SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 259 - Nov/30/23

Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ)

Nov/30/23 5:06:22 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-48

Madam Speaker, Bill C‑48 is not the type of bill we are used to seeing in a democracy, at least not here in Canada, and even less so in Quebec. We firmly believe in the presumption of innocence, that a person who is accused of a crime, whatever that crime, should be presumed innocent, and that the Crown must provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt without compelling self-incrimination. There are, however, exceptions. I do not want to repeat what I said around 10 weeks ago about the same bill when I was announcing the Bloc Québécois's support. I still support the bill, and for the same reasons. I think that there are indeed situations in which the burden of proof should be reversed, for example when a person accused of certain serious crimes is asking for bail. What Bill C‑48 proposes is that we reverse the burden of proof for serious offences involving violence, firearms offences, offences involving intimate partner violence, and offences for which the accused person has been found guilty and convicted within the past five years. In those cases, even if reversing the burden of proof is a little off-putting, I think we should do it in the case of conditional release to ensure public safety and avoid the commission of other, similar crimes. That, in a nutshell, is what I said about 10 weeks ago, and I am saying it again today. We think it is necessary in those types of cases. Now we are studying the Senate's report. What is the Senate saying? Essentially, it is saying that it agrees with everything, but would like to add two conditions. I am summarizing a bit here, but one of the two conditions is that, if a judge decides that there is cause to reverse the burden of proof, they must “include [in the record of proceedings] a statement indicating how they considered their particular circumstances, as required under that section.” The judge must take the victim's situation into consideration and, if they do, the Senate tells us that they have to include in the record not only a statement that they did so, but an explanation of what motivated their decision. In this respect, I agree, because many of these cases will find their way to appeals courts, and many of these situations will give rise to pleas based on the provisions of the charter, which effectively guarantees the presumption of innocence and that, as a result, the Crown, not the defendant, must prove that the defendant is guilty. In this case, the Crown must prove that the defendant has to be detained in order to maintain public safety. Seeing as this violates the provisions of the charter, the courts may have to decide whether the trial judge made an informed decision in the circumstances. Should that occur, it is important for the judge to have noted the reasons for his or her decision in the court records, which could provide insight for an appeal board on whether the ruling was sound. I think that is wise. I still believe in the importance of Bill C‑48 and the reverse onus in situations like the ones indicated in the bill. For that reason I agree with the Senate's proposal, which I support almost enthusiastically. The other provision the Senate mentions states that five years after the bill comes into force there will be a review of the question to determine whether the bill should be amended and decide whether it furthers the interests of justice. The bill provided that this review would be done by a committee of the House of Commons. The Senate says it agrees, but that it too wants to participate. The amendment proposes that Bill C‑48 be referred to the “standing committee of the Senate and the standing committee of the House of Commons that normally consider” these matters. I really do not see any reason to oppose the Senate's request. For these reasons, I am also in favour of the second aspect of the Senate's report. I know I am entitled to speak for 20 minutes and that I have been speaking for five or six minutes, but I do not think I will ask the House to listen to me repeat what I said about 10 weeks ago, in late September, nor will I repeat what I have just said using different words. We are in favour of this motion and want Bill C‑48 to be passed and to come into effect as soon as possible.

781 words

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Nov/30/23 5:12:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am going to give my colleague an opportunity to use up a bit more floor time. Joking aside, this is a very serious subject. We are seeking a fragile balance between individual rights and collective rights, the protection of society and the community. This is not an easy balance to strike. I am very interested in what my colleague had to say. He showed that people do not need to spend a lot of time talking when what they say is clear and precise. I congratulate him. As my colleague explained, this bill applies to repeat offenders when the offence is repeated within a five-year period. Could he tell us whether the bill makes a distinction for prolific offenders? Does that change anything? Is the five-year period extended in their case? When we talk about issues like this, it is easy to fall into the trap of populism, because we can all think about horrific cases we have seen or heard about. I would like to know whether this is clearly expressed in the bill, and whether there is any leeway for the judge. It is also important to allow the judge to gauge the specific situation. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say.

213 words

Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin

Nov/30/23 5:13:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to thank my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, who always asks really good questions. It is not always easy to answer them, but they are always important questions. That being said, I will answer both components of his question. First, the bill defines a repeat offender as someone who has committed “an offence in the commission of which violence was allegedly used, threatened or attempted against a person with the use of a weapon, and the accused has been previously convicted, within five years of the day on which they were charged for that offence, of another offence in the commission of which violence was also used, threatened or attempted against any person with the use of a weapon, if the maximum term of imprisonment for each of those offences is 10 years or more”. We simply want to avoid being taken for a ride. A repeat offender is someone who, every two, three or five years at most, repeatedly appears before the courts, charged with using a firearm to commit a violent offence. We believe, without presuming this person guilty, that there is a very good chance that they are dangerous for society. We are saying that the judge will have to take this into account before releasing them. That does not mean that the judge is obliged to reach a particular decision. To answer the second part of my colleague's question, the judge does indeed retain some discretion. However, the onus is reversed. Individuals found guilty of a gun crime two or three years ago will have to prove that they are no longer too dangerous to be released. The judge will have all the necessary discretion to release them or not, but the onus will be reversed during the judicial process. The Crown will not be required to prove that such individuals are dangerous and must remain in custody. The individuals themselves must prove that they are not dangerous and that they can be released.

338 words

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP)

Nov/30/23 5:16:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I intend to be very brief this afternoon because the bill we have before us was supported unanimously by the House and has had some useful amendments made by the Senate, which I now hear that everyone in the House is prepared to support. The bill would do two things. One thing, which we have focused on, is that it would make it more difficult for serious repeat violent offenders to get bail by establishing a reverse onus. All parties here recognize we have a problem that needs to be fixed and that this bill would fix that problem. Therefore, most of the attention has gone to that aspect of the bill. However, there is a second provision in the bill that is also quite important. Despite the rhetoric we hear from the Conservatives, over the past 30 years, the rate of pretrial detention in Canada has more than tripled. Instead of the Conservatives' version, where everybody gets out with a “get out of jail free” card, we tripled the number of people in detention. Our rate is far higher than in the U.K., Australia, New Zealand, Ireland or any other western European nation. That means, in the situation we have in Canada, there is a second problem with the bail system: The poor, the homeless and those suffering from substance abuse challenges or mental health issues are more likely to be denied bail and end up in custody. What does that mean? When people are in pretrial custody, they end up in provincial institutions, which have no programming for anti-violence, anti-substance abuse or mental health. Therefore, we are warehousing the poor, the marginalized and indigenous people without giving them the supports they need in the period when they are waiting for a trial. We have to remember that over a third of those who are subject to bail conditions or kept in custody before trial are never convicted of anything. One-third of the people are innocent. We know what happens. Pretrial detention has very serious impacts. It can lead to loss of employment, it can lead to loss of housing and it can lead to loss of custody of children, because more than 40% of those detained in Canada pretrial are held for more than one month and many are held for as long as six months. This causes a complete disruption in people's lives. It keeps them in a provincial institution, where they have no programming, and makes their conflict in the future with the legal system and society far greater. In this bill, there is a provision that New Democrats added, which is to make judges consider community-based bail supervision programs. We know what works for those on bail. We know it does not work to ask people's mom, dad or sister to be a surety, because how do they influence the behaviour? The John Howard Society has run very successful pilot programs in Ontario whereby a person gets supervision. In other words, someone looks after their behaviour when they are on bail. Second, they get someone who helps hook them up to the services they need, including mental health and addiction services, employment services and whatever else they need. Those John Howard programs that are running in Ontario have a 90% success rate. In other words, 90% of the people show up in court to face their trial, but in the meantime they do not reoffend. The Conservatives are talking about those who offend while they are out on bail, and yes, that happens. However, why does that happen? It is because they do not have access to the services they need and they do not have real supervision. The police do not have a mandate to do bail supervision, nor do they have the resources. We know that community-based bail supervision programs work, and this bill would require judges to consider them. Of course, that means the federal government would have to pony up some money at the front end to get those kinds of programs running across the country. However, does it cost money? No, it does not, because it is far more expensive to keep people in detention than it is to supervise them in the community. Listen to this: The costs are about 10 times higher to detain someone than to put them into a community-based bail supervision program. That part of this bill is overlooked in the debate about legitimate concerns the public has. If we really want to get the rate of reoffending down, we know what works. We know it is community-based bail supervision programs. We know it is devoting more money to on-demand mental health treatment. We know it is about more money for on-demand substance abuse treatment. We know it is better access to employment and education programs for those who currently lack those opportunities. We will continue to support this bill. I think everybody will. I found it a little odd to hear a speech that essentially opposed it from the Conservatives, but I think everybody is on board. We know premiers are on board. We know police associations are on board. We know that victims' associations are on board. We know the Senate is on board. Therefore, if nobody is against this, I am going to end my speech at this point and ask us to move forward with passing this bill, which would approve the Senate amendments, this afternoon.

921 words

Mr. Philip Lawrence (Northumberland—Peterborough South, CPC)

Nov/30/23 5:21:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in my town of Cobourg, we recently had an incident where an individual assaulted a person who had their child there, and the individual was out on bail the same day and committed another crime. It was because of the bail reform that the NDP supported earlier, and now this is going halfway back. Is the member at all regretful for his voting record?

66 words

Mr. Randall Garrison

Nov/30/23 5:22:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I first want to start by saying that I do quite often resent the implication that anyone in the House does not have sympathy for victims and what happens to them, or that anyone in the House actually supports crime and criminal activity. What I support, and my background was in criminal justice for 20 years before I came here, are things that are actually effective in addressing those problems. We know that if someone is let out on bail now with no supervision, with no access to programming, the chances they will reoffend while they are out on bail are very high. The bill before us, and what we are calling for, would provide for community-based bail supervision programs, which would help avoid exactly the circumstances the member raised in this incident.

136 words

Mrs. Tracy Gray (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC)

Nov/30/23 5:22:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member talked about making changes that would actually make a difference. One of the things that I had proposed in a private member's bill was to get those people who are incarcerated in federal institutions access to addiction treatment and recovery, but the NDP, unfortunately, did not support that. How does the member rationalize saying that he wants to vote for legislation that would actually make a difference and yet he will vote against a bill like that? He also supports bills like Bill C-75, which actually lessened the bail system, and we have seen from the stats how many more victims there are because of Bill C-75.

114 words

Mr. Randall Garrison

Nov/30/23 5:23:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out to the hon. member that, of course, her private member's bill had a poison pill in it for people like me who want to vote for things that are effective. Does reform to the bail system cause crime? No, it does not, and reforms to the bail system in Bill C-75 did not increase the crime rate. There are lots of other very complicated factors we could look at about why that happened, but the Conservatives like to point to the headlines and not actually point to the things that really work when it comes to combatting crimes and preventing future victims.

112 words

Hon. Arif Virani

Nov/30/23 5:24:29 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-48

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I believe if you seek it you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, the motion respecting Senate amendments made to Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bail reform), standing on the Notice Paper be deemed adopted.

60 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/30/23 5:24:50 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. minister moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay. Some hon. members: Nay. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): We will go back to questions and comments with the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

65 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Nov/30/23 5:25:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I know that I can express the will of most members of the chamber, and I believe there is a great sense of disappointment that the Conservatives now, in the House of Commons, have chosen to not allow this debate to come to an end, unlike what the leader of the Conservative Party said last summer. Members will recall that the leader of the Conservative Party then said that all it would take is one day and the Conservatives would be happy to pass it through the whole system. This is a complete flip-flop, once again, by the leader of the Conservative Party. I wonder if my colleague across the way could provide his thoughts on the flip-flop.

122 words

Flip
Flop

Mr. Randall Garrison

Nov/30/23 5:26:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg North for his comments, because I have the same reaction to this action by the Conservatives. It is a party whose leader said they would come back and get this done in one day. It has taken a bit longer than that, but we could get this done today, and so I would like to see someone propose the unanimous consent motion once again and see if the Conservatives will actually go along with what their leader promised previously.

87 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

Nov/30/23 5:26:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to come back to the attempt to obtain the unanimous consent of the House. I would like to remind all my colleagues that when someone wants to take that approach, they usually inform the other parties beforehand. My party was not informed in this case. We would have supported that consent because the fact is we were not against it. I would just like to remind members that there is decorum here. This place is not just the government. There are elected members from all parties, and it is important to consult and inform colleagues from the other parties. I thank my colleague for his speech and I would like to know if he has any comments to make regarding that intervention.

127 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/30/23 5:27:15 p.m.
Watch

As the member pointed out, it is important to ensure that all parties are aware that a motion is going to be moved. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons on a point of order.

42 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Nov/30/23 5:27:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there has been dialogue among the parties inside the chamber and I suspect that if you were to canvass the House that you would find unanimous consent at this point in time, to see the message passed as the minister had proposed.

44 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/30/23 5:27:50 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay. I declare the motion carried.

41 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Nov/30/23 5:28:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I just wish to recognize the time and ask for unanimous consent to call the time 5:30 p.m., so that we can begin private members' hour.

30 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/30/23 5:28:38 p.m.
Watch

Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

Mr. Mario Beaulieu (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ)

Nov/30/23 5:29:45 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-354 Bill C-11

moved that Bill C‑354, An Act to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act (Quebec's cultural distinctiveness and French-speaking communities), be read the second time and referred to a committee. He said: Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois's Bill C‑354 seeks to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act so that the CRTC must consult with the Government of Quebec about the cultural distinctiveness of Quebec and with the governments of the other provinces about their French-speaking markets before carrying out its mandate and exercising its powers with regard to aspects of the Canadian broadcasting system that relate to those things. Essentially, Bill C‑354 seeks to protect Quebec's cultural distinctiveness and the francophone community in the enforcement of the new Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act. That involves organizing consultations with the Government of Quebec and the provincial governments before regulating aspects that relate to the cultural distinctiveness of Quebec. This bill responds to an official request from the Government of Quebec during the debates surrounding Bill C‑11 for the federal government to set up a mandatory, formal consultation mechanism with the Government of Quebec. Quebec wants to have its say before the CRTC takes any action that could affect businesses providing services in Quebec or the Quebec market. The motion adopted by the Quebec National Assembly in this regard specifies that Quebec intends to use all of the tools at its disposal to protect its language, culture and identity. Bill C‑354 also constructively responds to the federal government's disturbing decision last year to end the tradition of alternating the CRTC chairship between francophones and anglophones. The bill is also consistent with the House of Commons' recognition that Quebeckers form a nation. Quebeckers form a distinct people, a nation with a unique identity based on our history, and particularly on our culture and language. It is only natural, and even essential, for a nation to manage its culture. Access to Quebec's common public language and culture allows newcomers to participate in and enrich Quebec society, and to enjoy the same rights and obligations as every Quebecker. The idea of being sovereign in telecommunications management is not new. In 1929, Quebec Premier Louis-Alexandre Taschereau passed the law governing broadcasting in that province. However, instead of working with Quebec, in 1932, Ottawa responded to Taschereau's idea by creating the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission, the forerunner of the current CRTC, under the Canadian Broadcasting Act. The idea of being sovereign in telecommunications management remained alive, despite federal interference. In 1968, Quebec Premier Daniel Johnson said the following: The assignment of broadcasting frequencies cannot and must not be the prerogative of the federal government. Quebec can no longer tolerate being excluded from a field where its vital interest is so obvious. Between 1990 and 1992, the Quebec minister of communications at the time, Liberal Lawrence Cannon, prepared a draft Quebec proposal that read as follows: Quebec must be able to establish the rules for operating radio and television systems, and control development plans for telecommunications networks, service rates and the regulation of new telecommunications services.... Quebec cannot let others control programming for electronic media within its borders.... To that end, Quebec must have full jurisdiction and be able to deal with a single regulatory body. In 2006, that same Lawrence Cannon became a minister in the Conservative cabinet under Prime Minister Stephen Harper. On April 9, 2008, Liberal ministers Christine Saint‑Pierre and Benoît Pelletier sent a letter to the Conservatives in Ottawa—Josée Verner and Rona Ambrose at the time—to conclude repatriation agreements in the culture, broadcasting and telecommunications sector. This is what it said: The purpose of this letter is to express the will of Quebec to engage, as soon as possible, in discussions on concluding a Canada-Quebec agreement on the communications sector...and a Canada-Quebec agreement on culture. Considering the distinct culture of Quebec, the only French-speaking state in North America, we believe that concluding such an administrative agreement would make it possible to better reflect the specific characteristics of Quebec content in broadcasting and telecommunications, and would serve as recognition of the importance of protecting and promoting Quebec's specific culture. The Bloc Québécois is convinced that telecommunications and broadcasting are of capital importance for the vitality of Quebec culture. That is clear. That is why we are of the opinion that, ultimately, these sectors need to be regulated by Quebec. This should happen under a Quebec radio-television and telecommunications commission, a QRTC. That is the only approach that would allow us to have full control, to be masters of the decisions that concern our language and culture. Quebec must have the tools needed to promote a diversified Quebec offer in the television markets and on digital platforms, which are increasingly predatory. As the serious media crisis in the province shows, from the small regional newspapers to the restructuring of Groupe TVA, it is crucial to maintain a francophone diversity of information sources and plurality of voices, regardless of the size of the media group. Furthermore, the Internet deployment strategy must be better aligned with Quebec’s interests, particularly to ensure the right to a stable, affordable, quality connection. Quebec’s cultural development hinges on the ability to determine its own transmission terms, namely for television, radio and new media. Should the government of Quebec deem that a decision goes against the public interest, it is the National Assembly that would call for a review. The closure of radio station CKAC in 2005 illustrates the government of Quebec’s inability to influence decisions that directly impact its duty to develop, promote and disseminate our culture. Despite a unanimous motion from the National Assembly, adopted on March 10, 2005, calling for CKAC to stay on the air, the CRTC kept silent and allowed this historic radio station to shut down. Furthermore, this is not even a partisan issue in Quebec. All governments since the Taschereau era have argued for Quebec's independence in managing its telecommunications. It is therefore particularly frustrating to run into refusals or downright ignorance. The many times Ottawa has stayed silent demonstrate contempt, if not federal indifference, toward Quebec’s culture and its political institutions. That said, our right to develop our own culture will not be won through the courts. The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly ruled that telecommunications and broadcasting fall under federal jurisdiction. However, the members of the House of Commons have the authority to delegate this administrative power if they are willing to do so. One such agreement already exists. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police delegated its powers to the Sûreté du Québec to protect the province. The Sûreté du Québec manages interprovincial heavy transportation and issues freshwater fishing licences. All it would take is a bit of political will to sign an administrative agreement that would change the fate of Quebec culture. If it so wished, the federal government could change the Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act today to include such an administrative agreement. This is how EI pilot projects are integrated into the Employment Insurance Act. Introducing Bill C‑354 is a modest attempt to ensure that Quebeckers enjoy a modicum of respect when it comes to their right to culture and managing their telecommunications. It is the least that can be done. In an ideal world, the Quebec government would pass legislation to create a Quebec radio-television and telecommunications commission, a QRTC. The CRTC could then delegate the management of Quebec's licenses to the QRTC, which would regulate telecommunications and broadcasting companies that operate in Quebec. This would remedy the injustice that has persisted for a hundred years. The decline of the French language and culture is undeniable. It is now crucial that we take the necessary steps to protect them. We therefore invite members from all parties who care about Quebec culture and the francophone community to vote in favour of our bill.

1377 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Nov/30/23 5:40:37 p.m.
Watch

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Saint-Laurent.

9 words