Rhéal Éloi Fortin · TranslatePolitics.ca

Government Orders

Combatting Hate Act

2026-06-15

“You say you support freedom of religion. Quebec has a law about that. I want you to say if you support our law. Do you support freedom of religion like we do?”

“I don't want to answer your question. I will say something nice about you instead.”

“I already said this but I'll repeat myself. There's a lot of angry people out there. We want to stop the hate. That means we need someone in charge like the Attorney General. It's wise to let the Attorney General have control.”

“I don't have the details. But I used to be a lawyer. Prosecutors decide whether to press charges based on whether they think they can win. The old law said expressing hate was okay if it was based on a religious text and done in good faith. So I'm guessing the prosecutor decided not to charge Charkaoui because the law gave him a good defense. The old law tied prosecutors' hands. That's why we need to change it.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He raises a good point. The Adil Charkaoui case shocked everyone in Quebec at the time, and probably everyone across Canada. I do not have the text in front of me, but this individual used biblical texts to say something along the lines of “Lord, eliminate all of Allah's enemies, spare no one”. It was clearly an incitement to hatred against Jews. However, the Attorney General did not bring any charges in this case. It seems that my colleague has information that I do not have. He seems to know why no charges were brought. I do not know. I do know one thing, though. I practised law for 30 years before I came to Parliament, and I know one thing. There are quite a few cases in the Crown prosecutor's office. Before deciding to assign a case to a lawyer and instructing them to bring charges, the director of the office will assess whether there is a reasonable chance of success or not. They will ask themselves whether they are getting involved in a case that is a non-starter or whether it makes sense. In Charkaoui's case, if I had been the director of the Crown's office at the time, with a provision like the one in subsection 319(3)(b) of the Criminal Code, which permits hatred to be spread if it is done in good faith based on a religious text, I would likely have said that my chances of success are virtually nil and I would not have wasted the lawyers' time on such a case.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I'm filling time with kind words about my colleague. It's important that the Attorney General has to agree before charging someone for 'promoting hatred'. That way, not just anyone can lay charges whenever they want. The government should charge people itself only when the law is clearly broken.”

“I don't see how anyone could interpret a religious text to support hate and call it 'good faith'. Spreading hate is always bad faith. No religion should get to claim hate is okay.”

“I want this bill to pass. I think everyone here is a good person who wants to do good things. I've been here 11 years. I don't agree with everyone, but I think they all believe what they say. I really think if people read the bill they will agree with me. This old rule is bad, we need to change it.”

“I'm filling time with kind words and saying nothing anyone could pin down later.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my Conservative colleague. I cannot recall the name of his riding, but thanks to him, I have an attentive audience. I think this is the first time I have been in the middle of a speech and seen everyone rush into the House to listen to it. I thank my colleague. I was talking about the offence of intimidation in order to obstruct or interfere with access to a place of worship. That kind of behaviour is unacceptable. It is disrespectful and creates frustration, which often leads to acts of violence. We need to address this problem. Of course, protests must still be allowed. The Bloc Québécois cares deeply about that. We care deeply about these values regarding rights and freedoms. I see that some of my colleagues are starting to leave. I must be a little bit more boring now. I apologize. We are committed to freedom of movement, freedom of speech and freedom of thought. We have no objection to people demonstrating outside public places. We believe that it can be a wonderful expression of democracy when done respectfully. However, blocking access—for example, demonstrating outside a church to prevent people who attend that church from entering, or intimidating them to discourage them from returning—is disrespectful and unacceptable. Bill C-9 addresses this problem. There is also the issue of offences under the Criminal Code that are committed and additionally motivated by hatred. We must do something about this. Bill C-9 addresses this. Sentences may be increased by up to 10 years. Committing theft or another offence under the Criminal Code is one thing. There are penalties in place. A certain amount of evidence must be provided for each of these offences. However, if it can be established that the offence in question was also committed on grounds of hate, then the sentence may be increased significantly. Unfortunately, I think this is a good thing. I say “unfortunately” because, like most of us probably, I wish we never had to do this or worry about this issue. We should live in a society where, first of all, no one commits crimes, and second, when someone does, it certainly should not be for hateful motives that are unacceptable in our society. These are all important things that we welcome with great pleasure, though that is not quite the right word. We certainly agree with that. The Bloc Québécois felt that Bill C-9 was incomplete and had certain shortcomings, which is why we proposed a number of amendments. We are pleased that, following discussions, the minister came to the conclusion that this made sense. Some of the proposed amendments were adopted. The first was to restore the prior consent of the Attorney General before starting proceedings under these hate crime provisions. When we talk about hate, we are talking about a number of things that often stem from frustration, which is often due to a lack of respect. One thing leads to another and we see situations where the parties are at odds with each other and things get heated, if we can put it that way. Without this requirement to obtain the Attorney General's consent, we run the risk of ending up with cases that might have little chance of success or that could, at the very least, turn into frivolous prosecutions. We do not want that. I think that we need to be prudent, remain calm and use some wisdom when dealing with these hate crime offences. Personally, I like to think that there are people in the Attorney General's office who will keep a close eye on things. It was a Bloc Québécois amendment that sought to undo the elimination of the prior consent of the Attorney General from Bill C‑9. That provision will remain and will ensure prudent and reasonable management of this whole issue. Then there is the definition of hate. There was a definition in Bill C-9 that struck us as somewhat flawed. In fact, it was a sort of exercise in rephrasing the Supreme Court's decision in the Keegstra case, changing a few words to try to come up with wording that was a bit more catchy or flashy. I think that was a bad idea. We wanted to stick to the definition established by the Supreme Court in the Keegstra decision, and the Minister of Justice agreed to do so. We therefore amended Bill C-9 to adopt the exact wording proposed by the Supreme Court. This will spare us legal setbacks, rulings that would delay the implementation of the law, or even hinder or overturn certain trials. Finally, there is the issue we have been discussing for some time now. It feels like when we talk about Bill C-9, that is all anyone talks about. Members will notice that I waited to bring it up, because I have spoken about it so often that everyone knows where I stand on the matter. I am referring to the religious exemption. Hatred, hate crimes, hate propaganda and anti-Semitism are already covered by section 319 of the Criminal Code. However, one of the subsections created an anachronism. I do not have the text in front of me, but I believe it states that no person shall be convicted of these offences if it can be proven that they spread hatred in good faith based on a belief in a religious text. That makes no sense. How can someone spread hatred in good faith? That seems contradictory to me. Canada, like Quebec, has also enshrined freedom of religion in law. In a state that claims to be secular, how can one claim that a person can twist and distort religious texts to make them say things that serve to spread hatred and that this constitutes a valid defence? I am sorry, but that seems unacceptable to me. We reached a compromise with the Minister of Justice because some people had been spreading a lot of propaganda about repealing the religious exemption, claiming that people would no longer be allowed to read the Bible, the Quran or the Torah. I find that troubling because members of the public accepted that idea, whether out of naivety or because they trusted elected officials in whom they believed, and now they are concerned about Bill C-9. We added subsection 319(2), which states that nothing in the Criminal Code “shall be construed as prohibiting a person from communicating a statement on a matter of public interest, including an educational, religious, political or scientific statement made in the course of a discussion, publication or debate, if they do not wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group by communicating the statement...[or] if they do not wilfully promote antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust.” This clearly indicates that a person may make a statement of a religious nature as long as it is not done for the purpose of spreading hate. That seems like an acceptable compromise to me. I will stop there. I sense that my time is up. I was pleased to address the House on this issue.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“Hate crimes are up. The federal government needs to act. They can fix this by changing the Criminal Code. The provinces should handle the rest.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, this is not my first time speaking in the House to Bill C‑9. My position, or the position of the Bloc Québécois, is already well known. Obviously, it will come as no surprise to hear that we have no intention of changing our position. That said, I think it is worth reiterating a number of points regarding Bill C‑9, because I would say that too much misinformation has been spread about this bill. Whether in good faith or bad faith, this disinformation has significantly undermined the bill's social acceptability. I would say that hate is like a cancer on society. It is eating away at our society from all sides. We see it online in social media comments that are not only unacceptable but often go so far that legal action is taken. Forty or 50 years ago, we did not see the kind of hate and violence that exists in schools today. It did not exist. Today, elementary school children can attack their teachers and use language that is worse than inappropriate, violent language toward teachers. We see it on the streets. Every day, we read the newspapers and see everything that is happening on the streets. We also know that society is changing. More and more newcomers are coming from all over the world to settle in Quebec and Canada. Their customs, values, religions and education are different from ours. They are not better or worse, only different. In fact, they are so different that we have to adapt to each other. Unfortunately, this difference sometimes leads to hate or, at the very least, hateful behaviour. That is what Bill C‑9 is trying to address. Naturally, there are already provisions in the Criminal Code that can handle some of these issues, but Bill C‑9 applies directly to hate by clarifying what needs to be clarified and by doing what I would call a small clean-up of the Criminal Code that was, in some respects, badly needed. Hate in Quebec and Canada has seen a significant increase. Between 2019 and 2022, there was an overall increase of 83% in hate crimes in Canada. An increase of 83% in three years is no trivial matter. When I said that society is undergoing major transformations, this is a good example. In 2023 alone, which is not that long ago, just three years ago, there were 1,284 hate crimes targeting a religion. That is 516 more crimes than in 2022. In one year, the number of hate crimes increased by 516 for a total of 1,284 crimes, all targeting a religion. That is a problem we need to address. That is what we were elected to do. We are in the federal Parliament. We cannot set the school curriculum because that is up to Quebec; it is under provincial jurisdiction. We cannot run hospitals because that is under provincial jurisdiction; it is up to Quebec. All the Bloc Québécois is asking for—and as members will have noticed, we have been asking for this consistently for as long as anyone can remember—is for the federal government to shoulder its responsibilities. It collects too much tax. It should return that money to the provinces, yet it uses it to try to manipulate the provinces by saying it will give them their money back on the condition that they do what it wants. We are constantly speaking out against this. That is the provinces' area of jurisdiction. We say that the federal government should simply transfer the money and let the provinces manage it as they see fit, particularly given that the provinces have the necessary jurisdiction and expertise in these areas. However, when we talk about the Criminal Code and when we talk about hate crimes, we are squarely in the federal government's wheelhouse. There was an increase to as many as 1,284 hate crimes targeting a religion in 2023 and an 83% increase in hate crimes in Quebec and across Canada between 2019 and 2022. These figures should speak for themselves and convince everyone in the House that we need to address this problem. For the Jewish community alone, we saw a significant increase to 900 cases over the same period, as well as an increase to 211 cases for the Muslim community. That is unacceptable. We have laws and regulations, and we have the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to which virtually all of us are committed to some extent. The values enshrined in the charter are values we all uphold. We think it is important, for example, to allow everyone to practise the religion of their choice in Quebec and Canada. We think this is so important that the Quebec National Assembly passed a law known as the Act respecting the laicity of the State that has attracted a lot of media attention and that is currently before the Supreme Court of Canada. Quebec's Act respecting the laicity of the State seeks to ensure that everyone can practise the religion of their choice without any interference from the state. The state is said to be secular. It has no religious identity or preference. As a result, public servants who represent the state in their work, such as police officers or teachers, are representatives of the state and should not show any religious preference. That is the approach that Quebec has taken to ensure that everyone, whether they be Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, Christian or Buddhist, can practise the religion of their choice without facing criticism from the state. We are being told that hate crimes are being committed against religious communities. It is the federal government's responsibility to address this problem, and that is what Bill C-9 does. It is rare for the Bloc Québécois to agree with the government's proposals, particularly those of the Liberal government, whose legislative measures we have criticized on a number of occasions. However, in this case, I must commend the work of the Minister of Justice, whom I have worked with over the past few months to arrive at this version. It is not perfect, I admit, but it seems to me to be entirely appropriate, given the current situation in our country. The offences or situations covered by Bill C-9 relate in particular to the incitement of hatred through the use of symbols. This bill will prohibit the use of certain hate symbols, such as the swastika or symbols associated with terrorist organizations. More recently, the noose was also added to this list following an amendment proposed by the Senate. We can discuss that. We could add many more symbols. We could take some out for all sorts of good or bad reasons. For example, I believe that the swastika is a religious symbol for the Tibetan community. I think it is the Tibetan community, but I am not sure. It is a symbol that is not just used to mark the despicable acts committed by the Nazis during World War II. It is also a symbol that has been in use for a very long time, long before the Nazis came to power in Germany. It is a symbol that some would have liked to protect and exclude from the list. As I was saying earlier, nothing is perfect. We need to try to address the issue as best we can. In the vast majority of cases, when someone uses a swastika, it is meant to recall a time that we do not want to forget, because I think we need to remember it, but a time that we do not want to go through again. Bill C‑9 will put an end to the promotion of hate through the use of hate symbols. As I was saying earlier, there is intimidation going on in our schools, on our streets and on the Internet. That is what intimidation is. Hate is being used to intimidate people, and I do not understand, or I am having a hard time understanding, how this can be happening. I do not think that should be happening. I think that, in a society, even if it is an imperfect one, where individuals respect one another and respect differences of opinion, intimidation should be banned. However, in this case, we see that intimidation was used to prevent or hinder access to public places. I am thinking of certain schools, places of worship, and community centres that have been subjected to all sorts of unacceptable acts of intimidation. Regardless of a person's religious affiliation, or even if the person has no religious affiliation at all, everyone has this right. Everyone also has the right not to believe in God. Everyone has the right not to have a religion. Everyone has the right to be undecided. We have the right to simply have no interest in the matter. All of this is perfectly legal. However, preventing people from accessing their place of worship is disrespectful. By doing so, we create—

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want everyone to know I support this bill. Hate is bad. The real problem is Conservatives filibustering. We could have passed this months ago. It's their fault we didn't. If they actually discuss the bill in good faith, I'd give them more time. We all want to pass this, right? Let's just pass it unanimously.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, everything has been said about this bill, including with regard to the religious exemption. Committee proceedings began last October, and in the end, it took time allocation to get it passed. I find that truly deplorable because this is an important bill. Hate is a societal cancer at every level. I support Bill C-9, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-9 and we will vote in favour of Bill C-9. However, regarding the question raised by our Conservative colleagues as to whether we should grant them more time to discuss it, I am not opposed to that. Personally, I believe there was a lot of unnecessary filibustering in committee since last fall. Despite that, if our Liberal colleagues agreed to drop time allocation and give the Conservatives more time, we would be willing to agree to that. By the end of the week, we could all come to fully understand Bill C-9 and pass it unanimously. If our Conservative colleagues intend to conduct a good-faith review of this bill, I support them.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I'm arguing against a straw man. The other party never said the current law stops anyone from reading scripture. No one in this room wants to ban Bibles. I'll say my law stops a bad thing. If we say our law stops something we call bad, it makes us sound good.”

Government Orders

Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30

2026-06-15

“I want the government to spend more money on programs I like. I don't care if it's responsible or not.”

Private Members' Business

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

2026-06-09

“I think rehabilitation is good. I don't like this bill. This bill will make it harder to rehabilitate criminals. I'm worried this bill is just about revenge.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, rehabilitation and social reintegration are foundational features of the Canadian correctional system. People commit various crimes, some more serious than others. The goal is always to put these individuals behind bars. Part of the reason for that is punishment, but there is also considerable emphasis on rehabilitation to ensure that, when they are released from prison, they are less dangerous than when they entered. Rehabilitation and social reintegration are the hallmarks of a successful correctional system. As I was saying, an inmate who is released without having been rehabilitated poses a significant risk to society. With few exceptions, these people always get out of prison eventually. Some die behind bars, but the vast majority are released from prison at some point. What we want is for them to be as harmless as possible at that time. Rehabilitation is therefore essential. I am not a social worker or a criminologist, and I do not have the expertise to discuss the merits of rehabilitation or the best way to rehabilitate someone. However, I believe that weekends of freedom, after which people have to return to the institution, along with vocational training and all those other measures, are part of a comprehensive set of initiatives designed to help rehabilitate individuals and help them reintegrate into society at the end of their sentence. The bill seeks to increase the security classification for certain crimes. We can agree that these are some of the most serious crimes. However, the consequence of this is that these individuals will not be able to benefit from adequate rehabilitation measures. In a way, we are shooting ourselves in the foot by doing this. I understand that this bill stems from a number of cases that are, quite frankly, scandals. These cases shocked almost everybody. I am thinking of Paul Bernardo and Luka Rocco Magnotta, who committed heinous crimes. Reacting to these crimes is a normal human response. However, I think that, as legislators, we must be careful not to pass laws simply in response to scandalous cases that are condemned by just about everyone in society. Laws must apply to society as a whole and not become a type of revenge or protection in the face of isolated cases that should be relatively rare. I am not just talking about Paul Bernardo or Luka Rocco Magnotta. There are other cases as well. I am thinking of Claude Paquin, who was acquitted in 2024 in connection with two murders for which he had been found guilty 41 years earlier. This person spent 41 years in prison unnecessarily. There is also the case of Daniel Jolivet, who was convicted of four murders. The director of criminal and penal prosecutions recently stated that there may have been a miscarriage of justice. This person also spent many years in prison. It is not easy, and I do not blame the system. I understand that nothing is perfect. We all dream of perfect justice, which would penalize only criminals and free all innocent people. However, that justice would be neither human nor possible. We have to accept that there will always be a certain number of errors to deal with. If we admit that there will be a certain number of errors and acknowledge the system's weakness in isolated cases, I think it is best to try to get the most conclusive results. It is important to ensure that the reaction is not to penalize two or three specific individuals. It is important to ensure that our system makes it possible to rehabilitate people who have been found guilty. The system has to make it so that society is a safer place when these people get out of prison, since they are no longer in the same state of mind as when they went in. Security classifications are currently assigned based on an inmate's behaviour. An inmate who behaves well in prison may have their security classification adjusted to reflect that good behaviour. This can allow them to be released on weekends. It can open up certain opportunities for them and contribute to their rehabilitation, as I mentioned earlier. When it comes to granting parole or conditional release, professional expertise is available. Criminologists and many other professionals can testify before the Parole Board of Canada to explain which areas an individual needs to work on and whether or not they should be released. This process, which involves adjusting security classifications based on the inmate's good behaviour and relying on professional expertise before deciding how and when to release them, is one of the strengths of our justice system. It contributes to the rehabilitation of convicts, which in turn assures us that, when they are released from prison, they will be better off than when they went in. There is another issue that I wanted to address. My Liberal colleague mentioned it earlier. What Bill C-232 seeks to do could well be deemed unconstitutional if it were to be challenged in court. We know that the Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled that cruel and unusual punishment is unconstitutional. In this case, could designating an individual as a maximum security offender and taking away pretty much all hope of ever getting out of prison not be considered cruel and unusual punishment? I think it could be. I think that this bill leans too heavily on the punitive aspects of our justice system, and the risk is significant. If the Supreme Court has to strike down these provisions on constitutional grounds, Charter grounds, we would likely end up in a worse situation than we are in already. The Bloc Québécois stands in solidarity with the victims of these monsters, and I believe that monsters is the right word. They committed heinous crimes. I do not know anyone who would condone these crimes. We stand in solidarity with these victims, but we want to avoid falling into the trap where we throw the baby out with the bathwater, as the saying goes. There are isolated cases of individuals that we have to deal with, and we are already dealing with them. I think that the justice system ensures that these people are detained and prevents them from becoming a danger to the public. However, we must not build the entire body of Canadian legislation around these isolated cases. We denounce criminals, we condemn them, we support victims and we stand in solidarity with them, but we refuse to embark on a legal process based on revenge. That would be misguided. As far as I am concerned, rehabilitation and the social reintegration of people who have committed crimes is the path we must continue to follow. That path can be improved, though. I agree. I think there is a lack of statistics on rehabilitation, for example. Do the measures taken in prison to rehabilitate inmates and ensure their reintegration into society have a positive effect or not? It is unclear. At the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, we have questioned numerous experts about this issue on numerous occasions. We have too few statistics. That aspect of our prison system could benefit from further study; it could probably be improved. Let us stay on the right path that we have set out on, work to improve that path and avoid falling into the trap of revenge, which would only hurt us.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Build Canada Homes Act

2026-06-09

“The budget should mention wood more because wood builds houses. The government should care about forestry more. My friend asked the government this a lot, but they didn't listen. Why won't the government listen to us and help the industry we like?”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Jonquière for his speech, which was as engaging and passionate as he is. I must say that I was surprised as I listened to him speak. In my view, building a house starts with wood. Ask any six-year-old kid in school what is needed to build a house, and the first thing the child would say is wood. My colleague tells us that in the budget, wood is mentioned only nine times in I do not know how many pages. One might think that this was an oversight, except I understand that my colleague from Jonquière has frequently asked government members about what they are doing for the forestry industry. Unfortunately, it seems that they have turned a deaf ear. Can my colleague explain the government's apparent insensitivity or closed-mindedness regarding the forestry industry?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“The housing bill isn't bad because any help is good now. But I don't like that the federal government is taking power from Quebec and the provinces. They already agreed to work together. Why not just transfer money to the provinces and let each one handle its own housing problems? That would be better.”

Government Orders

Main Estimates, 2026-27

2026-06-08

“You're celebrating how great things are. But the government cut help for seniors age 65 to 74. The Bloc wants to increase everyone's pensions by 10% instead. It wouldn't cost too much. Why not do it? Why ignore seniors who contributed to the economy?”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, listening to my colleague, I can hear how enthusiastic he is about his government's budget measures. I am listening to him tell us how great things are going and how wonderful life is. However, there is one thing I do not understand, so maybe my colleague can explain it to me. If his government is having so much success with the economy, why is it happening at our seniors' expense? Why did the Liberal government decide a few years ago that seniors aged 65 to 74 should be treated less well than those aged 75 and over? It would not cost a fortune to fix this. The Bloc Québécois has been calling for a fix for years. As a gesture of solidarity, could this government recognize how much these seniors have contributed to the Canadian economy and boost their purchasing power to match that of seniors aged 75 and over? Could it increase old age security at the same time? The Bloc Québécois has been calling for seniors' pensions to be increased by 10%, which is not that much. I would love to hear my colleague's thoughts. Can he tell me why the government did that?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“The federal government spends too much of Quebec's money on other provinces. Quebec should get some of that money back. We also want more money for seniors.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, what I see when it comes to these investments is that there is a significant gap. The Liberals constantly claim that they are there for Canadians. It reached a point where it was comical. I remember the former prime minister saying that the government was there to help and would continue to help in order to help. He seemed to be talking in circles. Quebec has made certain demands. During the last campaign, the Prime Minister gave a lot of money to communities in western Canada as a rebate for a carbon tax that was never paid in the first place. That payment was made using Quebeckers' tax money, yet Quebec did not get a penny. According to our estimates, Quebec is owed $814 million. The federal government ignored that demand, but we did not let that deter us. We also asked for help for seniors, who worked hard all their lives. The federal government refuses to budge and is maintaining the two classes of seniors. What is my colleague's view on this? Should the Liberal government not show a bit more respect for taxpayers?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I agree with the other guy. I'm lucky to have him in my party. We want more military spending and jobs in our ridings. The government should do what we want. I hope they agree with us. I want to know if the government will do what we want.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with what our colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk was saying. Our colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean has not won the lottery. He is lucky, it is true, because he comes from a fine riding, but the people of Lac-Saint-Jean are truly lucky to be able to count on him. I can see that he knows the issues very well. To his credit, he spoke about them with passion. I find it hard to believe the government would turn a deaf ear to these requests. As the MP for Lac-Saint-Jean explained, establishing a base in Lac-Saint-Jean would meet the desired recruitment targets and enable people who have lost their jobs to find new ones. It is a win-win situation. I listened to him and I cannot believe that there has not already been some indication from members of the government that they are going to move forward, that they like the idea, that people can count on them, that they will be there. However, that does not seem to be the case. Does my colleague have any idea how the government will respond to this proposal, which is sound and is in everyone's interest?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Protecting Victims Act

2026-06-04

“I have a cordial relationship with the current Minister of Justice and consider him effective. But I don't approve of everything the current government has done. They've done more objectionable things than good in my opinion. The provinces don't have enough money to administer these laws effectively. The federal government should speed up transfers to the provinces and stop meddling in provincial matters. Let the provinces enforce the laws.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, here is what I think of his government. I admit that the current Minister of Justice is someone I have a cordial relationship with. I consider him to be effective, and I have a certain amount of confidence in him. However, I do not want anyone to ask me to approve everything the current government has done. It has done a lot more objectionable things than good things, in my opinion, and I say that with all due respect for our colleagues who make up this government. I would be remiss if I did not mention certain aspects of the justice system. It is all well and good to pass laws that we think are effective, but the fact remains that they have to be administered, and that falls under provincial jurisdiction. There is no money in the provinces. That is something the government could perhaps do: speed up transfers to the provinces, stop meddling in matters that are none of its business, and ensure that the provinces are able to effectively enforce the laws passed here.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I think it's cowardly for adults to recruit minors to commit crimes. I would support much harsher sentences for them. But there are many opinions in Parliament. The Minister of Justice found a middle ground. We will try it and see what happens.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me as well to work with my colleague. First of all, I want to say how much I appreciate his efforts to speak French. His French is becoming exceptional. I tip my hat to him. I actually think his French is better than my English. To answer the question more specifically, as I said earlier, I think the recruitment of minors is a scourge. I cannot stress this enough. It is cowardly for an adult to ask a minor to commit a crime on their behalf. I have no sympathy for such an adult, and I have no qualms about doubling or even tripling the sentence they would receive. That said, I understand that we are in Parliament. There are 343 of us here, and everyone's opinion must be taken into account. The Minister of Justice has found a middle ground between what I would have wanted and what others might have wanted. I will leave it at that. We will give it a try and hope for the best.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗