Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House on behalf of the Bloc Québécois and confirm that we believe that Bill S‑205 is a good bill. We intend to support it, at this stage at least, so that it can be referred to committee and studied both rigorously and seriously.

I agree with my colleague opposite regarding some of his reservations about electronic monitoring devices. The Criminal Code already contains some related provisions, and a pilot project has been set up by the Quebec government. I look forward to hearing from police officers, and perhaps Crown prosecutors and defence lawyers who are already working with these provisions. We can benefit from the experience they have gained over the past few months.

It will not be easy. Let us not forget that electronic monitoring devices come with technical challenges. There are also more philosophical issues. I agree with my colleague who said that we must be careful. Electronic monitoring bracelets must not become a sort of fail-safe mechanism that the courts give themselves by almost systematically ordering offenders to wear these devices when they are released on bail. I think these devices should be used sparingly in serious cases such as those set out in the bill. We will have to ensure that the provisions we adopt are written in a way that is consistent with our intention. We have to proceed carefully on this issue.

I also have some concerns about the biological samples. We know that biological samples can be useful in many cases, and I think we need to make use of them in such cases. There too, however, we must be careful. The electronic monitoring device and the order to provide a biological sample, two measures that are often systematic, violate the rights and freedoms of every citizen under the charters in place.

When rights as fundamental as the right to bodily integrity and the right to freedom are on the table, legislators must act prudently and with restraint. I do not think anyone in the House wants us to end up in a totalitarian state where everyone is subject to strict, rigid rules that are not necessarily justified in all cases. When it comes to these provisions, I recommend prudence.

That being said, we in the Bloc Québécois are very concerned about the issue of intimate partner violence, and that is why we want to support Bill S‑205 so it can go to committee. In recent months, the number of intimate partner violence cases has surged. I do not remember the exact numbers, but rates have gone up by a few dozen percentage points over the past two or three years. This is disturbing, and we need to work on it in earnest.

The notion of domestic violence is also being broadened. It already includes violence between intimate partners; however, this bill creates a notion of domestic violence that includes not only intimate partners, but also the partner's children, and even the children of the alleged abuser if there is reason to fear that the abuser may attack their own children. Obviously, we agree with this. We need to ensure the safety of everyone, anyone who is in any way involved with an individual who is considered to be dangerous. It is an interesting provision, but again, we have to be vigilant and ensure that we do not overstep the bounds of what is reasonable.

In addition, this bill will also expand victims' rights by requiring courts to consult with victims before issuing release orders.

Take for example an abused woman who fears for her health or safety should her spouse be released. Under clause 810, the victim or person who fears for their safety will be consulted. They already were, but now it is included in the provisions of the Criminal Code and they will have to be consulted before the order is made. I think that is good and will contribute to reducing the number of tragedies we hear about far too often and lament in the House so frequently that it has become unsettling.

Another aspect of these provisions to which we need to pay close attention is discharge. Until now, certain parts of release orders were applied as soon as the individual was convicted of a violent crime. This concept is being broadened so that they will be applied when someone is found guilty or discharged for crimes set out in the act. I agree that discharge implies that the individual has already been found guilty or has already pleaded guilty, but the fact remains that the individual was discharged and, in principle, the crime for which they were discharged should not be subsequently held against them. I say “in principle” because we are undermining that principle. Is it justified? Personally, I think it could be. As I was saying earlier, I look forward to hearing from expert witnesses on this, both Crown prosecutors and defence attorneys. These are major changes that could have a significant impact on many Quebeckers and Canadians. This needs to be examined carefully.

The recognizance provisions I just mentioned will now apply to teens as well through amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. This is another matter we need to examine carefully. Just how far are we willing to go in terms of imposing extreme conditions on teenagers? In some cases it may be warranted, and in others, it may not. In any case, the matter will have to be carefully considered, and the scope of our bill clearly defined to ensure that it helps stop crime and improve our society, not make it too repressive.

My colleague spoke of harmonizing the different provisions. I support that as well, but I disagree with his decision to vote against electronic bracelets. I have a lot of concerns and apprehensions about electronic bracelets, but I think they are useful at times. We will have to consider the matter carefully, listen to everyone and, once again, learn from the experiences of other jurisdictions, including Quebec.

Rhéal Fortin

$435,665.00