Pierre-Luc Dusseault

[Criminal Code, February 22nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak to Bill S-217, which was introduced by a senator and is now being debated here in the House, as we continue our study and consider passing this bill to amend the Criminal Code. We became quite accustomed to changes to the Criminal Code under the previous government. I want to thank my NDP colleagues who worked so hard examining this issue.

First of all, I want to offer my condolences, as most members have done, to Mr. Wynn's family. Constable Wynn was regrettably killed by someone who had been released on bail while awaiting trial. It is in this context that we are debating Bill S-217; we are trying to correct the flaw that made it possible for the accused in question, who had committed very serious crimes, to be released pending trial, at which point he sadly committed the acts we are all well aware of now. I therefore want to offer my condolences to the family.

I would also like to say that the NDP will be supporting Bill S-217 at second reading so that it is studied in committee. It is our role as legislators to thoroughly study issues, not just in the House when we give our speeches, but mainly in committees, where we study proposed legislation in depth.

In this case, we will focus mainly on the effects of this bill on our judicial system. It is important that this be studied by a committee; as such, we will support this bill at second reading so we can consider the wealth of evidence related to the issue.

Many people are concerned about the proposed legislation. Naturally, police forces are very concerned and expressed their concerns when the bill was before the Senate. The legal community is also very concerned by this issue because the bill would add a step prior to the release of an accused person awaiting trial.

Many people are concerned about this, which is why it is important to have an in-depth study in committee to determine the repercussions of this proposal. For example, some experts say that this could slow down the process. We certainly do not want that, especially when the justice system is already so slow when it comes to hearing crown prosecutors and defendants. There is already a backlog in processing court cases across Canada. It is important to address this issue because it could affect the length of proceedings.

This could have repercussions on the work of police, who are extremely important people in our communities. Crown attorneys could also be affected. I am therefore in favour of Bill S-217 and I think we will have the opportunity to look at its impact.

There are other issues that I wanted to raise and that could help inform the committee members. It will be important to ask the experts to address the issue of presumption of innocence, which is the foundation of our current system.

That is why accused persons are released in many cases. Of course, they will appear before a judge at some point, and that is when the crown and the defendant will present their arguments. In the end, it is up to the judge to determine whether the person is guilty or not.

It is important to consider the fact that, in our system, everyone is presumed innocent until a judge determines otherwise. This issue must be discussed because there is no need to keep people in custody until they have been found guilty of a crime. Since there are hundreds of crimes set out in the Criminal Code, it would not make any sense to keep everyone who has been accused of a crime in custody awaiting trial.

There are mechanisms in place to allow accused persons to go free because not all of them are a danger to the public. As I said, there are hundreds of crimes. There are economic crimes, fraud. The judge analyzes each situation and makes a decision on a case-by-case basis. Allowing accused persons to go free while they await trial does not always present a danger to the public.

We need to look closely at this situation, so as not to put too much of a burden on our justice system and our prisons. Keeping more accused persons in custody for longer periods will not be without consequences. In this debate, it is important to keep in mind that every accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. However, we need to give judges the discretion to decide whether the accused constitutes a danger to the public and the community.

In the case before us, the situation is profoundly sad, because the individual released had been charged with several serious crimes and then went on to reoffend by committing an even more serious crime.

Mechanisms exist that give judges the discretion to say that an accused person constitutes a danger to society and must remain in custody awaiting trial. Judges should have that discretion.

If our policies and our laws are too restrictive, we will be removing the judges' discretion to make that decision. Judges are in the best position, because they are the ones who speak directly to the accused and take all the facts presented to them into account.

There certainly is a need for an ideal mechanism, as laid out in Bill S-217, to take into account the accused's criminal record, including previous convictions and failures to appear in court. That can help the judge determine whether the accused is at risk of failing to appear again. If the accused does not appear in court when required to do so, an arrest warrant must be issued. There are consequences for that.

As we debate this bill, it is extremely important to keep in mind that judges must have as much discretion as possible to make informed decisions based on the facts of a given case. They are the judges. There is a reason we call them judges. They are the ones who judge whether accused individuals should be detained in custody or whether they can be released while awaiting trial.

In this debate, I want all of us to think about giving judges as much discretion as possible because they, not we in the House of Commons, are in the best position to evaluate each case based on the facts before them and to decide whether to release the accused or detain them in custody.

My time is up, but I hope to see the next installment of this debate in committee very soon.

[Canada Revenue Agency, February 21st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, while the United States has managed to convict rich taxpayers involved in the UBS Swiss bank scandal and recover millions of dollars, Canada has not brought a single Canadian taxpayer to justice.

The best the Canada Revenue Agency was able to manage was the creation of the voluntary disclosure program, under which fraudsters are guaranteed confidentiality, do not have to pay any financial penalties, and are protected from prosecution. It is shameful.

When will the minister take concrete legislative measures to combat the use of tax havens? More importantly, when will she please stop giving fraudsters preferential treatment?

[Business of Supply, February 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising this point.

Indeed, I am not afraid of talking about Islamophobia and mentioning that word, unlike some of our colleagues. That way we have a better understanding of what we are talking about and what that word means. For me, it is clear: it means fear of a religious community. No long search in the dictionary is necessary to find the definition of that word: phobia of Islam.

If we mention the word in the House and we adopt motions that mention it, that will certainly demonstrate that we are very concerned about this phenomenon and that, as I was saying earlier, it is very real.

Furthermore, I do not think that voting for just one or the other of these motions will improve the situation. To think that way is simply to play the same political game, where we want to be the one who succeeded in moving the matter forward. Both motions are moving in the right direction and, fortunately, will make it possible to address an important subject.

[Business of Supply, February 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Indeed, the Conservatives’ motion has considerable merit, and that is why we are going to support it. That does not prevent all of our colleagues from supporting a similar motion that will certainly not hinder the work of the same committee, for even though the two motions are parallel, they give directions to the same committee. Therefore one certainly does not prevent the other.

To answer my colleague’s question, this is indeed a well-drafted motion. That is why we support it, and we urge our colleagues to do the same, for this is an extremely important subject. It is a very real phenomenon that we have to address, as parliamentarians, in order to find solutions.

[Business of Supply, February 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak to this motion of the Conservatives, who have chosen one of their rare opposition days to discuss a very important subject, namely systemic racism and discrimination.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives have decided not to specifically include the issue of systemic discrimination and racism toward Muslims in their motion. They deliberately decided to withdraw that element from the motion, obviously in contrast to Motion No. 103, which we all know, and which we debated yesterday evening in the House. We are not going to turn a blind eye today, for this is certainly why the Conservatives have decided to devote an opposition day to this topic as well, to try and short-circuit, if I may use that expression, the initiative of one of our colleagues on the other side of the House, who had very good intentions.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives seem to want to play with words and play politics on this issue. It is too bad, because this sensitive subject is extremely important. It is above all a very real phenomenon. We have seen it in the past, and unfortunately very recently as well.

The motion makes reference to the recent attack at the Quebec City mosque, which all my colleagues in the House are aware of. Following that attack, we all observed a moment of silence in the House in honour of the victims. That is clearly the context in which we are debating this extremely important and very sensitive subject today; this is something that is very real.

As I was also saying, this debate is of course taking place in the context of Motion No. 103, which is virtually identical to today’s motion. The only important distinction to be made is that Motion No. 103 included a certain form of discrimination and racism called “Islamophobia”. That is the only important difference. However, the motion by our Liberal colleague says simply, “including Islamophobia.”

The Conservatives' speeches, however, give the impression that they think that Motion No. 103 deals only with Islamophobia and that it specifies only one form of discrimination based on only one religion. On the contrary, if Motion No. 103 is read as it should be read, it is clear that the subject is systemic religious discrimination and racism, including Islamophobia. All the same, I find it surprising that the Conservatives are in the end opposed to including a certain form of specific discrimination in the study that the committee will be undertaking on this issue.

It is also important to remember the ultimate goal of both motions, because I almost feel as though we are talking about two different issues today, when clearly the two motions are almost identical. That is why I will not be making much of a distinction between the two during my speech.

Nevertheless, this change in the Conservative motion, comparted to the Liberal motion, is being fuelled by a campaign of falsehoods and fearmongering that is taking hold across Canada and that is clearly fuelled by false information. It is a campaign of misinformation, period.

The Conservatives would have people believe, and my Green Party colleague mentioned this earlier, that freedom of expression is suddenly at stake, because someone decided to include Islamophobia in a motion that calls on a parliamentary committee to study the issue of racism and discrimination in order to come up with solutions. I simply do not understand the logic in that.

How can anyone arrive at that conclusion and that twisted logic, namely, that freedom of expression is going to be jeopardized because a committee is being asked to study an issue as important as discrimination and racism, including Islamophobia? Clearly, something is wrong with this picture.

Unfortunately, that is the context in which we are debating this motion. There is a misinformation campaign being fuelled by certain groups in Canada.

After putting today's debate somewhat in context, I would like to talk about a very real phenomenon that I have seen in my community of Sherbrooke. There is systemic discrimination and a form of racism. It is important to use the real words and admit that this exists.

In Sherbrooke, I have received testimonials from people from different religious communities, but especially the Muslim community. People come to tell me their stories and how they feel discriminated against, especially with regard to employment, as well as in other areas and other circumstances.

This discrimination is hard to prove, but it seems to be based on religion. There are some concrete examples, such as the case of a man from the Muslim community who came to see me. He was looking for a job for a long time. I am sure I have colleagues who know what I am talking about because they may have heard the same thing. He told me he had been looking for work for years. He had all the necessary training. If I am not mistaken, he was an engineer from Morocco or one of the countries of the Maghreb. Naturally, he had an Arabic-sounding name. An engineer by training, he came to Quebec and took all the courses he needed to be up to date because the professional associations do not necessarily make it easy to bring people in. He did everything required of him to join the Ordre des ingénieurs. He looked for work for years to no avail and then one day, many years later, he finally found something in Montreal. Unfortunately, he had to leave Sherbrooke.

That is something I am all too familiar with and have heard time and time again. Immigrants in Sherbrooke end up having to leave because there is no work.

He told me that once he found work, he tried something to find out if his name was the reason employers turned him down. He changed his name on his résumé and sent it to the same companies that had not called him in for an interview. It did not take long for someone to call him back and offer him a job, or at least an interview.

I hear that kind of story all the time. That is why the issue we are debating is extremely important. I want to emphasize that this issue is very real. I have seen it first-hand, as have some of my colleagues.

That is why we have to adopt this motion and Motion No. 103. We can adopt both of them. I think it would be very useful for a House of Commons committee to study this issue and come up with some solutions. We are here not just to condemn bad situations, but to find solutions. That is what will be expected of the committee. I am heartened by the positive signals I am picking up from both sides of the House. The Conservatives certainly tried to play with words to turn this issue into a political football.

Nevertheless, this initiative is a step in the right direction. We have to examine the issue and focus on finding solutions. That is what the committee will do. It will recommend solutions and actions to the government. Those solutions will enable us to shape a nation that reflects who we are and fulfills our aspirations, a more just and egalitarian nation with opportunities for all of us. Everyone will have the same opportunity no matter where they come from or what their family background is.

I see that my time is up, so I would be very pleased to answer my colleagues' questions.

I urge all my colleagues to support these initiatives to discuss this issue. I will be most pleased to respond to their questions.

[Business of Supply, February 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

He again repeated something that was said a number of times by some of his Conservative colleagues. He said that adopting Motion No. 103 will undermine freedom of speech. I do not understand how he came to that conclusion. How would Canadians' freedom of speech be undermined by the House adopting a motion that asks a committee to examine the issue of racism and systemic discrimination, including Islamophobia? I do not understand the logic there.

I hope my colleague will be able to enlighten me.

[Business of Supply, February 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech in this debate. However, I still do not understand the Conservatives' argument, which seems to be based on a campaign of falsehoods.

The Conservatives would have Canadians believe that adopting a motion that talks about systemic racism and that calls on a committee to examine the issue is going to somehow undermine freedom of speech. I still do not understand how they made that connection when the motion simply asks a committee to examine an issue.

Could my colleague enlighten us as to why certain members of her party, some of whom are running for her party's leadership, are spreading misinformation by claiming that freedom of speech will be undermined if the House adopts a motion like Motion No. 103, which we debated yesterday evening?

[Business of Supply, February 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her comments, which clarify what some members have difficulty understanding. They tend to put on blinders or to get stuck on words, even though, according to the member's comments, it is obvious that Islamophobia exists in Canada.

I would like to know whether all the messages she received and the comments she just shared have strengthened her resolve to study this issue in the House or in a parliamentary committee in order to identify solutions.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, February 14th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her comments in this debate.

When I listen to the Conservatives, I sometimes think that they do not seem to recognize that establishing supervised consumption sites is at the very least part of the solution to today's crisis. Although it is not the only solution to the opioid crisis, it is certainly one element of the response.

Does my colleague recognize that supervised consumption sites, which also recommend ways to get off drugs, are part of the solution to the opioid crisis?

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, February 14th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her intervention in this debate.

I would like to know if she thinks this measure is a happy medium between too many constraints and the total absence of constraints with respect to opening new supervised consumption sites.

Obviously, we need rules around setting up supervised consumption sites. However, as we have seen in the past, too many constraints is not necessarily a good thing because that can get in the way of protecting public health.

Can my colleague comment on the attempt to find a happy medium between the two extremes on this issue?