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 6 of 11.
“I still have the right to practise a faith and to take inspiration from those texts. The three texts I am referring to and many other similar texts are full of grand principles and wisdom that we could learn from. Religions are normally a good thing. We can take inspiration from them, both for making laws and for living in society. However, they should not be taken at face value. Life is very different today from what it was 3,000 years ago. I am sorry, but I do not approve of stoning women for adultery. If I was ever in favour of that in another life—if in fact I had another life—it is clear to me that this is totally wrong today in 2025. I have a lot of respect for Abraham, who was willing to sacrifice his son for God, but I would not sacrifice my own children for any religious belief.”
“If a person's religion demands that they hate and spread hate, that will not work in Canada. I have a lot of respect for individuals, but that will not work. It will not work in Quebec, and from what I know, it will not work in Canada either. We do not condone that. Individuals are free to change their religion, practise it elsewhere or set aside certain beliefs, but no one in either Quebec or Canada has the right to spread hate or incite hatred. It is prohibited, irrespective of whether the person is relying on a religious text, a philosophical text or anything else, and this should not change. Allowing the spread of hate for any reason whatsoever is at odds with our legal system. That said, I still have the right to read the Bible, the Torah and the Quran.”
“Yes, but contrary to what I have heard and what I often hear, this does not mean that people will no longer be able to read the Bible, the Torah, the Quran or any other religious text. People will still be able to read these texts. People will still be able to practise whatever faith they choose, where they choose and as they see fit, which is great. That is freedom, and we support that. Section 319 of the Criminal Code does not say that people are free to read the Quran, the Bible, the Torah or any other texts. Section 319 says spreading hate is prohibited. That is what section 319 is all about. The part we want to repeal states that spreading hate is allowed if it is based on a religious text someone believes in. We are saying that that is not okay.”
“We are being pressured by people who say one particular bill is great and another is not. That is normal. We have to stay the course despite that pressure or we are not worthy of captaining the ship. We represent people who expect us to take action. I like the idea of travelling around Canada, but I would be happy to do that next summer, during my time off. For the time being, we are here to work, and Bill C‑9 is an important bill that deserves to be voted on and passed as quickly as possible. (1155) Once again, religious pressure is the only explanation I have been given on that subject. As my esteemed Conservative colleague asked earlier, does this mean that we really want to remove the religious exemption from the Criminal Code?”
“I find all this rather disappointing. I have Conservative colleagues whom I respect greatly, and I am sure they want us to work and move forward. However, there is something childish about all this. We have to face up to the situation. There is pressure from religious groups, that is true. My assistant called me half an hour before I entered the House. My constituency office received over 100 calls this morning from organizations and individuals telling us that Bill C-9 is very frightening and that we must vote against it. I am not alone. I am sure that there are other parliamentarians in the House experiencing the same thing. This adds pressure. It is not fun to be under pressure. However, there is an expression that I often hear in English: “If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen”. Our job is to make laws.”
“We can hear from as many witnesses and read as many briefs as we like, but at some point, we are going to have to move forward. We cannot sit and listen to people endlessly without ever taking action. Our job in this House is to be parliamentarians and to make laws. The government tabled Bill C‑9. At the outset, I was not in agreement with it. I said as much to the minister. Amendments were put forward. He did not agree. We discussed it and we came to an agreement on a certain number of things that we brought forward at committee and that we hope will be finalized before the holidays. Instead, however, we are being told that we are starting over. We are going to go back to hearing from witnesses, and this time, we are going to go travelling around to make sure it takes as long as possible. Personally, I am not on board.”
“The Conservative motion we are debating today asks that the committee be allowed to travel throughout Canada to hear testimony from interested parties. We are not against democracy, obviously. Listening to people tell us what they think of a bill is a good thing. However, travelling around is not the only way to get a viewpoint across. Committee travel is one thing, but having witnesses travel is another thing altogether. So far, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has received some 30 witnesses. They have come to give testimony and express their viewpoints on Bill C‑9. We have also received around 40 briefs on this bill from various groups, individuals and experts. I think the work has been done. Could we hear from more witnesses? Of course.”
“As my colleague from Drummond said, we do not really know what to think of them anymore. I need someone to tell me whether the Liberals are actually afraid of religious lobbies. Is that why they are refusing to rid the Criminal Code of a provision that allows people to spread hate and incite hate as long as it is based on a religious text? That would be crazy. If that is really their position, they should say so clearly. I do not think that is their position. It is not what I heard from the Minister of Justice . It is not what I am hearing from the Liberals I speak to. However, it seems to me that, on this matter, we keep taking one step forward and two steps back, and it is not only this week; it has been like that for years.”
“Madam Speaker, I would first like to inform you that I will be sharing my speaking time with the member for Drummond . That said, I too am having a hard time following my Liberal colleague from Winnipeg North . He is saying that there is some sort of agreement between the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois to not sit. Well, wait a minute. I was here yesterday. I was prepared to work until midnight. I am prepared to do so again tonight. What we asked, and I personally asked both the minister and the Liberal representative on the committee, was for Bill C‑9 to be passed before Christmas. It could not be any clearer than that. When I hear the member say that the Bloc Québécois is against this, I say, “Wait a minute, that is not right”. Now, what is the Liberals' real position?”
“Mr. Chair, I wonder what my colleague thinks about her party's position. It has encouraged the electric vehicle industry for many years and then the new Liberal government abandoned it just a few weeks ago. This has caused major problems for the automotive industry and for electric vehicle owners. I own one myself. The situation is not getting any easier. It takes a long time to recharge, and owners have to search for charging stations. Now they are saying there will be fewer electric vehicles. The fewer there are, the fewer resources there will be to recharge them. This is going to cause problems for everyone. My colleague's government did this. It promised electric vehicles for 2030 and then reversed its decision. It announced subsidies and then abolished them. What does my colleague think about that?”
“The company shut down and then reopened. The new Liberal government had said it was going to focus on this, but it recently announced that it was cutting subsidies and that the idea of complete electrification by 2030 was over. The government is taking one step forward, one step back. I would like to ask my colleague this: How much does it cost to keep taking one step forward and one step back? In addition to the companies that are being forced to shut down, how much are the government's spending choices costing the people of Quebec and Canada?”
“Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech. He was perfectly on point, as usual. He has a good understanding and a good grasp of his files. I am hearing that we are moving forward, that we are moving backward, that we are moving too fast and that we are not moving fast enough. However, there is one thing I know for sure. The electric vehicle industry has a significant presence in my riding. There was Lion Electric, which manufactured buses and was told by the former Liberal government to produce lots of electric buses, because everyone would want them and they would sell really well. The company bought equipment and increased production, but in the end, the zero emission transit fund never applied to that company and its school buses. As a result, production slowed and then slowed some more.”
“Bill C‑258. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C‑258, An Act to amend the Criminal Code to address the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Jordan . He said: Madam Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to respond to the Supreme Court's 2016 ruling in the Jordan case and perhaps more specifically to the report of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime, which was tabled a few weeks ago in November. The report found that the administration of trials is a significant issue. More than 268 sexual assault trials have had to be dropped since 2016 because the time limits set by the Supreme Court could not be met. We are proposing a solution to this problem, and we hope to get all members of the House on board with our proposal. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. It is always interesting to hear him speak, particularly when he talks about the environment. However, I do not think that these subjects are mutually exclusive. Our Conservative colleague just told us that his constituents want us to get rid of the carbon tax and to instead focus our efforts on economic measures so that people can buy homes and so on. There is something that I am wondering about. We often hear this kind of rhetoric. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that. Is taking care of the environment and leaving a healthy, viable planet for our children really at odds with investing today to enable families to put food on the table and a roof over their heads? Are these two challenges mutually exclusive or not?”
“We may have to make a decision and take control of all the levers. If Quebec wants to succeed, it will have to be sovereign and take control of all the levers. We will have to collect our taxes and use them to integrate these people. We will have to decide for ourselves who we welcome, when, where, and how we integrate them. In the meantime, we are subject to ill-conceived federal decisions that create problems for us. Unfortunately, I suspect we have not seen the end of it. Quebec has to become independent in order to have full power, determine immigration thresholds, collect its own taxes, and use them appropriately. This is the only solution I see for us to get out of this situation, unless the federal government wakes up and decides to start working with the provinces and with Quebec.”
“Two of those children have severe autism and were born in Canada. I will not tell the rest of the story because I am running out of time. Here is another example, from November 3. It concerns a 26-year-old man whose family is here in Quebec. His 24-year-old wife was presented with a fait accompli. She received a deportation notice. They have a child. She was forced to return to Mexico. He returned to Mexico with his wife and child because he did not want to leave her all alone. That is not very nice. That is what the federal government is doing in terms of integration. There are not many options left for Quebec. We can continue to let the federal government bring people into our province without helping us integrate them, which creates untenable situations. We can also make a decision.”
“However, for reasons unknown, the mother received a deportation notice and had a choice between going on her own and leaving the children here, or taking them with her and returning to where she came from. That is not a very elegant integration process. The woman had not committed any crimes, and she was working. I have another example, that of a family originally from Mexico. This is more recent news, from November 5. It was my colleague and friend, the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île , who stepped in. According to the newspapers, a Mexican family with two autistic children narrowly avoided being deported from Canada. That family found out that they were getting a reprieve just one hour before boarding the plane. The family has three young children and they have been in Quebec for seven years.”
“There has been much talk about the fact that the housing crisis was more pronounced because of the influx of migrants, yet the federal government never did anything to integrate them. The federal government left it up to the provinces to figure it out. They had to make the arrangements. Then the government wonders why these people are not integrated and why some of them commit crimes. Before coming to the House, I did a quick Internet search on newcomers. I did not have to look very far. On August 30, 2025, just a few months ago, a Canadian-American family from Bromont was facing deportation after 15 years in Canada. Four of the six children are Canadian; they all speak French; they love Quebec; they are well integrated, and they want to stay.”
“He organized the party and sent out the invitations, but he forgot he had to buy beer and sandwiches for everyone. Many people came to Canada, and the vast majority of them entered Quebec. Why did they come to Quebec instead of going elsewhere? That question may need to be explored at some point. I do not have that information or that kind of expertise. Nevertheless, they came to Quebec, and the province had no choice since immigration is a provincial responsibility. They had to be integrated, schools had to be paid and clothes had to be purchased. People need to be dressed for winter. It is cold during the winter, and people need boots and coats. They also need health care. Steps had to be taken to determine whether parents who wanted to work could get work permits. They had to be housed, despite the housing crisis.”
“The bill before us proposes that newcomers who commit a crime be sent back to their home country. I agree, as I said earlier, at least in some cases. In other cases, I am less inclined to agree. That said, what is being done to integrate newcomers? What is being done to ensure that they do not fall into the trap of crime? Nothing is being done. There is no money and no transfers to the provinces. There are no resources. There is no collaboration between the federal government and the provinces. The federal government sets its immigration thresholds and issues invitations. Members will recall when our former prime minister quite spectacularly invited all immigrants who were unhappy in the United States and who were not being treated properly to come here. He said that Canada would welcome them with open arms.”
“The problem, however, is that these people have fallen through the cracks of our society. They are are not well integrated or well adjusted. Social services try to help them and bring them back into the fold. When we talk about newcomers, we are also talking about good integration. A poorly integrated newcomer will certainly be tempted by crime, convenience, theft, violence and drug trafficking. Poor integration will certainly encourage that type of situation. However, successful integration, with newcomers who have been taken care of, who have found a job, whose children are in school and who have learned the language, will ensure that those people do not commit crimes. If there are people, they are extremely rare. They will not come up. (1840) What is the federal government doing to integrate newcomers?”
“Newcomers are so focused on integrating, finding a job, learning the language, supporting their family and sorting out their health care and education needs that I doubt they would feel inclined to get mixed up in crime. I am not saying that it does not happen, but it is probably not a common occurrence that requires much of our attention. On top of that, those among this group who commit crimes are not usually inveterate, dangerous or hardened offenders. I do not think there are many, if at all. In fact, the main cause of crime, whether for newcomers or long-time residents, is poor integration. These are people often called social misfits: people with no job and no interest in working, who for a variety of reasons live on the margins of society. They often commit offences like drug use, trafficking and so on.”
“It is theft, but will she be sent back to her country of origin because of it? The judge should not find her innocent of the crime since she did commit, but should it be a factor in sentencing? I think so. The drug dealer who gets caught stealing a ham at the grocery store and the mother who gets caught doing the same thing may technically be committing the same offence, but I believe the court should take that into consideration. That is what we call judicial discretion or human justice. That is something Quebeckers believe in. I would also be curious to hear someone talk about the frequency of crimes committed by newcomers. I am not sure there are that many.”
“Let us take the case of a drug trafficker who has already been convicted or charged in his own country, who finds himself in Canada and gets arrested with significant amounts of drugs, and says that he does not yet have Canadian citizenship status. Personally, I would not shed too many tears over the fact that he would never again have an opportunity to get his Canadian citizenship. I do not think that would be a big loss for Quebec society or for Canadian society. Let us consider another case, a mother of three young children who is here waiting for her status, whose work permit has expired and has not been renewed for all sorts of administrative reasons. Her children have nothing left to eat, and she gets caught stealing a ham at the grocery store. That is an offence.”
“Mr. Speaker, this bill, in principle, deserves to be studied. In addition, the Supreme Court tells us that the immigration status of an accused should be taken into consideration. When reading the bill before us today, we get the impression that the mover understood that this was supposed to be the determining factor. That is obviously not what the Supreme Court said, and that is not what we think. It would be absurd if people with a precarious citizenship status could in fact commit crimes without punishment. I would be the first to be outraged and object to that. However, things are not there yet. That is one factor among many. That is what the Supreme Court said, and that is what we are being asked to consider. However, we need to make a distinction between two scenarios.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about issues of justice; it is in my nature. I put my question to Conservative and Liberal members, but I did not receive a response. My colleague has read the budget, and I would like his opinion. Are there any sections in the budget that talk about investing in rehabilitating the people in our penitentiaries? Is there anything for prevention, so we can improve the situation and slow down the rising crime rates in Canada? That was my first question. Here is my second question. A total of $814 million was gifted to people out west. If I am not mistaken, Quebeckers pay a little over 20% of Canadian taxes. Does that mean we paid 20% of the total amount? If that is the case, and the number is over $800 million, maybe we need to start crunching some numbers. Quebec is getting the short end of the stick here.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to clarify a few points. When she reviewed the budget, did she see any investments for the administration of justice? For example, we are currently studying Bill C-9 and will soon be studying Bill C-14 , which has been referred to committee. We are therefore talking about administering prison sentences, increasing sentences and establishing minimum sentences, among other things. Does the budget include measures for rehabilitating those who are sent to our prisons and penitentiaries? Are there measures to work with social agencies on prevention in order to reduce rising crime rates in Canada? What measures are in the budget to fight crime in Canada?”
“Mr. Speaker, there is something about this budget that keeps bugging me: I cannot find anything about investments in the justice system. Lord knows we need some, because the justice system has serious issues: Vacancies are not being filled, the backlog is overwhelming, and some courts cannot meet the deadlines set out in the Supreme Court's Jordan decision, meaning trials are being adjourned. It is a huge problem. While dissecting the budget, did my colleague come across any mention of spending to improve the administration of the justice system in Canada?”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very interesting speech. The budget is an important step. There has been a lot of talk about all the things that are missing from the budget, including investments in health care, transfers to the provinces in different areas, and investments to address the housing crisis. These points have been raised with good reason. However, one thing that has not yet been discussed in relation to the budget is justice. This is of particular concern to me, since I am the justice critic in Parliament. I see major problems. I saw nothing in the budget about justice. Will funds be allocated to appoint judges? Will there be transfers to the provinces, prevention programs, and help for victims? There are all kinds of justice-related issues that are not addressed in this budget, and that worries me.”
“If they have to pay up to $2,000 a month for a two-bedroom apartment, they do not want to go work for minimum wage. Could there be a link between our lax federal legislation and young people's lack of interest in the labour market?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and for his interesting point of view, despite the rather unpleasant interruptions he was subjected to. That being said, we are accustomed to this kind of interruption from the government benches. Indeed, the youth unemployment rate is high. However, the national unemployment rate for the same period has come down. Walking down the street in our communities, we see businesses that have closed because they cannot hire staff. Restaurants are reluctant to reopen or are closing at certain times of the week because of the labour shortage. It all seems a bit strange. Could it be that young people do not want to work in the current conditions, particularly because there is a housing shortage?”
“Madam Speaker, I am hoping my colleague can explain something to me. Obviously, I understand that an unemployment rate of 14.7% is concerning. When I made the rounds of my riding, employers told me that if temporary workers do not come back, they will be forced to shut down some of their operations. In the city where I live, I have noticed that some restaurants have closed their doors permanently because they cannot find the workers they need. Business people say that they do not want to be working 12-hour days, seven days a week. It seems like everyone is looking for work, but this statistic shows that there is a high unemployment rate among young people. I am trying to understand. Can my colleague explain this situation, which appears to be a dichotomy?”
“We must avoid confusion among Canadians, as this could jeopardize fair compensation for victims. For all these reasons, the Bloc Québécois fully supports the notion of making those who commit crimes accountable. The Bloc is fully in favour of holding hearings within an expedited timeline to secure their conviction. I have not talked about these time limits, but that is another flaw in our justice system. The time to trial even prompted the Supreme Court to introduce time limits in the Jordan decision. We are still unable to meet these time limits. That is a major issue and it will have to be dealt with at some point While we agree with what has been said, unfortunately, we cannot support the bill introduced by our colleague from Sudbury .”
“All these individuals can still initiate civil proceedings to seek compensation for current or future harm. That strikes me as being more than sufficient. We do agree, however, that the amounts are not sufficient. Perpetrators of these crimes are not fully held to account or made to answer for their actions. We would like to see greater accountability from them, and they should provide more compensation for their victims. There will always be an issue with debtor solvency in these cases. Is it possible to secure compensation from those responsible for these crimes? That remains to be seen, but that is another issue. Turning to the compensation processes and the sources of compensation, I respectfully submit that the sources are there and they are working.”
“We have a housing crisis, which provinces and municipalities are tackling, but the federal government appears too slow to act. Meanwhile, the situation is becoming increasingly urgent. We talk about providing support for individuals who have fallen prey to pimps, drug traffickers, and other such criminals. Obviously, we are not insensitive to such situations, and we agree that victims should receive assistance. Nevertheless, I think we need to proceed cautiously and align our requests with current programs to ensure individuals are not left without clear avenues for support. Right now, victims can seek help from organizations. These organizations can apply for grants, perhaps primarily through the federal victim surcharge program. Victims can also pursue restitution through the courts once a criminal is sentenced.”
“In light of that, it is evident that there are systems in place that allow for adequate compensation for all these individuals. There is already a system in place. The real issue is that there is a problem with this system, a recurring problem with federal government programs in general: underfunding. (1140) When it comes to health care funding in Canada, which has been a recurring topic in this chamber, we know that the federal government has gradually reduced its commitment year after year. Originally, in the 1960s, the federal government was supposed to fund 50%. Today, we are fortunate if it reaches 25%. The reduction in health care funding is reflected across many public services. We often talk about infrastructure programs, but they have slowed down, as well.”
“The direct victims themselves may be entitled to restitution, and this is already provided for in the Criminal Code. Moreover, victims can file a claim for a whole range of damages. The Civil Code already contains a compensation regime, a civil liability regime for damages suffered by victims. This applies equally to victims of criminal acts and victims of civil torts or unintentional torts. Victims can already initiate civil proceedings for suffering, emotional distress and material damage. If a community organization has suffered this type of damage because of a crime, it could sue the person responsible for the crime in civil court and obtain compensation. Similarly, the victim of a pimp can also sue the pimp, not only by filing a criminal complaint, but also by filing a civil suit to obtain compensation.”
“Real victims, such as the victims of pimps, would be competing against community organizations that provide services to the victims of pimps to get restitution orders. Honestly, I do not think community organizations would spend much time fighting that sort of battle, but it would still be a real problem. Real victims must be compensated. Community organizations should be funded according to their needs. Processes already exist for that funding. These include, for example, victim surcharges. As we know, anyone facing a conviction in recent years always has a fine and surcharge imposed. While we may often wonder what purpose surcharges serve, they are redistributed to the provinces to fund the various victim assistance services and programs. Organizations that help victims of crime are therefore funded through victim surcharges.”
“This is inconsistent with the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, which states that “an individual who has suffered physical or emotional harm, property damage or economic loss as the result of the commission or alleged commission of an offence” can receive restitution. However, the bill tabled by our colleague from Sudbury provides that the beneficiary of such restitution could be a community organization, or in other words, a legal entity, which would conflict with the bill of rights. In my humble opinion, we have to be careful on this point and prevent confusion. This could also lead to another outcome, as my colleague from Drummond pointed out a few minutes ago, an outcome that we would say is undesirable.”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking our colleague from Sudbury for encouraging us to reflect on the matter of compensation for victims of crime. We must, of course, fight against crime, which we already strive to do in various ways with various bills, but we also have a responsibility to look after victims. Let us be clear that the Bloc Québécois is in agreement with holding drug traffickers and pimps accountable. Does that mean, however, that the approach proposed by our colleague is the right one? The member for Sudbury is a parliamentarian whom I greatly respect and appreciate, but with all due respect, I believe this is the wrong approach. Firstly, the bill would in theory allow for a legal entity to be compensated.”
“It is true that we are short on judges, but we are also short on court clerks, bailiffs, and courtrooms. It all goes hand in hand. This needs to be taken seriously. I have already suggested to the Minister of Justice that he set himself a six-month time limit for filling judicial vacancies. Six months seems reasonable to me. If he says that nine months or three months is better, I am all ears. At some point, we might have to set maximum time limits for filling vacancies. It may be necessary to appoint new judges and transfer funds to the provinces and to Quebec in order to manage the justice system properly.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague. It is always a pleasure to work with her. The problem we have, that she rightly raised, is the following. There are people serving intermittent sentences on weekends who are being told to go home because there is no more room. We can increase the number of inmates, but how are we going to deal with this in practical terms? I do not know. As I said earlier, we have a problem with underfunding of the justice system, and we will have to address it at some point. Currently, there is a shortage of special education teachers in schools, a shortage of doctors, and a shortage of nurses in hospitals. Infrastructure is falling apart. There is not enough money. Funding will have to be aligned with mandates. I think we need federal money to strengthen the judicial system.”
“However, I do believe that this is a serious issue that needs to be addressed, and I will leave it to those responsible for managing the business of the House to decide the pace at which we proceed with Bill C‑14.”
“Madam Speaker, unfortunately, it is not up to me to decide that, and I can say that we are currently very busy at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We are studying two issues at the same time and have extended our working hours. We usually meet for two hours twice a week. Now we are meeting for three hours twice a week and we are studying the bail and sentencing issues concurrently. That is kind of what bills C‑14 and C‑9 are about. We are studying both at the same time. Are we going to add Bill C‑14? I would like to because it is important. However, when are we going to do that? Do we have access to meeting rooms? Do we have interpreters? There are a number of practical questions that I cannot answer. In any case, it is not up to me to decide whether we should fast-track Bill C‑14.”
“Third, a study needs to be done by experts such as criminologists and legal experts. They will be able to tell us what the real problem is and propose things to solve it. Proposed regulations are being developed right now for a problem that I do not think we fully understand.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, whom I quite like. He is a true friend, someone I have known for a few years and with whom I enjoy chatting. Are more crimes really being committed by repeat offenders? That is an excellent question. Unfortunately, I cannot say I am an expert on this, because I do not have the answer. The experts I have spoken with also hesitate to say for sure. First, what is recidivism? When someone convicted of a crime violates their release conditions, is that considered a repeat offence? They did not commit the same crime again. They committed a new offence by failing to comply with their conditions. The various offences really need to be untangled before any conclusions can be drawn. First, data needs to be collected. Second, that data needs to be analyzed.”
“I would like to know whether the Conservatives are going to vote in favour of Bill C‑14 . Even if the bill does not go as far as theirs, it is a step in that direction. Will they flatly oppose Bill C‑14? I really do not know. Yes, we need to tackle this problem. Even if we ultimately determine that there is no problem, if the public and the premiers are concerned, then it is our job to address those concerns, check the facts and suggest solutions.”
“Madam Speaker, I can confirm that working with my colleague on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights was a true pleasure. I consider him a man of integrity and intelligence. Working with him is always enjoyable. To answer his question, yes, we have seen the letter signed by all 13 premiers. Yes, it was a concern to us. I was concerned about the situation myself. However, my remarks relate to the fact that both we and the premiers lack sufficient data on this specific issue. The only data we have tells us that 72% of inmates are awaiting trial. Personally, I think that number is huge. Now, is more data needed? Maybe, maybe not. We will have to study that carefully in committee. I would like to turn that question back to my colleague. He can ask one of his colleagues to answer if he does not have another turn to speak.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question and I appreciate her expression of friendship. I have not yet had the opportunity to meet her, but I would be happy to be her friend, if that is possible. That said, the short answer to her question is yes. I think we need to work on the bill in committee. Now, does the bill address the concerns raised by Quebec? I am not so sure.”
“The Criminal Code falls under federal jurisdiction; it is our job to keep it current. Regrettably, we have failed in that regard. The cornerstone of the government's tough-on-crime approach is a bill that is like some sort of a sales pitch or a way to up the ante on what the Conservatives are proposing. The bottom line is that an individual's release conditions will be essentially the same as they are right now. Again, it will be up to the judge to decide what is appropriate. I hope that the bill will be studied in committee. I would like it to be split but I understand that this will not be the case. There is work to be done on Bill C‑14 in order to make it acceptable and useful.”