Claude DeBellefeuille
Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“We are also told that it would have been easier to stop an organized network of pedophiles operating on the Internet. I asked if that means that such criminals cannot be arrested today, because we do not have a law on lawful access on the books. The answer is no.”
“We then asked the government if the commissioner could come back. What was happening was that department officials were completely dismantling all of the amendments proposed by the Privacy Commissioner. It is easy to understand why I was a little skeptical. I wondered if the commissioner and his team had really been that wrong.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her kind words. I think she is brave, because she came during the clause-by-clause study, like my NDP colleague did. They did not have the right to speak, but they were there, hard-working and rigorous, and they proposed amendments. I have a lot of respect for these two members.”
“All the amendments I proposed came either from the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, the Quebec Bar Association, or the chair of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency. I did not propose far-fetched amendments. They were based on expert testimony that sought to help us strike a balance.”
“He is telling us that Canada is lagging behind. What exactly are we comparing ourselves to? The United Kingdom does not have a charter protecting people's rights, and neither does the United States. They have street cameras in the U.K. that film people.”
“However, it is still a parliamentary tool that can be used as a last resort when one feels that, no matter what people say, the government's primary goal is to run out the clock, hold a few hours of debate, and then, after about 20 hours, bring in closure and claim that the opposition parties are wasting their time.”
The complete record
Every one of 543 lines we hold for Claude DeBellefeuille, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 11.
“It was drafted in the wake of a visit from the Privacy Commissioner, Philippe Dufresne, whom I salute and thank for his thoroughness, his work and his vigilance. He reads every bill to see if it can be improved. The Bloc Québécois introduced an amendment to clause 4 in order to add clear and specific guidelines to ensure that a warrant is required to search a home. There was some ambiguity about that, because the clause was not entirely clear. This clarification helps protect privacy. Privacy and security are often pitted against one another, but the Bloc Québécois believes that it is possible to strike a balance between security and privacy. For us, these two elements are not at all incompatible. We supported amendments that compel the government to be more transparent and more accountable.”
“We must not forget our legislative counsel, our analysts, Sabrina and Alexsandra, our clerk, Mr. Wilson, and, of course, all the staff who provide interpretation services. The Bloc Québécois moved amendments to Bill C-12. One amendment was adopted. We take a very constructive and rigorous approach to our work. When we are considering a bill, we determine whether it is good for Quebec. If it is, we support it. We worked hard and effectively. We listened. We supported amendments from the Conservative Party and adopted clauses proposed by the government. I also remember voting on an amendment from the member for Vancouver East . That goes to show the value of committee work, when we are conducting a clause-by-clause study of a large bill. We also passed an amendment that I am quite proud of.”
“The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security split the work of studying Bill C‑12. It was a monumental task. Doing the clause-by-clause study of such a huge bill is a team effort. I would like to sincerely thank my colleague, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean , who studied the entire part dealing with amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. It was a big job for him, for the entire team in the offices of the leader and whip, for our researchers, Maxime and Michaël, for my assistant, Racim, and especially for the witnesses, who appeared before both the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security and the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.”
“Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House, particularly with you in the chair. You and I founded the all-party maritime caucus. That is proof that we can work together even if we are of different political persuasions. I also want to sincerely thank the member for Winnipeg North and the member for Calgary Nose Hill for very generously allowing me to move up my speaking spot. Teamwork is the calling card of the Bloc Québécois. Bill C‑12 is a big bill, a massive bill, an omnibus bill. It has not been easy to work on this bill because it amends so many laws. In addition, we did not have a lot of time because there was an agreement between the Liberals and the Conservatives to cut certain witnesses' time short.”
“Motion Madam Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon be allowed to use the speaking slot allocated to the member for Winnipeg North for this debate. That the member for Winnipeg North not be deemed to have spoken, that he retain his right to speak, and that this right be used in the first of the slots allocated to the Bloc Québécois.”
“These services exist, but perhaps not at the same level as the needs require. My colleague notes in the preamble that this issue falls largely within provincial jurisdiction. I strongly suggest that she join forces with her colleagues to demand that the government do more and provide the provinces with the resources they need to order to implement all the necessary services for people struggling with mental health issues. In the meantime, the Bloc Québécois trusts that the House of Commons will take the time to thoroughly examine the issue of MAID for mental health disorders.”
“My colleague is right to point out that in Quebec, as in other provinces, there is still a lot of room for improvement in this area. Unfortunately, it is not for lack of interest that the provinces are not offering these services, but because they do not have the means to do so. Over the past few years, health services, and particularly social services, have gotten shortchanged because health problems are so significant that social problems have fallen by the wayside a bit. The provinces have to do more with less. A good solution to support people would be to give the provinces the financial resources they need to establish much more intensive services for people struggling with mental health problems. In my riding, there are all kinds of services, including intensive home care services.”
“She is right. Those cases would never constitute a legitimate reason for obtaining medical assistance in dying. I would also like to point out that there are some very important things in the preamble. Basically, what it calls for is justified, even legitimate: Anyone struggling with mental health issues should have the right to receive the services they need, whether that means consultations, emergency services, support, home care or assistance. In my riding, we have organizations that work in the area of mental health. One that comes to mind is Le Tournant, a transition resource that provides real-time service. A suicidal person can call, and someone can go directly to their home to support them and help them through this distressing time.”
“That person lives in a state and conditions that no one here in Parliament would ever want to experience. We are talking about incurable illnesses that people have to learn to live with and for which they have to be medicated. A person with severe schizophrenia could get all the psychotherapy available, but they are still dealing with an extremely difficult illness. I do not want my words to be misinterpreted. I am not saying that everyone with schizophrenia would want to request medical assistance in dying. I am simply trying to provide some clarification in response to my colleague, who was talking about temporary depression, situational depression or maybe even serious depression. She is right in saying that a person can get through those things with help, psychotherapy, support from local health centres and loved ones. That is true.”
“(1405) My colleague gave several examples. I was surprised to hear her often say the words “depression” and “suicidal”. When I look at what the joint committee discussed and debated, I see that it talked about untreatable mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia. I do not know whether anyone here has ever met a person with schizophrenia who suffers from auditory or visual hallucinations with paranoid thoughts. Their reality may be that they are so medicated that they can no longer enjoy a social life or contact with others. They may be isolated from their family and live in difficult conditions. They likely have to see their psychiatrist regularly and may have tried several types of therapy with no success. This may have been their reality for the past 10 or 20 years.”
“They were quite wise, because they recommended the following: That [medical assistance in dying where mental disorder is the sole underlying medical condition] should not be made available in Canada until the Minister of Health and the Minister of Justice are satisfied, based on recommendations from their respective departments and in consultation with their provincial and territorial counterparts and with Indigenous Peoples, that it can be safely and adequately provided; and That one year prior to the date on which it is anticipated that the law will permit [medical assistance in dying where mental disorder is the sole underlying medical condition], pursuant to subparagraph (a), the House of Commons and the Senate re-establish the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying in order to verify the degree of preparedness attained for a safe and adequate application of [medical assistance in dying where mental disorder is the sole underlying medical condition].”
“However, what is plain to see is the the seriousness and scientific rigour surrounding the decision to allow or withdraw permission for medical assistance in dying for people with mental health conditions. I think it is worthwhile for me to read recommendation 1 of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, in which all parties and senators participated.”
“Quebec is one province where this question has been debated at great length. A commission travelled everywhere across the province. A clinical and scientific consensus, as well as consensus in civil society, were reached on medical assistance in dying. For people whose only illness is a major mental health disorder, medical assistance in dying was also rejected by Quebec for the same reasons it was rejected when Bill C-62 was passed, namely, the absence of a scientific and clinical consensus. We also need to give the experts time to reflect, consult, examine practices and evolve so they can make recommendations to the joint committee in 2027. Once the joint committee receives these recommendations, it will have to decide whether to move forward or put off the decision once again, which is not an easy thing to do.”
“However, the bill provides that in 2027, the joint committee of senators and MPs will be reconvened to assess whether psychiatrists, psychologists and mental health professionals have made progress in their analysis of the future framework for MAID for people with mental health disorders. It is possible that, in 2027, government departments, scientists and psychiatrists will conclude that we are not ready, that it is too difficult to determine the “how” and the “when”, and that it is too difficult to analyze the clinical framework for authorizing or not authorizing medical assistance in dying. We need to approach this bill with care. This is a societal debate that should not be politicized. We in Quebec have already taken a position on medical assistance in dying.”
“Mr. Speaker, you will not be surprised to learn that the Bloc Québécois will not be supporting Bill C-218 . Although we do not support this bill, it is not because we are unconcerned with the issue of medical assistance in dying for people with mental disorders. It is because it is not up to a political party to decide whether to implement a medical assistance in dying procedure for people with mental health issues. This is a societal issue, a societal debate, but also a clinical debate. The reason it is not yet in effect is that there is no clinical and scientific consensus on how to regulate consent for MAID from a person whose only medical problem is a serious mental health disorder. There is no consensus and that is why Bill C-62 , which was passed, excluded people with mental disorders from receiving MAID.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am stunned by what I just heard. I agree with the member that there needs to be more mental health services. Obviously it falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces and Quebec to provide the whole range of services needed to support people experiencing mental health issues. However, in her speech, my colleague misled the public somewhat by claiming that the law allows for medical assistance in dying when major mental illness is the sole underlying disorder. The member knows that in 2027, a joint committee of members and senators will make a decision based on the recommendations of the Department of Health. This comes as no surprise. Everyone knows that the medical community is not ready and will probably not be ready in 2027 to decide on this thorny issue.”
“Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciated my colleague's speech. The two of us had the opportunity to sit together on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. I know that a shooting range in her riding, in the city of Penticton, is threatening to close because the government may be making a decision that clashes with this community's needs. Perhaps my colleague would have liked to see some encouragement in the budget for keeping that shooting range open. Could she tell us about that?”
“Mr. Speaker, it seems odd to me that two government representatives are causing disorder in the House this morning. I do not think that they are setting a good example. I find it rather odd that two government representatives are causing disorder by talking and preventing us from speaking. My question for my colleague is this. All along the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River, many smaller ports are clamouring for CBSA container clearance services. Unfortunately, the budget provides no funds for CBSA officers to clear containers at small ports like Valleyfield. Given the current economic situation, does my colleague think it is right for the government to put the brakes on economic development in small rural regions that have small ports in their communities?”
“Mr. Speaker, I know that one of my colleague's values involves opposing the federal government's centralization of health and social services. Does he agree that money could have been found in the budget to increase health and social service transfers? Every province in Canada is struggling to provide quality services because they have to do more with less. Does my colleague agree with me that the government could have reduced certain expenses in order to increase transfers to Quebec and the provinces for health and social services?”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's speech. I know she is an expert on immigration. I would like to ask her about the budget allocated to border protection. Does she think that hiring 1,000 border services officers over three years will be enough to keep our borders secure? Will Canada have all the resources it needs to properly manage immigration?”
“I wonder if my colleague would agree to make it clear to the government that it needs to amend its Bill C-15 to recognize that it needs to transfer more money to the provinces for health and social services, with no strings attached.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's speech. I have several questions for him, but here is the one I am dying to ask. Like me, he is a member from Quebec, so he knows that our health and social services are really struggling because of a lack of resources. They are forced to do more with less. One of the Bloc Québécois's demands was an increase in health transfers to the provinces. Unfortunately, the government is completely unwilling to meet the provinces' needs when it comes to health and social services. I was a member of this place in 2006 during the Harper government era, and unlike the Liberals, it was less centralizing.”
“Madam Speaker, like my colleague, I am very concerned about the fact that more and more seniors are asking for food assistance and going to food banks for help. We have seen the 2025 Hunger Count for Quebec, produced by the members of Food Banks of Quebec. In my riding, I have seen an increase in food aid in general, but particularly for seniors, and I am sure my colleague has seen something similar in his area. I would like to ask my colleague the following question. Does he think it is acceptable for the government to continue, year after year, to discriminate against seniors aged 65 to 74, who were not eligible for an increase in old age security, unlike those aged 75 and over, even though they have the same obligations related to the increase in the cost of groceries and rent?”
“Madam Speaker, what we are hearing is frightening. This same minister also called his worried Liberal colleagues boy scouts and naive, according to the Toronto Star. In Canada today, it is normal for a natural resources minister to think that worrying about the expansion of dirty oil pipelines is simply nostalgia, magical thinking, naïveté and behaving like boy scouts. Even the Conservative leader is not that much of a climate denier. Quite frankly, how can the Liberals from Quebec support the comments coming from this minister?”
“Madam Speaker, the new Minister of Energy and Natural Resources seriously crossed the line yesterday. When commenting on the resignation of the former environment minister , he said that people who are concerned about the Liberal shift towards more oil are nostalgic for the past and are looking for magical solutions. It seems that nowadays, caring about the environment is considered nostalgia and wishful thinking. This is very troubling, knowing that the minister and the Prime Minister have been very close ever since their early days as bankers at Goldman Sachs. Has the fight against climate change become nothing more than nostalgia for the Liberals?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and commend her for her dedication to the plight of seniors. The Bloc Québécois is lucky to have her. She gives a voice to seniors in the House of Commons. If not for the Bloc, no one would be talking about seniors here. To answer her question, seniors talk to us in our ridings. Twenty per cent of my constituents are seniors aged 65 and over. Quebec and British Columbia have highest aging rates in Canada. Some seniors have worked their entire lives and yet they cannot afford their rent. There is not enough social housing or low-cost housing. When we see that we wonder if the same thing is happening in our riding. I am little surprised by my colleague opposite's insensitivity when it comes to the plight of seniors.”
“Mr. Speaker, I represent a rural region where there are many produce growers and many people who farm grains, fruits, vegetables, corn and soybeans. Frankly, this budget does not take into account our farmers' reality at all. It does not offer them the support they require or programs tailored to their needs. Canada-wide programs do not work in agriculture because production in the east and west are different. With climate change, we would have expected the government to be more responsive to all of our producers in the budget.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. This gives me a chance to tell her that seniors are indeed happy that their dental care is cheaper. However, can they really pay for fillings if they do not have the money to pay the rent or buy groceries? I do not think the member understands that the old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement are universal programs and that the Liberals have consciously created a distinction between seniors aged 65 to 74 and those over 75. That is unacceptable. She should not stand for that. She should try to make her government aware of this discrimination, which is completely unacceptable.”
“They are currently not exempt, but those who produce apple cider and mead are. That is thanks to the work of the member for Joliette—Manawan , who fought for this measure at the Standing Committee on Finance three years ago. However, there is something we do not understand. The current Minister of Finance and National Revenue represents a riding that includes rural areas. He is a Quebecker. He knows full well that artisans who produce a few thousand bottles of pear cider are not competing with international producers. They should be exempt from the excise tax.”
“Everyone knows about it; it is well documented. It is going to happen even if British Columbia opposes it. To them, it is obvious, and they wonder how this can happen. These are political games to score points, even if it means jeopardizing a wonderfully biodiverse environment that is carefully protected by an indigenous nation. These are political games to gain support in Alberta. I find this scandalous, and these students are right to have talked to me about it and to have asked these questions. I will wrap up, even though I could talk for hours about what upsets me about this budget, but before I do, there is one last thing that I want to share. For several years now, I have been fighting to have small fruit producers who make alcohol from pears, currants or blueberries exempt from the excise tax.”
“That is not to say that all is lost, but it does mean that we need to speak up more loudly and voice our convictions more forcefully, because the fossil fuel and nuclear energy sectors have a lot of influence on this government and close ties with it. These students were surprised to hear me say that they were obviously right, but that this sector has had the government's ear for years. The budget allocates several billion dollars in tax credits and other types of credits to this sector. If there is one sector that is not struggling and that is raking in billions of dollars in profits every year, it is the oil sector. The students had a hard time understanding why, for example, the government has promised to build a pipeline to British Columbia's Pacific coast, in an area with impressive biodiversity.”
“These 18-year-old students, who are just starting their university studies, told me that it seems so obvious to them that we need to disengage from the fossil fuel sector, and they asked me why that was not happening. It was such an excellent question that I want to ask it too. The issue is complex, but they are right. It is all too obvious that we need to disengage from fossil fuels, move on to climate adaptation and find ways to further reduce our environmental footprint. I told them that some sectors, individuals and businesses get more of the government's attention than others because they have more resources.”
“There has been so much backsliding that a minister in the current government has resigned over it. I want to highlight that courageous act, because when you have convictions, you have to stand up for them. The minister probably realized that there is no way to move forward with the current government in place. This position in favour of oil companies and fossil fuels is unlikely to change as long as this government is in power, which is very sad. On Monday, three UQAM communications students came to my constituency office to meet with me. They were working on a university project that involved creating a podcast, and they chose the environment as their topic. They asked me such great questions.”
“Nature-based programs will be cut by $245 million. Liquefied natural gas production could double. There is also the Pathways Plus project. Today, a new pipeline was announced, even though British Columbia and indigenous nations do not want it. That does not matter, because there is a new law on the books that allows the government to circumvent the rules and laws put in place by the provinces, and even those of the Parliament of Canada. Obviously, that is unacceptable. It is so unacceptable that the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture has resigned. That is right; he resigned today. He is known as a great environmentalist. When he was minister of environment and climate change, some progress was made. Unfortunately, since the return of the new Liberal government, well, there has been some backsliding.”
“I find it hard to understand why the government is not taking advantage of this budget, which deals with a million things and is 600 pages long, to include a small line to correct this injustice, this discrimination against women who lose their jobs during maternity leave and who cannot get employment insurance if the position they held is eliminated, for example. It is truly unacceptable. Who, then, are the big winners in this budget? The big winners are the oil companies. The entire fossil fuel sector is a big winner in this budget, and why is that? Well, let us talk about the backsliding. There are plenty of examples of backsliding. Since the Liberals were re-elected, we have seen one example after another. (1640) Regarding the environment, Environment and Climate Change Canada's budget has been cut by up to 15%.”
“Another injustice is the whole issue of employment insurance. In 2028, a measure will come into effect concerning special benefits for people grieving the death of a loved one, a child, but that will not happen until 2028. Why wait? Why not bring that measure in right away. A bill on this very issue was introduced last week. That said, there is nothing to remedy this kind of injustice, this discrimination against women, especially those who are mothers and who, if they lose their job after their maternity leave, are unable to collect any employment insurance benefits because they obviously did not accumulate any hours of work while they were on maternity leave. As far as I know, no man can give birth, and therefore no man can say that he is giving birth in order to get maternity leave.”
“We cannot fathom why the government did not allocate a penny of this budget to boosting old age security for people aged 65 to 74, despite their declining buying power. This is an injustice; it is ageism. The government is acting as though 65-year-olds do not have a hard time putting a roof over their heads or food on the table. People who receive old age security and the guaranteed income supplement have less than $2,000 a month to live on. The vast majority of them have no private pension fund, no RRSP and no savings to help them. The food bank in my riding has also noticed an increase in requests for food assistance from people aged 65 and over, which is unacceptable. How can we treat our founders this way? They are the ones who built the Quebec of today. It is unacceptable, and I will not hesitate to repeat it at every opportunity.”
“I will say that I feel like speaking from the heart because this may be the first time in my career as a member of Parliament that I am totally confident I did the right thing by voting against the current government's budget. There is absolutely nothing in it that reflects my constituents' concerns. People are trying to figure out who hit the budget jackpot. I will certainly talk about the big winners, but there are more losers than winners. My colleague from Shefford has done an outstanding job as our party's critic for seniors for the past six years, and she has taken every opportunity to point out that the Liberal government has been leaving seniors out in the cold since 2015. I, too, make a point of saying that.”
“Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I want to point out that, with both pride and sadness, I am wearing a white ribbon to mark the 12 days of action to end violence against women, ending on December 6. I believe that next week, we will have a day to make speeches as part of a ministerial statement. It is important that we remember these women who were murdered in cold blood in 1989 simply because they were women and they were empowered. I thank these gentlemen for talking while I am giving my speech. It is not always easy to make speeches when we feel that our colleagues do not respect us, that they do not listen, but above all, that they speak over us. I appreciate the intervention, Mr. Speaker. We are here to discuss Bill C‑15 , the budget implementation bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's wonderful speech, which, as always, was informed by the needs of her community, her riding. Since she is also the Bloc Québécois critic for the status of women, I would like to know her opinion on something major missing from the budget: measures for women who, upon returning from maternity leave, do not have access to employment insurance if their position is eliminated or they lose their job. This is gender-based injustice. Could she comment on that?”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I had the opportunity to work together when he was his party's whip. I know that he is a diligent and hard-working MP, and I want to ask him about the whole issue of seniors. We were stunned to see that the budget included only one small program for seniors, the New Horizons for Seniors program. How can my colleague understand and accept that seniors did not get an increase in their old age pension?”
“Right now, many families, who may even be listening to us, are experiencing grief that they cannot process because they do not know where their loved one's remains are. My colleague's bill aims to give families and loved ones the opportunity to obtain this information. If the accused provides the information, it could perhaps allow them to obtain parole a little sooner. This could allow loved ones to get emotional closure. We believe that loved ones deserve better and that thorough work in committee will shed the necessary light on this issue, for the sake of the victims and their families. (1410)”
“As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, the Bloc Québécois will be supporting the bill at second reading so we can hear from witnesses and experts in committee. We want them to explain what is being done in Australia, England and the United States. We want to know how other countries, with which we have many international relations, are addressing this new phenomenon, namely, the location of victims' bodies remaining undisclosed. Is it similar to what my colleague's bill proposes? We want to hear these testimonies. As everyone knows, the Bloc Québécois believes in rehabilitating prisoners. We want to ensure that this particular aggravating factor is introduced, but without it being punitive or coercive. We want judges to take aggravating factors into account and uphold their decision.”
“The bill states that the court must be satisfied that the offender knows the location of the body. There may be extenuating circumstances. There was a case in Quebec where the person eventually revealed the location, but it was the St. Lawrence River. Obviously, it is nearly impossible to recover a body from the St. Lawrence River. The family of the victim, Lyne Massicotte, was never really able to mourn her death. After repeated questioning, the family finally found out that the murderer had thrown the body into the St. Lawrence. This brought them no comfort, as they could not arrange a funeral without her body. This is a very difficult situation for anyone to go through, and we understand how hard it must be for all the victims' families and loved ones.”
“We consider it important that judges who choose to ignore this aggravating factor be required to provide a written explanation to help family members understand their decision. In the past, little was said about victims' rights. In recent weeks, however, we have debated a number of bills that address them. This fall, we have talked at length about victims' rights only to conclude that victims also have rights, such as the right to information. They have a right to receive information during the parole process. They have a right to understand why the person who murdered their loved one can get parole after so many years. They have a right to understand and participate in the process. The bill introduced by my colleague from Parkland is another example of Criminal Code amendments designed to keep victims better informed.”
“It also amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act to add that fact as a consideration in the making of certain decisions under those Acts. The amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act are an important aspect of the bill. (1405) In fact, the purpose of this bill is to consider the victims and the families who cannot grieve their loss because the location of their loved one's remains is unknown to them. Families, like the McCann family, suffer from not knowing the whereabouts of their loved one's remains, and many never get closure, as the bill's preamble explains. The Bloc Québécois is aware of this reality and believes that the families of victims have the right to know the location of their loved one's remains.”
“I would like to thank my colleague from Parkland , who introduced this bill. He was motivated to introduce this bill because it responds to a real need. Lyle and Marie McCann of St. Albert, Alberta, disappeared 14 years ago. Their family cannot get closure because the murderer has never confessed to his crime. What is more, he refuses to reveal the location of Lyle and Marie McCann's remains. That is why this bill is called McCann's law. I want to talk in more detail about the changes the bill would make to the Criminal Code. This enactment amends the Criminal Code to add as an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes and as a reason to delay parole the fact that a person who is convicted of certain offences refuses to provide persons in authority with information respecting the location of bodies or remains.”
“The government also introduced Bill C-14 , which essentially covers six main points: It provides clarification on the principle of restraint, introduces a reverse onus for interim release, imposes tougher bail conditions, introduces sentencing measures, eliminates conditional sentences for sexual assault and makes amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. It is fair to say that, since the beginning of this Parliament, the legislative agenda has had a strong focus on crime, victims of violent offenders and bail. We have been very busy. As a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, I see that we will have a lot of work to do when it comes to hearing from witnesses on the various bills that will be passed at second reading and sent to committee.”
“Bill C‑220 was also introduced, which also seeks to amend “the Criminal Code to provide that, in imposing a sentence on an offender who is not a Canadian citizen, a court must not take into consideration the offender's immigration status in Canada”. That bill was introduced by the member for Calgary Nose Hill , who sits on the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and has been speaking on Bill C‑12 . We also debated Bill C‑225 , which was introduced by another member who sits on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola . This bill responds to the sadly growing phenomenon of domestic violence.”
“I would like to thank the community group ESPACE Suroît for sponsoring this awareness week in my riding. We are here today to debate Bill C‑236 , introduced by my colleague from Parkland , with whom I have the pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. His bill seeks to amend laws such as the Criminal Code, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act. Today we begin the second reading debate on this bill, which is part of a trend, a series of bills that have been introduced since the beginning of the parliamentary session. It may be worth reminding members that, this week, we debated Bill C‑221 , which aims to support victims' families and keep them informed of developments regarding the offender's sentence.”