Rhéal Éloi Fortin

Mr. Speaker, this bill, and the story and circumstances surrounding it, are moving. There is something special about it. My colleague is right to point that out. It is not often that everyone in this House can agree on something. It does happen, though not often enough for my liking, that we are all able to agree on doing what needs to be done for the benefit of the community as a whole. I will, of course, be giving a speech shortly. Unfortunately, it will probably be to repeat what I have already said. For now, however, I would like to ask my colleague a question. In his opinion, is this something that could happen again, at least in the coming weeks? Could we all set aside considerations that are sometimes a little too partisan and work together to do what is best for all our communities across Quebec and across Canada?

Mr. Speaker, I am probably going to repeat some of the things I said in the spring. The reality of legislative life is that we come back to the same bill, work on it and approve it again. As my colleague said earlier, I already spoke to this bill in committee, as well as in the House at second reading. I will now speak to it at third reading. I look forward to passing it. I think we all want it to be passed quickly, but David deserves for us to pass it quickly. Drug addictions are not a legal issue. These are medical issues, especially when it comes to our teenagers. Of course, drug addictions are not fun. We would not wish for anyone to have to deal with addictions of this nature, neither colleagues of the same age or the same generation, nor our parents or children. Drug use is bad. Drug trafficking must be stopped. It is vital to combat it in every way possible. This is being done. There are always attempts to balance more restrictive measures with preventative, corrective and rehabilitative measures. It is not always easy. Colleagues from different parties often have heated arguments and fierce debates on these issues. When it comes to our teenagers, I am pleased to see that we are all on the same page, even members from other parties who generally tend to disagree with our point of view. As members know, rehabilitation is part of the Bloc Québécois's DNA. We are perhaps a little too naive. Likely so. Perhaps we would be better off being less naive. It all depends on one's point of view, but we believe in rehabilitation. The society that we want to build, the one that we want to live in and that we want our children to live in, is a caring society. We want it to be a society that we will be happy to live in and that will accept us despite our shortcomings, our mistakes, our faults and our flaws, a society that will help us to get back on the straight and narrow, help us to see the light and help us to better understand what is best for us and for the rest of society. The Bloc Québécois adopted this way of thinking and this way of doing things a long time ago, when the party was founded and possibly even well before that. I cannot speak for members of other parliaments, but I would be surprised if Quebec thought differently. I believe that, historically, in Quebec, we have always favoured rehabilitation over punishment. There must be punishment. I am not saying that we do not need any. We must take firm action. We need to be fair, equitable and rigorous in how we treat our young people in particular. They need limits. They need guidelines to determine what is right and wrong. Often, even sometimes as parents, we are amazed at the impact or influence we can have on them because they do not show us and they will not tell us. However, in the long term, we find out that they have learned something from what we have been able to tell them in the past, and that is great. Yes, we believe in interventions, including those of a criminal nature, but above all, we believe in rehabilitation. We need to help people understand, those around us who have strayed—I do not like to use the expression “strayed” because I myself tend to stray from time to time—or those who have bent the societal rules that we have set for ourselves and who try to do things differently. We need to help them see things clearly. Addiction is a serious problem that must be addressed, but when it comes to teenagers in particular, we need to focus on rehabilitation and recovery. It really needs to be viewed as a dependence issue, a health problem, rather than a criminal problem. I was listening to my colleague on the government side earlier, and I agreed with him. I was even pleased to hear him say the following. I will quote him word for word, because I wrote it down. The words I wrote down are these: “to give someone a break.” However, I think he should have said: “to give society a break.” It is not just “someone”. These young folks who have strayed from the straight and narrow, who have taken drugs, who have struggled with addiction, and who are having a hard time turning things around would possibly, if not probably, make valuable contributions to society under different circumstances. Our society needs them. We need people like David today. He could have become an incredible social worker, maybe a lawyer or a member of Parliament. Who knows? He could have made a contribution to our society. We need David and other young people in the same situation. When someone gets a second chance, society as a whole gets a second chance. Society can then benefit from the important contributions these young folks can make. To me, that is important. It is our duty as parliamentarians to fix what needs to be fixed, but to do so in the right way, by investing in our future. Earlier, I asked my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière a question. I asked him if it were possible, if we could imagine a scenario where all members of the House, regardless of their party, could also agree, under different circumstances, on meaningful bills. These bills might not be perfect, and we might want to make some changes to them, but we could still agree to pass them quickly. I am not talking about rushing to adopt them by saying that it is in the national interest and that they will take effect as early as next week. That is a different matter. We will discuss that another time. Rather, I am talking about reaching an agreement to adopt them in a reasonable manner. In my opinion, there are too many bills that get carried over from one Parliament to the next. It is counterproductive. The amount of money, time and effort that is needlessly invested in bills that never come to fruition is unbelievable, and I would say incalculable. I have not even tried to calculate it. It disappoints me. I am disappointed all the time. As for David's bill, which we are considering today, it gives me confidence in the humanity of my colleagues in this House, and that is something I truly appreciate. I want to say this not only to our colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière, but to all members of the House: When a bill is worthwhile, even if it is not perfect, can we make a greater effort to discuss it before it reaches committee and comes to a vote? Can we work together to find ways to move it forward? Can we ensure that when a bill is introduced, it is passed, if not within a few months, then at least within a year? That is my hope, and though it may be somewhat naive, I hope my colleagues will allow me the occasional moment of naivety. I would love to see bills like this advance more quickly. Let me close by returning to what I said earlier about David's law. I will share what I have learned from all this and from the handful of years I have spent on this earth. I do not consider myself old; I often say that no one is truly old until they reach three digits. Even so, I have gained a bit of life experience. I would say that our young people need love, not prison bars.

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for my colleague. We are aware that my colleague's bill does not replace section 430 of the Criminal Code, which already provides for sanctions in this respect. It simply adds mandatory minimum punishments. Personally, I see this as somewhat of a parliamentary supervision of our courts, telling judges that they cannot impose a sentence that is less than the minimum punishment described. Does my colleague have any courts or judges in mind that deserve to be subject to such supervision? Can she give us some examples? I cannot think of any off the top of my head. Second, our Liberal colleague referred to Bill C‑9. In fact, our Conservative colleagues opposed an amendment I proposed, which sought to make it illegal to spread hatred or promote hatred based on a religious text. We wanted to remove that from the Criminal Code. Does my colleague think that, if somebody commits mischief in relation to property with the goal of inciting hatred on religious grounds, would that be acceptable? The mandatory minimum punishment—

Mr. Speaker, first of all, mandatory minimum sentences have already been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada, so I think it would be a real shame to try to rerun that failed script. We share the concerns about the issue of hate and preventing people from committing mischief against religious property. I believe I can say that all members of Parliament share that value. We do not want to live in a society where people commit mischief just to make a point. That said, there are different ways of tackling this issue of hate. What the Conservatives are proposing—and, with all due respect, I believe this is an argument I have heard rather frequently since I joined the House nearly 11 years ago—is the idea that the more people we can put behind bars, the safer society will be. It is a valid point, and one that can be defended, but that is not the kind of society I want to live in. I maintain, again respectfully, that it is not the sort of society the vast majority of people wish to live in either. The Bloc Québécois believes that we need to give our judges some judicial discretion. We have faith in our judges. They are not perfect. They are human and sometimes make mistakes, just like the rest of us, but they generally have a good head on their shoulders, good judgment and a lot of experience. They are able to assess every situation on its merits. Trying to force them to follow a certain criteria or framework that they cannot deviate from is a bit like having them supervised or putting them under parliamentary supervision, as I said earlier when talking to my colleague. It is one thing for Parliament to determine that a given situation constitutes a crime and to set out a maximum sentence, but minimum punishments are another matter. We are telling our judges that they cannot impose a lighter punishment than the one that has been set out. I think that is deplorable. Such parliamentary control over judicial sentencing is a dangerous tool that should be reserved for genuinely exceptional cases. I asked my colleague the following question: In this case, is she able to identify judges or courts that are so defective that we need to supervise them in that way? I did not get an answer to that question, but I do not think there are any such judges or courts. Earlier, I said that mistakes can happen. Judges are only human and can make mistakes. If a judge from the Quebec Superior Court, the Court of Quebec or any other provincial or other court makes a mistake, there are courts of appeal that can review that decision. If the litigants feel that the court of appeal also made a mistake, they can appeal to the Supreme Court, which is home to the country's greatest legal minds. There are safeguards in place. Judges cannot hand down any punishment in any way they like without running the risk of having their decision appealed and overturned. The problem I have with minimum sentences is when people suggest, as some are suggesting here, that they should be imposed for pretty much every offence. Personally, I believe that sentences should be tailored to the circumstances, that we should trust the courts and our judges, who have, for the most part, been carefully selected. I will not repeat the criticisms I have already shared on several occasions regarding the judicial appointment process, which, in my view, needs improvement. Generally speaking, however, we can trust judges to adapt sentences with a view to building a better society, one where the principles of rehabilitation can be applied, for example, along with monetary or other types of compensation that will benefit society and contribute to the rehabilitation of offenders. We need balanced principles. These people decide what is or is not a crime, but they also decide not to send everyone who commits mischief to prison, but to rehabilitate them instead. I knew a young man who once graffitied the wall of a convenience store. Fortunately, the police arrested him, but his punishment was not to appear before a judge or go to jail. He had to clean off his graffiti and do a number of hours of community service for the store owner. They became friends. The young man did a lot for the convenience store owner because he realized that his graffiti, while not as bad as detonating a bomb, had caused damage and a lot of inconvenience, and that was something he had to realize. This young person was rehabilitated. I get that a convenience store and a place of worship are two different things. I understand that, but the principle is the same. Sometimes, I agree that a crime against a place of worship deserves a serious sentence, and in other cases, it deserves a sentence better suited to the circumstances. The only way to adjust these sentences is to let our judges use their discretion on a case-by-case basis. To no one's great surprise, the Bloc Québécois will be voting against this bill, which, I would add, is unnecessary, given that section 430 of the Criminal Code already includes sentencing provisions for mischief. There are even specific provisions in subsection 430(4.1) that deal with mischief motivated by hate. If someone commits mischief inadvertently, to have a bit of fun or because they like to show off is one thing. If someone commits mischief because they harbour hatred toward a religious community or another group, that is something else entirely. That does happen, and there are provisions in the Criminal Code that our judges take into account, so that is reassuring. Before I conclude, I would like to say that we need some degree of consistency in the House. We pass a great many laws on various topics. We are not going to start contradicting ourselves from one law to the next. It would be counterproductive and harmful to society as a whole. However, our Conservative colleagues waged an all-out battle against Bill C-9, which was intended to combat hate. Why this all-out battle? It was largely because the Bloc Québécois had proposed an amendment seeking to ban what was known as the so-called religious exemption defence. Incitement to hatred was recognized as an offence under the Criminal Code unless someone did so based on a belief in a religious text, in which case they would be exempt from this charge both for incitement to hatred and for incitement to anti-Semitism. We said this should be removed from the Criminal Code. Our Conservative colleagues fought hard, arguing that it should remain in the Criminal Code, that people should have the right to incite hatred if their actions were based on a religious text. It made my hair stand on end, but that is what happened. For the sake of consistency, do our Conservative colleagues believe that someone who commits mischief against religious property would have a valid defence against that charge if they based their actions on a religious text that is part of their faith? I cannot say that I have figured out the answer to that, because the two positions are at odds with one another. I am very keen to hear a Conservative MP reconcile these two ideas and tell us how they deal with it. Is it acceptable for someone to commit mischief against religious property based on a religious text that is part of their faith?

Mr. Speaker, I think this historical overview of the situation is essential, and my colleague's speech was very informative. That said, am I to understand that the democratic, environmental and labour protection rules adopted by the provinces, as well as all our parliamentary bodies and boards, are so detrimental to the Prime Minister's vision of Canada that they need to be scrapped? Did nothing good come out of all that, really? Do we really need to eliminate everything that has been put in place over the past few decades?