Rhéal Éloi Fortin
Rivière-du-Nord, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, this is not my first time speaking in the House to Bill C‑9 . My position, or the position of the Bloc Québécois, is already well known. Obviously, it will come as no surprise to hear that we have no intention of changing our position.”
“A certain amount of evidence must be provided for each of these offences. However, if it can be established that the offence in question was also committed on grounds of hate, then the sentence may be increased significantly. Unfortunately, I think this is a good thing.”
“Naturally, there are already provisions in the Criminal Code that can handle some of these issues, but Bill C‑9 applies directly to hate by clarifying what needs to be clarified and by doing what I would call a small clean-up of the Criminal Code that was, in some respects, badly needed.”
“However, in this case, I must commend the work of the Minister of Justice , whom I have worked with over the past few months to arrive at this version. It is not perfect, I admit, but it seems to me to be entirely appropriate, given the current situation in our country.”
“We say that the federal government should simply transfer the money and let the provinces manage it as they see fit, particularly given that the provinces have the necessary jurisdiction and expertise in these areas.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my Conservative colleague. I cannot recall the name of his riding, but thanks to him, I have an attentive audience. I think this is the first time I have been in the middle of a speech and seen everyone rush into the House to listen to it. I thank my colleague.”
The complete record
Every one of 521 lines we hold for Rhéal Éloi Fortin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 11.
“However, does a society have to invest billions of dollars to build prisons and hire guards to keep people who have committed crimes within its walls? In some cases, I would say yes, but in many others, I would say no. Even when it comes to adults struggling with addiction, the Bloc Québécois has often said that these are cases in which diversion measures should be attempted. It is more profitable for society, more compassionate toward society as a whole and more effective, but especially when we are talking about youth rather than adults. Our young people need love. I think that Bill C‑231 offers that. We wholeheartedly support our colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière on this bill. (1735) I was listening to our Liberal colleague, who may have been hinting at the government's intention to propose certain amendments.”
“Locking someone up in prison for any amount of time will not cure an addiction. Treatment, however, can. Does treatment always work? No, certainly not, but does that mean that treatment is not worth trying? Whether the child involved is our child, or the child of a loved one, a neighbour, a friend or a complete stranger, rehabilitation is a worthwhile investment for any child struggling with addiction. It may not work, and at some point, it may be necessary to admit defeat and opt for harsher measures like incarceration or other alternatives. However, when a young person is struggling with this kind of problem, enlisting measures outside the legal system is not only our duty, it serves our interests as a society. The Bloc Québécois believes in rehabilitation, for both adults and young people.”
“Imprisoning someone is not always a useful, or the most useful, option. Because they are younger, our young people in particular are, by nature, less experienced and less mature. They are more likely to make mistakes, sometimes minor, but sometimes more serious. In either case, as a society, we must be compassionate and seek to guide them back onto the right path rather than imprisoning them in a system that may be difficult to break free from afterwards. We had similar discussions back then on Bill C-5 . These discussions were not always easy, and we, the Bloc Québécois, supported diversion. When I read Bill C-231, it seemed like a second chance to revisit this issue in a useful way, not only for the courts as a whole, but most of all, for our young people. Addiction is less a legal issue than a medical issue.”
“Mr. Speaker, I did not have the pleasure or honour of knowing David, but I do have the pleasure of knowing his father. We do not always see eye to eye, but I have a great deal of respect and a deep affection for him. I am pleased to speak to this bill on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. I can say straight away that we will be supporting Bill C-231 . Having read it, I would say that this is part of the Bloc's DNA. Since its inception, the Bloc Québécois has consistently supported diversion measures. The Bloc Québécois believes in rehabilitation. Obviously, there are cases where imprisonment is necessary and where a firm hand is required. The Criminal Code is there for a reason, and that is a good thing. Our prisons serve a purpose, but we must be cautious. We must not treat them as a panacea.”
“Quebec's Expropriation Act and the federal Expropriation Act are being set aside, and things are being handled casually, according to the government's whims. Is my colleague not concerned that Bill C-22 is taking a similar approach by expanding the government's power and limiting the oversight authority of the various agencies responsible for monitoring these matters?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank our colleague for his speech. He is always very interesting. As I mentioned earlier, this bill really deserves our attention because it is important and could change the lives of many Quebeckers and Canadians. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the trend we have been seeing over the past year or so with the new Liberal government. In various ways, both economically and in terms of information, there has been a push to give the government greater control. The Liberals want to allow the government to disregard the various laws in effect that provide some protection for citizens' rights. We are seeing this with the high-speed rail project, with the possibility of expropriations being carried out in a rather haphazard manner.”
“Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for his question. I agree with my colleague from Drummond about the importance of these debates. We know that there have been tough debates on certain bills in the past. Does my colleague think that we would be able to reach an agreement on Bill C-22 , if it were to be studied in committee, and come up with a version that would protect everyone's rights and freedoms, while guaranteeing access to the information needed to ensure security?”
“Mr. Speaker, earlier, my colleague from Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj asked a government representative a question. He wanted to know who had been consulted on the decision regarding the timelines for responding to a request and the timelines for companies subject to this type of request to challenge the decision. The answer was that a consultation was carried out with police representatives and officials from the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. I think that is reasonable. However, does my colleague not think that it would also be a good idea to consult representatives from the community to determine whether these timelines are reasonable for the companies being asked to comply with a request?”
“Mr. Speaker, if the minister had recused himself from the Alto file, he would not have tabled a bill that deals directly with this file and benefits Alto. The people of Terrebonne are not fooled. What they are seeing today is a Liberal member helping a company—one whose executives he is close to and that was created by the federal government—kick people out of Terrebonne by undermining their rights. How can anyone expect the people of Terrebonne to have confidence in this Liberal government after this?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance and National Revenue introduced Bill C-15 , the budget bill, which contains measures to help Alto expropriate land from the people of Terrebonne for the high-speed rail line. People might ask what the connection is between the Minister of Finance, a budget bill and expropriations. It is true that there is no connection, except that the Minister of Finance has close ties to Alto's senior management. Why did he use his budget bill to help Alto, a company he has close ties to, evict the residents of Terrebonne from their homes?”
“Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, that issue is debatable. The government wants to change the threshold from reasonable grounds to fear to reasonable grounds to suspect. The threshold is being lowered to such an extent that, ultimately, there is hardly any threshold at all. It is important to think about that. We need to be careful. It has been said that the perfect is often the enemy of the good. We will have to see. If we go too far, we might do more harm than good, so we need to look at this carefully.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question gives me the opportunity to say that we are pleased that, with Bill C‑22 , the government has proposed a piece of legislation that is better than Bill C‑2 . I acknowledge that and am grateful for it. However, as I said earlier, just because it is better does not mean it is perfect. That does not even mean that we should spend time studying it in committee. Maybe we should, and maybe we should not. That is something we are currently considering. Unfortunately, I am not in a position to say today whether we will be voting for or against referring it to committee. We will have to decide what position to take in the coming days.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are not that far apart on this issue. We really need to give law enforcement and government agencies the tools they need to adapt to the realities of 2026, 2027 and so on. I agree on that point. However, does that mean that we agree to pass Bill C-22 ? I do not know. As I said at the outset, we are still considering it. There are arguments in favour that are being countered by arguments against, and they all make sense. All of the arguments are reasonable. All of the concerns are, in my opinion, justified. However, the demands and requirements regarding the fight against organized crime are indeed a concern for the Bloc Québécois, and always have been.”
“Mr. Speaker, I must admit that my colleague is raising a concern that I also share, in a number of ways. I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for a number of years now and, all too often, police officers tell us that police services do not all have access to the same information, which significantly impacts their efforts to fight crime. Indeed, information must be shared among the various police services. That is important. We share the same concern about privacy and the measures that should be implemented to regulate these powers. Police services must work together and share information, but it must all be done in accordance with clear and well-defined standards. That is why the work we are doing right now on Bill C‑22 is so important.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Shefford, who always has excellent questions, although they are often tricky. I am not entirely sure if I am answering correctly, but yes, this has to do with the so-called Five Eyes. Canada must not rely solely on information obtained from other countries. We also need to produce information. We also need to take the lead and be able to take action on various issues. Is what is being done elsewhere better than what is being done here in Canada? For some countries, the answer is yes. For others, it is no. That is the challenge we face with Bill C-22. We need to examine it and ask ourselves how far we should go, or not go, to ensure we strike the right balance between protecting privacy and keeping all Quebeckers and Canadians safe.”
“Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I must say that I have doubts about the premise. I share his concern. Bill C‑22 should not be used to embark on a witch hunt and make false claims. However, I do not agree that Bill C‑22 could not ultimately be used to allow individuals or organizations to gain access to our bank accounts. I think that that is already a reality, with or without Bill C‑22. That is already possible. I am concerned about the passage of the bill. Once again, I agree with his statements about how it is important to not vilify Bill C‑22 and engage in a false debate. However, it is also important to not naively close our eyes and let things go.”
“I would also like to hear from the Ethics Commissioner. We will see what he has to say if the bill is referred to committee. The Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service are all institutions that must take a close look at Bill C‑22. While it may be an improvement over, or more acceptable than, Bill C‑2 , Bill C‑22 is nonetheless questionable and troubling. It must be examined thoroughly. I will leave it at that and say that we in the Bloc Québécois are continuing our reflection in the hope that we will be able to find a sound position to take on these serious issues.”
“When we start talking about banking information, emails, and all that, it becomes a cause for concern. Although I believe that law enforcement and government agencies must be given the means to protect us from malicious intrusions by foreign agents or organized crime, or from all kinds of attacks that may be launched against our bank accounts or other assets, and although I believe that the government must take measures to protect us from this, I also believe that the government must take steps to ensure that, in doing so, it does not infringe on our right to privacy. This is the fine and delicate balance we are currently trying to strike: the balance between protecting ourselves from organized crime and foreign interference and protecting ourselves from potentially abusive intrusions into our privacy without any safeguards in place.”
“Everyone is concerned about an Orwellian dictator, even though some say that we reached that point some time ago and that we have to stop being afraid of that. That may be true, but Bill C-22 proposes giving such a dictator even more power, which may alarm many. We need to focus on how we are going to protect individual rights and freedoms. We all know that our lives are already quite public. Almost everyone is on social media in one way or another. These platforms contain a lot of information that would otherwise be personal and confidential. Every individual chooses to post pictures, text or documents on those social networks. They choose that kind of exposure, and that is perfectly fine. I understand that. (1310) Bill C-22 goes even further, however.”
“A veto power might be excessive, but at the very least, the authority to observe, critique and make recommendations would be essential. However, I do not believe that the current version of Bill C-22 offers much hope in this regard. In my view, both the agency and the Intelligence Commissioner, which are essentially the only two independent bodies with the power to reassure the public and protect each individual's rights and freedoms, should be consulted before decisions are made to avoid jeopardizing everyone's rights and freedoms. Personally, I have nothing to hide. However, the idea that the authorities might be able to access my emails or financial information strikes me as intrusive and makes me feel uncomfortable and unsafe. No one is completely comfortable with that level of surveillance.”
“This distinction may seem semantic, but it is actually quite significant, since “reasonable grounds to suspect” represents a significantly lower threshold than “reasonable grounds to believe.” Granting investigative powers based on mere suspicion could amount to a blank check. The threshold for “reasonable grounds to believe” was already relatively low. Lowering it further is cause for concern. If the bill is considered in committee, I look forward to hearing what organizations responsible for protecting rights and freedoms have to say about this. For my part, I find this issue troubling. The Intelligence Commissioner's approval of regulations is also an important factor. However, will the commissioner be allowed to intervene at an early stage?”
“It might be nice to see words like “protection agency” in the bill, but in reality, if this agency is informed of what was done—right or wrong—only after the fact, what can it really do besides say that it would have disagreed had it been consulted? A fat lot of good that will do. It might be a good idea to do the review before things happen, not after. The regulations that will be made should be examined, if not by the House as a whole, then at least by independent agencies responsible for protecting the rights of all citizens. I think these issues deserve to be studied. The bill also sets a threshold of “reasonable grounds to suspect,” rather than “reasonable grounds to believe”, which would need to be met before certain investigations can be authorized.”
“However, when we take a closer look, it is not necessarily clear that Canada is in such a bad position compared to what is being done in the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom or elsewhere in the world. We therefore need to examine this closely. Would Bill C-22 not put us in a position that is abusive—or at the very least excessive—compared to what is being done elsewhere? That may or may not be the case. (1305) One thing is certain: No matter what side of the fine line we stand on, mechanisms for protecting every person's rights and freedoms are vital. In my opinion, Bill C‑22 does not place a high priority on that. The powers conferred on the agency, which I believe are largely cosmetic at this point, require careful examination.”
“I just hope that that is what will actually happen, because if we end up with a majority government that plans to ignore the positions advocated by the opposition parties, then the situation could become very troubling, especially since we have already passed bills such as Bill C-15 , which, in my humble opinion, granted the government excessive powers, and we have before us today Bill C-22, which could be similar in nature. Is it wise to pass Bill C-22? Perhaps, perhaps not. As I was saying, there are some positive aspects. We need to address the issue of access to information. I understand that we need to get up to speed with what is being done elsewhere in the world. That is an argument that has come up a few times.”
“That means that the Bloc member could hold the balance of power in committee and could decide between the Liberals' position and the Conservatives' position. Will this situation continue after tomorrow, once the by-elections are over and we know the results? I do not know. I do not recall whether it was in the news today or yesterday, but I have to say that I was pleased to read that, according to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons , the government would continue to work closely with the opposition, or at least respect the positions taken by the opposition, and that this would continue. I appreciated that openness.”
“I do not want to make any assumptions and no one has a crystal ball, but one thing is certain: The situation of the current government, which until now has been a minority government, could be very different as of tomorrow. What impact will that have on the safeguards that we are working on? Will the government still be as open to their political opponents when they are in a minority situation as it was when they had the upper hand over the government? I do not know. Until now, one committee member, regardless of their party affiliation, could tip the balance one way or the other, since the committees are often, although not always, made up of a Liberal chair, with four Liberals on one side, four Conservatives on the other and a Bloc member.”
“Part 3 stipulates that Bill C-22 must be studied in committee and reviewed after three years. That is good news. The question is whether a review after three years is sufficient, given how quickly these situations evolve. I am not convinced that it is. If Bill C-22 is referred to committee, this is something that will need to be examined. Will the government be open enough to discussing the matter with the opposition parties and agree on a safeguard mechanism that is sufficiently well defined? That is the question. I just want to digress for a moment. Today, by-elections are being held in three ridings, two in Toronto and the other in the riding of Terrebonne, Quebec. What will the results of those by-elections be?”
“In this context, we must keep a watchful eye on the process we are about to implement. I am thinking in particular of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency. That agency is a good thing. However, when I read the bill, I noted that the agency will only receive unredacted reports after the redacted reports are tabled. That means decisions will be made and regulations will be adopted by the government without the House having a say and without the agency, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and all the other organizations that exist to protect people's rights and freedoms being able to look at them. (1300) Will we not end up making matters worse? I am not saying that is the case, but I would say it is one of our main concerns regarding Bill C-22 .”
“Needless to say, we have no idea what will exist in six months or a year. Despite all that, we are about to pass a bill that purports to regulate what will happen in six months, a year or 10 years. It is going to be quite difficult to draft a bill that includes sufficient measures to protect the entire population against various problems. It will also need to include sufficient regulations to protect individuals' right to privacy and all the rights recognized by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In saying all of that, I still have not really said anything; I know that and I am fully aware of it. However, I want everyone to recognize the gravity of the situation, the importance of this bill and our lack of tools in the face of all the objections that are being raised.”
“This weekend, I read a New York Times article that a colleague sent to me about a recently developed software program that can hack into the databases of banks, governments and businesses. This software or AI could be put up for sale and sold to the highest bidder. We learned about this a few weeks ago, and the situation is constantly evolving, day by day. Access to personal information is a major issue. It may well be the most important issue that this honourable House will have to address during the 45th Parliament. However, at this point, there is not a lot of data available to us. As I said, the situation is evolving day by day. What seemed impossible six months ago has now been a reality for months, and we are now grappling with what has existed for just a few weeks.”
“Mr. Speaker, I was rather pleased when I reviewed Bill C-22 , because I think it is better than what was proposed in Bill C-2 last year. However, I am not sure that it meets all of the necessary conditions for it to come into force. It will come as no surprise that the Bloc Québécois is also not sure whether this bill should come into force. Honestly, I cannot tell my colleagues this morning what position the Bloc will take when it comes time to vote. We are still thinking about it and taking into consideration the comments, suggestions and criticisms we are hearing from civil society and others. While many people recognize the merits of many of the provisions of Bill C-22, others are concerned about other aspects of the bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, the government did not simply go to the Supreme Court to challenge a law passed by the Quebec National Assembly. It went there to curtail Quebec's powers within its own areas of jurisdiction. With its fear campaign and talk about slavery and summary execution, this government is attempting a real constitutional coup. If the Liberals want to amend the Constitution to weaken Quebec, then they know the deal. Either they launch a constitutional review, or they respect Quebec's powers. Which will they choose?”
“Mr. Speaker, let us face it. The Liberal Party of Canada is an organization that has something of an influence over the government. However, at its convention, that party proposed to urge the Government of Canada to invoke a veto over any provincial legislation that pre-emptively uses the notwithstanding clause. That ultimately constitutes veto power over the sovereignty of the Quebec National Assembly. I would like to know whether the government is in favour of that proposal.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is written in black and white: “...that the Liberal Party of Canada urge the Government of Canada to: Invoke disallowance on any Provincial legislation that proactively invokes the Notwithstanding clause before court challenges are exhausted”. That is what they want, but they are trying to get the Supreme Court to do their dirty work for them. If the Liberals want to change the Constitution, then they should reopen it. Will they have the courage to do that instead of hiding behind the courts?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals keep saying that they will not comment on the Supreme Court's proceedings regarding Bill 21 and the notwithstanding clause. However, they are holding a convention in Montreal the weekend before the election in the riding of Terrebonne, and the first proposal they will be debating is whether to give the federal government veto power over all provincial legislation that invokes the notwithstanding clause before court challenges are exhausted. That is the first item on their agenda. The Liberals may not be willing to comment on the court's proceedings, but they will have to vote on this proposal. How are they going to vote?”
“Unfortunately, it seems I have been disagreeing with them more often lately. However, I cannot deny that they work hard. I urge them to channel that energy into moving important issues forward. There is so much in the Criminal Code that should be reviewed. (1830) For goodness’ sake, we need to acknowledge the situation, accept the Supreme Court’s rulings and move forward. Let us focus on what needs to be addressed and what can be changed, rather than spinning our wheels.”
“We will devote who knows how many meetings, maybe two, three, five or even ten, to studying how we might best get this bill passed, even though we already know that the Supreme Court told us not long ago that such a measure would be unconstitutional. Once again, this is yet another misuse of House of Commons resources and of our judicial system. It is disrespectful to the authority of the Supreme Court, and it runs counter to the interests of society, which would greatly benefit from the effective rehabilitation of individuals who have committed crimes. That was brief, but it sums up my thoughts. My colleagues have likely realized that we will be voting against Bill C-235. I know that my Conservative colleagues are working hard. I see the work they do on the justice committee. I do not always agree with them, but sometimes I do.”
“I invite our Conservative colleagues to reread these decisions carefully and help us move forward more effectively. We also believe in making efficient use of House of Commons infrastructure. We have a lot of legislation to pass. I have been a member of the justice committee for a few years now, if not more, and we never manage to get through all the matters that we need to review. We are currently working on Bill C-16 , but there are other bills scheduled to come forward and we need to conduct a study on the judicial appointment process. We are going to be swamped, and we will certainly not have looked at everything by the end of this Parliament. What are we going to do about Bill C‑235?”
“When that person is released on parole, there will be conditions, of course, and they will not be completely free. If they do not comply with the conditions, that person will go back to jail. What the Supreme Court has said is that parole applications can be considered after 25 years. I do not know where our Conservative colleagues are going with this Harper-era throwback, but I feel that it is a bit of a waste of time. We believe in rehabilitation, we believe in an effective court system and we also believe in the authority of the Supreme Court. We cannot keep asking the Supreme Court to review the same cases over and over again. It makes no sense, and it shows a lack of respect for the Supreme Court's authority. I think we need to take note of these decisions and act accordingly.”
“Keeping them in prison for 40 years and then releasing them will not better serve the interests of justice or public safety. We must invest in building rehabilitation systems rather than prison walls. The Bloc Québécois also believes in an effective court system that is not bogged down by slow administration of justice, resulting in decisions and rulings that will eventually be overturned by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is not a small claims court. This was attempted in the Bissonnette case, as members may recall, and the Supreme Court ruled that cumulative prison sentences of more than 40 years are unacceptable and unconstitutional. It should be noted that, when someone is sentenced to life in prison, they are sentenced.”
“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-235 comes as a bit of a surprise. The Supreme Court of Canada told us just a few years ago that keeping people in prison for 40 years is unconstitutional. Prime Minister Stephen Harper was told that and today we are back here with a bill that deals with pretty much the same issue. I do not know what to say about it. I am afraid we are wasting our time. In any case, the Bloc Québécois believes in rehabilitation. We do not believe that everyone will be rehabilitated, nor do we believe that it happens automatically, but we do believe that we must invest in rehabilitation. We believe that when someone commits a crime, no matter how serious, we must at least attempt to rehabilitate them before returning them to society.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are discussing the auto pact. However, in this day and age, we are more concerned with the issue of air pollution to start, and with the fact that we are facing an oil shortage. We will eventually run out completely. We are currently experiencing supply issues for reasons we are all aware of. Is it not time to acknowledge the situation, turn to green energy and focus on producing electric vehicles that are entirely manufactured here in Canada?”
“Mr. Speaker, Quebec and three provinces want to select their own judges because Ottawa's process has a red tinge. People will remember the “Liberalist”, the partisan tool that helped Liberals identify other Liberals to appoint. Among the judges who had been political party donors, 76% were Liberals. In 2019, five of the six judges appointed in New Brunswick were a Liberal minister's neighbour, the wife of his brother-in-law, and three donors. Will the government include Quebec and interested provinces in an impartial process?”
“Mr. Speaker, three provinces are joining Quebec in calling for more power over judicial appointments. Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan all want superior court judges to be chosen from their own list of candidates. They also want to have a say in who sits on the Supreme Court. Quebec and the provinces are fed up with seeing the Prime Minister 's inner circle meddle in judicial appointments to reward Liberals. Will this government finally listen to their demands?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are attacking secularism by challenging Bill 21 before the Supreme Court. However, they go a lot further when they talk about limiting the use of the notwithstanding clause. They want veto power over Quebec's laws. Quebec's democracy would be subject to the whims of elected officials and judges from English Canada. The notwithstanding clause was the compromise that made the charter's enactment in 1982 possible. Without the notwithstanding cause, there would be no charter. Will today's Liberals do the right thing and honour the compromise signed by the Liberals in 1982?”
“No matter the reason, promoting hatred is unacceptable, regardless of the person's race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. The member for Mirabel always makes valid points. I could not agree with him more. There was a time when that was happening in Quebec. Religion had a hold on the state. We have heard stories of situations where priests were telling families that they did not have enough children and that they had to have more. There was a lot of interference that did not make any sense. We do not want any of that today. We did everything we could to prevent that sort of thing, including removing religion from the laws of the state. Under the Criminal Code, it is illegal to promote hatred, but if a person were to do so based on the Torah, the Koran, the Bible or any other religious text, then it is acceptable. We are saying no to that.”
“After that, we hear long speeches from MPs from one party or another who will sit around the table and talk for days on end with the sole aim of preventing us from passing laws. Yes, the result is that, at times, we do not get as much work done as we would have liked. I agree with my colleague. I invite him to discuss this with his whip.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is true that there are aspects we did not have time to consider. Like I said at the outset, that is regrettable but, unfortunately, it is what it is. There is a legal maxim that delaying justice is often tantamount to denying justice. I would say it is much the same in Parliament. Delaying the passage of laws is tantamount to failing to pass them at all, which is unfortunate. If there were fewer delaying tactics in committee, if there were less obstruction, we might have time to hear from more witnesses and experts on various issues. Unfortunately, witnesses—who are often victims—come and tell us that these situations are untenable. I fully agree with them, but that does not allow us to pass laws.”
“Mr. Speaker, as I have often said in the House, in committee and even in private, I have a very hard time accepting filibustering. I used to work in a sector where people try to be effective and where the challenges are enormous. I do not think that the challenges facing parliamentarians are any less significant. The challenges are significant, considering that we adopt rules that apply to the entire population. I get extremely annoyed when I see time being wasted simply to block the passage of a law that someone may not like. I am not saying that filibustering is limited to the Conservatives. The Liberals have done it before and I am sure they will do it again. Filibustering is present in Parliament and I have learned to put up with it, but do not ask me to condone it. I find it appalling. We need to debate and pass legislation.”