Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member if he believes that for someone who has served his sentence and wants to live an honest life, the hope of obtaining a pardon after a reasonable timeframe would be incentive to maintain good behaviour?
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2008, with 46% of the vote.
Eliminating Pardons for Serious Crimes Act June 7th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member if he believes that for someone who has served his sentence and wants to live an honest life, the hope of obtaining a pardon after a reasonable timeframe would be incentive to maintain good behaviour?
Eliminating Pardons for Serious Crimes Act June 7th, 2010
Madam Speaker, my question is relatively short. The problem with the bill is that it is extremely broad. It is probably a good bill for someone like Graham James. Is it a good bill for Commander Robert Piché, who saved the lives of over 150 people? Later we suddenly learned that he had a rather serious criminal record. He probably would not have been granted a pardon and would not have been the level-headed pilot who safely landed his plane and saved so many lives after losing both his engines over the ocean. Nobody has a problem with his situation.
Once again, as with too many bills introduced by the Conservative government, they start with one specific case and apply it to hundreds of cases that call for different treatment.
Does the member honestly believe that if this bill is appropriate for the case of Graham James, it would also have been appropriate for Commander Robert Piché?
Young Offenders June 3rd, 2010
Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I believe that the minister avoided answering my question. However, his refusal or inability to answer are nonetheless significant.
In addition to the National Assembly, the Association des centres jeunesse du Québec, the Barreau du Québec, the Canadian Bar Association, the Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes and many other witnesses have indicated that Bill C-4 would undermine the Quebec method, which gives such good results.
Will the Minister of Justice, who says he cares about the victims, agree to amendments to his law in order to avoid this risk?
Young Offenders June 3rd, 2010
Mr. Speaker, the National Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution denouncing Bill C-4. The conclusion of the resolution reads as follows:
That the National Assembly reaffirm the validity and the importance of maintaining the Quebec model for treating young offenders, which has been unanimously accepted in Quebec and has allowed Quebec to achieve one of the lowest rates of youth crime in America in the past 25 years.
Does the Minister of Justice also acknowledge that Quebec has one of the lowest rates of youth crime in America?
Points of Order June 2nd, 2010
Mr. Speaker, as one of the oldest members, I may be one of the calmest. As you know, the crux of the matter is the insults regularly hurled at the Bloc Québécois because, according to those uttering the insults, we vote against protecting children.
Many hon. members would know exactly what the bill was about and might change their mind, as might you Mr. Speaker, if they bothered to read the entire bill and not just the title. It takes two minutes and if they read it, they would see that the bill is not about protecting children. That is never mentioned in the bill. They would see that it is about the exploitation of persons under the age of 18. The Bloc Québécois voted against the bill because it felt that anyone exploiting young people under the age of 18, in one way or another, does not deserve a minimum of five years, which is appropriate for those who exploit children.
Basing an opinion on the title alone is what misleads hon. members. Having not read the bill, they hurl insults that they would refrain from using if they had read the bill with a modicum of intellectual honesty.
I hope we can deal with this once and for all, Mr. Speaker, because it is very insulting to be told over and over again that we vote against the protection of children, that we are against protecting children, and that when we defend the rights of everyone in a legal system we are defending criminals' rights, and it triggers reactions that can be just as insulting, I agree. However, I have always refrained from reacting that way.
Official Languages May 12th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, why does the Minister of Justice always act like he does not understand my questions? Clearly because he does not have the answers.
The Constitution guarantees that judges can use their language, but what we are debating here is their ability to understand both official languages without the help of an interpreter.
Will the Minister of Justice admit that with a unilingual judge, it is the citizen who does not have a choice and who loses the right to be heard and understood?
Official Languages May 12th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are enjoying confusing everyone and using bogus arguments to justify their objection to requiring Supreme Court judges to be bilingual.
According to the Conservative spokesperson in the Senate, requiring judges to be bilingual would violate the Constitution, which says that a judge can use the language of his or her choice.
Could some kind soul explain to the government that this is not about forcing a judge to speak one language or the other but a matter of ensuring they are able to understand without the help of an interpreter?
Official Languages May 11th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, I am not the one answering the questions here.
Numerous support positions at the Supreme Court require bilingualism. If a receptionist working at the Supreme Court has to be bilingual, why do the justices sitting on the bench of the highest court of a supposedly bilingual country not have to understand French as well? Should they not follow the example set by, say, the Governor General, the current Prime Minister and by you, Mr. Speaker?
Official Languages May 11th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, in terms of administration of justice, the Conservatives do not understand that the rights of citizens in the legal system must come before the right of justices to impose their unilingualism. By insisting that it is not important for Supreme Court justices to be bilingual, they are defending the careers of unilingual candidates instead of citizens' rights.
Does the Minister of Justice realize how ludicrous it is to defend the careers of unilingual anglophones instead of the right of citizens to use the official language of their choice?
Official Languages May 10th, 2010
Do not count on it, Mr. Speaker.
The rights of litigants is so fundamental that if there is disparity between the French and the English, an interpretation rule requires that the litigant benefit from the version that is the most favourable and generous to him.
How could unilingual justices effectively carry out their duties if their lack of knowledge of one of the official languages keeps them from making distinctions that the litigant has every right to expect?