House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2008, with 46% of the vote.
Firearms Registry September 18th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, registering firearms owners is not enough.
According to the Prime Minister, from now on, hunting rifles will no longer be registered, and psychologically unstable individuals will be able to acquire them.
Does the Prime Minister realize that if he allows hunting rifles to circulate unrestricted, there is no guarantee that unstable individuals will not get their hands on them and use them to repeat what happened at Dawson College?
Firearms Registry September 18th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, like the Premier of Quebec, most Quebeckers want to keep the gun registry, but the federal government has already announced its intention to abolish it.
In light of the last week's tragic events in Montreal, will the government listen to reason and adopt the common-sense approach by keeping the gun registry?
In the fight against crime, prevention is at least as important as severe penalties—penalties that would have done nothing to prevent the tragedy we all deplore today.
Anastasia De Sousa September 18th, 2006
Mr. Speaker a family in the Ste-Rose neighbourhood of my riding has been struck by tragedy.
A mad gunman killed the oldest daughter with nine bullets.
He did it because she was beautiful and she seemed happy and he detested happiness and beauty.
Like millions of people, my eyes fill with tears and my heart breaks at the sight of the lovely graduation picture of this young woman and upon reading and hearing the testimonials of her friends and teachers.
It is at times like these that the true meaning of the word “sympathy” is apparent. The term comes from the Greek and means to suffer with. It is very little, too little, but it is the best we can do to help one another bear the unbearable.
Thus, I wish to express my heartfelt and most sincere condolences for the loss of the beautiful and, above all, the beloved Anastasia.
Firearms Registry June 20th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, if the minister is not answering the question, it is probably because he does not know what to answer.
Here is another question: does the minister not realize that with the abolition of the firearms registry as we know it and its replacement by a multitude of smaller registries kept by firearms retailers, it will be possible to monitor the purchase of new weapons but nearly impossible for police to monitor subsequent resales of these weapons?
Does the minister realize that he is making life easier for street gang members than hunters?
Firearms Registry June 20th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, the reform proposed yesterday by the Minister of Public Safety with regard to the firearms registry reinstates the requirement that firearms retailers keep a record of the weapons they sell.
Does requiring a retailer to keep a record of the firearms he sells not send the message that it is important to register firearms? Does the minister plan to clearly set out this requirement in the act?
Criminal Code June 13th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, contrary to the hon. member who asked the first question, I thought this speech was remarkable. It was quite thorough, well balanced and in-depth.
Nonetheless, there is an aspect my colleague did not touch on—perhaps he was short on time—and that was the legal aspect. Many arguments to justify minimum sentences are horror stories. The sentences seem totally unreasonable in relation to the seriousness of the crime.
Of all these objections raised, has my colleague heard of a single case that went before the Court of Appeal in the country? If these sentences are so awful, they can be corrected in appeal. Before changing the legislation, we should look just at the sentences, considered unjustifiable by some, that were approved by the appeal courts.
Witness Protection Program Act June 8th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, first, I want to commend the enthusiasm of the new member for Lévis—Bellechasse, who has just found an important issue to which he thinks he has found a solution in such a short time.
The Bloc Québécois will support the bill in principle. We should, however, point out to the hon. member the many solutions he should apply to solve particular problems. The strategy he has chosen may not be the most appropriate, in our opinion.
The witness protection bill is a strategy that was developed to protect a small number of witnesses against very powerful criminal rings with considerable resources available to them to take revenge on anyone who betrayed them. This bill will extend that protection to a much greater number of individuals threatened by people who do not have the same kind of resources to make an attempt on their life.
It is very likely that the case assessment process is not appropriate, and the same with the proposed solutions. Also, it is obvious that costs will explode. Under the existing program, providing protection for a single witness can cost some $400,000 a year. Did the member estimate how many people could have access to that program?
Furthermore, to get into this program, people must appear before an RCMP commissioner in Ottawa. How are we going to ensure the same procedures for people in the Northwest Territories, Quebec, the Maritimes and everywhere else in the country? This does not seem to be the most appropriate way to reach the objectives set by the hon. member.
I also understand that he, too, has discovered what I discovered as a young member in the past, taking care of all sorts of problems in my riding, including the problem of domestic violence, namely, that shelters offering women a safe refuge often try to keep their location secret. Why do they try to keep it a secret? So that the husbands they are running from cannot find them. Why? Because they are afraid.
By the way, I am not sure whether any members have seen the Quebec film The Novena—it is quite sombre but was very well received. That shows the quality of the Quebec audience, which was able to appreciate a film of such depth. The film tells the story of a psychiatrist whose serious problems were set off by one incident, when one of her patients was killed by her husband while she was at a women's shelter. The psychiatrist witnessed the murder. This fear exists not only in the movies, but in reality, as well. This fear is everywhere.
Frankly, I hope that the hon. member will continue to take this issue as far as he possibly can. It is obvious that he is aware of the enormous risks facing women.
There are certain things he must also realize. I am pleased that he is thinking of measures to prevent crime for his first bill, rather than following the lead of the majority of his party, which cannot seem to find a solution to reducing crime apart from the deterrent effect. Furthermore, earlier he used the word “deterrent” himself. I found this word somewhat inappropriate, because it is a tool for prevention that the member wishes to put in our hands. He has within reach—as we all do—a proven tool for prevention. However, his party is about to sweep it under the rug.
I would like to point out to him that since the establishment of the gun registry, murders of women involving firearms—which is something that worries women's shelters that do not give out their addresses—decreased by 31%, whereas murders of women not involving firearms increased slightly, by 2%, during the same period. This may convince the member that there is something there to be studied. In addition, it will be much more difficult to apply section 111 or 112 of the Criminal Code if we abolish the gun registry. When women fear for their lives—or when other people, the police or family members, fear for the lives of a woman who does not dare press charges—they can go before the courts and request that the individual be forced to turn in any firearms they may own pursuant to these sections. But how can the police check whether or not the firearms have been turned in if the weapons are no longer registered, as proposed by the member?
If he uses logic, and I encourage him to do so, he will make his party see the preventive value of the gun registry.
Last week, we held a press conference with the president of the Montreal police brotherhood. He gave examples of instances where the gun registry was used to defend spouses and prevent crimes against these women, who were afraid that their husbands would do violence to them. He gave us one striking example of an instance where the woman knew her spouse had weapons, but she did not know how many. Thanks to the gun registry, the police were able to determine that he had a veritable arsenal. As a result, they did not stop searching until they were sure they had seized the entire arsenal. They would not have been able to do this if they had not had access to the gun registry.
The member's goal is a noble one. I respect him, and I encourage him. That is why we will support him, at least on the principle of the bill. However, if he wants to show us that he is really serious about protecting women, he should think about how applying the gun registry to long guns as well as handguns has provided protection for a number of women who needed it. That is one reason for registering all firearms.
He should also think about the practical applications of the legislative method he has chosen to use. It would entail a considerable budget increase. I expect that a lot more than 64 women would apply for this system. I am told there are currently only 64 witnesses who want this protection. He must also ensure that these women have easy access to these measures so that they can have this protection. In my opinion, this should be done through the local police. It would not make sense to force these women to move to Ottawa, or to a big city when they live in the country, in order to benefit from this program.
The intention is quite noble and the proposed provisions are generous. It is a credit to the hon. member. Nonetheless, I think he should consider another method rather than witness protection. That said, we fully agree with him that women should get at least the same protection as the witnesses who benefit from this legislation he wants to amend.
Criminal Code June 6th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I often review the statistics and have found a few. Statistics can be used to justify anything. However, there have been barely any American or Canadian studies. There are just a few. Some people are examining them closely.
Recently, I read the works of Anthony Doob—an expert from York University— that demolish their work methods and show that it has no influence at all. Once again, I would like to mention a major Canadian example: a minimum sentence of seven years for importing marijuana. Is that enough of a deterrent? Some say that this sentence is never handed out. That is not true. I have seen people behind bars for seven years. I have seen quite a few. At some point, it did not make any sense and this sentence was no longer applied.
That is where the perversion of the system begins. Certain speakers spoke of it this morning. Plea bargaining is beginning to be used. I am not a cynic. I practised a profession in which there is a great deal of cynicism. Sometimes, the political profession also makes us cynical. I have never been a cynic. When I leave politics, I can probably have another very lucrative career as a lawyer, as I have noted that bad ways line the pockets of good lawyers. This is a mistake that will make many attorneys rich.
Criminal Code June 6th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I see it as a dogmatic position, inspired by solutions used in a country that does not have as good a record as we do. They invoke the same contradiction perpetrated by the Republicans in the southern United States: tough on crimes, liberal on arms. There you have the results for each side. I have given other explanations.
I recognize that my position is not a popular one. However, I believe that if we have the opportunity to calmly explain the facts to citizens, they will generally agree that the best solution is the individualization of each sentence by well-trained, enlightened, experienced professionals in the field.
Criminal Code June 6th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I would never give just one reason for a sentence. I have chided journalists for making that mistake.
I would like to know all of the reasons given and how the judge justified the sentence, which I find totally inappropriate. If this sentence has been appealed, I would like to have the reference so that I can read the appeal court's decision.
We in this House must not act as an appeal court by changing one, two or a thousand sentences and imposing certain decisions on judges for millions of cases to come.