SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 336 - Sep/16/24

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

Sep/16/24 11:40:54 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we should give careful consideration to this bill and study it in committee. That said, neither the Bloc Québécois nor I are prepared to vote for it in its current form. Make no mistake: We need to tackle the problem of auto theft. In 2022, according to the reams of figures I have looked over, 10,595 car thefts were reported in Quebec. Over the same period, 70,000 were reported in Canada. That is huge. It means that more than 29 vehicles were stolen per day in Quebec, a 138% increase from 2016. Obviously, this has unfortunate consequences for car owners who have their vehicle stolen, but it also affects all vehicle owners and drivers. Car insurance premiums increased by 50% between 2012 and 2022, mainly due to the increase in car thefts. This is a major problem that needs to be addressed. We in the House of Commons must deal with many types of crimes. Crimes against the person are something the Bloc Québécois cares deeply about. However, just because auto theft is less serious does not mean we should neglect it, because it is still a major problem. That being said, the Bloc Québécois is inherently against mandatory minimum sentences. We all know that mandatory minimum sentences have next to no effect on people who commit crimes. The same goes for the ban on conditional sentences. The bill proposes banning conditional sentences and also increasing the minimum sentence from two years to three years. I must say that I do not really believe in all that. This bill was introduced in good faith, I am sure. I think that the people introducing it believe this would have a positive impact. We in the Bloc Québécois do not believe that. However, we think we need to tackle the problem. In particular, when it comes to increasing sentences, we think that the fact that the theft was committed on behalf of a criminal organization should be an aggravating factor. Everyone in the House knows that we have been pushing for more aggressive and serious action against criminal organizations since 2015. At the time—I think it was in 2016—I tabled a bill to create a registry of criminal organizations to make it easier to identify them, streamline the prosecution of crimes committed for their benefit and possibly consider membership in such an organization or the use of emblems to identify as a member or supporter of a criminal organization a crime. The bill was rejected at the time, but here we are again. We have not given up, we will continue to fight. When we look more closely at car theft, we can see that the real problem does not lie with the young men or women who go out drinking on a Saturday night and decide to steal a car. This is of course a problem, but the real scourge is the organization behind the thefts, the criminal organizations that pay and encourage often disadvantaged youth to commit these crimes on their behalf. I agree that it is important to punish the individual who actually stole the vehicle. However, as I said earlier, I think that punishing them with mandatory minimum sentences and banning conditional sentences is a bit much, because we are not allowing the judge hearing the case to adapt the sentence based on the particular situation. Personally, I believe in our judicial system. I think that we need to trust the judges who hear the arguments to determine the right thing to do. We believe that minimum sentences are useful in cases of crimes against the person, since it allows us to send a clear message. Minimum sentences may well make certain individuals think twice, namely those who would otherwise commit crimes against the person on impulse or for all sorts of reasons; we should be tough on them. We need to stop the epidemic of vehicle theft. I would not say that they apply in every case, but in many cases we support mandatory minimum sentences. However, when it comes to car theft, I think it is almost counterproductive to deprive ourselves, as a society, of the assessment a judge can make of a particular situation after hearing all the evidence. Mandatory minimum sentences are therefore a bit of a problem. Systematically refusing conditional sentences is another problem. We need to trust our judges. However, when there are aggravating circumstances and when the crime is committed for the benefit of a criminal organization, I agree. It think that is essential. We still have a lot to discuss. We are sitting in the House of Commons and adopting provisions to amend the Criminal Code. That is a federal jurisdiction. Too often, the federal government tries to interfere in the provinces' jurisdictions, and we call it out every time, but this is clearly a federal jurisdiction. In fact, I would say that I still have a hard time understanding why there have been no results after all these years. I am a younger member of the House. I have been here since 2015. For nine years we have been working on this, and nothing has come of it. There have been others before me, but we never managed to tackle criminal organizations severely enough. I think we should be ruthless. Criminal organizations need to be effectively and harshly sanctioned. That being said, there is another option when it comes to mandatory minimum sentences. We have always looked at crimes to determine whether they merit mandatory minimum sentences. I have shared my thoughts, but could we also consider another way of eliminating crime or perhaps rehabilitating a person who has committed a crime? I think we could. I think that we should look at that more closely. I am thinking among other things about the electronic bracelets used when criminals are released. I wonder whether, instead of sentencing a person who stole a car, for example, to two or three years in prison, regardless of the number of years, we could put them in prison for six months or a year and then have them serve the rest of their sentence out in the community, but wearing an electronic bracelet. It would be more difficult for criminal organizations to recruit individuals wearing an electronic bracelet. I do not think that many criminal organizations would want to hire people to commit crimes if they are being monitored through an electronic bracelet that can provide information about who and where they are at any given time. That would be risky. This might also help rehabilitate those people, who, rather than going back to their former life of crime might choose—not all but some of them—to try to abide by the rules of our society, the society we ultimately want to have. This is not a cure-all. I am not saying that it is the only solution, but it is a solution that we could look into. Perhaps I might also change my mind at some point for all sorts of reasons that I am not aware of today, but I do not think that we should cut corners when looking into this issue. Minimum sentencing is counterproductive, but I support alternative ways of rehabilitating individuals. I think that is a good idea. In closing, we need to be tough on crime committed by criminal organizations, and the Bloc Québécois can be counted on to support these kinds of sanctions. In the meantime, let us study this bill in committee and see how it can be improved in the interest of all Quebeckers and Canadians.

1295 words

Context: House Hansard - 336 - Sep/16/24

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

Sep/16/24 2:03:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we have lost a great patriot. My friend Marcel Tessier, who shaped the imagination of Quebeckers for several decades, passed away on August 26. Some heard him sing opera with gusto. Others watched him charm audiences on television or read some of his books. The really lucky ones had him as a teacher. Without exception, anyone who spent time with him would be left spellbound, hanging on his every word. Marcel was exceptionally charismatic, but above all, he was a historian with a vast knowledge of history and the ability to teach it. One thing he used to say was that if Quebeckers knew more about their history, Quebec would have been an independent, free and sovereign country a long time ago. Even among friends around a table, he was a fascinating storyteller and communicator. Marcel will be missed, but not forgotten. May my friend rest in peace.

151 words

Context: House Hansard - 336 - Sep/16/24

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

Sep/16/24 7:00:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the subject of our debate today is important. The Bloc Québécois is concerned about it too. I read a lot about the events that have brought us here tonight and that occurred just about everywhere in Canada except Quebec. That being said, Quebec is not free from this type of violence and injustice. There have been cases like that of Sindy Ruperthouse. Unless I am mistaken, my colleague mentioned her earlier. Sindy Ruperthouse was from the Pikogan community, near Val‑d’Or. Her situation gave rise to the Viens commission, which was launched by the Government of Quebec and which made several recommendations. We are therefore rather concerned about this. Not all of those recommendations were implemented, like so many other recommendations in this regard. I am trying to sort all of this out. From what I can see, and maybe I am wrong, the police officers who are in the best position to deal with these types of situations are indigenous police officers, those who work in the various communities or who are from indigenous communities themselves, because they are more attuned to these situations and have a better knowledge of the community. I would like my colleague to talk about that. I am also wondering whether they may have more credibility with the indigenous population, which would enable them to respond more effectively. If so, we understand that adding police officers to the various indigenous police forces would require additional funding. Does my colleague not think that the solution would be to give more responsibilities to police officers from indigenous communities? I thought that was the case, from the other answers he gave.

284 words

Context: House Hansard - 336 - Sep/16/24

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

Sep/16/24 8:29:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to let my colleague continue answering the question. He is off to a great start. I would just say, after listening to the speeches over the past little while, I think almost all of us would agree that the situation that brings us here this evening is unacceptable and that more needs to be done. I also note that the report by the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls was released five years ago. In Quebec, the Viens commission, also released its report about five years ago. All the reports agree that we need to do better. All of the members here agree that we need to do better. Can my colleague explain why, in his opinion, we are still at this point today, still saying that we should let indigenous police officers intervene more, and that we should listen to indigenous people more, despite frequent Gladue reports that do not seem to be enough? How did we get to this point? Is it because of a lax attitude that obviously can only be attributed to the government in power, which, for nine years, has failed to resolve the situation? Can we expect better from the next government, whether Liberal or Conservative, since it really does not matter to us in Quebec? What can we do to get out of this mess?

231 words