Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Rivière‑du‑Nord.
Today we have before us a Conservative motion asking us to proceed with an expeditious study of a bill that attacks the most fundamental rights of our fellow citizens.
Who in the House protects every person's right to liberty? Who in the House protects every person's right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty under the law in a fair and public trial by an independent and impartial court? Who in the House protects every person's right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause? We will do that. The Bloc Québécois will oppose this Conservative motion.
We have several reasons for doing so. Firstly, expediting the study of a bill that threatens our fundamental freedoms would represent a departure from democracy and a dereliction by the legislature of its duties, which we will fight against. Secondly, the Conservative bill also proposes some superficial amendments to the Criminal Code that would change nothing. Thirdly, the Conservative bill is inconsistent with sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and as such it raises constitutional questions that call at the very least for serious study.
Before detailing our reasons, I would like to say a few words about the sense of insecurity that some of our fellow Quebeckers may be feeling and that the Conservative Party is trying to exploit. Of course, every time a crime makes the headlines, we are all shocked and outraged. When the news broke yesterday of the murder of a gangster who was gunned down in broad daylight in a Laval coffee shop, that was exactly our reaction.
It should be pointed out that when they are arrested, the suspects will not be released. The Criminal Code already stipulates that anyone charged with murder must remain in custody while awaiting trial. Still, the feelings of insecurity among some of our fellow citizens is understandable. We in the Bloc Québécois are proposing a number of measures to tackle criminal organizations, such as establishing an organized crime registry, similar to the terrorist entities list. This would make it easier to prove cases where a crime is committed for the benefit of a criminal organization. We also propose facilitating the seizure of assets by means of a reverse onus, to prevent the depletion of assets when an individual belonging to an organized crime group is arrested. In addition, we propose prohibiting criminal organizations from wearing their emblems or symbols. Right now, criminal organizations parade around with total impunity and actively promote their organizations.
We are calling for the creation of a specific offence to criminalize the recruitment of young people into crime. As we saw recently in Quebec, this has become the new modus operandi for organized crime. This is ruining lives and destroying families and we must get tougher with those who are exploiting our youth.
In response to legitimate security concerns, the Conservatives are calling for a jail not bail act. Some people might find this reassuring. However, imagine if a police officer arrests someone and accuses them of committing a crime. Even if this person says they did not commit the crime, they will be put into prison where they will spend many months in remand pending trial before they can prove their innocence. Does this still feel reassuring?
If the government puts more people in jail before they are found guilty, do people still feel more secure, or does that rather open the door to a new form of insecurity and the risk that one could end up in jail on trumped-up charges for a crime they did not commit? That is what the Conservative bill is all about. It is an attack on the right to liberty and the right to the presumption of innocence.
I would like to come back to my reasons. First, we are being asked to fast-track this bill. The motion actually calls for an “expeditious...study”. Obviously, we do not agree with that. We will not pass a bill that attacks our fundamental freedoms under closure. They will plead urgency, but if we fast-track a bill that will result in greater injustice rather than greater justice, can we really say we served the common good?
Second, certain aspects of the Conservative bill are nothing more than cosmetic changes. I will not get into the specifics. Nevertheless, I would like to point out that the bill seeks to amend subsection 515(10), which provides guidance for judges when determining whether or not to release an accused person. We are being told that public protection must be one of the criteria, but it already is. As I learned during my legal studies, normally, “Parliament does not speak in vain”.
For the record, but also to enlighten the House, subsection 515(10) of the Criminal Code already sets out the circumstances in which an accused may be detained. An accused is a person who has not yet been convicted. Anyone can see why it is important to have those criteria in place: charges may prove to be false. Sometimes the police receive complaints that turn out to be unfounded. It always comes back to the presumption of innocence. The basic premise of our criminal justice system is that the state must avoid perpetrating an injustice, even if that means some cases are not brought to justice. That is how our justice system works. It would rather prevent injustice than act too hastily.
The Criminal Code already stipulates that accused persons are typically released unless they are accused of serious crimes, in which case they can be detained. That is possible under the current system. We have to fight this idea that our system is a revolving door: arrest people, give them a slap on the wrist, let them go so they can commit more crimes and then see them again two days later. That is not how it works.
Subsection 515(10) states:
the detention of an accused in custody is justified only on one or more of the following grounds:
(a) where the detention is necessary to ensure his or her attendance in court
If the person is considered likely to flee from justice, they can be detained. That is already provided for in the Criminal Code.
(b) where the detention is necessary for the protection or safety of the public
It is already there. We are being asked to add something that is already there.
(c) if the detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, having regard to all the circumstances, including
(i) the apparent strength of the prosecution's case,
(ii) the gravity of the offence,
The Conservatives' bill also refers to this issue. They would like detention to become automatic for certain serious crimes. However, judges and Crown prosecutors already have all the necessary tools at their disposal under the Criminal Code to recommend detention for an accused, even if they have not yet been found guilty, when the charges are very serious. This is already possible when certain circumstances are met, such as the use of a firearm. These elements can be cited under the current system.
Paragraph 515(10)(c) also states:
(iv) the fact that the accused is liable, on conviction, for a potentially lengthy term of imprisonment.
The Conservatives' bill may be intended to reassure the public, but it has the potential to create injustice. In addition, it seeks to add elements that already exist in the Criminal Code.
In closing, it is important to note that the Conservatives' bill clearly contradicts some sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Section 7 states:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty
Section 11 states:
Any person charged with an offence has the right:
...
(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty...
(e) not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause;
This bill raises a number of significant constitutional issues. Evidently, we will not be expediting it.