Mr. Speaker, crime is up. Statistics show this to be true, in both Quebec and Canada. Between 2015 and 2024, there was a 47% increase in violent crimes in Quebec and a 63% increase in Canada. Between 2015 and 2024, there was a 138% increase in sexual assaults in Quebec.

If we look at the figures per 100,000 inhabitants, they are slightly lower, but still, we see that crime is on the rise and that we have reason to be concerned. We have good reason to discuss the best ways to reduce crime. Therefore, the question is this: How do we respond to the rise in crime?

We have to ask ourselves what causes crime. This is a complex question, one that has no definitive or final answer. Based on what I observed as a legal aid lawyer in the Gaspé region and from my interactions with people accused of crimes, I tend to think that environmental factors partly explain criminality. We cannot ignore people's individual responsibility, of course, but environmental factors do play a role in criminality.

Perhaps an even more pertinent question is what enables people to leave crime behind. How can we ensure that someone who commits a crime or is a repeat offender can leave crime behind and get back on the path to a life without crime, a life that is more conducive to public safety and to that individual's personal development?

Should we impose harsher penalties? That is what the Conservatives are proposing. Criminals should be incarcerated for longer periods of time, and, in their opinion, this would reduce the crime rate. Personally, I believe we need to focus on rehabilitation. What I learned during my 10 years working in legal aid, dealing with all kinds of people in very difficult situations, is that we need to give people hope. We need to give them a way out.

Yes, we must give second chances and believe people have the ability to improve themselves and overcome their demons to lead a more acceptable life in society. With their motion, the Conservatives are telling us we should instead adopt a “three strikes” law. The question I asked earlier remains the same. Does the “three strikes” approach work?

The studies I have read say that this has no impact. I will cite these studies again. The U.S. Attorney General compiled 50 studies involving 300,000 prisoners. Comparisons were made between different parts of the U.S. Some jurisdictions had legislation whereby, after three offences, criminals ends up in prison for much longer, whereas others had no such legislation. This law was found not to have any impact. No study could prove that longer or shorter prison sentences reduce recidivism.

It was also noted that when someone is put in prison, they are surrounded by criminals. There are things that are discussed between criminals. It is often said that prison is crime school. Studies seem to indicate that the longer the sentence, the greater the risk of reoffending because people who spend 10 years in prison are not fit to return to society. They spent far too long surrounded by criminals.

We are a long way from knowing whether this idea will reduce crime. However, I appreciate that we are told that this is common sense, that it is basic common sense, that if we put somebody in prison they will not commit a crime. Still, I believe that a more informed approach is needed because simply putting somebody in prison does not make them disappear forever. This person will come back to society. The question is, what state will they come back in?

The idea behind rehabilitation is to give people a purpose. It means telling them that they have committed a crime for reasons that are their own and that they are responsible for their actions but that they will receive support. They are offered therapies and given a purpose in life, because life outside crime is ultimately much more comfortable and allows a person to truly set themselves free. In my view, this is what we need to do.

We can still look at what the Conservatives are proposing to change. They are saying that when a person has committed three serious offences, they will be imprisoned for a minimum of 10 years. As a former legal aid lawyer, I can say that what I really appreciated in a court of law was that no shortcuts were taken and that every case was analyzed individually because every case is different. When the government imposes minimum sentences, it takes away the justice system's ability to impose a sentence that truly fits the crime. Minimum sentences may appeal to a certain electorate who may legitimately feel unsafe, but by taking such shortcuts, we risk committing injustices in the fight again crime. It is far from certain that the Conservatives' proposal will have any impact whatsoever.

I would still like to explain that there are many provisions in the Criminal Code. What the Conservatives are proposing is to tinker with a Criminal Code that already sets out many principles that are perfectly adequate. The Conservatives are calling for 10-year minimum sentences for three serious offences. Let us look at the main principles for determining sentencing in section 718 of the Criminal Code. We will see that the Criminal Code already has everything a judge needs to impose harsher sentences when needed.

Section 718 of the Criminal Code states the following:

The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:

(a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct;

(b) to deter the offender

This objective is already well established in the Criminal Code.

(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;

That is entirely possible.

(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;

I do not think this goal should be overlooked, given that the offender will eventually regain their freedom.

(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and

(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders

Another fundamental principle that is already in our body of legislation, specifically in Criminal Code section 718.1, states:

A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

The judge already has the flexibility needed to impose a more serious sentence when the crime is more serious.

Paragraph 718.2(a) sets out the sentencing principles. It says that “a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances”, so criminal history is already taken into account. During sentencing, after an offender has been found guilty, the judge looks at their record. If they have already committed serious offences, the Crown prosecutor will certainly argue that, and the judge will take it into account. I think that mandating a given sentence whenever someone commits a third offence is not the way to go. I do not think this kind of automatic sentencing serves the justice system.

A number of factors can already be considered to be aggravating circumstances, for example:

evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion [or] sex

All of this is already taken into consideration by our justice system. There are also the following circumstances:

evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused [among others] the offender's intimate partner

There was already a question on that earlier.

evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person under the age of eighteen years,

Then there is the following situation:

evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim

There is also the circumstance where the offender is already a member of a criminal organization.

We can see that the Criminal Code already sets limits and allows judges to make informed decisions. The Bloc Québécois will be voting against the Conservatives' motion. Not only are we far from certain it will achieve anything, we believe it undermines a system that, all things considered, is well balanced.

Alexis Deschênes

Transcript

Government Orders

Discussions (0)