Raymond Côté

[Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act, October 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Vaudreuil-Soulanges for sharing his personal experience with us. It was very interesting and reminded me of an organization in Quebec City called L'Autre Avenue, which offers an alternative to the judicial process in some cases, such as in the case of a dispute between a minor offender, so to speak, and the victim, for instance. It is very interesting.

When I had the opportunity to meet the executive director, she told me that victims are not always looking for compensation nor do they necessarily want the offender to be convicted. They simply want to be informed of the process and to know that the offender is remorseful. This allows the police to avoid automatically prosecuting every individual they arrest. This also helps victims feel like an important part of the judicial system, because often, they feel forgotten.

I wonder if my colleague could share his thoughts on such alternative measures.

[Correctional Service of Canada, October 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, nothing is sacred when the Conservatives decide to make cuts. Inmates who turn to their religion to help in their rehabilitation process are being told, “Sorry, we only accept Christians.” Rabbis, imams, and granthis are being laid off. Maybe the minister can get rid of aboriginal elders while he is at it. The thing is, this is not a costly program.

Will the minister reverse his decision to cut religious services for Sikh, Muslim and Jewish inmates?

[Quebec City Junior Chamber of Commerce, October 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, Junior Chamber International Canada held its national convention in Kootenay, British Columbia, from September 19 to 23. The Jeune chambre de commerce de Québec distinguished itself for the second consecutive year by winning the award for best young chamber in Canada.

I congratulate the president of the Jeune chambre de commerce de Québec, Jonathan Gagnon, the general manager, Sophie Gingras, and all the members of their team for making this achievement possible.

It is thanks to the initiative and determination shown by our young men and women in launching businesses that our region has one of the lowest unemployment rates on the continent and enjoys an outstanding level of prosperity. This also reflects the vitality of Quebec City and the courage shown by our young business people when confronted with an increasingly difficult economic environment.

I should also point out that the next national convention of Junior Chamber International Canada will take place in Quebec City, from September 18 to 21, 2013. I am convinced that the Jeune chambre de commerce de Québec will do a good job of welcoming delegates from all across Canada.

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, October 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for pointing out one of the potential pitfalls in Bill C-43 and in the particular approach to crime that my Conservative colleagues unfortunately take.

I have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Obviously, and I will not try to hide the fact, we have had some very tough and sometimes even acrimonious debates, for example concerning minimum sentences for certain crimes, the toughening of certain laws and denying the opportunity for rehabilitation so we can provide alternatives for petty criminals.

I am going to offer my colleague the example of a wonderful organization in Quebec City, L’autre avenue, which helps offenders, adolescents, who have committed minor crimes to stay out of the justice system. In fact, it offers the police an alternative to laying charges, and at the same time this makes it possible to create a system of restorative justice that allows victims to draw comfort from the knowledge that the offender is aware of his wrongdoing and is mending his ways.

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, October 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Québec, who handles a lot of immigration cases herself and will undoubtedly understand very well what I am going to say.

We must not pretend otherwise: people who come to Canada come here to improve their lives, for one thing, but also because they have complete faith in the system of government, in Canadian institutions. In our offices, we handle cases of people who have permanent resident status or who have not yet acquired that status, who are waiting, who want to bring their spouse or children to Canada. They come in the hope of getting a fair and equitable resolution. Our role as elected representatives, obviously, is to be fair and equitable and not to influence the system unduly.

But at the same time, through our actions and our explanations, we have to be able to confirm to these people, who have come to Canada with high hopes, that they were entirely right to have faith in our institutions and our system.

My colleague has drawn our attention to a particularly fundamental point: what faith will people around the world have in Canada, ultimately, if we become unfair and inequitable?

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, October 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the privilege of speaking in the House about the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act.

I believe it is very important to be able to discuss with all my colleagues in the House the problems related to the criminality of foreign nationals in Canada. We would be happy to work with the government on the problems related to the appeal process. We are not denying that there may be problems, but we want to work together to establish the facts and find solutions.

But the government has introduced Bill C-43. It is a starting point, but we have some legitimate concerns that some of my colleagues have taken the time to explain in a very clear and concise manner and that give rise to some very valid questions. We must not forget that we are talking about implementing a legal process. The legal process in Canada is based on a long-standing tradition. This tradition and the principles behind the process date back thousands of years.

One of the basic principles, which is not difficult to understand, is that no one can be detained arbitrarily, without reasonable cause. It is a very simple and basic principle. Over centuries it has resulted in a series of definitions that limit the arbitrary decisions of the Crown in order to prevent abuses and to prevent innocent people from becoming victims, even without a conviction, of the judicial system or the police.

One of the measures in Bill C-43 would redefine serious criminality of foreign nationals in order to determine whether or not they have access to the appeal process. The current law establishes the criterion for serious criminality as a sentence of two or more years, a criterion applied in federal and provincial penitentiary systems and also to certain types of crimes and the corresponding sentences.

In changing the prison term to six months or more, Bill C-43 greatly increases the number of people who could be excluded from the appeal process for categories of crimes that—I am not downplaying these crimes or excusing offenders—could be given some latitude so the offenders have options to rehabilitate and re-enter society.

When criminals are sentenced for a crime, we must never forget that they will eventually re-enter society, unless they are sentenced for life or are not successful in the traditional parole process. These cases are very rare, since most people re-enter society. They have lives after serving their sentences. I am not only talking about prison sentences, but also conditional sentences that can last years. With these conditional sentences, if an individual offends again, he could receive a harsher prison sentence or be forced to serve a sentence he did not serve as a result of the conditional sentence.

This entire system applies to all Canadian citizens and is in line with international tradition and consensus, which we must respect.

I will talk about another very important point that has not come up much in this debate. It has to do with Canada's place in the world, which I would define as being a good citizen in the community of nations.

One of the principles of international relations is that a sovereign state is not subject to other states. In other words, all states are treated equally and they have full sovereignty and jurisdiction over their own territory.

Given the consequences of the measures proposed in Bill C-43, we have to wonder if a policy to export more criminals—even our petty criminals—elsewhere in the world would turn us into a bad global citizen. It is very important to take that into account.

I can understand that the government wants to make sure criminals coming from outside Canada are not able to settle in Canada with impunity, and too easily. However, we must also not forget that the bill will affect people who have lived in Canada for a very long time, people who in many cases came here to live when they were very young, at a time when they were entirely dependent on their parents. Those people have grown up in Canada, and because of unfortunate life circumstances, they may have committed a crime and become targeted by this law because they unfortunately do not have Canadian citizenship.

In addition to potentially hurting those people, this two-tier system can also harm a country elsewhere in the world. That country could find itself with a person who was born in the country in question and has committed crimes in Canada, but has never committed a crime in their country of origin. What legitimate basis is there for Canada to offload that burden onto people elsewhere in the world? That is one of the questions we have to ask ourselves.

Most importantly, we must not forget that in Canada, we have very extensive protection, thanks to the privilege we have of living in a very wealthy country, with a justice system, a political system and a social and economic fabric that are highly developed. That creates a safe country that gives all of its citizens the opportunity to find their place and succeed. That is truly not the case elsewhere in the world.

I remember something one of my colleagues said to me. She had had the chance to travel in Latin America. In response to the measures that the Canadian government had taken or was considering, elected representatives there asked her what we thought we were doing by sending people back to them like that, people who had committed crimes in Canada. Did she think they would be able to deal with these people? These are people who might set up much more extensive criminal networks in those countries. If we kept them in Canada, we would have the resources to combat their criminal activities. After getting a slap on the wrist and a sentence, young petty criminals might even see the error of their ways and embark on a process to become good, honest citizens.

We may very well be condemning petty criminals to a life of serious criminality by denying them any chance of having hope in the future.

That is one of the aspects of Bill C-43 we will have to look at.

I very much want to make sure that Canada does not become the equivalent of the 19th century Wild West, when a town was allowed to tar and feather a criminal to export the problem to somewhere else, which did not necessarily solve the problem.

I will be pleased to be able to continue the debate and discussion with my colleagues and see how we can improve Bill C-43.

[Business of Supply, October 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, to continue with the issue of outside investments, I reminded the House earlier of the problems associated with the fate of the Stadacona plant after it was bought out by an American investor, which in and of itself is not a bad thing when it comes to foreign investment. However, that case speaks volumes about the laxness that has been tolerated for a long time in Canada. It is truly deplorable.

These foreign investments, and their repercussions and consequences, are substantial. I would remind the House that, after the Stadacona plant was bought out in 2003, it went from having 1,600 employees to barely 300 employees, with a salary freeze for the next three years. Moreover, a part of the pension fund will be liquidated.

What it comes down to is clear rules and how such clarity might help interested investors to get involved in Canada and play a positive role as contributors to our society.

[Business of Supply, October 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the hon. member for Calgary East blindly singing his minister's praises, I would just like to mention to him that, after the Stadacona mill in my riding was bought out by an American billionaire in 2003, the number of employees at the mill dropped from 1,600 to barely 300.

Is this the type of net benefit he is talking about when he lists all his government's so-called achievements?

I am rather shocked to see just how blind my colleague is being. At the same time, he is basically encouraging us—and this is probably the most offensive part—to blindly trust in a non-transparent process and in a minster who cannot even decide where to put his sleeping bag as he wanders from one cottage to another.

When will the hon. member for Calgary East listen to our suggestions and truly support a transparent process instead of one that goes on behind closed doors?

[Business of Supply, October 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from LaSalle—Émard for her speech.

I would like to explore the question raised by my hon. Liberal colleague a little more. Clearly, the two parties that have been in power for the past 10 years have shown how much they like making these decisions behind closed doors.

I wonder if my colleague could expand on her thoughts regarding the openness that must be shown to all Canadians, in order to better understand the issues our society will face in the future?

[Helping Families in Need Act, September 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

I have a concern. As hon. members know, all of our suggestions in the more general area of employment insurance have been systematically rejected despite appeals to the government.

I would like to check with my colleague to see whether the government will be open enough to seriously examine and potentially accept any suggestions or amendments we might have to improve Bill C-44, a bill that is full of good intentions and that we recognize and support.