Debates of June 15th, 2023

Justice and Human Rights

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

May I remind the hon. member to speak through the Chair, please.

The hon. member for Brantford—Brant.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, I remark upon the minister's commentary. That he had this information available to him for three months and chose not to share those details, not only with the House but with Canadians and, more importantly, with the families of the victims, is completely inexcusable.

The government—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We need to give a chance to someone else to ask a question.

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to my colleague's speech. He has a wealth of experience in the justice system that commands respect, and I am confident that he knows exactly what he is talking about.

I do not have that experience, obviously. That said, I have witnessed certain cases where mistakes or mistreatment resulted in individuals being released. Of course, that is part of the risk of a justice system. When we accept that there is a defence and a Crown, we obviously accept that the judge will rule one way or the other.

My remarks generally concern resource allocation. My impression is that the Crown does not have enough resources and does not have the time to handle cases properly. That is what I believe happened in this case. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that.

How could this be improved? Perhaps it is because there is not enough money in the justice systems, including those in the provinces. Perhaps the government needs to transfer more.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question. Judicial resources are at an all-time low. We have a total of almost 80 federal vacancies. We have vacancies provincially. We do not have enough Crown attorneys. We do not have enough detention centres. We do not have enough money going into police services.

A multi-faceted approach is needed to deal with this crisis known as the criminal justice issue. It is the federal jurisdiction, the provincial jurisdiction and the municipal jurisdiction all working together to fill these gaps.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, maybe the best place to start off this discussion is that, at times, the role the Conservatives feel they need to play can be fairly upsetting. However, before I comment on that, I want to take the opportunity to think of the victims, Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy, and their families. It is incredibly difficult for any one of us to imagine the horror of what took place and the impact it has had, not only on the families of these two victims, but also on their friends, the people who got to know Kristen and Leslie.

There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind of the horror caused by Bernardo, and many have talked about this horrific crime. At the time of the incidents, I was living in the Prairies, and I was an MLA. I can recall many nights watching what had taken place in the trial on the news broadcasts, and I recall the anger that was generated as a result of this horrific crime. I do not believe there is a member in the House, no matter what political party one represents, who would disagree in any fashion whatsoever that the actions taken by Bernardo at that time were nothing less than totally horrific. When we see something of that nature, we want to ensure there is a sense of justice that will applied.

There is no doubt in my mind that today, just as we saw yesterday, it will continue to be discussed in the chamber. I suspect there is a very good chance that it will come up in question period. I would encourage the Conservative Party, in particular, to consider this issue for an opposition day motion. I say that because there are so many issues out there that no doubt would be of interest to Canadians.

I have a concern in dealing with the debate Conservatives have put on the floor this morning, and I had posed this in the form of a question to the member earlier, which is that the members opposite know there is a limited timeframe to deal with legislation. They continue to bring forward concurrence motions on reports. They know that by doing so, they are preventing debate on government legislation.

They pull a report out of the pot to say it is an urgent issue, such as the most recent one with respect to housing and the housing crisis. We had a discussion on it. Before that, opposition members brought forward concurrence reports to prevent government from debating legislation. The Conservative Party continues to do that, whether it has been in this session or years past, yet I have never seen it bring a concurrence report on an opposition day, not once. I think it is important for Canadians to realize that the issue Conservatives are raising will be talked about later today, so they are not fooling anyone.

It is an important issue. People are genuinely concerned. As the Minister of Public Safety clearly indicated yesterday, and as indicated in communications from the Government of Canada, we are genuinely concerned about this issue. It is on the front burner. We are all appalled by the impact that this is having, not only on the family members, but also on our communities as a whole.

I do not need to be told by Conservatives that I do not care about the issue because I do care. They try to give a false impression, as if only the Conservative Party of Canada wants to discuss an issue or have an issue addressed. It is a false impression.

Last night I was here, I think it was around 9:30 in the evening, and I was speaking in my place. I was talking about child care. We can talk about inflation and the positive impact the child care program is having, and there is about 20 minutes of debate still left on that. Then we are going to pass through that legislation.

If the Conservatives want to continue sitting for the month June, going into July, it would not bother me. Honestly, I would come back in July. I will sit as many days as the opposition would like to sit. I am open to it. I do not mind when the House sits until midnight.

What I do mind is when the Conservatives continuously and consistently play that destructive force preventing government legislation from passing. We witnessed that when the Leader of the Conservative Party said he would stand up to speak until the government and the Prime Minister changed the budget implementation bill. A few hours later, the bill passed.

It passed because there is a process, and the Conservatives could not bring in a concurrence motion there. Otherwise, who knows what concurrence motion they would have brought in.

Canadians did elect a minority government back in 2021, but what they expected is not only a responsible, accountable government but also a responsible and accountable Conservative opposition. With the exception of some things that might have occurred during the pandemic in the previous Parliament, I have not witnessed that. Instead, I see the Conservatives amping things up whenever they get the opportunity to do so, even if the opportunity is not legitimate.

Instead, the Conservatives will go on character assassinations and things of that nature. I do not say that lightly. I am not trying to belittle the issue in that report, but we saw that with the moving of the amendment. The members moved an amendment. We could ask how that amendment is directly related to the report itself. I would suggest the Conservatives are proposing a politically motivated amendment. They are more concerned about the politics than the issue, and it is not the first time.

We have seen how the Conservatives always tend to favour fundraising and seem to favour the politics as opposed to the issue at hand. We have seen that not only with the introduction of a concurrence motion but also with the moving of the amendment. Was the amendment even called for? Was it even necessary?

We have standing committees of the House that meet to discuss a wide variety of issues. They come up with reports and a series of recommendations, and then the report comes to the House. The vast majority of reports never get called upon for concurrence motions, but it is a tool to be used on occasion. I even used it when I was in opposition years ago, but I like to think that I never abused that tool.

Let us contrast with the Conservative Party of Canada's behaviour with the concurrence of reports. One only needs to look. Why did the Conservatives bring it in today and then move an amendment to the concurrence motion? If they were genuine in wanting to deal with the report, that is what the debate should have been about. Then we would all concur in the report, or if we wanted to vote against it, we would do that. However, that was not the purpose of moving concurrence of the report. This is the sensitive issue of the murder, and who knows what else, as I am not going to get into the graphic details, of both Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy. The Conservatives are taking that issue today and using it as a way, in part, to filibuster. That is shameful.

They might be able to fool some, but for many the truth is known because we can see it in the amendment more than anything else. What does the report actually talk about? What are the recommendations of the report? I have a copy of the report and a series of recommendations. I was even provided some of the ministerial responses to the recommendations. I do not see any of that in the amendment proposed by the Conservative Party. I do not see that at all.

What I see consistently on the issue of crime from the Conservative Party is a lot of talk. The Conservatives like to talk tough. They really do. The last time we had this kind of talk on an issue such as this was a few years back. It is not that often that I will quote myself, but I am going to do that. I am going back to February 4, 2020, when I am making reference to the Conservative Party in Hansard. I said:

They tried to give the impression that it was the Government of Canada's fault, as if this government had ultimately allowed for the healing lodge placement of Ms. McClintic. I remind Conservatives that as we got more into the debate, we found out that it was actually Stephen Harper's regime that had her transferred to a medium-security facility, which made her eligible to be brought over to a healing lodge. We also found out that under Harper's regime, other child murderers were put into other medium-security facilities.

It is a totally different, horrific crime, and the Conservatives were jumping out of their seats and giving graphic descriptions. That is how I could recall the speech I had given a few years back. There were graphic descriptions of the crime committed and how it was the Government of Canada's fault. Where was that passion for child murderers then? Was it somewhat misplaced when we found out that it was actually Stephen Harper's government that authorized transfers to medium-security institutions?

Today, here we have a very high-profile incident, likely one of the worst and most horrific incidents in Canadian history, or definitely in the top two or three. It was amplified across the country, even though it is an incident that happened in a relatively small, loving community.

Everyone knew about the case; it was on the nightly news. The opposition members are taking that tragedy, trying to piggyback on top of a report from a standing committee that put forward 13 recommendations. There are many ways in which the opposition could be dealing with the issue. They are using this report as a mechanism to say they want to talk about the issue of crime for three hours, in order to prevent and ratchet up one issue. What are they actually preventing?

If we had gone on to government business, we would have actually been debating Bill C-35, which had under a half-hour of debate left. That legislation will ensure, for the first time ever in the history of Canada, that we actually have a national child care program from coast to coast to coast. This program has already delivered $10-a-day day care in a number of provinces and, I understand, at least one territory. It is having a real impact on the lives of Canadians. More women are working today in the workforce in terms of a percentage than ever before. The program was modelled after what the federal government saw taking place in the province of Quebec. That is what we were supposed to be debating today. As on many other occasions, the Conservatives, as the leader of the Conservative Party has demonstrated, do whatever they can to prevent legislation from passing through the House of Commons.

We will likely have a chance to go over those 13 recommendations in that report. What colleagues will find is that that report is being manipulated to the degree in which it has been amended to politicize it. This takes away the work that a good number of members on all sides of the House put into the report.

I will just give one or two of the recommendations:

That the Department of Justice establish a national working group with federal and provincial government officials, representatives from community organizations that work with victims, and victims’ representatives to agree on national best practices and minimum standards for victims of crime, particularly as regards the level of support and the services available to victims.

The member was talking about victims. The government sees the value in terms of supporting victims. Enhanced funding was part of the recommendations, recognizing that our judicial system is a joint responsibility. We have to and we do work with provincial, territorial and indigenous communities. The member is criticizing us about the issue of victims. The government has not only recognized victims but also allocated funding to victims. This is a part of the response to the report from the minister: “Several of the Committee's recommendations speak to the need for enhanced funding for victim services and victim-focused activities. A key component of the FVS, a horizontal government initiative led by Justice Canada, is the Victims Fund. When it was established in 2000, the Victims Fund had $5 million available.... Since then, the funding available has grown to a little under $32 million in 2022-2023.”

The government understands the importance of victims. We do not need to be told by the Conservative Party. We understand the harm that is caused by horrific incidents, and we will continue to be focused on Canadians.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

I have some concerns this morning, Madam Speaker. I am listening to the debate and I am wondering whether this endless back and forth, filibustering, delaying debate, moving motions and tabling reports really benefits our democracy in any way. I do not know whether our democracy really benefits from the never-ending struggle between the Liberals and the Conservatives about who is going to win the procedural battle of the day and who is going to make the headlines by wasting the others' time.

I do not know. I am rather fed up with hearing, seeing and witnessing all of this. I thought that we were here to debate bills. I thought that were were here to advance democracy. I find this really sad.

It is not that I think the current motion is not important or worthwhile. However, it is giving rise to debates that are keeping us here until midnight every night until the House rises for the summer because so much time has been wasted on all this procedural wrangling over the past six months. I find that extremely unfortunate.

I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I can honestly say that, when I came in this morning, I had no speech prepared whatsoever. I had full intentions of seeing Bill C-35 pass through the House. It was not only going to be a majority; my understanding is that every member in the House is going to be voting in favour of Bill C-35. I honestly believed that we were going to be debating that and then going on to the next item.

I have been in opposition. Most of my political career has been in the opposition benches. Even when I was in opposition, and it can be found in a Hansard search, members will find that I have said in the past that something like time allocation is a necessary tool in order for governments to be able to pass legislation.

Filibustering for no real purpose, other than to frustrate the system, does a disservice to the chamber. I think we need to put Parliament ahead of politics. I have given the odd partisan speech, I will admit that. Having said that—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We will go to another question.

The hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, my question for the parliamentary secretary is around the amendment. It gets to the crux of the issue. I am going to give him a hypothetical.

Maybe there is a chance in some future scenario that he is a minister. What would he do if he had staff who were hiding stuff from him, so that he was not aware of some serious allegations, especially when it comes to public safety and the importance of keeping Canadians safe?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, that is a good question. I suggest the member raise that question during question period. If he addresses it to me, I might even have the opportunity to answer that question directly.

The debate that we are talking about today is about the concurrence report on 13 recommendations. Those recommendations, I would suggest, as in many other reports, would normally be looked at and responded to, as this report has been responded to. Then we would continue on.

In this situation, the Conservatives wanted to bring it forward to the House this morning in order to pick up on a totally different issue. We saw that in the amendment they put forward, which politicizes the report. They are more interested in the politics than they are in the issue.

Once again, we have seen a very clear demonstration by the far-right Conservative Party today on just how far they are prepared to go on the issue of playing partisan politics.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have been in the House for 12 years, and I think I saw a first today when the hon. member for Winnipeg North read his own remarks into the record as part of his speech. I compliment him on his creativity.

We have a concurrence report, which was unanimously supported by all the parties and made 13 very important recommendations about victims' rights and services.

Today's debate has a danger of diverting us from those unanimous recommendations and making progress on them together, when this is one of the few times all the parties have come together on a report. Does the member share my concern about this?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will tie that into the issue of a healthier democracy. We underestimate the real value of what takes place in our standing committees. On occasion, we get reports that are unanimously supported. I do not get to spend very much time in committees myself, but I know about the passion I have seen from a number of colleagues who go to committee to deal with reports. I see the amount of energy, resources, time, passion and love of an issue. Reports come from those committees, and when they are unanimous, we do a disservice to the work committees have done on reports when we politicize them.

I believe the amendment being proposed today does just that. It takes a partisan slant and poisons the well, in my opinion.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have to say I agree that this debate takes attention away. As my hon. friend from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke just pointed out, we are debating a concurrence report with which we all agree. This means that we are not really debating the topic at all. We are not talking about victims' rights. The report focuses on specific recommendations, so the debate today, lest anyone be confused, is for no high-minded purpose. It is clearly a procedural tactic being used by the official opposition; therefore, it is dispiriting.

The topic is not dispiriting. We need to protect victims' rights, and we need much more recognition throughout the system that the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights should have included the Marsy's law material out of the state of California, which would keep victims properly informed at every stage. I argued that at the time. These recommendations are important, but we are not talking about those. The victims in this case are being used as a political football, and I find that dispiriting.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, when I started my comments, I referred to the victims, their families, friends and our communities as a whole, because of the high profile of the Bernardo issue.

That aside, the recommendations, in many ways, are focused on victims. I have not read the entire report. As I said, I did not come here expecting to debate this issue today. I have had the chance to look at a couple of the recommendations, of which I understand there are 13. I have had a chance to look at the response to it from the minister's office. The issue in itself in the report is a very good issue. I think that if Canadians go online, they would be fairly impressed by the work of parliamentarians. I suspect they can find it online.

If Canadians could see a lot of the work that is done in committees, I think they would be quite pleased. At times, some of the things that take place on the floor of the chamber take away from reports, and that is what is sad to see today.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very disturbed, as a member who has served on a number of committees, that the work of committees is being used in this manner. Committees are an opportunity for members to contribute both expertise and thoughtful reflections from their constituents.

What are the hon. member's thoughts about how using a thoughtful committee report in this manner, weaponizing it to name and shame, hurts the work of committees in general?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member is correct in her assessment, when she says that it is weaponizing a report that was supported unanimously by all parties in the House. Filibustering, and ultimately making it a very partisan issue, does not do a service to the work that the committee members have put in.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I ask my colleagues' permission to share my time with my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé.

I am going to talk about the report that is the main focus of our debates today. With respect to the amendment proposed by the Conservatives, I will let the minister defend himself as he sees fit. Those of us in the Bloc Québécois are also outraged by this treatment—I would not say preferential treatment, but the treatment Mr. Bernardo received. It seems victims rights' have been ignored in this case. It is shocking to us too, but I will let the minister present the arguments he deems appropriate. We will see when the time comes.

I was proud to sit on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights when we studied these provisions. Of all the areas of federal jurisdiction, the Criminal Code is among the most important. I do not wish to diminish the importance of international relations, the environment or other matters, but the Criminal Code has an impact on the daily lives of many Canadians. The federal government's power over the Criminal Code and criminal activity is a very big deal. I was very proud to take part in those debates.

The report contains a number of recommendations. They are all important, but I would particularly like to draw my colleagues' attention to the provisions set out in recommendations 7, 8, 9 and 10 regarding victim's participation in the process.

I think this is essential. In a criminal trial, decisions are often made about the punishment that will or will not be imposed on the accused. Some consideration is also often given to the fate of the victims of the crimes in question, but perhaps not always enough. At least, victims may not get a chance to participate effectively in trials that involve them. We heard from many witnesses on this issue in committee. What came up quite frequently was the lack of information. Victims do not know what rights they have during their attacker's trial.

We think it would be important to run education campaigns on this issue, while taking into account the different areas of jurisdiction, of course. My colleagues know how important that is to me. Raising awareness should not mean encroaching on the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. We think there could be discussions on this, but public education campaigns have to be set up to properly inform citizens of their rights when they are victims of a crime.

There is the whole issue of the ombudsman. The position was vacant for quite some time, but was finally filled last fall. A new ombudsman was appointed. However, the budget for the office of the ombudsman is rather meagre. I think this should be reconsidered to ensure that there is a full team of competent people working with the ombudsman, because the role of ombudsman is essential in the criminal trial process. The public education campaigns and the ombudsman are important elements that we will find in more detail in recommendations 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the report. That said, I do not want to minimize the importance of reading all 13 recommendations.

I would also like to draw my colleagues' attention to recommendations 11 and 12. We talked about them recently. Important groups are calling for this. Motions to this effect have been moved in the House. We must absolutely ensure that the publication bans in criminal cases have the desired scope and effect.

Publication bans are issued to protect the victims, not to protect the public. However, under the current system, most of the time publication bans are requested by the Crown prosecutor, sometimes almost automatically, often without the victims having been consulted.

Once the publication ban has been ordered, the victim does not have the authority to ask that it be lifted. However, victims often want to speak out publicly in the media about the crimes committed against them. They want to talk about how the crime affected their lives and their family's lives. They want to have some input on the punishment they consider appropriate in their case.

In every case, the victim comes up against a publication ban that they do not have the right to breach. If they do, they could be prosecuted. This makes no sense to me. Victims testified at our committee about this issue. I do not even understand why this rule is in place. They are quite right. We need to allow publication bans, because they are essential in some cases. Some victims say they do not want the crime they were a victim of to be discussed. They do not want their family, neighbours or children to read about it in the media.

However, other victims say that it is therapeutic for them to talk about it. The needs and rights of the victims must be considered. Publication bans are central to victims' rights and needs. I recommend that the House pay particular attention to this issue, which is addressed in recommendations 11 and 12 of the report. This strikes me as being essential.

There is also recommendation 13, which deals with the issue of restitution orders. In a justice system that many say should be increasingly restorative, perhaps victims should be provided with better access to restitution. Any time a trial extends over several days or even several weeks, it might make sense to assume that the presiding judge has a good idea of the damages suffered by the victims. It might also seem appropriate for the judge to rule on some of those damages and ensure that the orders made are binding and that the victims have the opportunity to ensure that they are enforced. Access to restitution is important.

Publication bans should be ordered or sought by the Crown only after the victim has consented to the ban. For example, the judge could seek or require the victim's consent before issuing a publication ban. If the victim does not consent, a discussion could take place with the judge and the Crown as to why a ban should or should not be imposed. A mechanism must be found to ensure that victims participate in these orders and are able to have them lifted when it is in their best interest.

Again, I could never overstate the importance of supporting victims, as I discussed at the start of my speech. However, we need to invest funds in providing the necessary information to victims. At the moment, that information is meagre. Although I dislike using the same word twice, the adjective seems to fit the ombudsman's office and information services too. As things stand, a person who becomes a victim of crime is unaware of the services they are entitled to receive. The victim's level of involvement in the process will depend on the prosecutor assigned to the case. I think we need to inform victims, but we also need to inform Crown attorneys about what they must offer victims to have them participate, understand the process and exercise their rights along the way.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's speech a great deal. I can tell that he has worked really hard on this issue. In fact, he was on the committee that studied it. I would like his opinion on the fact that we are looking at an amendment that has nothing to do with the committee's report.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would not go so far as to say that the amendment has nothing to do with the adoption of the report, since we are talking about victims' rights and the case of Mr. Bernardo, who was transferred to a medium-security penitentiary without the victims being properly consulted or informed. Maybe there is a connection, but I agree with the member that it is certainly not a direct link.

At the time we wrote our report, we certainly would not have been able to discuss Mr. Bernardo's case, because his transfer has only just taken place. There is a connection, but it is tenuous.

I think we have to wait and see what the minister comes up with. I think the connection is too tenuous for us to be able to discuss it in a useful way at this point. I would rather have the minister explain this motion.

Personally, I want the House to approve our report as written so we can move forward. Once again, this is too important. We need to strengthen victims' right to information, provide funding to the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, launch an awareness campaign, and review the parole process and publication bans.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, it has been a great pleasure working with the member on the justice committee. It is important to note that the justice committee has done an enormous amount of work unanimously in trying to move things forward for Canadians, despite sometimes being in a minority Parliament that is quit divisive,

My question for the member has to do with recommendation 3, which talks about the establishment of national standards for minimum levels of support for victims of crime. It calls for the federal government and the provinces to work together to establish those standards. Right now there is no right to victims' assistance and there are no common standards among the provinces.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague that it was a pleasure working together on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Despite the differences of opinion from one party to the other, I think we have always been able to work respectfully, and I value that.

With regard to recommendation 3, it is indeed important to establish minimum standards for victim services. Again, I am proceeding very cautiously, because it seems to me that the foundation of this work is fragile.

We are talking about respecting the jurisdiction of Quebec, each of the provinces and the three territories. This needs to play out the same way it did in committee, that is, with respect, and the provinces should be consulted. If the justice ministers of Quebec, Canada, Ontario and all the provinces agree to work together to establish something, I would be the happiest man alive. Even a sovereign Quebec wants to work with Canada and with other countries. That is the crux of the global political, economic, cultural and social reality. We must work together to ensure that the services offered to victims are effective and useful to everyone.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my dear colleague a very brief question.

I gather that it was important that all the recommendations in the report be adopted and that the report be concurred in as is. I imagine that several of the witnesses that the committee heard from were victims. If there was one priority for victims, what was it?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville for her question and for the incredible work that she does in her riding and in the House.

I will reiterate everything that I believe is essential: victims' participation in the justice system, restorative justice, publication bans, and victims' participation in parole hearings. However, the fact is that victims' right to information needs to be reinforced, so that is probably the priority.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank and salute my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord for the fine work he does every day on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I have had the privilege of substituting for him on a number of occasions. His are big shoes to fill.

I will begin by saying that I am disappointed we are once again dealing with a Conservative ploy to disrupt the agenda, to waste time, when we have important work to do. Today, the Conservatives are doing it by raising an extremely important, fundamental and serious issue that we must discuss, so we will discuss it.

It is true that it is an important issue. I am not being critical because the issue is not important. Questioning the minister's authority or legitimacy is important, but when do we get to move forward?

It is rather ironic that the week we are debating the hybrid Parliament so members can have a family life and spend some time at home, we are sitting every damn night until midnight.