Rhéal Éloi Fortin

Not analysed yet

A requested analysis is usually ready within half an hour; come back to this page or reload it.

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑235 may seem appealing at first glance because it deals with cases involving people who have committed heinous crimes. It is hard to imagine anything worse than kidnapping, sexual assault and murder. I fully understand the desire to come down hard on people who commit such acts. Still, there is something our Conservative colleagues do not seem to understand, and I do not know why. Perhaps they think that, if they keep trying, it will work eventually, but the Supreme Court of Canada ruled otherwise in R. v. Bissonnette. Repeated attempts will not change that. The maximum is 25 years. Bill C‑235 is not our Conservative colleagues’ first attempt, as I was saying. This is the eighth bill on this issue. It started in 2013. It may have started before that, but that is as far back as I looked. The member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman has introduced this four times. Other Conservative colleagues, whose ridings I will not name because I do not know them off the top of my head, have also introduced similar bills. For instance, there was Bill S‑224, introduced by Senator Boisvenu, as well as Bills C‑296, C‑267, C‑266, C‑478 and C‑587. None of those attempts succeeded. They are back at it again today. That is all well and good, but I think we need to be serious. We have important work to do here. We were talking about budget issues earlier. We are still discussing last year’s budget, and a new budget will be tabled the day after tomorrow. Bills like this one have been introduced eight times and have not been passed, so can we move on to something else? I like that. In an ideal world, a person who commits crimes like that should receive harsh, very harsh, or even the harshest of all treatment. Society, however, has rules that set limits on such things. A murder, whether in the first or second degree, results in a life sentence from the outset. That is the way it is. The difference between the two is eligibility to apply for parole. If the crime is first-degree murder, the period of parole ineligibility is 25 years. Before then, parole is simply not an option. For second-degree murder, it is 10 years. Even then, however, the judge may seek recommendations from the jury and increase that period from 10 years to as much as 25 years. I will repeat that we are talking about cases involving abduction, sexual assault and murder. Under the law as it currently stands, where a murder is accompanied by either a sexual assault or an abduction, the offender will in either case face a minimum of 25 years before becoming eligible to apply for parole. As for a period of 40 years, the Supreme Court has already ruled that out. We can certainly look at 33 other bills that, in one form or another, seek to achieve the same objective. It is simply impossible. Even if I, the member for Rivière-du-Nord, were to say that this is a good idea, that it reflects my personal view and that offenders should remain imprisoned for 40 years, I do not have the authority to make that happen. That is not my position, of course, but let us pretend that I am persuasive enough to convince the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and Parliament itself to vote in favour of such a measure. One, two or three years later, the Supreme Court would review the matter and conclude that Parliament had no authority to enact the legislation. Personally, I want to make a difference in my work as an MP and, with all due respect to my colleagues who are acting in good faith—and I do acknowledge that—I have to say that this is, unfortunately, a waste of time. We heard this point raised earlier. As our colleague across the aisle noted, obtaining parole is no easy matter. First, it is not automatic. The vast majority of applications are denied. In 2023–2024, the parole grant rate stood at 32.4%. The vast majority of applications were denied. Furthermore, anyone seeking parole must demonstrate to the Parole Board of Canada that they no longer pose a risk to society and that the likelihood of reoffending is negligible or non-existent. Applicants must meet a number of conditions. If these conditions are met and someone manages to convince the Parole Board to grant them parole, it is important to remember that parole comes with conditions attached. It is not as though the offender is handed a ticket and told to go off on vacation, that everything is settled and that nobody wants to hear from them again. Far from it. The offender will have to meet regularly with a parole officer. A number of conditions will have to be met. There may be curfews, a prohibition on drinking alcohol and a number of other conditions. It is not a free-for-all. Once again, I understand the desire to ask whether there is a way to be strict enough with someone who abducts a young girl, sexually assaults her and kills her. I feel the same way. I think that this is unacceptable. I will keep to myself what I think about that sort of individual, but I agree that severe consequences are warranted. However, we must also abide by the rules adopted by our society. These rules have been upheld by the Supreme Court, particularly in the Bissonnette case. My Conservative colleague referred to it earlier. Alexandre Bissonnette was sentenced to prison with no parole eligibility for 150 years. One does not need to be a medical expert to recognize that, as of now, it is not possible to live for 150 years. The Supreme Court held that such a sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment and therefore violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As a result, the Supreme Court overturned that sentence and held that the maximum would be 25 years. That is the maximum. Parole ineligibility periods cannot exceed 25 years. That does not mean that the inmate will be released from prison after 25 years. They have been sentenced to life in prison. They will remain an inmate for the rest of their life. What parole means is that, instead of keeping them in a cell, we can release them. They will be able to apply for parole after 25 years. They will be able to tell the Parole Board that they are rehabilitated and that they are asking to be released. It does not matter how they were rehabilitated or why. That will be assessed when the time comes. The Parole Board will conduct an investigation and determine whether or not they should be released. That is all. The 25-year sentence is not being revised. We are simply giving these inmates the ability to ask to be released at the end of 25 years. They may choose to apply for parole, and according to the statistics, it is likely that they will do so. They can apply after 25 years, but they may never actually be released and they may die in prison. Yes, under special circumstances, the Parole Board may decide to release such inmates. I do not want to lecture the House, but this seems pretty clear to me. I cannot understand why, once again, our Conservative colleagues are stubborn about this proposal. I acknowledge that they are acting in good faith. I was elected to the House 11 years ago. In 11 years, I have had discussions with many people and I have disagreed with many members. Still, I have not met any, or at least not many, and perhaps no member of Parliament who acted in bad faith. I acknowledge their good faith. From their perspective, it is important and we should pass legislative amendments to increase it to 40 years. I acknowledge that. I do not agree with them, but I acknowledge that they are acting in good faith, because they think that is how things work. However, I urge them to reread the Bissonnette decision, to digest it, to fully understand it and to include it in the Conservative narrative that this cannot be done in Canada, under the existing law. If the Conservatives still wish to go further, I invite them to look at the notwithstanding clause in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They could invoke the notwithstanding clause, the way others, including Quebec, have in other cases, cases involving secularism, among other things. By invoking the notwithstanding clause, they might be able to convince the Supreme Court that, despite what it has said, we have the right to do things differently, but that is just a theory.