House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2015, with 22% of the vote.
Justice November 30th, 2011
Mr. Speaker, the vast majority of Canadians and Quebeckers—except for those across the floor—understand the important objective of Bill C-10, that is, protecting Canadians from violent criminals.
Furthermore, an eminent Quebecker, former minister Marc Bellemare, recently said, “Minister Fournier did not speak for all Quebeckers in Ottawa. I think this bill is in line with Quebec's values.”
It is time for the opposition to stop deceiving Canadians and Quebeckers.
Justice November 29th, 2011
Mr. Speaker, this matter has been the subject of extensive debate, not only in the House, but also in committee. All documents indicating the costs involved have been tabled. As we know, victims are the ones who bear the cost of crime. We are talking about a total cost of $99.6 billion, 83% of which is borne by the victims. We support the victims, while they support the criminals.
Justice November 29th, 2011
Mr. Speaker, we recognize that Quebec has jurisdiction over criminal justice and can take action with regard to rehabilitation. In fact, Minister Fournier came to see us and we agreed to one of the three recommendations he made. What is more interesting is that Premier Charest sent two of his ministers to try to discuss the necessary amendments.
Why did he not have faith in the NDP opposition?
Safe Streets and Communities Act November 29th, 2011
Madam Speaker, obviously Bill C-10 focused, as I said previously, on the most vulnerable members of society, and those are the children. Everyone will agree that children must be protected from sexual exploitation and Internet crime. Obviously, anyone who does this and has this type of contact will be punished severely and be deterred from doing this by being placed in prison.
The people of Canada have asked for this, we have responded to it, and there is no surprise that there are provisions in there to seriously punish people who are in this field of criminal activity.
Safe Streets and Communities Act November 29th, 2011
Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada and the provincial governments, including the Government of Quebec, each have their own jurisdictions. It is certainly up to the provinces to decide where they should allocate the necessary funds, according to their priorities. It is not up to the federal government to tell the Government of Quebec where its priorities should be. We know very well that Quebec puts a great deal of emphasis on rehabilitation. There is nothing in Bill C-10 that in any way affects Quebec's ability to reform its system for rehabilitating offenders.
Safe Streets and Communities Act November 29th, 2011
Madam Speaker, contrary to the opposition, we do not look to the south for solutions to preventing crime and predicting the most vulnerable elements of our society.
I am always bemused by the fact that the system that we are trying to put in place to protect the innocent people of Canada, the victim, is compared to the United States of America. It is my understanding that we are always being compared to Texas. Texas does not have a parole system, so that is largely different from what we have here in Canada and what we are proposing in the legislation. We are not radically changing the whole system. We are trying to protect society from the most violent and repeat offenders.
As I understand it, Texas also has a death penalty. What can we really draw from Texas and the other 51 states of the United States of America that all have their own criminal code? In Canada, we have the benefit of having one Criminal Code to send a resounding message to all Canadians that we will protect them from the criminal element, and that is what we are doing and we believe it will work.
Safe Streets and Communities Act November 29th, 2011
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the report stage debate on Bill C-10, the safe streets and communities act.
This important crime bill continues to attract a lot of debate, both within and outside this chamber. Often, the debate focuses on misconceptions and falsehoods that have been spread through the fear-mongering of the opposition parties.
I welcome the opportunity to add my voice to the debate because I want to direct my remarks to clarify what is in the bill, what it would do and what other initiatives the government is taking to address the issues discussed in Bill C-10.
First, Bill C-10 does exactly what was promised both during the last federal election and during the Speech from the Throne in June 2011. It combines nine bills that were introduced during the last Parliament, but died on the order paper with the dissolution of Parliament for the general election.
Second, its objectives, as reflected in the short title, the safe streets and communities act, are clear and, in my view, should be easy for all to understand and support.
Part one of the bill seeks to support victims of terrorism by giving them new tools to hold those who commit acts of terrorism and those who support them, including listed foreign states, accountable.
Part two proposes changes that will ensure that consistent and appropriate penalties are imposed for serious crimes and that the penalties imposed reflect the serious nature of the crime. More specifically, the bill will ensure that those penalities are imposed for all sexual offences committed against children and not just for certain offences. It will ensure that anyone who commits violent acts or offences against property serves their sentence in prison and not in the comfort of their own home under a conditional sentence of imprisonment.
It will also ensure that the most serious drug-related offences, such as trafficking of cocaine or heroin, which generally involve organized crime or the use of violence and weapons and have a serious impact on the health and safety of communities, are punishable by consistent and appropriate penalties including a prison sentence.
Part 3 proposes numerous post-sentencing reforms to better support victims and to increase offender accountability and management. These reforms would include clarifying that the protection of society is of paramount consideration for the federal corrections process, the Parole Board of Canada and provincial parole boards, as well as give victims the right to make a statement at parole hearings and to receive certain information about the offender. They would also rename pardons as record suspensions, which better describes their real nature, and it would extend periods of ineligibility to apply for them as well as make certain offences ineligible to receive them.
Part 4 proposes to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act to better deal with violent and repeat offenders. These reforms include ensuring that the protection of the public is always considered as a principle in dealing with young offenders and strengthening the pre-trial detention provisions to enable the detention of youth who are spiralling out of control and who would pose a risk to the public safety by committing serious offences if released while awaiting trial. Importantly, these reforms would also enable a court, in appropriate cases, to sentence a youth to custody for violent offences that involve a substantial likelihood of causing bodily harm to life or safety of others, and not just whether youth attempted to cause or threaten to cause bodily harm, as is currently the case.
Last, part 5 proposes immigration related reforms that would seek to protect vulnerable foreign workers against being exploited by unscrupulous Canadian employers.
Many witnesses appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to express their opinions about Bill C-10. Most, if not all, of these witnesses supported the fundamental principles of Bill C-10. For example, everyone agreed that sexual exploitation of children is a serious crime and that child sex offenders must be treated seriously by the criminal justice system.
Everyone agreed that trafficking of heroin and cocaine, especially by organized crime, must be treated seriously. I believe that most, if not all, of the witnesses agreed to including a provision whereby a mandatory minimum sentence would not be served if an offender successfully completed a drug treatment court program. And I believe that everyone agrees that vulnerable foreign workers must be protected from exploitation by unscrupulous Canadian employers.
It seems to me that the only individuals who appear to be completely against the fundamentals of Bill C-10 are sitting on the other side of the House. Members from the opposition have continuously demonstrated that they are completely out of touch with what Canadians want.
During our study in committee and during the report stage of debate, the opposition members tabled amendments to the bill that would repeal the two year mandatory sentence for the importation of the hardest drugs in Canada. They table amendments that would mean that those who bring date rape drugs into Canada would be subject to lighter sentences. They table amendments that would allow an arsonist, who burned someone's house down, to serve their sentence in the comfort of their own home. They table amendments that would delete new offences that are essential to prevent child sex offences and protect children. And the list goes on.
Canadians are worried about crime. That is one reason why they gave our government a clear mandate to make our streets and our communities safer. Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act, will also help deal with pedophiles and drug traffickers who import hard drugs, such as cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine into Canada.
These legislative reforms are desirable and necessary and are a crucial part of the solution to crime in this country.
It is important to remind members on the other side of the chamber that although the legislative changes contained in Bill C-10 are an essential part of the solution and do achieve exactly the goals I have described, they are not the government's only response to preventing some of these crimes.
The government is also tackling crime through non-legislative measures, including, for example, the national anti-drug strategy launched in 2010, which has invested $588.8 million in three areas: prevention, treatment and enforcement, the last of which includes the reforms now proposed in part 2 of Bill C-10.
Second, the national crime prevention strategy is currently providing $45 million per year through the crime prevention action fund, the northern aboriginal crime prevention fund, the youth gang prevention fund and the security infrastructure program.
Third, the national strategy to protect children from sexual exploitation on the Internet is currently providing $71 million over five years, that includes supporting the RCMP's National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre and providing law enforcement with better tools and resources to address Internet-based child sexual exploitation. It also supports the operation of cybertip.ca, the national 24/7 tip line for reporting online child sexual exploitation. That is being funded by the Centre for Child Protection that houses cybertip.ca and that carries out public education and awareness on these three issues.
I think we can all agree that the issues covered by Bill C-10 are serious issues. Bill C-10 provides a commensurate but tailored response to these issues that builds on existing legislative and non-legislative responses.
It is time for the opposition to listen to the needs of Canadians from coast to coast, to stop their fear-mongering, read the bill and understand what it really would do. It is time to act together to support Bill C-10 and to make Canada's streets safer.
Canada Labour Code November 25th, 2011
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-315, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (French language).
This bill amends the Canada Labour Code to add requirements regarding the use of French in federally regulated private businesses operating in Quebec. More specifically, the bill requires employers to treat French as the language of work in federally regulated private businesses in Quebec.
The bill gives employees the right to carry on their activities in French, to draw up communications in French, to have their collective agreements and schedules prepared in French, and to have all arbitrations translated into English or French, as the case may be, at the parties’ request.
This bill does not prohibit the use of a language other than French, but no other language may take precedence over French.
It authorizes the Governor in Council to exempt, by regulation, federal works, undertakings or businesses from the operations of the provisions of the bill.
I would now like to take a moment to look at the existing language laws already in effect in Quebec.
As my colleagues before me have already explained, there are currently two distinct language regimes in Quebec, and these cover various groups of businesses and workers. The Official Languages Act applies to all federal institutions, including Parliament, federal departments, organizations and crown corporations, as well as former crown corporations and all ports and airports.
Canada Labour Code November 25th, 2011
Mr. Speaker, has the member for Trois-Rivières consulted French-speaking minority groups outside Quebec or English-speaking minority groups inside Quebec? I am wondering whether the member might share some views as to how French-speaking minority groups in the other provinces see this bill.
Justice November 23rd, 2011
Mr. Speaker, it will absolutely not be necessary for Quebec to create its own criminal code. I would like to invite the hon. member to carefully read Bill C-10, because it is designed to protect both Canadians and Quebeckers. That is what the people asked us to do and that is what we are doing.