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 5 of 11.
“The federal government said no and insisted that it was in the right, that the land was not worth anything more. There were debates, it ended up in court, and then people were finally compensated with amounts that, as members might expect, were not enough to buy a comparable property or house. It was nowhere near enough. That was in 1969. In 1985, the federal government said that it believed it had made a mistake and taken too much land. It then decided to give the land back. That is what was announced, but the land was not actually returned. It was resold. People were told that their land was being given back to them, but that they would have to pay for it. Obviously, people did not have the money for that. The compensation they had received 15 years earlier was not enough.”
“That area is equivalent to 74 football fields, each measuring 57,600 square feet. That is pretty big. In 1969, Pierre Elliott Trudeau told the people of Mirabel that he was sorry, but that he needed their land because it was in the public interest. Some people cried, as our colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles said earlier, and some children cried when they saw their parents crying. It was tragic. These people were farming and received a notice in the mail saying that the land was no longer theirs. The government said it was sorry, but explained that Mr. Trudeau had decided to take their land. I will spare my colleagues the details of the legal saga that ensued. Obviously, most of the people contested the expropriation notices.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by stating that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Abitibi-Témiscamingue . To begin, I would like to reassure everyone. I know that some Bloc members have already said this, but I will say it too: We are happy about the high-speed rail line. Is that clear now? We have been asking for it for several years, we have hoped for it, we have defended it. Now that it is here, we are happy to have it. That said, I want to quickly review some history. In 1969, Pierre Elliott Trudeau's federal government decided to expropriate a total of 97,000 acres to build Mirabel airport. I should say that I had no idea how big 97,000 acres was, but I checked, and it is 4,268,000 square feet. I had a little trouble visualizing that too, so I did the math.”
“Mr. Speaker, our colleague told us that she experienced trauma, that her father brought her to see some of the properties and so on. She also seems very compassionate. I would therefore like to remind her that respect was also expected in 1969. I would ask her to finish her speech. Will she apologize on her government's behalf for what happened in 1969? Will she promise not to repeat the same thing again? Otherwise, all that is just hot air.”
“Mr. Speaker, I understand that my colleague thinks it is very important to pass these bills, which will help make our streets safer. I am referring to Bill C-9 , Bill C-14 and Bill C-16 . I would like to ask him whether we can count on him and his colleagues to stop obstructing our work at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and allow us to adopt these three bills quickly, because we have a lot of work to do and a lot on our plates.”
“Mr. Speaker, I wonder what my colleague thinks about the part of Bill C‑16 that says the government will address the issue of criminal organizations that recruit minors to commit crimes. I have already suggested in committee that a person who recruits a minor to commit a crime should get double the sentence they would have faced if they had committed the crime themselves. Bill C‑16 proposes a way to address this issue, but it provides for a minimum sentence of five years, I believe. This approach seems a bit weak to me. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. Should we not be tougher on people who recruit minors to commit crimes for the benefit of criminal organizations?”
“My question for my colleague is this: Can he guarantee that the Conservative Party will act in good faith, that all filibustering at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will cease at once, and that the Conservatives will agree to work with us? They will vote as they see fit, for or against, but will they agree to work together rather than prevent the committee from functioning?”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that he tried on 19 separate occasions to work on Bill C-14 on bail. With all due respect to my colleague, who usually works in good faith, I find that comment disingenuous. On the 19 occasions in question, the request was to stop our study of Bill C-9 , which deals with hate. I know because I was there. The Conservatives did not want us to continue working on the bill dealing with hate because they wanted us to focus on Bill C-14. However, the role of a committee is to study all bills and vote on each one. This is true for Bill C-9, just as it is true for Bill C-14 and Bill C-16.”
“We can reinstate them but allow judges to deviate from the minimum in exceptional circumstances. However, they would not be ignoring them, as my colleague said earlier. This option would require the court to justify why the case is exceptional and deserves an exemption from the minimum sentence. With all due respect, I think this is an interesting middle ground. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on this. Between that option and minimum sentences, which we know the Supreme Court will disallow, does it not make more sense to opt for an arrangement like this?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. I have a great deal of respect for him. He does excellent work on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and is a respectable and intelligent man. I understand his criticism of minimum sentences. As our Liberal colleague said a few moments ago, the Supreme Court has struck them down, and so we are left with two options. The first option is to reinstate the same minimum sentences that the Supreme Court struck down—obviously, doing the same thing will lead to the same result, and they will be struck down again. The second option is to not impose any minimum sentences at all. That would not make our Conservative colleagues very happy, which I understand. However, there is a middle ground.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I agree with him: The provinces have an important role to play, as does Quebec. The problem that I was raising is that Quebec and the provinces do not have any money. People send money to the federal government, and the federal government says that it will send it back to the provinces, but with conditions, and that does not suit anyone. We fight for months and years, and nothing gets done on the ground. If we resolve the issue of funding for the justice system, then a lot of the problems will be solved.”
“However, we must never lose sight of the fact that these are temporary proposals meant to last only until we really manage to get the problem under control and until it never again takes longer than 18 or 30 months to hold a trial anywhere in Quebec or Canada.”
“It is also obvious that justice is not quite as compelling. The government is going to put money into roads, schools and hospitals first. I would never blame anyone for that. However, we are going to have to tackle the justice problem, because if we cannot administer justice within a reasonable time frame, people are going to get fed up and take action in a way that no one here would want to see happen. Bill C-16 and its time calculation method will help for a while, yes. I certainly hope so. Deviating from the time limits set for serious crimes is what we proposed, and I still agree.”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Mirabel. I also really enjoy working with him. He is a brilliant man who excels at numbers, which is not my forte. I agree with him on that point. I also believe that, despite Bill C-16 , this is not going to succeed in the short or medium term. Again, we can lie to ourselves and pass 300 bills on the issue, but the only way to resolve the problem of trials being held within a reasonable time frame is to ensure proper funding. We see the current state of our roads and it is appalling. We wait in our hospitals endlessly, from 24 to 48 hours in the emergency room, just to be seen. Children in schools have next to no services, because we lack the funds to hire specialized staff. When the government passes a budget, that obviously comes first.”
“We have to be honest with ourselves. There is only one way to fix the backlog problem. It will take judges, rooms and staff, and all of that costs money. The federal government also needs to appoint judges. When it comes to appointments, there have been good times and not-so-good times. I invite my colleague, the Minister of Justice , to work to ensure that judicial vacancies are filled within a reasonable time as well. I do not know whether the backlog is one, three or six months, but it needs to be addressed as fast as possible. That is how we are going to fight the backlog problem. In the meantime, holes need to be plugged. We have to make sure that high-profile criminals are not released at the expense of public safety and against all common sense. The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-16 .”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I, too, greatly enjoyed serving with him on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. He is a gentleman, an intelligent one, and it is always a pleasure to have discussions with him. Yes, we agree on the proposal set out in Bill C-16 regarding the issue of reasonable time limits. As I said earlier, we were approaching this issue differently until the courts were able to take action. It takes money, courthouses, courtrooms, judges, bailiffs, clerks. It requires a lot of money that Quebec does not have, and neither do the Canadian provinces. Everyone is facing budget constraints. Money will have to be found. I suggested to my previous colleague that money be put into education to address these issues upstream. I think that is important. There is also the matter of backlogs.”
“We need to work on education, help our young people learn to accept differences and encourage them to participate in discussions and mediation. We must restore harmony in our schools. We are talking about simple things like speaking to and treating others with respect. We need to work hard on that. That is a provincial responsibility, not a federal one, but the federal government can play a role by providing funding, releasing money for Quebec and the provinces so that they can effectively address these issues, which lead to the problems that we are trying to resolve here by amending the Criminal Code.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and comments. As I said, I support this bill, but it needs to be reworked. There are things that can and must be amended. I agree with him about deepfakes. This is a serious issue that also needs to be addressed. It is a new problem, a problem that society has in 2026, and we need to address it. That said, I do not want us to lose sight of reality. The government has certain responsibilities. The House will assume its responsibilities. I hope that we can do so because, as I said earlier, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is dealing with filibustering. I hope that we can put an end to that and quickly pass these bills. We also need to ensure that the provinces have the necessary resources to tackle this problem at its source.”
“The Supreme Court established what a reasonable time frame is, but the concept of a reasonable time is in the charter. We therefore proposed using the notwithstanding clause for specific crimes that are more serious. The minister rejected our suggestion and said that, instead, delays would be calculated based on factors that might not always be taken into account, such as case complexity and other things. My time is up, but I would like to close by saying that I welcome this proposal in Bill C-16 . We will discuss it and try to find ways to ensure that the entire population of Quebec, the provinces and Canada can be proud of our work and feel safe in our society.”
“Now it counts as two-thirds. In any case, that may suit the offender. However, let us imagine that an individual is charged with a crime they did not commit and that, at the end of the trial, they are found not guilty and thus acquitted. That individual could have had to wait three or four years, for example, before being found not guilty. That makes no sense either. It makes no sense for the victims, it makes no sense for the accused and it makes no sense for society. We need to work towards being more effective. The Bloc Québécois proposed deviating from the reasonable time frame by using the notwithstanding clause, which allows us to override the charter. We must not forget that being tried within a reasonable time is a charter right.”
“There needs to be enough time to hold a trial, hear witnesses, gather all the evidence and render a fair and reasonable decision. However, that needs to happen within a fair and reasonable time frame. When the victim of a crime sees the trial against their assailant drag on for three, four or five years, at some point, they have the right to say that justice has not been served. They have the right to say that, whatever the decision may be, it is not justice. Decisions must be handed down within a much more reasonable time frame. Individuals accused of a crime that they have actually committed and who are likely to be found guilty do not mind so much if the trial takes time, especially since, if they are detained during that period, that time will count towards their sentence. It used to count as double the time.”
“However, we need to work on it and I am really pleased to see that the minister is addressing this problem. Then there is the issue of unreasonable delay. As we know, trials often used to take far too long. Eventually, the Supreme Court decided to put an end to the delays with the infamous Jordan decision. It ruled that a trial before the Quebec court must be held within 18 months and that a trial before a superior court must be held within 30 months. These standards were established by the Supreme Court, and they make sense. I will be the first to agree with those time limits. I think we owe it to both the victim and the criminal to resolve the question of guilt within a relatively short period of time, without being overly hasty. No one wants to charge someone with a crime and hang them the following week.”
“The court will be able to make an exception if the minimum sentence would amount to cruel and unusual punishment. The concept of cruel and unusual punishment already exists, and now it is going to be applied to exceptions to mandatory minimum sentences. I certainly welcome that. (1320) We will see how things go in committee. I will very likely have some amendments to suggest there as well. We will see what our Conservative and Liberal colleagues have to say because I think that, when there are good discussions at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the light often shines through. Perhaps after hearing from other witnesses and from our colleagues, we will come up with other solutions or approaches, and that will be a good thing. We will see.”
“I asked her if we could set minimum sentences in situations where we think it would be a useful way to send a clear message to criminals that this is unacceptable, while allowing the judges and courts hearing the evidence to deviate from the minimum sentences in certain cases, but only in special circumstances that warrant such an exception. This forces the court to defend its decision. If it deviates from a minimum sentence of five or 10 years, for example, it must give its reasons. In a few paragraphs or even a few pages, it has to explain why the minimum sentence is inappropriate in that specific case. I am very happy to report that the minister chose to go that route. The provision in the bill is is not exactly what I had suggested, but I think it is a good approach.”
“The minimum sentences provided for in the Criminal Code can have an impact. I proposed an idea that I heard from an expert witness I had asked to appear at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights two or three years ago. She was a university professor, and I had asked her a question. As we have seen, the Supreme Court prohibited or overturned the minimum sentences imposed by the Conservatives when they were in power. The Liberals abolished them, and rightly so, since the Supreme Court had told them to do so. Now, the government wants to reinstate them. I asked this expert whether there was a middle ground, a compromise between the two.”
“The Bloc Québécois stands with the minister in this fight, and we may propose even tougher penalties, as I said. There is the issue of minimum prison sentences, which is a whole saga. I cannot speak to what happened before, but for the 10 years I have been here, I have seen a kind of conflict of values or vision raging between the Liberals and the Conservatives. Liberals are in favour of releasing people accused of criminal offences at the earliest opportunity. I tend to agree with that approach. However, Conservatives argue the opposite, saying that the accused should be kept in custody until their trial, after which their guilt or innocence will be determined. I do not entirely agree with that. Yes, we need to make our streets safer. Something needs to be done to make people feel safer on the streets of Quebec and Canada.”
“They are told not to worry if they get caught, because sentences for minors are less severe than adult sentences. Criminals do not have to face the consequences of the crimes they want to commit because they get young people under the age of 18 to commit them for them. It is despicable and unacceptable. We need to crack down on this. I suggested to the minister that individuals who recruit young people to commit crimes should face double the sentence that would have been imposed if they had committed the crime themselves. The penalties must be severe. The bill does not go that far; the maximum sentence is five years. We will discuss this in committee. I may have some amendments to propose, but we are moving in the right direction. We must fight this problem.”
“That is a major problem and another issue. Bill C-16 could have been split up into several bills. Our Conservative colleague said that it could have been split. I agree to some extent, but we need to act quickly. We need to address these problems. We have already discussed them at length a number of times. It is time to act. I applaud the minister 's decision to take action on these issues. The recruitment of individuals under the age of 18 was still being discussed last year. I have raised this issue with the minister on a number of occasions. We have seen cases of 13- or 14-year-olds, sometimes kids even younger, being recruited by criminal organizations to commit crimes. They are told that they can earn money easily, simply by committing a certain crime or doing a certain thing, and they will get paid.”
“It had to be proven that the victim had really been afraid or that she had not been afraid but had thought afterwards that she could have been afraid. Victims were subjected to lengthy cross-examination in an attempt to cast doubt on their fears. (1315) I think that it is practically indecent to do that to a victim of a behaviour that can be likened to criminal harassment. I think there needs to be more compassion for victims. Under Bill C-16 , if the conduct of the individual in question can reasonably be interpreted as harassment or if it could cause the victim to believe that their safety or that of someone known to them is threatened, this constitutes evidence of criminal harassment. In our opinion, this is also good news, and we will fully support this provision. There is also the issue of recruiting people under the age of 18.”
“Bill C-16 indicates that these crimes will be treated as first-degree murder. That is good news. If a person kills his partner because he has been controlling her for months or years and feels like he is going to lose that control because she wants to break up, for example, I think we can easily equate that with premeditation and consider it first-degree murder. I welcome this measure, and the Bloc Québécois as a whole welcomes this provision. There is also the question of the definition of harassment. Previously, in order for harassment to be considered criminal harassment, it had to be proven that the victim subjectively feared for their safety. Obviously, this led to lengthy questioning and cross-examination of victims.”
“When we look at Facebook and similar sites on our phones and we see these short videos, we get really scared, but I found out that half of these videos, if not more, are fake. They are edited. If these videos can influence me and rile me up, imagine how a six-year-old girl, a 12-year-old boy or an eight-year-old boy feels watching these videos. It can have a significant influence on them and, unfortunately, it is often a negative one. This bill would prohibit the distribution of not only intimate images but also visual representations showing an identifiable person depicted as nude. These are important measures in Bill C‑16. There are also all sorts of other measures that focus on control. I would like to return to the issue of femicide. We need to crack down on femicide.”
“She told me that the way children relate to each other in the classroom and on the playground changed over the course of her career. I can say that in 2026, things are no longer the way they were in 1980 or even in 1960. Relationships are much more complex. Social media is now an integral part of children's daily, even hourly, lives. Kids are suggestible, and they experience the repercussions, both good and bad, of this vast communication network that they access on their phones. They are being influenced. We have worked long and hard on legislation to control what circulates on the Internet. That work will have to continue. Bill C-16 proposes measures to protect intimate images, including visual representations, which are also a new phenomenon.”
“Now, there are other situations where people kill their female partners. This is often due in large part to a history of controlling and coercive conduct toward their partner. The individual feels like he is going to lose that power, so he kills her in a fit of anger, or for some other reason. That is not acceptable either. We need to address both of these behaviours. Bill C-16 will create clear, significant criminal provisions. However, there is also a problem, or at least a challenge, with regard to education in our societies. My wife was a teacher for her entire career. People who see my grey hair will probably assume that she is retired, and they are right. However, she still has many years of experience.”
“We will have to agree on a definition of what constitutes femicide. Dictionaries offer a definition that goes something like this: a crime committed against a woman for the sole reason that she is a woman. That obviously makes no sense. (1310) Evidently, we are in favour of fighting against such a backward and narrow-minded attitude, which should in no way be tolerated in our society. There is also the other definition of femicide, which encompasses all crimes against women. Obviously, the problem can be quite different. I have no solution to propose. I am just saying that we should consider calling a spade a spade. I am thinking of the Polytechnique tragedy, which happened a long time ago. Someone walked into a classroom and killed women who were strangers to him simply because they were women. In my opinion, this is clearly a femicide.”
“This cannot be tolerated in a free and democratic society. I do not want to repeat what has already been said many times over the past few years on this issue, but I think it is high time that we exert a measure of control over this problem, that we criminalize this behaviour and deal with it as much as possible. Obviously, some of the work will have to be done by the executive branch and police forces. Provincial parliaments, such as the National Assembly in Quebec City, will all have to address these problems. The federal government can still send a clear message by amending the Criminal Code. I am therefore very pleased to see that this issue is being addressed again. Bloc Québécois members agree that this is important, and we will support the bill. There is also the issue of femicide.”
“Quebeckers and Canadians, all our constituents, are asking us to do so, and they have a right to expect serious and diligent work on our part. When it comes to controlling and coercive behaviour, we know that society is changing. It is changing for the better in many ways, but this also brings a number of new challenges. Intimate partner relationships have evolved over time for all sorts of reasons. I am not a sociologist, so I will not attempt to explain all the changes in society. In any case, this issue has evolved, and today we are seeing an increase in cases where one partner in a relationship exercises control over the other to the point of not only violating the other person's rights and freedoms, but also undermining their security and peace of mind, and sometimes even threatening their physical safety.”
“Bill C-16 is what we might call a sweeping bill. If memory serves, I think it is 166 pages long and covers a wide range of topics. We have identified some that I think deserve the attention of the House. To begin, the issue of coercive or controlling conduct has previously been the subject of a number of bills that, regrettably, were unsuccessful for all sorts of good or bad reasons. The most recent one died on the Order Paper last spring because of the elections in April 2025 before it could be passed in the Senate, where it went after being passed here in the House of Commons. Now the government has come back with a bill that addresses this issue. I hope that this time, despite our Conservative colleagues' delay tactics at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, we will be able to get to work and pass this bill.”
“They are being held up because our Conservative colleagues, who say that we need to pick up the pace, are actually slowing things down in committee. I feel like picking up on what my colleague was saying in his speech: We need to put our money where our mouth is, or at least, set the rhetoric aside for a moment. We need action. I want to see my Conservative colleagues take action because I want to see Bill C-9 and Bill C-14 pass. I think that Bill C-16 , which we are studying today, is just as important as the other two. I want to begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois will support passing Bill C-16 here at second reading so that we can study it in committee and pass it as quickly as possible. That is why our voters elected us, regardless of our party affiliation, and that is what the Bloc Québécois wants us to do.”
“Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to speak to this important bill today. I am torn between being happy and surprised by the speech by the colleague who spoke before me. He does remarkable work in many ways at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Unfortunately, our Conservative colleagues have been slowing down the committee's work for months by filibustering Bill C-9 . They are against Bill C-9 . We understand that and that is their right, but we still need to keep moving forward. They are holding up the work on Bill C-14 . They are also holding up the work that we need to do on Bill C-16 . These are three important bills and there are more. The committee is rather spoiled this year to have three major pieces of government legislation.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have heard rumours about dissent among the Liberals regarding the religious exemption in Bill C-9 . I would like my colleague to tell me how many members of her caucus believe that we must protect the religious exemption defence for the offence of promoting hatred and the offence of promoting anti-Semitism.”
“Mr. Speaker, I just want to be clear. I agree with him that the adjournment of last week's meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights was deplorable. Am I to understand that if the committee meets tomorrow evening or Thursday evening, my Conservative colleagues will not filibuster? Is that a promise?”
“Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights were set to vote on repealing the religious exemption. However, the Liberals cancelled the committee meeting, and it looks like they are going to cancel it again tomorrow and Thursday. The Liberals are walking away from their agreement with the Bloc Québécois and turning their backs on Quebeckers. They are giving up on Bill C‑9 . The Prime Minister rebuked his justice minister for siding with Quebec over the religious right. The Liberals' chief concern is combatting hate, but that is falling by the wayside. How can the Liberals justify this about-face after so many broken promises?”
“Mr. Speaker, we knew that the Conservatives would side with extremist preachers, since they are the official party of the religious right, but it is appalling to see the Liberals abandon Quebeckers, Canadians, and their fundamental principles. I am talking about principles such as equality before the law when it comes to crime, equality between men and women, the rights of sexual minorities, upholding social peace, and so on. On all of these issues, they are bowing down to the various religious right-wing groups. Will they stand up, come to their senses and immediately convene the Standing Committee on Justice so that we can finally abolish the religious exemption defence?”
“Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that that is indeed the case. We had an agreement regarding these provisions, regarding our amendment. I can also confirm that I, too, deplore this lack of courage that resulted in the cancellation of yesterday's meeting. I urge the Minister of Justice and our colleagues on the committee to come to their senses and convene the committee so that we can work on these provisions and pass Bill C-9 as early as next week.”
“I am not going to have those lawyers argue in court for two or three years all the way up to the Supreme Court, just for them to be told something that we already know. That is the problem with the religious exemption. It is not the acquittals that we are worried about. It is the fact that prosecutors do not even want to try to bring charges when they should because they know they cannot win.”
“Mr. Speaker, Adil Charkaoui's comments last year are indeed a good example, and no, I obviously do not have any proof that he was not charged because of the Criminal Code or the content of the Criminal Code. What I am saying is that such provisions may not necessarily lead to acquittals, but they do lead Crown prosecutors to be more cautious in their approach. Let us say that I am a Crown prosecutor and I have to send the lawyers from my office to work on a case. When I read the indictment, I see that there is an easy defence for the person we want to prosecute, because the Criminal Code says that people have the right to engage in this type of speech if they do so based on a religious text.”
“We have the same thing in Quebec. We have our legislative provisions, including our Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. We agree on that, but it must be interpreted in a reasonable way based on the context.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleague that the Bloc Québécois understands these provisions as they are written, and as everyone should read and understand them, I think, although we do recognize that the courts interpret these provisions broadly and frequently. These are important provisions. We all agree on the importance of freedom of expression and freedom of religion. However, we know that freedom of expression and all such freedoms have limits, without which there would be chaos. I am free to protest and say what I think, but if I tell someone to do something illegal, for example if I advise them to kill their wife because they learned that she has slept with the neighbour, that is incitement to violence and has no place in a society that claims to be peaceful. We agree with everything that is there.”
“No, we do not approve of that. It makes no sense to us. It has no place in the Criminal Code. We are asking that it be purged from our laws. I am asking for it, the Bloc Québécois is asking for it and roughly 75% of Quebeckers are asking for it. I cannot remember the exact figures, but I believe that over 55% of the Canadian population is asking for it. I can confirm what was said earlier. The Bloc Québécois had reached an agreement with Liberal Party representatives, including the Minister of Justice , to have these provisions stricken from the Criminal Code. I hope that we will be able to do so. I hope that we can get that wrapped up before Christmas and shake hands in peace and love before leaving for the holiday break, safe in the knowledge that people will be able to continue living in peace in both Quebec and Canada.”
“Religious wars were once fought by valiant soldiers and people who were fighting for their belief systems, points of view and religions. While that made a lot of sense at the time, it no longer makes sense today. I hope that neither I nor my children and grandchildren will ever live through religious wars. All that is history, but it is something we should draw on for inspiration. The general principles are good. Seeking peace and love and promoting them is a good thing. However, the words in those texts were written 3,000 years ago by an unknown individual who was laying out their view of religion. Today, some people are taking the message literally and using these words not to spread lofty principles of love, peace and togetherness, but to say that religious wars were acceptable and would be worth starting again.”