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 9 of 11.
“The era of vagueness and wishful thinking is over. Apart from the Bloc Québécois's proposals, particularly with regard to respecting Quebec's choices on the French language and secularism, the government is not proposing anything really comprehensive or useful. Bill C‑9 would set limits on some of the rights and freedoms protected under the charter, including freedom of expression. However, freedom of expression is given free rein in section 319 of the Criminal Code, and despite repeated requests from the Bloc Québécois, including our Bill C‑373 in 2024, and despite the popular will of a huge majority of voters, the government does not seem to care. It is still possible in both Quebec and Canada to promote hatred and antisemitism as long as it is done based on a religious text. We think that is absurd.”
“Madam Speaker, like many others, Bill C‑9 has some good and some not so good elements, but it also neglects certain aspects of the problem that should have been addressed. Obviously, we in the Bloc Québécois are sensitive to and concerned about the significant increase in hate crimes. Quebec society and Canadian society have changed in recent years, and the multiculturalism imposed by the Liberal government has given rise to issues that were much less problematic a few decades ago. Societies around the world are moving toward some sort of clash of cultures, traditions and religious beliefs, and we are no exception to that. In this context, it is crucial that we agree on a clear definition of what our values are, especially if we want to propose a societal model that is consistent, effective and accepted by everyone.”
“Mr. Speaker, amending the scope of section 33 is not about defending the charter. The Liberals want Bill 21 on state secularism to be repealed. That much is crystal clear. However, it goes beyond that. They want to have the final say and make Quebec's laws subject to their approval and that of judges appointed by Ottawa. The Liberals want to fulfill their oldest ambition, which is to decide everything for everyone in Canada. If that is what Quebeckers have to look forward to, then I wonder what we are still doing here.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' challenge to Bill 21 goes far beyond state secularism. They are telling us with their factum that they have seen what Quebeckers have done with secularism, and at this point, they would even be capable of shutting down churches or newspapers if Ottawa were not there to stop them. The Liberals want to weaken the notwithstanding clause so that the federal government and, of course, federally appointed judges have the final say on all laws passed in Quebec. In Quebec, we would call that being placed under guardianship. What Canada calls it, I do not know. Can the minister enlighten us?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and leader for his speech, which I really enjoyed. Section 33 is a tool that makes it possible for certain laws to override provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Let us suppose that the Government of Quebec or another province passes a law that allows slavery. Does my colleague think that that government's legislation will be around for a long time because of section 33? What would be the consequences of passing such a law?”
“Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With all due respect to my esteemed colleague, he is getting a bit off topic. Today is the Bloc Québécois opposition day, and we are having a debate on the Act respecting the laicity of the State and on section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, its constitutionality and ways to amend it, among other things. I do not think that is what my colleague is talking about. I would be grateful if he would stick to the order of the day.”
“Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. When I gave my speech, you signalled to me that my 10 minutes were up when, according to the timer that I set before I began, I still had some time left. What is more, you interrupted me. With all due respect, I am not saying that you do not have the right to do that. It is fine, but that also made me lose some time. I just rose to ask my colleague some questions. You gave both the Liberals and the Conservatives two chances to speak, but you did not give us any. Is there a problem with me participating in the debates of the House?”
“The problem is that some people will have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars challenging it, engaging in a years-long legal battle and creating chaos in society just to reach the same outcome. In its wisdom, if any, the government of the day allowed the use of the notwithstanding clause from the outset, and I believe that we must continue to do so—”
“Madam Speaker, I cannot do anything about the Ontario government's slippery slope, but it is questionable. The important thing to understand about the pre-emptive use of section 33 is that it is neither preventive nor curative. That is how the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is set up. For the sake of argument, let us assume that the notwithstanding clause is not written into the bill. The legislation will remain in force unless and until the Supreme Court rules that it is no longer in force and that it is invalid. When that happens, the government will just add the notwithstanding clause and it will come back into force. The legislation will therefore remain in force the entire time.”
“Madam Speaker, that is a good question. I mentioned it briefly in my speech. It has become clear that it is not just the Act respecting the laicity of the State, but all the laws in Quebec and all the Canadian provinces that are being jeopardized by the current government's legal challenge. The government is saying that the notwithstanding clause must be regulated, that its use must be limited. However, in Quebec alone, without the notwithstanding clause, the Charter of the French Language would be out the window; laws protecting children who can testify out of court would be tossed aside; the lack of lawyers in small claims court to allow people to represent themselves at a lower cost would never be addressed. Quite a number of laws have been passed because it is possible to opt out of the charter.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, but there is some confusion there. My colleague is right; section 33 does not help protect the Constitution. Section 33 enables the provinces, Quebec and the federal government to pass legislation that goes against, or does not take into account, the specifics of section 2 and sections 7 to 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It does not protect the Constitution, but it protects the right of Canadians and their leaders, in the various legislatures, to work despite the restrictions imposed by the charter.”
“Madam Speaker, despite my white hair, I am afraid I am too young to have drafted the notwithstanding clause. The clause's limits are set out in the act that includes this provision, and none of those limits are like the ones that the current government wants to propose. Do the provinces have limits? They do not have any more than Quebec or the federal government. Section 33 exists, and it can be amended only through the consent of elected officials, not through a Supreme Court decision.”
“The government must withdraw, withdraw its factum and, once and for all, forget about this bad idea to use the Supreme Court to weaken Quebec and the provinces.”
“That is what the government is trying to say. It does not like Quebec's choices, and it wants to take away the tools that allow Quebec to make its choices. This is a political battle; it is being waged in the political arena, not the legal one. This debate must take place here, in the provincial legislatures and with the Quebec National Assembly. One of the arguments in favour of the notwithstanding clause was that the provinces did not want government by judges. Now, by challenging this provision, the government is ignoring the will of the provinces. Indeed, it has asked the Supreme Court to get involved in politics and amend the Constitution, changing its intent. It is undemocratic.”
“If the government is uncomfortable with the notwithstanding clause, which clearly appears to be the case, it should invite elected representatives to a constitutional conference. This debate should take place in parliaments and not in court. It should be between representatives of the Canadian people, and not between judges and lawyers. The Liberals claim they are defending the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; however they are skirting the democratic process when they ask the Supreme Court to limit section 33. The use of Bill 21 as a pretext to ask the Supreme Court to amend the Constitution shows the Liberals' misuse of the notwithstanding clause. They claim that the use of the notwithstanding clause needs to be restricted, under the pretext that what those evil Quebeckers are doing with laicity is appalling.”
“I would go further and say that when the Canadian Constitution was repatriated in 1982, the government of Trudeau senior inserted section 33 on the notwithstanding clause in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to isolate Quebec. (1025) He introduced ironclad constitutional protections to ensure that things would remain the same. I would remind members that constitutional amendments require the support of the House, the Senate and seven provinces representing at least 50% of the population. What the Liberal government is now doing is to replace parliaments and representatives of the Canadian people with a few judges appointed by the very government. This is an attempt at a constitutional coup.”
“The information we had was that Ottawa would only challenge the use of the notwithstanding clause, but not the Act respecting the laicity of the State. We thought this was rather absurd. We felt that without the notwithstanding clause, a series of legislation, such as the Act respecting the laicity of the State and legislation to protect the French language would end up in court. For several months, we thought that Ottawa would go to the Supreme Court to undermine secularism in Quebec, but we were wrong. The federal government is going to the Supreme Court to take away the tools that enable Quebec to set rules and safeguards in the society in which we live together. We call on the government to withdraw its challenge to Bill 21.”
“It is one thing if this government is unwilling to act or is indifferent when it comes to protecting secularism, but what it is doing now is far worse. It is trying to weaken Quebec secularism, literally acting as judge and jury, scorning Quebec's choices from the moral high ground it has taken. Ottawa simply does not like the choices made by Quebec society. That leaves us here today with this motion that is asking three things of the federal government. First, that it not challenge Quebec's choices in the Supreme Court. Second, that it keep its comments to itself. Third, that it give up on the flawed notion of using this provision to weaken the powers of Quebec and the provinces. ' The Attorney General of Canada had not submitted his factum when we drafted this motion.”
“Over the past 20 years, there has been debate about reasonable accommodations, the Bouchard-Taylor commission was established, there were public consultations on the charter of values that went on for months, there was the debate about Bill 21 and, more recently, the Pelchat-Rousseau committee considered the limits of the Act respecting the laicity of the State. For the past 60 years, Quebec has thoughtfully examined the question of secularism, it has laid the foundations of Quebec society, for the separation of church and state, with French as our common language, equality between men and women, and the recognition of a shared historical heritage. Also for the past 60 years, Ottawa has tried to sabotage Quebec's efforts by challenging the way we do things. Even now, the House of Commons begins its day's work with a prayer.”
“My first reminder is this: The Quebec government has the right to use the notwithstanding clause as it sees fit, within the limits of its scope, of course. It is not up to Ottawa to impose its views on Quebec. My second reminder is this: Since the 1960s, secularism has been a fundamental component of Quebec society. The province began by secularizing education with the creation of the ministry of education. Classical courses were then replaced by CEGEPs. Teachers traded in their cassocks for trousers and their headdresses for hairstyles. Secularization continued until a constitutional amendment put an end to the religious school boards, replacing them with linguistic school boards.”
“(2) An Act or a provision of an Act in respect of which a declaration made under this section is in effect shall have such operation as it would have but for the provision of this Charter referred to in the declaration. (3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration. (4) Parliament or the legislature of a province may re-enact a declaration made under subsection (1). (5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a re-enactment made under subsection (4). Nowhere is there any mention of pre-emptive or non-pre-emptive or curative use. Nowhere is there any mention of a limit on renewing the notwithstanding clause. It is simply a tool.”
“In fact, this provision assures the provinces that the federal government and its charter are not at a higher level, that the federal charter does not override the will of the provinces and that the parliamentary sovereignty of the provinces is in no way in question. The notwithstanding clause allows the Quebec, provincial and federal governments to pass laws notwithstanding section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 33 states the following: (1020) (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.”
“Before we begin the debate, however, I would like to remind members of a few things that I feel are important. First, the dreaded notwithstanding clause, which the government considers an atrocity, a sword of Damocles hanging above the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is actually the very thing that enabled the Liberal government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau to patriate the Constitution without Quebec's consent in what was called the “night of the long knives”. Without the notwithstanding clause, there would have been no agreement with the provinces, and René Lévesque would not have been sidelined. Why is that?”
“Motion moved: That the House: (a) call on the government to fully withdraw from the legal challenge of Quebec’s Act respecting the laicity of the State before the Supreme Court; (b) call on the government to withdraw its factum filed on September 17, 2025, with the Supreme Court contesting Quebec’s right to invoke the notwithstanding clause; and (c) denounce the government’s willingness to use the Supreme Court to take constitutional powers away from Quebec and the provinces. He said: Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Saint‑Jean , House leader for the Bloc Québécois. I am pleased to speak today to this motion, which I am honoured to move on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. It has three very clear components that we will have the opportunity to examine.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank our Green Party colleague for her speech. I know she is an expert in this field. There is one thing I would like to hear her thoughts on. We could decide to continue along the same path and abolish the cap on greenhouse gas emissions. In other words, we could decide to just sit back, stay on the same path we followed in previous years and forget about the Paris targets. If we do all that, what will happen? In my colleague's opinion, what will be the consequence on all Quebeckers and all Canadians of the laxity the Liberals are proposing?”
“Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals say that they are not attacking secularism before the Supreme Court, that is incorrect. What they should be saying is that their attack is not limited to secularism. By attacking the notwithstanding clause, they are also attacking protections afforded to the French language and signage in French. They are even attacking matters of consensus, such as protecting the identity of children involved in public proceedings, or foregoing the need for lawyers in small claims court. They are attacking democracy, and even the Quebec model. When will they abandon this challenge?”
“Mr. Speaker, the partisan appointment of Robert Leckey as a judge of the Quebec Superior Court also challenges Quebec's unique legal system. By appointing Mr. Leckey even though he does not have the necessary experience at the Quebec bar, the federal government is choosing a judge who does not have sufficient knowledge of Quebec's unique civil law system. By appointing Mr. Leckey, who is a public opponent of state secularism and the Charter of the French Language, the federal government is knowingly choosing a judge who opposes Quebec's distinct character. Will the minister rescind this appointment?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I hear his concerns about keeping our streets safe. What does he have to say about the Bloc Québécois's proposal to create a registry of criminal organizations and treat them like terrorist organizations? What does he have to say about our proposal to amend the Criminal Code to remove the two religious exemptions that permit hate speech? What does he have to say about the possibility of not meeting the Supreme Court of Canada's Jordan deadline for the most serious cases of violent crime?”
“Mr. Speaker, we heard about Justice Leckey this week. This judge has donated money to the Liberal Party and criticized Quebec's laws on secularism and the French language, and we feel it is inappropriate for him to become a Quebec Superior Court justice. That is but one example. There are many others. I would be delighted to talk about them with my colleague.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right. Crimes involving violence against women, but also against any individual, are unacceptable in our society, and we are proposing to fight this type of crime. As for mandatory minimum sentences, yes, we should consider using them in such cases. That being said, I want to reiterate that the Bloc Québécois is generally against mandatory minimum sentences. We trust our courts and want judges, those human beings who hear cases, to be able to decide the appropriate sentence without being tied to a concept established in a law or a code that is often, but not always, appropriate.”
“When someone's religion tells them to kill a person, I think their religion should be cast aside. We are against that. We will almost certainly come back with a bill on this subject. These exemptions have no place in the Criminal Code. Many of my colleagues on both the Liberal and Conservative sides tell me that I am right on this issue. However, when they come to the House to vote, they vote no. Now I am calling on them once again. These two religious exemptions that allow hate speech based on religious texts must be banished from the Criminal Code.”
“Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question. There is indeed a great divide between Quebeckers' values on this religion issue and those of the rest of Canada. I am not saying that Quebeckers are better than anyone else. That is not the point. There is a difference, though. We believe that religion should remain in the home, in each individual's heart and mind. In our view, when it comes to religion, public practice and public statements lead to crisis and discord. When it comes to hate speech, it goes even further. People are allowed to tell other people not only how to think, but also how to think about destroying, killing and eliminating religious adversaries. I do not even think “religious adversaries” is the right term. It goes even further.”
“Madam Speaker, I do not have to speak to Bill C-2 right now, so I will not bother. I will reserve the right to speak to it when the time comes. Bill C‑2 has both good and bad aspects. One of its proposals is an invasion of people's privacy, and this type of intervention strikes us as deplorable and dangerous. We will have to look at this bill and clarify some things. However, it does have some positive aspects. Regarding Bill C‑2, I have to say yes and no. We will see. We said we would vote in favour of the bill to send it to committee. I am not sure we will still support the bill after it comes back from committee. We will have to decide at that time.”
“As I have often said, we are neglecting our judicial system, yet it is the backbone of society. The day our citizens lose confidence in that system, we will regret it.”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague is correct in saying that the responsibility for fighting crime and managing the justice system does not fall solely to the federal government. It is shared with the provincial governments. However, I want members to understand that if we set an example by doing what needs to be done here, it may help the provinces follow suit. If the government fills all the judicial vacancies, the provinces will follow suit. However, it is important to note that the provinces lack funds. The money is here in Ottawa, but the needs are in the provinces. Building courthouses, opening courtrooms, paying clerks and bailiffs: that all costs money. I think it is important to take that into account during the federal-provincial negotiations around transfers.”
“Together with the minimum sentence proposal I was just talking about, all of these ideas can help fight crime. We generously invite our Conservative colleagues to draw inspiration from these ideas. The current government should do likewise, to help us live in a society where everything works and where offenders can be rehabilitated and successfully rejoin society.”
“states already do this. It was introduced in the 1990s. Since then, American prisons have been filled with people who could perhaps have been rehabilitated. I will not comment on that, as I am not an expert on the American legal system. However, we have our own justice system, our own society and our own values, and I think we have to be careful when it comes to importing measures in effect elsewhere into Quebec and Canada. I want to reiterate the idea of the organized crime registry. It was in Bill C‑420 , which we introduced during the 44th Parliament. We also introduced Bill C‑392 , concerning the Supreme Court's Jordan decision deadlines, and Bill C‑373 , concerning the abolition of religious exemptions, during that same Parliament.”
“This would require the judge to justify the exceptional circumstances, where applicable, and then depart from the minimum sentence if they really have to. We think that is an interesting proposal. The Bloc Québécois is generous. We are letting our Conservative colleagues pick and choose from among our proposals, adapt them if they wish and make them their own. They can also simply support our bills when we introduce them. However, we must always keep in mind that the goal is not to fill up prisons. The goal is to live in a safe society where people can thrive, where young offenders can be rehabilitated. We want to invest in rehabilitation. We want to live in a free democratic society that respects everyone's rights. The idea of punishing repeat offenders more harshly based on past offences is not new. A number of U.S.”
“Mandatory minimum sentences tie the hands of the judge hearing the case and prevent him or her from handing down a sentence that is often better suited to the circumstances, to the situation of the individual being heard by the court. We think that the courts must be allowed to waive mandatory minimum sentences. Let us restore certain minimum sentences as long as we comply with the provisions or criteria set out by the Supreme Court. Obviously, we will not be going back to the Supreme Court every 10 years, or at least I hope not. Let us comply with these criteria. Let us bring back some mandatory minimum sentences. However, we could make it possible for a trial judge to depart from them in exceptional circumstances.”
“Then, there is the matter of mandatory minium sentences. When the Conservative Party took office over 15 years ago, it brought in mandatory minimum sentences. The Supreme Court ruled that they were illegal, that these sentences violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that they had to be done away with. Under Justin Trudeau, the previous Liberal government eliminated these mandatory minimum sentences. Now, the Conservatives want to bring them back. This is a worthwhile debate. In my opinion, there is no position that is indefensible. However, there is a middle ground that we could consider. In Quebec, we believe in rehabilitating inmates, particularly young inmates.”
“Unfortunately, the director of public prosecutions, who is responsible for prosecuting such cases, decided not to prosecute the imam for lack of evidence, even though the speech was filmed, recorded, and broadcast on virtually all media outlets. We know that sections 318 to 320 of the Criminal Code criminalize hate speech. There are two religious exemptions: one that allows for a reasonable defence against a charge of hate speech if the speech is based on a religious text in which one believes, and the same applies to anti-Semitism. As far as we are concerned, these are exemptions that have no place in our society and must be removed from the Criminal Code. (1140) We introduced a bill on this subject in the previous Parliament. We will come back to that. This is another way of fighting the increase in crime effectively.”
“Second, we proposed allowing the courts to waive the time frame imposed by the Supreme Court in the Jordan decision for serious crimes, and in limited circumstances. The third measure we proposed to combat rising crime was to remove the religious exemption. Here too, we have seen situations that are completely preposterous. On October 28, 2023, in Montreal, preacher Adil Charkaoui said, in Arabic, “Allah, take care of these Zionist aggressors. Allah, take care of the enemies of the people of Gaza. Allah, identify them all, then exterminate them. And don't spare any of them!” That seems pretty clear to me. In my mind, there is no room for interpretation.”
“We said that when there are unreasonable delays, which we deplore, a court should be allowed to extend the time frame imposed by the Supreme Court of Canada for certain serious or category 1 crimes. Obviously, this exemption must be limited and used sparingly. It should not be a free-for-all. However, sex crimes, murder, kidnapping, gun crime and terrorism are crimes that must be tried. We cannot tell the public that someone charged with murder, rape or kidnapping will be let go because we dragged our feet for two years and ran out of time to try him. That does not work. In a self-respecting, properly-run society, that is not the way to go. First, we proposed creating an organized crime registry.”
“That is the first thing that needs to be done to prevent stays of proceedings, especially when it comes to violent crimes that are rebuked by society as a whole. That is one thing. Obviously, the justice system needs to be provided with courtrooms, clerks, bailiffs, court officers, and so on. On the federal government side, the appointment of judges within a reasonable time frame is essential. These judges must be impartial, having no political allegiance and showing no bias toward any of the political parties in power. That, too, is a blight that truly tarnishes our justice system. Limiting the use of the Jordan decision by appointing judges is one thing, but we proposed going further in the last Parliament.”
“We will come back with some suggestions as we move forward. We also proposed clarifying the application of the provisions imposed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Jordan for serious crimes. Let me be clear about this: As far as I am concerned, the Supreme Court is right. When someone is charged with a crime they should be judged within a reasonable time frame. That is already set out in the Charter. These time frames were rightly defined by the Supreme Court. The problem is that the current system is unable to handle these cases within a reasonable time frame. In my opinion, the fault lies largely with the lack of necessary resources made available to the courts by our governments. I have also repeatedly asked that greater diligence be shown in filling judicial vacancies. There have been delays that I consider completely unreasonable.”
“I therefore want to ask our colleagues in the House of Commons for their support on such a bill. During the last Parliament, in parallel with the creation of the registry of criminal organizations, we proposed a series of measures, including going after the proceeds of crime. Currently, if police officers search a criminal organization's property, they have to prove that the property was acquired illegally. During the last Parliament, we proposed the opposite, namely that once someone is a member of a criminal organization and their property is searched as part of an investigation into criminal offences, it should be up to that individual to prove to us that the property was acquired legally, and not the other way around. (1135) This reverse onus seems useful, even essential, for fighting organized crime effectively.”
“Criminal organizations have been known to direct minors to commit offences, theft and even murder and acts of violence because those minors are prosecuted under a different judicial system than adults charged with crimes and they face less severe consequences. We feel this is despicable. Theft is illegal; it is a crime. Assault is a crime. Murder is a crime. However, when a 40- or 50-year-old adult gets a 14-year-old to commit those crimes, it is not just illegal, it is despicable. We vigorously oppose such crimes. How, then, do we address that? Clearly, we need to introduce legislation. We are committed to working on this over the coming weeks. However, the idea of creating a registry of criminal organizations, which has already been debated in the House on several occasions, is one that we will revisit. I have no doubt about that.”
“It aims to toughen sentences by imposing life sentences for certain crimes, such as those relating to human trafficking, firearms trafficking and fentanyl production. As I have said, the Bloc Québécois will be voting against the Conservative motion. To be clear, we see rising crime as a major concern. Over the past few years, we have proposed a series of tough measures to address criminal violence, and we will continue to do so. For example, I myself have introduced a bill to create an organized crime registry three times in the past 10 years. We all know that criminal organizations are a growing scourge. Not only do they undermine our society and violate the rules of coexistence, but they also corrupt the morality of many of our young teens to a great or at least significant degree.”
“Fourth, for them to be granted parole, he said earned release will depend on “improving themselves and their life opportunities, such as by learning a trade or upgrading their education.” Finally, the bill would also repeal Bill C‑75 from the 42nd Parliament. One thing that bill did was amend the provisions on interim release. There are some good and not-so-good things in this Conservative Party proposal. The parts that talk about offenders learning a trade or upgrading their education are very commendable, in my opinion. In any case, these options already exist in all our prisons. Encouraging inmates to register for these programs, in our view, is a good thing. However, there are other aspects of the Conservative proposal that make us feel a bit uneasy.”
“The Conservative leader simply announced that his bill would be sponsored by a member of his party, who is 10th in line in the draw for private members' business. (1130) Therefore, all we know about this motion is what the Conservative leader said in his media scrum and what was reported in the press a few weeks ago. First, he announced that he would make sure that “three-time serious criminals get a minimum prison term of 10 years and up to a life sentence.” Second, he said that these criminals “will also be designated as dangerous offenders, meaning they cannot be released until they prove they are no longer a danger.” Third, the only way for them to “obtain their freedom will be through spotless behaviour and clean drug tests” during their prison sentence, among other things.”