SoVote

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC)

Dec/13/21 6:15:11 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I listened to a lot of debate and presentations in the chamber today and no one really has mentioned the victims in all of this. I just heard my colleague from across talk about a hammer and a nail, but what about the victims? What about the victim of a grocery store robbery where someone used a firearm and gets a lesser sentence. That victim then has to walk down the street and see the assailant all the time? Should we not take a bit of that into consideration during this debate and talk about the people who have the crimes perpetrated against them? I would like to have my colleague's comments on that.

117 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche

Dec/13/21 6:15:52 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, as my party's status of women critic, I started my speech by making a specific reference to femicide. The member asked about victims, and last week we commemorated the École Polytechnique massacre, but the problem is that there is no evidence that mandatory minimum penalties actually work. The Bloc Québécois believes that the only way to help victims is by taking gun control seriously, which our colleagues in the Liberal government have not yet done. I think further consideration of our proposals is necessary. For example, the Bloc Québécois proposed a very good idea for a joint task force.

111 words

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Montarville, BQ)

Dec/13/21 6:16:31 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech. She emphasized her previous professional experience in community-based services. As I was listening to her speech, I thought of my own previous experience as Quebec public safety minister. She said that Bill C‑5 sends a somewhat contradictory message and then she also pointed out that minimum penalties do not guarantee that violence will be reduced. It is easy for the Conservatives to staunchly support law and order when they are not the ones paying to build prisons, since the provinces and Quebec are responsible for paying the bill for these decisions. What does my colleague think about that?

112 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche

Dec/13/21 6:17:34 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Montarville for his question, which gives me a chance to remind the House that mandatory minimum sentences are not without cost. There is indeed a cost to all this, and it has to be paid. He put it well when he said that a prison has a cost. It costs more money to detain people in the justice system than it does to support them in other ways. They could be reintegrated, take their place in society and contribute to it, and receive more support to leave that life once and for all. There is a cost to prison sentences. In the case of a first offence, the person will cost a lot less if they are in a restorative or alternative justice program and get out of the system rather than going to jail.

143 words

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

Dec/13/21 6:18:23 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the member from Kingston and the Islands, who said earlier that the debate was philosophical in nature. I would say that that is absolutely the case and that I am ready to participate in it since my background is in philosophy. Bill C-5 amends the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. After spending 25 years as an ethicist, I simply cannot leave ethics at the door just because I have become a politician. People associate ethics with its notions of obligation and punishment, but I would to suggest that being ethically minded requires that we be flexible in our thinking so we can try to imagine a more just future. Indeed, ethics is the search for what is just. That is really what we have to do here as legislators. We need to know that being just is an elusive target. Doing what is just is not a given. We must nonetheless attempt, with what is being proposed in Bill C-5, to find what is just knowing that it may be changed by those who come after us. Any law, any bill has an ultimate goal. Ultimately, a law or bill is the means to an end, it is a means to an ideal that transcends it. During my career, I had the chance to see two different sides of crime. I worked with the police force, but also with correctional institutions. I will start with the latter. I was at the Bordeaux jail as an invited guest as part of a rehabilitation program called Souverains anonymes, which gives a voice to inmates on radio shows. My last meeting was last December, for Christmas, and we celebrated the fact that we were in lockdown both inside and outside the walls. Among the inmates I met addicts, hardened criminals, people who did not get it. I also met many unintentional criminals, people who might have gone down the wrong path because of tough life circumstances, but I cannot second-guess the judge. I met a lot of people who were not where they should be; they knew it and they felt it. Of course, this was in the context of a rehabilitation program. I also saw how overrepresented some groups were, including racialized populations. We talked a lot about indigenous peoples today, but what I saw more was the racialized populations. It was shocking for me to see them with my own eyes. It was not a statistic, a simple number on a page. I could see that there was prejudice at play and we have to question that. I also served as an advisor to the police chief of the Montreal police force. In that capacity, I had to advise him on the difficult choice of whether to go to court or not. Some cases were easier than others. However, when it comes to petty crime, when we want to promote neighbourhood policing and community living, it is tough to take legal action every time. During that period, I saw the best and the worst, including punishment, conciliation and community policing. When we are talking about diversion and deregulation, we must bear in mind that these are powerful words. Ethics seeks to give meaning to conduct, and meaning is the direction we need to go in. Decriminalization means removing a given offence from the Criminal Code, whereas diversion sets criminal justice proceedings aside in favour of a more restorative approach to justice. The reason we are talking about these terms today is that the world is changing, as is our understanding of what is just. Scare tactics and a tough-on-drugs approach did not work. Public policy must strike a balance between three imperatives. The first imperative is moral order, because losing one's freedom is a big deal. It means losing one's dignity. The second is the public health imperative, because drug use is often a public health issue. The third is the public order imperative because, when it comes right down to it, this is about protecting the public. What are the values underpinning these imperatives? Obviously, if we want to foster reconciliation and community living, I believe we must look beyond the offence itself. Drug use is a public health issue that must be treated as such, without ruling out criminal prosecution when it is warranted. Diversion is one solution that Quebec has chosen to address a public health issue. I believe in rehabilitation. I have seen inmates turn over a new leaf and move forward, reducing the number of people in prison and the costs associated with their incarceration, and most of all the social costs that come with the stigma. Mandatory minimum sentences are costly and, as everyone has said today, there is no guarantee they will work. In the Bloc Québécois, we support eliminating certain sentences. However, no one can ignore what is happening in Montreal and in a number of Canada's major urban centres, where readily available firearms have become a scourge. For this reason, we believe that this is not the time to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences related to firearms. Rather, we believe that, in this area, the Trudeau government has failed in its duties. It should be exercising its powers rather than delegating them to the municipalities or provinces. To sum up, Bill C‑5 has noble objectives, but I nonetheless believe that it should be sent to committee to iron out its kinks. While I do not believe that mandatory minimum sentences are a deterrent to criminals, we must move beyond partisanship and take a serious look at this bill. In conclusion, the federal government must ensure that people feel safe or safer. Police officers often say that people do not fear being unsafe; they fear feeling unsafe. We must therefore do everything we can to ensure that people do not feel unsafe.

994 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Dec/13/21 6:25:31 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, the member reflected on the philosophical differences between parties. I appreciated what he and other members of the Bloc as well as the Liberals and NDP have been saying, that the data does not support the idea that mandatory minimums have the impact the Conservatives would like them to have. I am trying to wrap my head around why the Conservatives still have this philosophical idea that there should not be a component of rehabilitating individuals to make them productive members of society. Could the member comment on why he thinks they might still be coming from the position that it is a requirement and needs to happen even though, as he indicated, the data does not support it?

121 words

Mr. René Villemure

Dec/13/21 6:26:36 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I am new here, so maybe I can be perfectly honest. There are ideological differences between certain parties, and I am prepared to accept this and participate in debate. However, I do not want partisan differences to taint the debate. Partisan differences, or at least partisan obsessions, muddy the waters and make it difficult to debate. Intense partisanship has no place in a discussion on feeling unsafe.

69 words

Mr. Rick Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC)

Dec/13/21 6:27:25 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member aware that when the Liberals removed the mandatory minimum sentences for people who transport firearms without a permit that gang violence went up in places like Toronto and Vancouver? Obviously, it is something that the members from Toronto do not realize about their own communities. He could comment on that. As well, can the hon. member comment on whether he thinks part of sentencing is punishment and not just rehabilitation?

76 words

Mr. René Villemure

Dec/13/21 6:27:59 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about punishment, but I do not think that is relevant here. I want to take a broader perspective on the question and point out that, notwithstanding the ideological difference I mentioned earlier, the Bloc Québécois does not support abolishing mandatory minimum penalties for firearms offences. We support maintaining these minimum penalties. It is important to understand that there is a big difference between a minor offence and a serious one.

79 words

Mr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.)

Dec/13/21 6:28:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member from across the way. I must say it is refreshing to have a philosopher in the House who is not afraid to use his practice. One item in his speech that I wonder if we could ask for clarification on is the role of the federal government working in provincial affairs. It seemed to me that he said the federal government should take a stronger position on this in the provincial legislatures.

79 words

Mr. René Villemure

Dec/13/21 6:29:15 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I would just like to clarify one thing. I stated that the federal government should exercise its prerogatives in its jurisdictions. Gun control is a federal jurisdiction. I do not believe that this responsibility can be delegated to a province. It is a power of the Crown and it belongs to the federal state.

64 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

Dec/13/21 6:29:39 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, one thing that is clear with respect to the opioid crisis is that dead people do not detox. The Conservatives talk a lot about treatment, but we first have to make sure people stay alive. The best way to do that is to decriminalize possession and provide a safe supply. Would the member agree with that?

58 words

Mr. René Villemure

Dec/13/21 6:29:59 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I have to agree.

6 words

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/13/21 6:30:03 p.m.
Watch

It being 6:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. Call in the members.

37 words

The Speaker

Dec/13/21 7:14:49 p.m.
Watch

I declare the amendment lost.

5 words

Mr. Larry Brock (Brantford—Brant, CPC)

Dec/13/21 7:18:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, Global News recently reported that prices for food products would go up 5% to 7% in 2022. This means a family of four will be spending $1,000 more a year, not on restaurant meals but solely on groceries. This is in addition to the current rate of food inflation, which reached almost 4% this past October. When I asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance about skyrocketing food prices in November, she said that I was too partisan and that Canadians should be proud of the government's economic accomplishments and Canada's AAA credit rating. I posted a video of my question along with her response on my social media pages and asked my constituents what they thought about the answer she provided. This is one of the comments I received. Rick wrote, “What does our country's credit rating have to do with inflation and higher costs to make a living?” I agree with Rick. When the government is trying to convince people that their lives have become better, there is something wrong with that analogy. No rating agencies in the world can make life more affordable and secure the future for Canadians, but the government can and must do so. Rick also asked me to keep fighting for accountability of the government. That is exactly what we as the Conservative official opposition do on a daily basis in the House. Another one of my constituents, Cathy, said, “The [finance minister] and the [Prime Minister] are so out of touch with regular Canadians...She was disrespectful with her posturing comment.” What is undeniably disrespectful is to suggest that Canadians should be proud of the fact that they will be spending $1,000 more on food in 2022. When I discovered that the government referred to inflation only once in the throne speech and tied it to child care and housing, I realized how deep the problem was. If these are the only two things the government is planning to implement, hoping to decrease inflation, we are all in trouble. Often the Prime Minister likes to claim that they are going to spend even more on the programs that we already know do not work. These are exactly the talking points that the Prime Minister and his cabinet use every time we press them to update Canadians on what is being done to fight inflation. Their answer is to spend more. Let me make a comparison to that theory. If people cannot even afford to own a vehicle and they do not change their oil regularly, or if it snows and they do not change their tires or if they are simply out of gas, it makes no difference how much they spend on auto detailing to make a vehicle look good. It will not get them too far. Engela from my riding commented that the response I received from the Deputy Prime Minister “was not a suitable” one. “We haven’t heard a satisfactory answer. [This government] is taking Canadians on a path of poverty for so many.” It is sad but it is true. Poverty in Canada is real. This November, CBC reported that food banks were recording the highest number of visits ever. Food bank representatives called the number of visits “devastating” and “horrific”. What is worse, they said was that the upward trend was expected to continue. “Justinflation” is hurting my constituents and it is hurting all Canadians. Recent polls show that 80% say the cost of living crisis is making their lives less affordable and 60% of families with kids under age 18 are concerned they might not have enough money to feed their family. What can be worse during the holiday season? Today, I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, without those repetitive talking points that I mentioned above, to please explain to Rick, Cathy, Engela and other Canadians how more of the same will lead us to anything different?

682 words

Ms. Rachel Bendayan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance, Lib.)

Dec/13/21 7:22:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Brantford—Brant, congratulate him on his election and welcome him to the House of Commons. I welcome this discussion, to be quite frank. I feel that the issue the member is raising is one of the most important issues facing this country and our government. I would like to assure him that it is absolutely top of mind in the work we are doing. In fact, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance earlier today held a press conference alongside the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Tiff Macklem. They announced today that we would be renewing the bank's mandate to ensure price stability for Canadians, and to ensure stability in the market generally. The renewal of this mandate for the Bank of Canada means that the bank will be targeting a 2% inflation rate, at the midpoint of the 1% to 3% inflation range, showing continuity and ensuring stability. The inflationary pressures that Canadians are feeling are a global phenomenon. We have said many times in this chamber, and I will say again, that Canada is actually faring much better than most other countries and most of our counterparts. Elsewhere in the OECD, inflation is considerably higher, including for our neighbours down south: The United States' inflation rate today is 6.8%. The latest number in Canada is 4.7%. That being said, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that inflation and affordability are pressing challenges for Canadians. I felt it at the grocery store this weekend. I know that the constituents of my colleague opposite are feeling it and so are my constituents. I think we need to look at the root cause of this increasing inflation. All of the experts are pointing to global supply chain interruptions, to the global rise in energy prices and to the comeback of the global economy following the COVID-19 shutdown. There are certainly other structural costs that Canadian families are feeling, including housing and child care affordability. I find it unfortunate that the member opposite is talking down the importance of affordable child care and of attacking the housing crisis here in Canada. Those are two very important factors we are taking into consideration, and we are planning on implementing policies in order to tackle them. For example, Canadians know the $10-a-day child care program will reduce their overall cost of living. I believe that all provinces have now signed on, save for Ontario. I certainly encourage everybody watching and hearing this debate to lobby the Ontario government in order to get that done as quickly as possible, because it will make life more affordable for families. In addition to housing, I would like to point out that the member opposite raised the issue of food banks. I find that surprising, given that our government spent so much time over the pandemic to support Canadians, to implement programs, to support workers through the CERB, to support food banks and community organizations that were supporting our communities, and to support our small businesses with wage and rent subsidies, without which they would have shut down. I would like to understand this. What does the member opposite mean when he says that we should not be investing in these programs going forward? We know the pandemic is still with us, we know there are hard-hit sectors and we know that we need to continue to have Canadians' backs.

584 words

Mr. Larry Brock

Dec/13/21 7:26:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, Canada is facing devastating problems caused by the pandemic. Canadians are struggling to make ends meet. My friend says I do not pay much attention to day care costs and things of that nature. That could not be further from the truth. What I found rather shocking was that the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development today indicated to the House that the idea of a $10-a-day day care plan is five years down the road. How is that going to help my constituents and other Canadians who are fighting to put groceries on their tables and to deal with the rising costs of just about everything? Charles, a senior in my riding of Brantford—Brant, contacted me about the enormous struggles his adult children are experiencing. His daughter is the single parent of a newborn. She is unable to afford rent, let alone buy a home, and care for her child without the financial support of her elderly parents. It seems the government thinks it is acceptable to saddle parents with the added burden of providing for their adult children and grandchildren because they cannot survive independently given the rising costs of just about everything. Why is the government hiding behind talking points and not willing to share what the plan is to fight “just inflation” in Canada?

227 words

Ms. Rachel Bendayan

Dec/13/21 7:28:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is pretty obvious that I answered that question already, but to keep the debate going, maybe I can share a few important facts. Right now, Canada is already at 106% of pre-pandemic employment levels. At 5.4% in the last quarter, our economic growth leads the G7, and our perfect AAA credit rating was recently renewed. I can understand my colleague raising concerns about inflation, but the economy is doing well. We talked about the Bank of Canada's mandate this morning, and we will keep working to ensure ongoing economic growth.

96 words

Mr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC)

Dec/13/21 7:29:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise this evening and take part in these Adjournment Proceedings. When I last addressed this issue in the House, it was a question to the Prime Minister about housing affordability. We are hearing a lot about cost of living and housing affordability challenges that Canadians are facing right across our country from coast to coast to coast. We are seeing those same challenges in my community of Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes. It is staggering to think more than 80% of Canadians between the ages of 18 and 28 worry they will not be able to afford a home in their city of choice thanks to soaring real estate prices and a skyrocketing cost of living. This cost of living crisis affects people when they are at the grocery store. We have seen the forecast for next year, with families expected to pay $1,000 and more per year in groceries, with prices on dairy up 8%, fruit up 5%, and bread and vegetables up 7%. That is going to hurt people every time they try to feed their families. Gasoline for people's cars is forecasted in some parts of the country to be up to $2 per litre. Where I live, driving a car is not a luxury, it is a necessary reality for so many folks. The vast majority of my riding does not have public transit people can hop on. One cannot take the subway or the light rail from Kemptville to Prescott. One cannot take it from Brockville to Gananoque. People are driving between those locations. They are driving to get to work, to get to medical appointments, and to take their kids to dance or hockey. Why do we have skyrocketing increases to people's cost of living? We know there has been a half-trillion dollars of Liberal deficits that have ballooned our inflation to an 18-year high. It is currently pegged at an 18-year high. We will see what that number looks like in a couple of days. There are a couple of things the government could do to address this instead of saying that it is bad everywhere, that we will compare outrages and that we are not as bad as some other people and better than others so it is really nothing to worry about. Folks trying to feed their families, put gas in their cars to get to work and who need to heat their homes are worried about it. We can produce more Canadian world-class energy and we can cancel planned payroll taxes that will hurt small businesses and their employees alike. We need to get government spending under control. We had our opposition day motion that pitched real solutions on the housing crisis to the government, which it voted against. There are options available such as making government real estate available, banning foreign investment in Canadian properties and of course committing to Canadians that the government will never introduce a capital gains tax on their properties. The government has to take real steps today to end “just inflation”, and that is what we are calling on the government to do.

539 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 16