Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, as I was just saying, I would not be prepared to say that Bill C‑16 is a cure-all and that everything will be fine from now on, but I would say that things will certainly be better than they used to be. I am quite pleased with the work that was done on Bill C‑16 before it was referred to committee and when the committee was studying it. This bill improves quite a number of things. First, it provides a legislative response to controlling and coercive behaviour. I believe we have been working on this problem for three Parliaments now. Our efforts have finally resulted in a bill. Since we still have three and a half years to go before the next election, I hope that we will be able to pass it and move on to something else. With this bill, we will finally be able to properly punish murders classified as femicide, meaning murders that occur alongside controlling and coercive behaviour, violence, human trafficking, hatred or other factors. We are addressing the issue of femicide. The bill also tackles the issue of harassment. Until now, and even today, victims that report harassment must prove that they subjectively feared for their safety. This often forced women or victims of harassment to testify and recount everything they had endured, the effect it had on them, which obviously hindered their recovery. Now, the standard is that the behaviour must be such that it could reasonably lead the victim to believe their safety is in danger. That is good news. I am not going to address every issue, because there are so many. As for the recruitment of individuals under the age of 18, this is something the Bloc Québécois has called for. I have personally spoken with our Minister of Justice on numerous occasions to address this issue. Criminals affiliated with organized gangs recruit young people knowing that, since they are under 18, it does not matter if they get caught, as they will not have a criminal record. These criminals therefore ask these young people to commit theft or other crimes on their behalf. It is a scourge. These are our young people; we try to keep them on the straight and narrow, to bring them back when they stray. It is truly appalling that there are people who recruit them to commit crimes. Personally, I recommended going so far as to provide that an adult who recruits a young person be sentenced to twice the penalty they would have received had they committed the crime themselves. The bill does not go quite that far, but it does provide for penalties for the recruitment of minors under 18. I applaud the minister’s initiative. On the issue of reasonable time frames, the Supreme Court Jordan decision caused a number of issues. At the same time, we all agree—in any case, I do—that a trial should be held within a reasonable time frame. If it takes two or three years, I think that is reasonable. If five or 10 years pass and an individual has still not had a trial, that harms that individual, who has been living with the sword of Damocles hanging over their head that whole time. It harms the victims too. All that time, they do not know whether their attacker will get the conviction they want and that the attacker deserves. It harms everyone. It harms society. The costs are astronomical. Holding lengthy trials is not possible. I therefore agree with the Supreme Court regarding what “a reasonable time” means under the charter. In the future, the time frame will be set at 24 months at the Court of Quebec and 30 months at the Superior Court of Quebec. That seems perfectly reasonable to me, and I am satisfied with that. Unfortunately, things being what they are, there is no money. The federal government is not transferring funds to the provinces for health care. Hospitals are overflowing. People are waiting in emergency rooms. The federal government is not transferring funds to the provinces for education. Schools lack specialized services. The same goes for the courts. Not enough judges, court clerks and necessary staff can be hired. Not enough courtrooms can be booked. As a result, trials are often not held within the time limits prescribed by the Supreme Court of Canada. Bill C‑16 amends or improves the way time limits are calculated. I do not know if it will work. I remain skeptical but optimistic. If nothing else, I am pleased that our Minister of Justice has decided to address this issue, and I welcome this initiative. My colleague mentioned a certain aspect of Bill C‑16 a moment ago that is also a recurring issue. I have been an MP since 2015, and I do not remember a single time or year where we did not discuss the issue of mandatory minimum sentences. The Liberals do not want them for anything, whereas the Conservatives want them for everything. Throwing everybody in jail certainly would reduce crime on our streets, but that might not be the kind of society we want to live in. We need to find a middle ground. With all due respect for the opinion of my colleague who spoke just before me, I think that what Bill C‑16 proposes fits somewhere in that middle ground. This was a proposal that originated with the Bloc Québécois. I suggested it to the two people who served as justice minister before the current minister. Each time, they said it sounded reasonable and that something could be done, but nothing ever came of it. Now our idea has shown up in Bill C‑16. The government says it is trying to compromise. The mandatory minimum sentences that our Conservative colleagues believe in so strongly will be reinstated. That will send a clear signal that Parliament takes these crimes very seriously, and it will also send that message to the courts, but judges will be allowed to deviate from the mandatory minimums under genuinely exceptional circumstances. People may wonder why, since it can sometimes lead to absurd situations. I recall one case, although I have unfortunately forgotten the details. It was a Quebec case involving a young 18-year-old man who had been accused, for all sorts of reasons, of committing sexual interference with a minor because his girlfriend was 16 or 17 years old, I think. They had been intimate for a few years. Both families were aware of it and accepted the situation. It was all right, but sexual interference with a minor carried a mandatory minimum sentence. The judge said in his decision that he regretted the situation and that, in his opinion, it made no sense. Those were not his exact words. I cannot remember what he said exactly. Please excuse my word substitution. The judge said that it was unfortunate, but that the offence carried a minimum sentence so he had no choice. He therefore sentenced the young man to prison. I have no details about what happened next, and I do not mean to overdramatize the issue by citing a rare example. However, in those exceptional cases, can we trust our judges? They are not perfect, but based on my experience as a lawyer before I became a member of Parliament, and from what I have read since, they do a pretty good job. I have good friends who are judges, both at the Superior Court and at the Court of Quebec, as well as at the provincial courts of the other provinces. They are honest and well-meaning and, like just about everyone here in this chamber, they want the best for society. They work in the fairest, most effective way for everyone. Personally, I am fine with mandatory minimum sentences, but I want to make sure that the judges who preside over our courts can use their common sense in exceptional cases and that they are given the option to deviate from those minimums if they consider the case to be exceptional or if the sentence would be cruel and unusual. Those judges will obviously have to justify their decisions. In their rulings, they will have to explain the exceptional circumstances justifying their decision to deviate from the mandatory minimum sentence imposed by Parliament. That reassures me, and I think it should reassure the general public, too. I realize that this does not reflect the wishes expressed by our Conservative colleagues. I respect their position, but I would urge them to be a little more flexible in the criteria we use to assess bills. They will see that this may be the most appropriate solution between having no mandatory minimum sentences and having mandatory minimum sentences that are too restrictive in certain circumstances.