SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 241 - Oct/27/23

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP)

Oct/27/23 12:54:06 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-52

Madam Speaker, this bill is timely as I stand today to speak on behalf of my community of Port Moody—Coquitlam, Anmore and Belcarra, as well as Port Coquitlam, which recently petitioned the government with the following ask as it relates to the Vancouver airspace modernization project. They call upon the Minister of Transport to do the following: ...prepare an independent environmental assessment of the noise and emissions impacts of the proposed flight paths, including recommendations for minimizing such impacts, prior to the proposed changes taking place. This environmental assessment should be based on the latest global research and recommendations for noise and emissions limits, should be independent of Nav Canada, and should be made public when completed. The minister responded to my constituents by stating: Aircraft noise is a complicated and often difficult issue faced by airport authorities and communities around the world and it is essential that the public has the opportunity to provide their feedback on potential changes. I agree with that. He went on to state: That is why the Government of Canada put forward Bill C-52, which if passed, would create a process for airports to notify and consult the public on changes to airport design that could affect aircraft noise. The minister went on to state: Transport Canada previously worked with Canadian airports and NAV CANADA to develop a voluntary protocol for the aviation industry entitled Airspace Change Communications and Consultation Protocol that was published in 2015. This protocol amplified the aviation industry’s commitment to include environmental considerations to communicate and consult with communities. I am here to tell the government that the voluntary protocol did not meet the standards of consultation in my community. I was at Nav Canada's onsite community consultation in Coquitlam earlier this year with respect to the Vancouver airspace modernization project. I can tell members that the room was not set up to be disability or age friendly, it was difficult to navigate the information boards and there was not enough staff to answer important questions from residents. In addition, even the City of Coquitlam did not know about the consultation event, the two mayors whose jurisdictions border the City of Coquitlam knew nothing about it and wrote letters to Nav Canada asking for more detail about the flight plans and more time for their residents to provide feedback. I too wrote a letter to Nav Canada letting it know that the consultation process was inadequate and asking it to agree to an additional extended consultation process. It did not agree to this. This is an example of how the voluntary protocol is not working for people. This bill focuses on improving accountability and transparency. That is certainly needed, based on the experience of the people in my community. That is why the NDP supports this bill moving on to committee stage. While better data collection, reporting and the committee process are a step forward in the bill, Bill C-52 does little to establish standards or enforce accountability to protect people or the environment. This can be seen in how the bill plans to address airplane noise. Canada's air traffic has increased significantly over the past decade and industry observers forecast this will only increase as passengers and cargo numbers at Canadian airports continue to increase. The current approach of a performance-based navigation will not be sufficient and has had the effect of exposing previously unaffected residential areas to new air traffic. This led to complaints from some neighbourhoods that had not previously been under flight paths and were unaccustomed to dealing with the noise or public health impacts. More direct-flight routes and official arrival and departure procedures are here with us now. With a goal to improving airspace efficiency and safety and reducing greenhouse gas emissions where possible, we must also reduce exposure to aircraft noise in residential areas. The government needs to get serious about regulating and enforcing these impacts based on science. That is why the government needs to expand the representation on its noise management committee to include a local public health official as noise pollution can affect and impact population health. Canadians who live near high-traffic airports face disturbances at all hours due to flight noise. According to research compiled by the World Health Organization, excessive noise can have harmful health effects, including increased risk for IHD and hypertension, sleep disturbance, hearing impairment, tinnitus and cognitive impairment. There is also increasing evidence for other health impacts, such as adverse birth outcomes and mental health problems. As a result, Canadians impacted by airport noise deserve to see the science of any changes made to airplane noise around them. The NDP would go further than this bill does, to initially propose and implement the World Health Organization standard on noise around large Canadian airports, make Transport Canada's existing data on airport noise public and improve data collection on ground-level airport noise. These recommendations were all made in the 2019 report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, entitled “Assessing the Impact of Aircraft Noise in the Vicinity of Major Canadian Airports”. Noise pollution must be addressed by international standards, but so too must accessibility for persons with disabilities, who continue to be impacted by barriers in transportation. There is no example of this with a higher profile than what happened last week, when the wheelchair of the chief accessibility officer did not accompany her on her flight home from Ottawa. She was left without her essential mobility device. There are so many stories of persons with disabilities being disrespected, disregarded, degraded and put in dangerous situations because there is no accountability for the failures of industry. Too many persons have had similar experiences across Canada, showing how ill-equipped air transportation is in dealing with accessibility concerns. I hope that this high-profile incident will finally make change and that persons with disabilities who want to travel will get the respect and accommodation they deserve. The Auditor General of Canada published a report in March 2023 entitled “Accessible Transportation for Persons with Disabilities”. It examined the accessibility of federally regulated transportation services, such as planes and trains, for people with disabilities. There were a few key findings from the report that we need to look at. Of the 2.2 million persons with disabilities who used federally regulated transportation in 2019 and 2020, 63% faced a barrier. When these barriers are not tracked, there is no accountability and no action to correct it. That is what we are seeing. It was also found that the Canadian Transportation Agency had insufficient tools and enforcement staff to address barriers. This is seen from the statistic that 31% of CATSA managers and executives did not take the time to complete mandatory disability training. This training is essential and must be taken seriously by industry leaders. They will need legislation to do it, because they have shown that they will not do it on their own. Right now, the Canadian Transportation Agency does not have the authority to require transportation service providers to provide complaint data on accessibility regularly. It can do so only in limited and specific circumstances. The AG report found that this limits the ability to fully understand the total number and nature of complaints and, thus, identify and address potential barriers to accessible transportation. For example, when a wheelchair is damaged, a complaint can be lodged with the transportation service provider and, if necessary, with the agency. However, when complaints are submitted only to the transportation service provider, the agency is not made aware. There is no regulation enforcing that. Therefore, it does not know the full extent of the issues faced by persons with disabilities. In contrast, the same Canadian airlines travelling to U.S. destinations must report accessibility performance indicators, such as damages to mobility aids, to the U.S. Department of Transportation. Complaint data is one of the key sources of information that flags discrimination and problem experiences by travellers with disabilities. Not having the authority to regularly access this information limits the agency's ability to more strategically select the provisions of the Accessible Transportation for Persons with Disabilities Regulations to inspect. This creates an additional risk that the agency is not focusing its limited resources on the areas of the highest risk and those discriminatory barriers. Recently, the Canadian Transportation Agency ruled that the country's largest airlines need to do more to accommodate passengers with mobility devices. A consultation process with the disability community regarding the proposed accessibility regulation in this act must be the standard we have for all transportation systems. This should also include a new accountability process for accessibility complaints, including current outstanding complaints, to be heard, addressed and monitored for changes to be implemented. They must meet international standards. The last point I want to touch on today is postpandemic air travel. The pandemic has exposed deep underlying issues in Canada's air transportation sector, which resulted in chaos during the summer 2022 and holiday 2022-23 travel seasons. Airlines have come under fire for poor planning and trying to rebound too quickly in order to maximize profits. This has resulted in Canadians sleeping on airport floors and being stranded abroad, as well as Toronto Pearson airport being ranked as one of the worst airports in the world for delays. This legislation would provide regulation-making authority requiring improved service standards. In the briefing on this bill to the stakeholders, the government said, “Regulations developed would establish the services that require a service standard, but the intent is not for the regulations to establish specific target metrics.” Why is this not the intent? The NDP supports stronger collaboration and service standards for all aspects of air travel. However, those service standards should be developed and implemented by the government to ensure consistency across the sector and to ensure that airlines and airports are not left to regulate themselves. We have seen that, when left in their own hands, companies will take shortcuts, do minimal work to make a change and put profits before people. New Democrats would add this: If the government truly wants to address delays and inconsistencies in the air travel sector, it should take steps to improve working conditions for airport screening officers by ending contract flipping and by supporting training programs. The NDP agrees that establishing service standards for air sector providers is important. However, the government should ensure that those standards are consistent across the sector and serve the best interests of workers and travellers. In summary, New Democrats want changes to this bill that will positively impact those affected by airplane noise and pollution and those who use air travel, including passengers with disabilities. We also want established guidelines for how the new data-sharing provisions will be used to effect positive changes in the sector. Government must strengthen the contents of airport climate plans to ensure that emissions targets are consistent with international commitments to the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act. I will close by saying that the proposed act requires airport authorities to prepare climate change plans using international standards, but it has no similar requirement for noise or accessibility. This feels discriminatory, so I ask why. This needs to be corrected. Additional accountability is needed in this bill by adding that airport noise committees must evaluate noise complaints in a manner consistent with recognized international standards. Complaints relating to accessibility must also be evaluated in such a manner. We cannot leave this to be fixed in a private cabinet meeting.

1944 words

Mr. Chandra Arya (Nepean, Lib.)

Oct/27/23 1:09:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned airport noise and the noise complaint process. My riding of Nepean has a problem with small, low-flying aircraft from a flying club. This act does not deal with the noise generated by these aircraft. The data are controlled by Nav Canada, which the residents in my riding do not have access to. Does the member agree that, if possible, an amendment must be made at committee to include noise pollution caused by small aircraft at flying clubs and that the complaint resolution process should be made much easier for residents of affected localities?

100 words

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo

Oct/27/23 1:09:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Liberal government needs to take into consideration the science. We do need to make sure that those whose health is potentially affected by noise pollution and any other kind of pollution are taken seriously. The government has a lot of work to do to protect the health of Canadians. This would be just one of the ways.

60 words

Mr. Marc Dalton (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, CPC)

Oct/27/23 1:10:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Canadian travellers are very frustrated with wait times, lost luggage, cancellations and vacations ruined, and the Liberals' solution here seems to be more regulation and more red tape. We have, for example, the international airport in Toronto, Toronto Pearson, which is one of Canada's busiest airports. It ranks second-worst in all of North America as far as efficiencies and delays go. I am wondering whether the member could answer to this: After eight years of the Prime Minister, everything is broken.

85 words

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo

Oct/27/23 1:11:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what we know for sure is that greedy corporations are putting profits before people. This is driving a number of these problems. When I think about persons with disabilities, this is an area we know about and that corporations know about, but they have done nothing to correct it. I say that until we start regulating, because corporations are not going to regulate themselves, we are not going to get change. The regulation needs to be done thoughtfully and in consultation with our communities. That is why the NDP would like to see the bill go to committee, so we can hear from people.

106 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

Oct/27/23 1:11:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague on her speech. I would like to start with a comment before I ask my question. My fear about the possibility of fully improving the bill in committee is that legislative clerks have a very narrow view of the changes that can be made to the bill in committee. That makes it very difficult to broaden the scope of the bill. That is what I wanted to say. Here is my question. This bill relies heavily on the government to determine everything by regulation at a later date. My colleague referred to that in her speech. I would like to ask her again whether it is acceptable for the government to work that way. Is it acceptable for the government to say that we have to trust it, that it will take care of everything but that it will not be held accountable?

150 words

Accountable

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo

Oct/27/23 1:12:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, when we are talking about human rights, let us talk about the human rights of persons with disabilities. We cannot leave that outside regulation or outside legislation. We know there are international standards of how persons with disabilities should be respected and treated, and how they should have their human rights upheld in the transportation industry, so I think it is fairly obvious, and I am surprised the Liberals did not see it, that the bill cannot be discriminatory.

81 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

Oct/27/23 1:13:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for all her advocacy in this place for people living with disabilities. I know that was an important theme of her speech, and sometimes we do not get enough time in this place to make all the points we would like to make, so I wonder whether there is a bit more she would like to be able to say about people living with disabilities and access to transportation that she did not have an opportunity to say in her original speech.

88 words

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo

Oct/27/23 1:13:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to just say a bit about ground transportation because that would not be covered by the bill. When persons with disabilities travel, it is not just the airline or the train that they need to spend excessive amounts of time planning for; they also need ground transportation. In Canada, this is not always available to them. They cannot always actually get accessible transportation when they land at their destination, whether it is in an airport or in a train station, so more work needs to be done on accommodation and equity in travel, not just in airplanes, on boats and on rail.

107 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Oct/27/23 1:14:49 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-52

Madam Speaker, I want to particularly thank my colleague from Port Moody—Coquitlam for bringing the focus back to treatment of travellers dealing with disabilities. It is an important point. To the member for Nepean's point, I think we may have the beginning of an aircraft noise caucus to take amendments forward on Bill C-52. We need to do much more. There are serious health impacts from aircraft noise, so I will add Saanich—Gulf Islands in, and I think almost every member of Parliament would have constituents who basically have their quality of life reduced to almost nothing from repeated low flights over their homes. Certainly in my constituency, I have tried with Nav Canada, I have tried with Transport Canada and I have tried with various airport authorities to get some relief for constituents. I look forward to bringing forward amendments, and I thank the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam for bringing that focus to her speech.

164 words

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo

Oct/27/23 1:15:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, certainly, a noise pollution caucus is a good idea. As it relates to airlines, I think we would get a lot of community input from that. I just want to highlight simply the amount of and increase in cargo traffic. We now live in a society where people want things delivered to them from across the world in a day. This means that more air traffic needs to be flying around. In B.C. alone, we are shipping crab and cherries overseas more and more because we can get such a great price for them. They go by air. We are just in for more and more noise pollution as it relates to air traffic. I think we need, as the member said, to get a caucus together to advance some of these new regulations.

137 words

Mr. Chandra Arya (Nepean, Lib.)

Oct/27/23 1:16:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned the diversity clause in the bill. Is she happy with the way the clause has been worded? Does she think any changes are required in that?

32 words

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo

Oct/27/23 1:17:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not necessarily want to pre-empt what witnesses say when they come to committee. This is an area where I always like to hear from witnesses and the community first, so I will leave that open. However, I will reiterate my ask that there be a public health official, at least, on the advisory committee. I would also add that since our local municipalities did not know about the consultation for the Vancouver project, we could maybe have some representation from either municipal politicians or even staff within a municipality.

94 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie

Oct/27/23 1:17:43 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-32

Madam Speaker, we all remember the sad incidents at airports in the summer of 2022. People were sleeping on the floor. They were not given food or a place to sleep. They were not getting any answers. We also remember the big snowstorm during last year's holiday season, and especially everything that followed. Does my colleague think that the contents of Bill C-32 and the other bills passed so far are enough to ensure that these kinds of situations do not happen again?

85 words

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo

Oct/27/23 1:18:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley has been doing a lot of work around this exact topic and has been advocating better rules and responsibilities for corporations and airports around passenger safety and passenger customer service. I think there is a lot of work to do here. I would leave it with my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley, who has been doing incredible work in this space.

71 words

Ms. Iqra Khalid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, Lib.)

Oct/27/23 1:18:53 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-52

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by acknowledging that I am speaking today from the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. I am happy to speak today to Bill C-52, which aims to enhance transparency and accountability in Canada's transportation system. One essential element of this proposed legislation is the air transportation accountability act. Since the pandemic, air transportation in Canada and around the world has faced many challenges on its path to recovery. It has become quite clear that new measures are needed to support the sector in meeting the needs of all Canadians. I have heard from so many constituents and from stakeholders on all sides of this, hearing their feedback and learning about the challenges they have been struggling with as they try to get around across Canada and around the world. While Canada is not alone in this, the increased number of flight delays and cancellations over the past two years have impacted way too many Canadians. That, combined with other congestion challenges such as long lineups and lost luggage, has made it clear that there is a need for increased oversight of our transportation system. By improving accountability and transparency in the air sector, we could really build a stronger and more resilient system with improved services to Canadians when they travel by air. The bill before us includes many provisions for improving our transportation system, but today I want to focus on the five types of new requirements it would establish related to transparency and accountability in Canada's air sector. Under the proposed legislation, the Minister of Transport would gain the ability to make regulations requiring airports and air service providers to establish and report on service standards in relation to flights and flight-related services at airports. Airport operators would be required to comply with a formalized consultation and notice process around aircraft noise. Air operators and others would be required to provide information to the Minister of Transport on request, and airport operators would be required to develop climate change mitigation and adaptation plans and to report on diversity among their senior management. Each of these new requirements, in its own way, would help us increase accountability and transparency in Canada's air transportation system, with the ultimate objective being to make sure that Canadians are able to travel safely and efficiently across our country and across the world. This bill would also enable the creation of regulations requiring air operators to create, implement and report on service standards. This would offer many improvements to transparency and accountability in Canada's air sector. The proposed regulations would specify which services require standards. Air sector entities would be expected to develop targets for those standards so they could be tailored to their individual circumstances. The regulations would also set criteria to establish which airports would be subject to these requirements. As we have seen, we need to have a cut-to-the-challenge approach and make sure that all of our services and all of the regulations are targeted toward addressing the challenges of each unique issue, as it is faced, across the country. Reporting on these service standards would show Canadians what level of service they can expect from the different service providers in the air transportation system. This would provide Canadians with more certainty about what to expect when they fly. This should incentivize operators to improve service and tailor their operations and their communications to better meet travellers' needs. It would help operators understand where there are challenges in the system and work together to fix them. Noise management, as we heard from the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, has always been a challenge for airports and the communities around them. That is why we are proposing to introduce a standardized process for noise management at busy airports, meaning airports that have at least 60,000 annual aircraft movements. Currently, this would include Toronto Pearson, Vancouver, Montréal-Trudeau, Calgary, Edmonton and Winnipeg. Sometimes when I am flying from Ottawa to Pearson and I look down, I can see my own house as we fly into Pearson airport. The proposed legislation would require airport operators to establish a noise management committee with representation from the airport, air navigation, aircraft operators and local municipalities. This would provide members of the public with a clear point of contact through which they can express any concerns regarding aircraft noise. When changes are proposed to temporarily alter flight paths or airspace design, the party proposing them would be required to formally notify the local community. For permanent changes, there would also be a requirement to consult local residents, giving them the opportunity to make their voices heard. I know my constituents would greatly appreciate that. By providing Canadians with additional clarity around noise procedures, this change would also improve communication and enhance transparency at major airports to ensure that local communities are appropriately informed about proposed changes. Information is key to a well-functioning and efficient transportation system. Bill C-52 would enable the Minister of Transport to require air industry operators to provide information that is not already included in regular data recording requirements on an as-needed basis. This would enable Transport Canada to make more informed decisions to support improvements in air travel. For example, during crises, this new power would help the federal government to better manage disruptions. This would complement measures recently introduced under the Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1, regarding sharing data. To strengthen and standardize our airports' climate action, Bill C-52 would support Canada's environmental agenda by requiring certain airports to develop and publish five-year climate change mitigation and adaptation plans. This would include a greenhouse gas emission reduction target. These plans would describe the current and anticipated impacts of climate change on the airports, and set out an action plan for their intended response. This requirement would apply to airports that have had more than four million annual passengers over the last three years, which currently includes Toronto Pearson, Vancouver, Montréal-Trudeau and Calgary. We expect more airports to reach this threshold within the next few years as traffic returns to prepandemic levels. Under Canada's aviation climate action plan, Transport Canada and other departments will work with Canadian airport authorities to support and advance their decarbonization efforts. The impacts of climate change are more apparent than ever, and more needs to be done. We know that climate change mitigation is important to Canadians. These requirements would ensure that Canada's largest airport authorities are transparent about their environmental impact and also accountable for their emissions. Another issue that we know is important to Canadians is equity, diversity and inclusion. Ensuring greater transparency in the air sector would help us address long-standing equity, diversity and inclusion challenges. Under the proposed provisions, federally incorporated airport authorities would be required to annually report on diversity among their directors and senior management. This would help encourage these entities to ensure that their directors and senior management are reflective of Canadian society and that their reporting is consistent with that of other corporations. I am proud to support this bill in its efforts to encourage our air sector to be more reflective of the diversity of Canadian society. Not only do we need to reflect the diversity of Canadian society, but we also need to incorporate the lived experiences of diverse communities and use those experiences to ensure that we are providing service delivery in our air sector in an efficient, accessible and accurate manner for all Canadians. By encouraging the players within the sector to be more transparent and accountable, Bill C-52 would ensure that Canadians can continue to rely on our system now and into the future, regardless of what disruptions may come. That is why I am asking my hon. colleagues to support Bill C-52 and the measures it includes to improve accountability and transparency in Canada's transportation system. These changes would encourage the further development of an air transportation system that is socially and environmentally responsible, strong and—

1359 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/27/23 1:30:03 p.m.
Watch

I am sorry. I thought the hon. member was finished her sentence, but I have to interrupt. The hon. member will have eight minutes and 45 seconds the next time this matter is before the House.

36 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

Oct/27/23 1:30:49 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-205

Madam Speaker, as my friend and colleague from Rivière-du-Nord mentioned on September 21 and as my friend and colleague from Saint-Jean will reiterate in a few minutes, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill S-205 in principle and recommends that it be sent to committee for study. Our position is consistent with initiatives that reinforce mechanisms aimed at making the justice system better aligned with public safety, especially to better protect victims of domestic violence. Broadly speaking, Bill S‑205 seeks to amend the Criminal Code to require the judge who has to make a decision regarding the interim release of an accused person to make sure that the prosecutor has consulted the victim about their safety and security needs. To that end, the judge can order the accused to wear an electronic monitoring device—

145 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/27/23 1:31:55 p.m.
Watch

There seem to be discussions going on in the House. I would ask hon. members to leave if they want to have discussions. They can use the lobby. That way, they will not disrupt our proceedings. The hon. member for Joliette.

41 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie

Oct/27/23 1:32:11 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-205

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, Bill S-205 essentially seeks to amend the Criminal Code in order to enable judges to order an accused to wear an electronic monitoring device at the request of the prosecutor; make it easier for the victim to obtain a copy of the order against the accused and require the judge to check with the prosecutor to ensure that the victim has indeed been informed; and enable the victim to report their assailant if they have reasonable grounds to fear for their physical safety or that of their child or children. If the fear is justified, the judge can then order that the accused enter into a recognizance. Refusal to do so will result in imprisonment. The bill also seeks to give judges the power to set conditions in the recognizance to ensure good conduct. For example, the judge can require the accused to attend a psychosocial treatment program; move to a region other than the area where the informant lives; refrain from going to a specified place; and abstain from communicating directly or indirectly with a child, the informant or the child of the informant, or any relative or close friend of the informant. The bill also seeks to enable the judge to prohibit the accused from using social media and from using drugs, alcohol or other intoxicating substances. The judge can also require the accused to provide a sample to ensure that they are meeting that condition. Finally, the bill seeks to enable the informant to provide submissions in writing to help the judge determine the conditions in the recognizance. Bill S‑205 has three main components: the obligation to consult the victim before making a conditional release order; the addition of the concept of domestic violence, allowing a victim to apply to have the accused enter into a recognizance to keep the peace, under sections 810 and following of the Criminal Code; and the preponderance of the victim's submissions, which can influence the choice of the conditions included in the recognizance issued to the accused. Bill S‑205 therefore expands the scope of section 810 of the Criminal Code to allow the court to impose a good behaviour recognizance if the victim fears that the accused might cause personal injury or property damage to them, their child or their intimate partner. Relatives and close friends have been added to the list of potential targets. Let us not forget that release, with or without conditions, allows an accused person to be released into the community while awaiting trial. In Quebec and Canada, criminal law and penal law have a duty to punish crimes and protect the public. With femicide and domestic violence on the rise, it is important to strengthen mechanisms to protect victims, their children and their loved ones. Modernizing the Criminal Code is an essential part of that, and that is exactly what Bill S-205 does. More specifically, the Criminal Code sets out the conditions under which it would be justified to detain an accused person pending trial. The decision to detain a person awaiting trial depends on a number of factors specific to each situation. When it is in the public interest to detain an accused person, it is important to remember that the accused is deprived of the exercise of fundamental rights. These include the presumption of innocence and the right to life, liberty and security of the person. Allowing the victim to be more involved in the court case is a welcome improvement that the Bloc Québécois can support unreservedly. Victims should not have to fight for justice to be served. The bill will help reduce the obstacles that victims might encounter and that might dissuade them from taking the brave step of filing a complaint against their attacker. The Bloc Québécois will always stand up for women and victims of domestic violence. One victim is one too many. Quebec is one of the most progressive nations when it comes to protecting victims of intimate partner and domestic violence. In fact, Quebec's department of public safety launched a Quebec-wide electronic monitoring device pilot project. In December 2022, more than 650 offenders on parole were fitted with such a device. Let us not forget that these are people being prosecuted for offences for which they could be sentenced to incarceration in a Quebec prison. Those who end up in federally run prisons, and therefore who have longer and harsher sentences, are not subject to the same conditions. It is time to settle this discrepancy and make offenders subject to the same restrictions. If the bill passes, these legislative changes will represent an added value for the victims, including female victims of domestic or sexual violence. The justice system has to be more effective and transparent, not just to facilitate the legal process and ease the long-term effects on victims or their family, especially when a decision is made about releasing the assailant, but also to strengthen public trust in the justice system so that no other victim of a crime will hesitate to report it to the police. Statistics show that there has been a spike in femicide and domestic violence. Between 2009 and 2019, there was an increase of 7.5%. The idea is to bring these numbers down. They are currently on the rise. As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to help reverse this troubling trend. The reality on the ground highlights the gaps, including the status quo in the justice system: Many victims continue to fear their assailant, even while that person is being detained. We can only welcome an initiative that aims to improve the victim's experience of the justice system throughout the entire process, from the moment he or she decides to file a complaint. Bill S-205 may contain loopholes that could jeopardize certain fundamental rights, such as the obligation to provide biological samples to prove compliance with a recognizance to be of good behaviour. This all must be studied in committee. However, as I have said and will say again, as my colleague will say later, and as my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord put it so well—better than I can—the Bloc Québécois unequivocally supports the principle of the bill. This is a laudable principle that aims to make our communities safer, which is a win-win situation for all Quebeckers. A sense of security within a community strengthens a nation's well-being. Finally, in committee, as I said and as we will say again, the Bloc Québécois will work constructively to improve this bill.

1127 words