Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House this morning on behalf of my constituents from Rivière‑du‑Nord, who once again placed their trust in me last spring.
Today, we are talking about the Conservative Party's motion, which raises an important issue, the 50% increase in violent crime. The Bloc Québécois is concerned about this issue and has raised it in the House many times in recent years.
However, the motion calls on the Liberal government to replace a certain number of laws with what is referred to as the “three strikes and you're out” law. The first problem is that we are not familiar with that law. We have an idea of what it entails from what we have been told, but I cannot see myself asking the House today to suggest that the government pass a law when we do not know the content of that law.
Since 2014, there has been a worrying increase in crime in Canada. The overall crime severity index for Canada rose from 66.9 in 2014 to 77.9 in 2024. For Quebec, the same index rose from 57.66 in 2014 to 63.01 in 2024. These are obviously significant and worrying increases. If we look at the statistics on violent crime in absolute terms, it is a bit tricky, because the population has varied greatly over the last 10 years.
We can therefore look at the rate per 100,000 inhabitants. In Canada, the number of violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants was 1,076.2. In 2024, it was 1,433. This represents a 33% increase in violent crime in Canada in just under 10 years. In Quebec, the number of violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants was 966 in 2015, and rose to 1,424 in 2024, an increase of 47%. There has therefore been a real increase in the proportion of violent crimes in Quebec and Canada over the past 10 years.
In Canada, the number of sexual assaults per 100,000 inhabitants rose from 57.3 to 87. In Quebec, it rose from 45 to 98 over the same period, an increase of 119%. That is a significant increase. The number of firearms offences in Canada rose from 6.6 per 100,000 inhabitants in 2015 to 13.1 in 2024, an increase of 100% in 10 years. In Quebec, for the same offences, the number rose from 3.5 to 8.9 offences per 100,000 inhabitants, an increase of 157%.
I also want to talk about cases of extortion, which are an ongoing concern and have been on the rise in recent years. This is increasingly worrying, especially with what is happening on the Internet. Across Canada, the number of offences rose from 8.5 per 100,000 inhabitants in 2015 to 31.8 per 100,000 inhabitants. This is an increase of 272%. In Quebec, for the same period, from 2015 to 2024, the number of offences rose from 14.8 to 38.09 per 100,000 inhabitants, an increase of 158%.
As we can see, all of those crime rates have increased significantly over the past 10 years. In that regard, we fully share the concerns the Conservatives are raising about how the justice system is being managed. Changes are definitely needed. This needs to be fixed. However, as I said, at this point, we do not know the exact details of our Conservative colleagues' bill, since it has not been introduced in the House. The Conservative leader simply announced that his bill would be sponsored by a member of his party, who is 10th in line in the draw for private members' business.
Therefore, all we know about this motion is what the Conservative leader said in his media scrum and what was reported in the press a few weeks ago. First, he announced that he would make sure that “three-time serious criminals get a minimum prison term of 10 years and up to a life sentence.”
Second, he said that these criminals “will also be designated as dangerous offenders, meaning they cannot be released until they prove they are no longer a danger.”
Third, the only way for them to “obtain their freedom will be through spotless behaviour and clean drug tests” during their prison sentence, among other things.
Fourth, for them to be granted parole, he said earned release will depend on “improving themselves and their life opportunities, such as by learning a trade or upgrading their education.”
Finally, the bill would also repeal Bill C‑75 from the 42nd Parliament. One thing that bill did was amend the provisions on interim release.
There are some good and not-so-good things in this Conservative Party proposal. The parts that talk about offenders learning a trade or upgrading their education are very commendable, in my opinion. In any case, these options already exist in all our prisons. Encouraging inmates to register for these programs, in our view, is a good thing.
However, there are other aspects of the Conservative proposal that make us feel a bit uneasy. It aims to toughen sentences by imposing life sentences for certain crimes, such as those relating to human trafficking, firearms trafficking and fentanyl production. As I have said, the Bloc Québécois will be voting against the Conservative motion.
To be clear, we see rising crime as a major concern. Over the past few years, we have proposed a series of tough measures to address criminal violence, and we will continue to do so. For example, I myself have introduced a bill to create an organized crime registry three times in the past 10 years. We all know that criminal organizations are a growing scourge. Not only do they undermine our society and violate the rules of coexistence, but they also corrupt the morality of many of our young teens to a great or at least significant degree. Criminal organizations have been known to direct minors to commit offences, theft and even murder and acts of violence because those minors are prosecuted under a different judicial system than adults charged with crimes and they face less severe consequences. We feel this is despicable. Theft is illegal; it is a crime. Assault is a crime. Murder is a crime. However, when a 40- or 50-year-old adult gets a 14-year-old to commit those crimes, it is not just illegal, it is despicable. We vigorously oppose such crimes.
How, then, do we address that? Clearly, we need to introduce legislation. We are committed to working on this over the coming weeks. However, the idea of creating a registry of criminal organizations, which has already been debated in the House on several occasions, is one that we will revisit. I have no doubt about that. I therefore want to ask our colleagues in the House of Commons for their support on such a bill.
During the last Parliament, in parallel with the creation of the registry of criminal organizations, we proposed a series of measures, including going after the proceeds of crime. Currently, if police officers search a criminal organization's property, they have to prove that the property was acquired illegally. During the last Parliament, we proposed the opposite, namely that once someone is a member of a criminal organization and their property is searched as part of an investigation into criminal offences, it should be up to that individual to prove to us that the property was acquired legally, and not the other way around.
This reverse onus seems useful, even essential, for fighting organized crime effectively. We will come back with some suggestions as we move forward.
We also proposed clarifying the application of the provisions imposed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Jordan for serious crimes. Let me be clear about this: As far as I am concerned, the Supreme Court is right. When someone is charged with a crime they should be judged within a reasonable time frame. That is already set out in the Charter. These time frames were rightly defined by the Supreme Court. The problem is that the current system is unable to handle these cases within a reasonable time frame. In my opinion, the fault lies largely with the lack of necessary resources made available to the courts by our governments. I have also repeatedly asked that greater diligence be shown in filling judicial vacancies. There have been delays that I consider completely unreasonable. That is the first thing that needs to be done to prevent stays of proceedings, especially when it comes to violent crimes that are rebuked by society as a whole. That is one thing.
Obviously, the justice system needs to be provided with courtrooms, clerks, bailiffs, court officers, and so on. On the federal government side, the appointment of judges within a reasonable time frame is essential. These judges must be impartial, having no political allegiance and showing no bias toward any of the political parties in power. That, too, is a blight that truly tarnishes our justice system.
Limiting the use of the Jordan decision by appointing judges is one thing, but we proposed going further in the last Parliament. We said that when there are unreasonable delays, which we deplore, a court should be allowed to extend the time frame imposed by the Supreme Court of Canada for certain serious or category 1 crimes. Obviously, this exemption must be limited and used sparingly. It should not be a free-for-all. However, sex crimes, murder, kidnapping, gun crime and terrorism are crimes that must be tried. We cannot tell the public that someone charged with murder, rape or kidnapping will be let go because we dragged our feet for two years and ran out of time to try him. That does not work. In a self-respecting, properly-run society, that is not the way to go.
First, we proposed creating an organized crime registry. Second, we proposed allowing the courts to waive the time frame imposed by the Supreme Court in the Jordan decision for serious crimes, and in limited circumstances.
The third measure we proposed to combat rising crime was to remove the religious exemption. Here too, we have seen situations that are completely preposterous. On October 28, 2023, in Montreal, preacher Adil Charkaoui said, in Arabic, “Allah, take care of these Zionist aggressors. Allah, take care of the enemies of the people of Gaza. Allah, identify them all, then exterminate them. And don't spare any of them!” That seems pretty clear to me. In my mind, there is no room for interpretation. Unfortunately, the director of public prosecutions, who is responsible for prosecuting such cases, decided not to prosecute the imam for lack of evidence, even though the speech was filmed, recorded, and broadcast on virtually all media outlets. We know that sections 318 to 320 of the Criminal Code criminalize hate speech. There are two religious exemptions: one that allows for a reasonable defence against a charge of hate speech if the speech is based on a religious text in which one believes, and the same applies to anti-Semitism. As far as we are concerned, these are exemptions that have no place in our society and must be removed from the Criminal Code.
We introduced a bill on this subject in the previous Parliament. We will come back to that. This is another way of fighting the increase in crime effectively.
Then, there is the matter of mandatory minium sentences. When the Conservative Party took office over 15 years ago, it brought in mandatory minimum sentences. The Supreme Court ruled that they were illegal, that these sentences violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that they had to be done away with. Under Justin Trudeau, the previous Liberal government eliminated these mandatory minimum sentences. Now, the Conservatives want to bring them back.
This is a worthwhile debate. In my opinion, there is no position that is indefensible. However, there is a middle ground that we could consider. In Quebec, we believe in rehabilitating inmates, particularly young inmates. Mandatory minimum sentences tie the hands of the judge hearing the case and prevent him or her from handing down a sentence that is often better suited to the circumstances, to the situation of the individual being heard by the court. We think that the courts must be allowed to waive mandatory minimum sentences.
Let us restore certain minimum sentences as long as we comply with the provisions or criteria set out by the Supreme Court. Obviously, we will not be going back to the Supreme Court every 10 years, or at least I hope not. Let us comply with these criteria. Let us bring back some mandatory minimum sentences. However, we could make it possible for a trial judge to depart from them in exceptional circumstances. This would require the judge to justify the exceptional circumstances, where applicable, and then depart from the minimum sentence if they really have to. We think that is an interesting proposal.
The Bloc Québécois is generous. We are letting our Conservative colleagues pick and choose from among our proposals, adapt them if they wish and make them their own. They can also simply support our bills when we introduce them. However, we must always keep in mind that the goal is not to fill up prisons. The goal is to live in a safe society where people can thrive, where young offenders can be rehabilitated. We want to invest in rehabilitation. We want to live in a free democratic society that respects everyone's rights.
The idea of punishing repeat offenders more harshly based on past offences is not new. A number of U.S. states already do this. It was introduced in the 1990s. Since then, American prisons have been filled with people who could perhaps have been rehabilitated. I will not comment on that, as I am not an expert on the American legal system. However, we have our own justice system, our own society and our own values, and I think we have to be careful when it comes to importing measures in effect elsewhere into Quebec and Canada.
I want to reiterate the idea of the organized crime registry. It was in Bill C‑420, which we introduced during the 44th Parliament. We also introduced Bill C‑392, concerning the Supreme Court's Jordan decision deadlines, and Bill C‑373, concerning the abolition of religious exemptions, during that same Parliament. Together with the minimum sentence proposal I was just talking about, all of these ideas can help fight crime.
We generously invite our Conservative colleagues to draw inspiration from these ideas. The current government should do likewise, to help us live in a society where everything works and where offenders can be rehabilitated and successfully rejoin society.