Rhéal Éloi Fortin · TranslatePolitics.ca

Government Orders

Protecting Victims Act

2026-06-04

“I don't want mandatory minimums because they don't leave room for exceptions. The Supreme Court already ruled against them. We could go back to court again but it seems weird to keep trying the same thing over and over when it didn't work before.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to repeat myself unnecessarily, but my colleague is right to raise this issue. I do not think it would be appropriate to return to mandatory minimum sentences that leave no room for discretion. For one, this would run counter to the ruling the Supreme Court has already handed down on this matter. I have no objection to going back to the Supreme Court several times if necessary, but constantly doing the same thing over and over again in hopes of obtaining a different result seems a bit odd to me. Moreover, I believe that our society is better off with mandatory minimum sentences that allow for exceptions. I disagree with a rigid framework that does not allow for exceptions, as that can lead to injustices.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I'm glad this bill does something about femicide and harassment and recruiting kids into crime. I don't want to throw everyone in jail but mandatory minimums send a strong message. We need some middle ground - judges should usually follow them but have some flexibility for really unusual situations. It's not perfect but I think this is better than doing nothing.”

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“You and I sit on a committee together. We don't always agree. Bill C-16 does some good things. I want you to admit it's better than nothing.”

Oral Questions

Justice

2026-05-28

“The Clarity Act is undemocratic. It lets the federal government ignore a referendum result it doesn't like. That goes against what the Supreme Court said about a clear majority. This is an authoritarian power grab. Why aren't the Liberals ashamed of supporting it?”

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-05-26

“You say you want tax relief for Canadians. But Conservatives voted against our motion to pay Quebec back $814 million. If you really want to help Canadians, why don't you care about Quebec?”

“I want to pressure the government to give Quebec money. I want Quebec to get money for green programs. The government is trying to compete with other countries' subsidies. I say that's counterproductive.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I think that my colleague and I are pretty much on the same wavelength when it comes to a number of things. However, as far as decisions by the government are concerned, we saw that the former Liberal government was steering us toward a green transition. There were investments in the auto industry. Then the government announced that it would be scrapping all of that. Instead, it will start subsidizing the oil industry again, which I believe to be counterproductive and expensive for everyone. On top of that, the government decided to reimburse all Canadians for the carbon tax they paid in the previous year, except in Quebec. Quebeckers are owed $814 million that the government refuses to repay. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. Quebec is in a rather unusual situation. We invested in the transition to green energy, and now we are being told to forget all that and go back to oil. Not only that, Quebeckers are not getting back the $814 million taken from their pockets to compensate other Canadians. What is my colleague's take on that from an economic perspective?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I worry about the budget. But cutting gas taxes and making more oil is not the solution. The planet will need to be cleaned up eventually. Many countries use electric, wind, and solar energy. But Conservatives want to go back to oil. And the government agrees, they cut gas taxes recently. Isn't it counterproductive to increase oil production and cut taxes? Shouldn't we invest in clean energy instead?”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I do not entirely agree with my colleague. In fact, I have the same concern about budgetary matters. It is true that people are struggling to make ends meet. However, the problem is that cutting gas taxes and increasing oil production are counterproductive. This is simply putting things off. The planet will eventually have to be cleaned up because it will no longer be livable. Many countries around the world have gone green and are powered by electric, wind and solar energy, and yet our Conservative colleagues are calling for a return to oil. Unfortunately, the government seems to agree with them, since gas taxes were recently scrapped. I will therefore ask a question, and I would like my colleague to share his thoughts on this. Is it not counterproductive to boost oil production and cut taxes? Should we not instead be investing in a transition to clean energy?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

Justice

2026-05-26

“I don't care what the Supreme Court said. 50 percent plus one is good enough for me. Anything else is a slippery slope to overruling what voters decided. The Prime Minister should get rid of your Clarity Act that goes against the will of the people.”

Oral Questions

Intergovernmental Relations

2026-05-25

“The Clarity Act is undemocratic. It lets the federal government meddle in Quebec's referendum. People aren't too dumb to understand a question. The government running the referendum picks the question. Only them. And 50% plus one is a clear majority. Ottawa should understand this. They need to repeal that undemocratic Clarity Act.”

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-05-05

“You talk a lot but don't fix things. Can the government act on seniors, the media, EI, and wage subsidies? The Bloc proposed wage subsidies before and it worked. Use what already worked to help people through tariffs.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, what my colleague has just said is a comment, not a question. I will take note of his comment and say the same to him. I am not going to repeat what I said, but, since he is part of this government, is he capable of persuading his leader, the Prime Minister of Canada, to take action? It is all well and good to talk and announce measures, but is he capable of taking action around benefits for seniors, the media, the EI spring gap and wage subsidies? Wage subsidies were a proposal put forward by the Bloc Québécois during the pandemic six years ago. It worked and we saved businesses. Can we use the tools we have, follow the well-trodden paths that have proven their worth, and help the citizens of Quebec and Canada get through the tariff crisis?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want the government to spend more money on lots of programs. I don't like that the government isn't paying for more of health care or solving tariffs. The government could find the money if it wanted to. I have many ideas for spending money. We could take money from oil and give it to other things. The government could fix many problems if it tried. I think the Prime Minister should do more.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton's speech on this motion, which was entirely relevant and appropriate under the circumstances. The situation that the Bloc Québécois is speaking out against is one that is long-standing and extremely problematic. The government is always playing catch-up. That is what is happening with health care. In the beginning, the federal government was covering 50% of health care costs. Now it is covering less than 20% of those costs, and it takes everything we have got to try to get it to cover 6% of the annual cost increases. The federal government is not there yet. It does not want to. The federal government does not want to put money into health care, even though Quebec and the provinces are asking it to. Let us come back to the problem of agreements with the United States. I understand that the Prime Minister of Canada cannot decide to remove the tariffs. The American President is the one who imposed them. However, when the Prime Minister took office, he made promises and commitments in that regard. He told us that he would put an end to the tariffs within months, which did not happen. As my colleague pointed out, the tariffs have even increased. That is a sign of failure. If the government cannot keep its word and deliver what it promised last year, should it not find other ways to at least cushion the blow for Quebeckers and Canadians? Yes, that would cost money, but we have talked about a number of things. All of that can be funded relatively easily. My colleagues from Jonquière and Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton just noted that the federal government always invests to save businesses elsewhere in Canada but very rarely in Quebec. What if the government cut the oil subsidies? That is a commitment we made. Members will recall that Canada signed the Paris Agreement. It made environmental commitments. It is clear, as every observer and auditor has confirmed year after year, that Canada is not meeting its targets, it is not on track to meet its targets, and it is not making any changes to make that happen. Let us try to live up to our commitments. Let us eliminate the oil subsidies. That would help the government meet its Paris targets and save $25.7 billion over five years that it could use to support the energy transition. This money could also be used for other programs. The idea of $25.7 billion is a bit abstract, but it is basically $25,700 million, cash. That is $5,140 million a year or $428.33 million a month. I can break it down even further than that. It is $99 million a week. The government would have access to an extra $99 million every week for five years. We could afford plenty of support programs for our businesses. We could support our workers as well as our softwood lumber, aluminum and steel industries. We would be able to support everyone who needs support. Unfortunately, it seems that this government does not have the political will to do it. We should recoup that $25.7 billion and put it to use. For example, in just two months out of that five‑year period, the government could repay the $814 million owed to Quebeckers because the federal government decided to hand out an election bribe last year by channelling that money to citizens in western Canada. Quebec has been left high and dry. That $814 million could be paid back. It would help. Why not reform employment insurance and address the infamous spring gap that we have been talking about fixing year after year? I have been here since 2015, and I have been hearing about the spring gap since 2015. Let us take this opportunity to fix it. It would help Quebec and Canadian workers get through the tariff crisis. There are many more ideas like that. Our regional media outlets, and even our national media outlets, are not being subsidized. I have seen criticism from commentators and Radio-Canada analysts about other private media outlets. I have a great deal of respect for Radio-Canada and I certainly would not want to see it disappear, but why not try to bring a little balance to the media landscape? Why not provide a little more support to private media companies or give them fairer opportunities, while maintaining funding for Radio-Canada? Why not fix the issue with old age security? The previous federal government decided to create two classes of seniors. The government increased benefits for seniors 75 and over, but those 65 to 75 were told to manage on their own. Maybe they could receive support. That might not be a bad idea in a period of austerity like the one we are in now. There are other ideas like that. I was speaking earlier about health care. The increase in transfers is 6% per year, which amounts to $14 billion over five years. Earlier I mentioned that $25.7 billion over five years could be recouped just by eliminating the oil subsidies. There are plenty of solutions, and I could list many others. Again, I get the message. I may not be an economist, but I get it. I get the Prime Minister's message that he cannot solve the tariff crisis on his own and that it was Donald Trump who imposed these tariffs. I get that, I am not dense, but there are other things that are within our control. The oil subsidies are within the government's control. As for the media crisis, the government holds all the cards. The election bribe it sent to western Canada using Quebec's money—now that is serious—was within the government's control. The government could sign cheques. It could fix the EI spring gap. I encourage our Prime Minister to use the skills he says he has, which I do not doubt. After all, he has held several important economic and financial positions over the course of his professional career. I have no doubt of his qualifications, but could he use them for our benefit, since that was why he was elected? Rightly or wrongly, a lot of Canadians and Quebeckers believed that he was the man to help us solve the tariff crisis. A year later, however, we see that not only has he failed to help, but the situation has actually gotten worse. Let us put that aside for a moment and make use of the tools we have. We could cut the oil subsidies, equalize benefits for our seniors, refund Quebeckers the money they are owed, support our media industry and fix the problems with EI. I could list many other things, but I think that, even with just these, there is plenty of work to be done. The means and the needs are there. This is something our Prime Minister is capable of doing. The question is, does he have the will to do it?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I'm not an expert. I want the government to keep spending money on businesses. We should just copy the big pandemic program we already did. Why isn't Trudeau doing that? I don't need to know if it makes sense; the Prime Minister is the expert, not me.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière was right in saying that it is easy to see that the member for Mirabel used to be a university professor. He has a knack for putting things simply. I, on the other hand, am even simpler than that. I am not exactly an expert when it comes to economics and finance. When I am not an expert in a particular field, I tend to stay on the path forged by others who know more about the subject than I do. I remember the recent pandemic we experienced about five or six years ago. At the Bloc Québécois's suggestion, the House passed a wage subsidy. My colleague talked about it in his speech and others have also talked about it. It worked and it helped to save businesses. That is the well-beaten path that I would tend to follow since I do not know much about this. However, our Prime Minister, who knows a lot about economics and finance, does not seem to want to follow that path. I do not understand why. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. Does he not think that we should rely on what has already been done rather than trying to reinvent the wheel and possibly falling flat on our faces?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“You say you are helping Canadians. But are you really respecting provincial jurisdictions? Are you actually consulting provinces and respecting their priorities? A strong Canada should mean respecting each province and Quebec. The Prime Minister talks about nationalism. But is he including respect for provincial jurisdictions in that? The government should listen to provinces and create programs that respect their jurisdictions and priorities.”

Private Members' Business

An Act to Amend the Criminal Code

2026-04-27

“I'm filling time with kind words and saying nothing anyone could pin down later. We should pass a law because it's bad when people are sad. It's the government's job to fix it. I want more money for my riding.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C‑225 for the second time in this Parliament. However, this topic is nothing new. I had already spoken to this bill a few times. In 2020 and 2021, our colleague from Victoria and members for several other ridings had already introduced similar bills, and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is currently completing its study of the government's Bill C‑16, which deals in part with the same issue. Bill C‑225 is, I believe, the fifth bill dealing with the same issue. The reason for that is not that we are doing a bad job and need start over all the time, but that bills die on the Order Paper when Parliaments end. When we start over, we often like to wear both a belt and suspenders, as we say back home. We want so badly for something to work out that we often give it two or three tries. As I was saying, what we are studying right now is Bill C‑225. As for Bill C‑16, we will very likely complete the clause-by-clause consideration on Wednesday, at which point we will finally be able to begin third reading of the bill, which also addresses the issue of coercive and controlling behaviour. It is a major problem. I am obviously not the only one who thinks that this is a major problem. Our society is continuously undergoing major changes. That has always been the case and likely always will be. Certain behaviours that may have been acceptable 50 or 75 years ago, or even in the last century, are no longer acceptable, and I am sure some behaviours that we think are acceptable today no longer will be in 50 or 100 years. That is why we need to be continually reviewing the legislation that applies to certain situations, even though we may have done so a while back. All types of violence are on the rise in Quebec, Canada and throughout the world. We now have to deal with extremist groups that have resources that they never used to have and that are spreading around the world and throughout our society. There is also domestic violence, another form of violence that may seem insignificant because each case involves fewer people. Domestic violence usually involves two individuals, the violent individual and the victim of their violence. However, it also affects the couple's children, their whole families and society as a whole, which must find a way to address this issue. Education is needed to bring about change. We can pass as many laws as we want in the House, but we can never prevent somebody somewhere from becoming violent and committing regrettable acts of violence without even thinking about it, without even making a conscious decision. In my riding, last fall, Gabie Renaud was murdered. Her murder caused a lot of outrage, not only in my riding but across Quebec, Canada and the U.S. as well. The accused was an individual who had previously been convicted several times for domestic violence. I believe he had been convicted over a dozen times. I do not have the exact numbers but it was multiple convictions. He served his time in jail and was released. He paid his debt to society, as they say. He got out of jail, found a new spouse, abused her and then murdered her. It is appalling. Although it may only affect a few close individuals, I believe it is an issue for society as a whole. As parliamentarians, this is primarily our responsibility, since it is up to us to establish a legal framework, or a body of laws, that will ensure these kinds of harmful situations are prevented. Would locking someone up for the rest of their life when they are violent with their partner solve the problem? It probably would, but that is not what we want. We believe in lofty principles such as the presumption of innocence and people's rights and freedoms. They are enshrined in our charters, both in Quebec City and in Ottawa, and we must maintain them. However, we must also work to ensure that this does not happen again. Bill C-225 proposes criminal measures. It proposes harsher sentences and consequences for such crimes in the hope that society as a whole will become more aware of how serious the situation is. There is also the hope that this may prevent more cases of domestic violence like this one. Does it work? I do not know. So far, the results have not been very encouraging. As I said earlier, cases of domestic violence are on the rise in Quebec, across Canada and just about everywhere. I think we need to pass Bill C-225 and Bill C-16 and support the fight against these crimes through tougher penalties. However, I also think we need to invest more in rehabilitating inmates and educating young people to prevent this from continuing to happen. Education programs are already being provided to young people in schools. The goal is to try to prevent violence. Given that my wife was a teacher for her entire career, I can say that the situation is definitely not getting any better, despite everyone's efforts. Violence in schools is on the rise. I am not a sociologist, and for reasons I do not understand, unfortunately, people are obeying the established rules less and less, and they are disrespecting one another more and more. We cannot ignore the problem and we should all be extremely concerned about this. We may not be the ones teaching in our schools, but we create the legislative framework in which society as a whole operates. These punitive measures, which involve imprisoning people and refusing to release them until a certain period has elapsed, probably have some deterrent effect on people who have not yet been charged but who are watching to see what kind of laws we pass. However, that is not enough. We need to invest. Quebec has no money left, the roads are in bad shape, and people wait 24 to 48 hours in emergency rooms. There are little to no specialized services left in schools. This is not working anymore. People are overtaxed. In many cases, more than half of a person's salary goes to the government. Where does that money go? I think the federal government should transfer funds to the provinces to help them address these issues. There needs to be more rehabilitation programs in prisons. There needs to be more educational initiatives for youth in schools. We need to find a way to rebuild a society that respects every individual and establish a legal framework that enables and promotes this respect and mutual awareness among all members of society. I could go on at length about this, but I would not be adding anything substantial. We will agree on Bill C-225, but that does not preclude us from doing more to prevent crime through education and better rehabilitation in our penitentiaries, so that when people are released from prison after one year, five years, or twenty years, they come out different from who they were when they went in.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗