44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 16, 2023 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, I address the House today as an MP, but also as a trained criminologist. We are talking about Bill C‑325, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. I will skip ahead and confirm that the Bloc Québécois and I, obviously, will vote in favour of Bill C‑325 so it can be studied in parliamentary committee.
Now, let us have a closer look at the bill.
As currently written, the bill contains only three provisions, but it will still amend two extremely important laws. We are not talking about minor laws here, but about the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. I would say that we need to be careful. I always find it worrisome to base a bill that would have such a major impact on our criminal justice system on just one particular case. Obviously, we need to avoid that dangerous pitfall. I am not trying to minimize the tragic death of 23-year-old Marylène Levesque, who was murdered by Eustachio Gallese while he was out on day parole for the October 2004 murder of his wife. What happened to Marylène Levesque is terrible and unfair. It never should have happened. I think we all agree on that. There is no need to discuss it.
Bill C‑325, which was introduced by the Conservatives, would create a new offence for the breach of conditions of conditional release imposed in relation to certain serious offences, with a maximum sentence of two years or at least punishable on summary conviction. This bill would also amend the Criminal Code to preclude persons convicted of certain offences from serving their sentence in the community. Finally, this bill would also require the reporting of such breaches to the appropriate authorities. Those are good things.
The Bloc Québécois generally supports this bill and would like to see it studied in detail and improved in committee. Let me explain why. The Conservatives think that this bill will fill the gaps resulting from the passage of Bill C-5, which allows offenders who commit certain crimes to serve their sentences in the community. However, that is not the whole truth. Some details have been left out. In our society, judges have the discretion to sentence offenders to serve their sentences in the community. Contrary to what the Conservatives would have us believe, judges do take their jobs very seriously. They make their decisions thoughtfully and meticulously, taking a multitude of factors into account. Furthermore, the Parole Board of Canada has the power to revoke parole at any time, and its decisions are not political. The Parole Board is entirely independent.
In Mr. Gallese's case, his release conditions had been breached on several occasions prior to Ms. Levesque's murder, and unfortunately, his parole officer knew that. Worse still, we later learned that she allegedly encouraged him to visit sexual massage parlours, which, I am sure everyone would agree, is totally unacceptable. The Parole Board of Canada could have and should have revoked Mr. Gallese's parole long before this tragedy.
How did we get here? Should we amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act based almost entirely on the circumstances surrounding the murder of Marylène Levesque, as the Conservative Party is eager to do? Obviously, I do not think so. Doing so could prove perilous for our justice system.
In short, Bill C‑325 is commendable but flawed in several respects, for example when it comes to the offences set out in subclause 2(2) that would prevent offenders from serving their sentences in the community.
The range of listed offences is far too broad and is worth scrutinizing and debating in committee, as is paragraph 742.1(c), which seeks to make it impossible to serve a sentence in the community for any offence that carries a maximum sentence of 14 years or more, including altering a firearm magazine.
The issue is not whether the legislation resulting from Bill C‑5 is flawed, because it is, indeed. However, the solutions in Bill C‑325 are not entirely appropriate and may well call into question the integrity of our judges.
The Conservatives' presentation on Bill C‑325 specifically refers to the case of Eustachio Gallese and Marylène Levesque. As a criminologist, I have a lot of problems with this. We do not have the luxury of quickly pushing through words and clauses that have the power to upend the lives of thousands of people.
When we are responsible for the public's safety and well-being, our decisions should be based on verified, empirical data and on as many cases as possible, not on individual cases.
What about all the other inmates with release conditions similar to those of Mr. Gallese who will never commit another crime? Let us consider that very large group of inmates.
Who are we to dictate how they will serve their sentences based solely on one case, on one individual? That is not what our justice system is based on.
Quebeckers and Canadians obviously deserve to have peace of mind, to feel safe as they go about their daily lives. They also deserve to be treated equally in the eyes of law. That is why I urge my esteemed colleagues to vote in favour of Bill C‑325, so that it can be carefully studied at committee and no comma, no inference, no legislative gap will be left to chance. The consequences would simply be too dire.
I would also like to take this opportunity to inform the House that my colleague, the member for Rivière-du-Nord, will soon be introducing a bill to once and for all close the loopholes in the legislation resulting from Bill C‑5.
1005 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 11:53:53 a.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute‑Saint‑Charles has five minutes for his right of reply.
19 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the debates on Bill C‑325, which I introduced last spring, are drawing to a close today.
I am pleased to see that, following the tragic events that have taken place and the serious cases brought to our attention, the Bloc Québécois has finally decided to support Bill C‑325, even though it voted in favour of Bill C‑5 at the time. I agree that amendments to the bill in committee are necessary. In fact, committees are specifically mandated to improve bills and make them fairer for all Canadians. Unfortunately, the Liberals and their NDP colleagues are clinging to a short-sighted position that makes no sense.
I have done my job with Bill C-325. Moreover, all the parties in Quebec's National Assembly—including the more right-wing parties, the centrist parties and the left-wing parties like Québec solidaire—have asked that Bill C-5 be amended because it just does not work. No one in the House would characterize the Bloc as a right-wing party. Bloc members are not nasty right wingers; they lean more to the left than to the right. However, they thought things through, saw that there is a problem and acknowledged that changes need to be made. That is why they are willing to help me move Bill C-325 forward. However, the Liberals and NDP are stubborn. There is nothing we can do.
During debate, we talked a lot about Marylène Levesque's murder. At the time, I was the one who moved the motion in the House that launched the investigation by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, of which I was a member. We investigated everything surrounding Marylène's murder, the work of the Parole Board of Canada and the flaws in how the entire situation was managed.
With Bill C-325, I am proposing common-sense improvements. For example, right now, there are no consequences for offenders who fail to abide by the conditions of their release when on parole for serious crimes. When we ask people on the street about this, they say that people who do not abide by the conditions of their release should be arrested, but that consequence does not exist. Everyone thinks it only natural to create a new offence to cover such situations. That is just common sense, and it is what I am proposing in Bill C-325.
Some are saying that professionals found that the law put in place by Bill C-5 was good. I took the time to meet with many groups, and I can say that police officers are calling for improvements. I am thinking, in particular, of the Canadian Police Association, the Fraternité des policiers et policières de Montréal and the Fraternité des policiers et policières de la Ville de Québec.
Victims groups are also calling for improvements. Here, I am thinking of REAL Women of Canada, Fédération des maisons d'hébergement pour femmes, Maison des guerrières, Communauté de citoyens en action contre les criminels violents and the Murdered or Missing Persons' Families Association. No one can say that these are nasty right-wing groups that just want tough laws. These are groups of people who represent victims. When I showed them my bill, they told me that it was just common sense and that that is what needed to be done. Victims are afraid because offenders on parole do not abide by the conditions of their release and people are not incarcerated, as they should be. Bill C-325 seeks to resolve this problem, and I will never understand why the Liberals and the NDP do not get that.
From what I have heard in the first hour of debate today, the rhetoric has changed a bit. What I understand is that people here cannot allow a Conservative bill to go any further. That is what I understood, because people do not want to support it. I thank the Bloc Québécois for agreeing to go further. When we can agree on issues everyone benefits, and I am grateful to the Bloc Québécois for doing that today.
I also understand that Canadians are fed up with this government, because for the past eight years we have seen the result: a 32% increase in violent crime. When Bill C‑5 was introduced, criminals thanked the government, telling themselves that they could continue to commit crimes without fear of going to prison, thanks to the Liberals who protected them. Is this the justice we expect to have in Canada? Do the victims of these criminals expect something else from a federal government? Yes.
There is still time for members to change their minds, since the vote will take place on Wednesday. That leaves two days, or 48 hours. I urge my colleagues to think about Canadians, about people who are afraid, and to stop thinking that the goal is simply to create tough measures. As I said, the Bloc Québécois supports us, and the bill can be amended. I see no problem with that. The goal is to protect people, and that is what I wanted to do with Bill C-325. I hope the two parties opposite will change their minds by Wednesday afternoon.
931 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 11:58:43 a.m.
- Watch
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): The question is on the motion.
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
69 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 11:59:31 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would request a recorded division.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, October 18, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
25 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 11:59:49 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I would suggest that we suspend until Government Orders.
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 11:59:55 a.m.
- Watch
The sitting is suspended to the call of the Chair.
10 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved:
That, in relation to Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, not more that one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and
That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
132 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 12:04:20 p.m.
- Watch
Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question-and-answer period.
I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places or use the “raise hand” function so the Chair has an idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.
We will continue with questions and comments.
The hon. member for La Prairie.
71 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the government, which already has a rather light legislative agenda, is once again showing a complete lack of respect for democracy by imposing time allocation. This bill has been debated for only eight hours, last Tuesday and Friday. There has been eight hours of debate. Where is the urgency?
Clearly, the NDP is going to support the time allocation for the 32nd time. Why is the NDP supporting the Liberals so strongly? It is for an extremely flawed dental insurance program—probably the most flawed in history—and a very dubious promise for pharmacare.
The NDP is being submissive to the Liberals. It is being submissive to the party that subsidizes fossil fuel energy. Polls show that the NDP is paying dearly for being so submissive.
My question is simple: Are the Liberals pleased to have a friend as docile as the NDP?
147 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we have discussed this bill at length. We want to ensure that the Standing Committee on Natural Resources can have the necessary conversations. It is important to refer this bill to the committee.
35 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, once again we are seeing the Liberals shutting down debate, something they said they would never do. Here, they are doing it again and on a bill that is worth debating.
They are talking about taking the oil and gas board in the Atlantic area and making it responsible as a regulatory board for all electric and other technologies, which it has no experience in. Really, this is something we cannot leave to committee.
We need to have voices heard up front so that we can get a fulsome debate on it, but once again, they are ramming things through the House with the help from the NDP. I am not sure why NDP members are still supporting the Liberals. They have gotten nothing they asked for, and they had an opportunity at their convention to say that they did not get pharmacare and dental care is a vague promise for 2025, after the next election. They should just give it up and quit propping up a government that continually shuts down debate.
Can the member opposite explain why they do not want to hear fulsome debate?
189 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we have debated this bill on a number of occasions at second reading, and we will debate it again this afternoon. It is important that this bill move to committee where it can be thoroughly examined and MPs can hear from experts on this bill. It is extremely important that we move expeditiously to capitalize on the enormous economic opportunities that are associated with offshore wind.
Public Policy Forum released a report yesterday that showed just how important this is for the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. I would encourage my hon. colleague to perhaps have a conversation with the Conservative premier of Nova Scotia, who has worked collaboratively on this and wants to see it move quickly.
123 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, right now, we are facing a huge climate crisis, and we need to move quickly. This is about moving the bill onto committee. We know that the Conservative leadership of Nova Scotia wants to move aggressively in having more of a power supply from offshore wind power. I would ask the member why he thinks the Conservatives are blocking this.
62 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the hon. member has a very good question.
I have to say that I was astonished the Conservative opposition would be in opposition to a bill that was developed with the Province of Nova Scotia and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
It is about enabling new economic opportunities and good jobs for the people who live in those provinces. It is part of the ongoing transition with respect to energy around the world. It is an opportunity not just about electricity, but also about hydrogen and helping our friends in Europe. It is astonishing to me that the MPs who come from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, in particular, are opposing this bill.
117 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am very glad to see that there is a motion for closure today because we are in a global race to help drive Canada's offshore future and Canada's clean energy future. I have chastised some of my Conservative colleagues for not getting on board.
Ultimately, we will have a vote on this, and they will be able to lay out their position and rationale on why they are against it, but we are in a global race right now. Every day matters. If we had not moved for closure, the Conservatives would still be here trying to debate the talking points from the leader of the official opposition's office. This is the challenge.
Can the minister highlight to the House how important this bill is for the premiers of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as the clean energy industry?
The fact of the matter is, notwithstanding the Supreme Court decision, this legislation can move forward because it is a joint agreement between federal and provincial authorities. Notwithstanding what the member for Sarnia—Lambton said, which was that there is no experience, this is exactly how the Atlantic accords have operated for almost 40 years now.
205 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this is an extremely positive and constructive example of collaborative federalism. This bill was developed in concert with the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. It is something they will be putting in place in their own legislation as this bill moves through Canada's Parliament. It is extremely important for enabling the economic future of those two provinces. It would create good jobs and economic opportunity.
Again, it astonishes me that members of Parliament from Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia are opposing what is one of the great economic opportunities going forward. It is truly astonishing. They are standing against the premiers of their respective provinces, including the Conservative Premier of Nova Scotia.
119 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the hon. minister knows the debate that took place on Bill C-69. Where is it today? How fulsome have those consultations been with the provinces?
I am looking at the proposed change to subsection 56(1), which basically says that, if there is going to be a future oil development and there is a possibility that it could be turned into a future marine protected area, the Governor in Council could then pull the permit. That is the Prime Minister and the federal cabinet. The industry has said to me, “Cliff, this puts in black and white what we feared all along.”
If Bill C-69 could not do the job on Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore, this bill here will not do the job. Bill C-49 needs to be amended.
137 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would say a few things.
The first is that the legislation was developed in concert with the governments of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. The mechanisms under that are joint mechanisms that would require the federal government and the province to agree on a range of different things moving forward. That is the essence of collaborative, co-operative federalism. That is the essence of how the offshore accord acts have worked for a long time.
I would say to my hon. colleague that it is amazing to me that he would oppose something that is so important for the economic future of Newfoundland and Labrador. Also, if he is interested in discussing amendments, he should let this go to committee to have that conversation.
128 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
