Constitution was negotiated, this clause was not enough.”
“It is also called the parliamentary sovereignty clause, because it allows a legislature to vote democratically on a law that will not be subsequently overturned or struck down by judges. This clause is limited. It only allows for exceptions to certain individual rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and it is only valid for five years at a time. The Quebec government invoked the parliamentary sovereignty clause to protect the law on state secularism from any challenge. Since 1982, Quebec has used this clause on numerous occasions to protect laws passed by the Quebec National Assembly. It has used it to protect the French language and Quebec's national identity, but, more generally, Quebec has also used this clause to promote collective rights and social goals.”
“Quebec would be free to negotiate the treaties it signs with other countries, free to democratically determine the way it develops and free to protect its language and support its economy. However, for others, Quebec should be able to adapt in order to grow within Canada. In their view, there would be enough room for Quebec's distinctiveness within the rest of Canada. For these people, the notwithstanding clause is precisely proof that Canada occasionally allows Quebec to assert its distinctive nature. The notwithstanding clause is part of the Constitution, which allows a province, as well as the federal government, to pass a law without having it be reviewed by a judge.”
“Mr. Speaker, for as far back as we can remember, Quebec has wanted freedom, the power to express its distinctiveness and the ability to make its own choices. This desire for freedom and democracy was behind the Patriotes movement in the 1830s and the Quiet Revolution in the 1960s. It is this desire for freedom and democracy that motivated the significant reforms made by René Lévesque's government starting in 1976, and more recently, Bill 21, concerning secularism, and Bill 96, which strengthens the protection of our French language. Quebec is a people, a language, a territory with its own character and a nation with its own values. Some, including me, feel that the only way for us to be free is to have our own country, an independent francophone state in North America that would give Quebeckers full powers to govern their destiny.”
“Mr. Speaker, the notwithstanding clause in Quebec has been used to protect fundamental aspects of Quebec's identity, such as the French language and secularism, but it has also been used for much more utilitarian purposes in other areas, such as small claims court and employment equity. To suggest that Quebec would use the notwithstanding clause to authorize slavery, executions and censorship and ban places of worship exposes the federal government's total contempt in this matter. When will Ottawa stop using the courts to carry out its crusade against Quebec's laws?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' bias against Quebec's laws is clear from their stance against the notwithstanding clause. Ottawa's response is beyond belief. In its factum, the federal government justifies its attack against the notwithstanding clause by bringing up the possibility that Quebec could use it to “allow arbitrary executions or slavery”. Let me start by reassuring the government that Quebec has no interest in slavery or firing squads. Now, when will the federal government withdraw its disrespectful factum and its unreasonable objection to the notwithstanding clause?”
“Mr. Speaker, obviously, everyone here is against crime. I have personally known a number of victims of crime and I am well aware of the unfortunate consequences that can arise, which can be tragic, sometimes even fatal. However, when my colleague mentions that community-based sentences need to be changed, I would like her to tell us what she thinks is wrong with section 742, since community-based sentences are only available to people sentenced to less than two years and when community safety would not be endangered. What is wrong with section 742.1 of the Criminal Code, as written?”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague is talking about changing conditional sentences or house arrest. Section 742.1 of the Criminal Code states: If a person is convicted of an offence and the court imposes a sentence of imprisonment of less than two years, the court may, for the purpose of supervising the offender’s behaviour in the community, order that the offender serve the sentence in the community...if (a) the court is satisfied that the service of the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community and would be consistent [with the principles of sentencing]; (b) [there is no] minimum term of imprisonment; (c) the offence is not an offence under any of the following provisions: [for example, attempt to commit murder, torture, advocating genocide or a terrorism offence].”
“Mr. Speaker, it has been mentioned several times that our justice system wantonly releases people who commit crime. I just want to come back to subsection 515(10) of the Criminal Code. A person accused of murder is held in custody, naturally. The Criminal Code states that a person can continue to be detained “where the detention is necessary for the protection or safety of the public” and if there is any “substantial likelihood that the accused will, if released from custody, commit a criminal offence”. That is when the defendant has not yet been found guilty. However, people have also criticized conditional sentences, namely house arrest, that are handed down after someone has been found guilty. Again, a conditional sentence is only possible when the court is convinced that the measure does not jeopardize community safety.”