44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 13, 2021 11:00AM
- Dec/13/21 11:52:52 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, we know that the Public Prosecution Service of Canada has already issued a directive with respect to these types of diversion measures. The effect of codifying them and having Bill C-5 enacted is that there will not be much of a difference between what is currently happening and what would happen as a result of this bill being put in place for those measures.
What we would see is the repeal of these mandatory minimum penalties and conditional discharges, weakening the accountability for folks who are committing drug trafficking and drug manufacturing offences. This, of course, is going to gravely impact our communities and have a negative impact on folks who are suffering from addiction. With respect to diversion measures, the ones that are currently in place and the directive issued are appropriate.
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/21 11:54:00 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I feel like I am stuck in some kind of time warp after hearing the comments from the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes. That speech could have been given 10 years ago.
In the meantime, we have had more than a decade of experience with mandatory minimums and we know what they result in. They do not result in less crime. They result in the overincarceration of indigenous people and the overincarceration of Black Canadians. The academic literature is clear; our practical experience is clear, and even jurisdictions like Texas have given up on mandatory minimums as a solution to crime problems.
Will the Conservatives join us in the 21st century and give up this dated rhetoric about mandatory minimums that somehow implies that taking them away removes penalties altogether?
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/21 11:54:43 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, it is incredibly important that we have accountability measures in place. The mandatory minimums being repealed are going to weaken accountability; it is that simple. The crimes that are going to be impacted and the criminals who will be impacted will have been convicted of committing serious offences.
Victims need someone speaking up for them. That is exactly what we are doing here today. These crimes, the list I have read out twice, are not minor offences. They are serious and dangerous offences committed by dangerous people. The penalties being repealed serve as an accountability mechanism and should remain in place.
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/21 11:55:47 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I cannot believe what I just heard from my colleague from the NDP. If he thinks it is a relic of the past to put people in prison for sexual assault, for trafficking in persons and for kidnapping, I will be a relic of the past for a long time. They just—
55 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/21 11:56:08 a.m.
- Watch
I am sorry. I have a point of order from the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.
I want to remind members to hold off on their thoughts while someone is speaking.
33 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/21 11:56:20 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, it is not like me to come to the defence of members of other parties, but what the member from the Conservative Party just stated was a complete, utter lie and misrepresentation of what was—
38 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/21 11:56:32 a.m.
- Watch
3 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/21 11:56:39 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the member for Kingston and the Islands just accused the member for Regina—Lewvan of lying. I am just wondering, with respect to—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
37 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/21 11:56:51 a.m.
- Watch
Given the information that the hon. member was providing, he did not indicate that the hon. member was lying.
The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes may finish.
34 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/21 11:57:18 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, with respect to your response, I am sure, if you consulted with Hansard, you would find that at the conclusion of the member's comments he did in fact make that very assertion. The member for Kingston and the Islands said the member for Regina—Lewvan lied. My understanding is that is not how we speak in this place.
62 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/21 11:57:57 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, on that point of order, you do not even need to check Hansard. I can confirm that I did indeed accuse the member of lying, based on what I heard the NDP member say and what the member for Regina—Lewvan said. Because it was unparliamentary of me to do so, I apologize.
56 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/21 11:58:11 a.m.
- Watch
There we go. We have an apology in place.
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/21 11:58:21 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I wish to raise this point of order.
The comments made by the member for Regina—Lewvan are a misrepresentation of what my colleague the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke said. We are all hon. members here. We are all hearing and listening carefully to the debate. It is inappropriate and I find it offensive that someone would get up in the House right after another person spoke and misrepresent what they said. I would ask the member to retract those comments.
87 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/21 11:58:51 a.m.
- Watch
The information the hon. member is providing is part of a debate. I want to remind members to be extremely judicious and careful in their comments, to ensure that they are not speaking directly about an individual. I just want to make sure members are very judicious and respectful in their debates and responses in the House.
The hon. member for Regina—Lewvan can finish his question.
68 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/21 11:59:32 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I am sorry to indulge this debate with some common sense.
I was going to say that if it is a relic of the past to say that people should go to prison when they commit the offence of sexual assault, trafficking in persons and kidnapping, I will be proud to represent that common sense for as long as I am allowed to be in this House. Would the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes agree with those comments?
86 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/21 12:00:04 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I expect this is not just a point of order, but perhaps a question of privilege. For a member to stand up and completely distort and say that I had said something that I most certainly did not say in the debate affects my ability to do my job as a member of Parliament. It becomes part of the official record.
What I said was that the Conservatives were arguing about the concept of mandatory minimum sentences. I did not say people should not be subject to penalties under the Criminal Code. I said they should not be subject to mandatory minimum sentences, which have been demonstrated not to work, to be ineffective and to result in the overincarceration of indigenous people and Black Canadians.
The member is completely distorting my remarks for his own political purposes, and I consider that a violation of my privilege as a member of Parliament.
153 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/21 12:00:48 p.m.
- Watch
I appreciate the hon. member's setting the record straight. I want to again remind members to be very judicious in their comments and their words in the debate. This is a very passionate and very sensitive bill that we are discussing at this point. Again, I just reiterate the fact that we need to make sure we are not attacking individuals and we are speaking to what is in the bill and not what is not in the bill.
The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/21 12:01:28 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, with respect to the comments on the elimination of mandatory prison time for people who have committed serious offences, it is contrary to ensuring we have accountability when these crimes are committed. Again, I remind people these are not folks who are accused of committing crimes, these are people who have been convicted of committing criminal offences such as discharging a firearm with intent, weapons trafficking, extortion with a firearm or robbery with a firearm.
Surely we can all agree one should go to jail for those offences, but it does not seem we have an agreement on that in this place. I heard from a previous member that this is an argument of decades past. I do not think so. I want to ensure the folks who live in my community know that anyone who commits those offences will be held fully accountable, and that includes time in prison.
152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/21 12:03:04 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, on the topic of sticking to what this bill is about and what this bill is not about, I have a very simple question for my colleague, with whom I share a floor in our office.
If we can we agree things need to change in order to get better and we can agree this is about helping people get better and helping society heal, can we not agree the system, as it currently stands, is overreliant on incarceration, is overreliant on penalties rather than helping people get better, and that we should be relying more on various methods by which people are reconstituted into society and brought back in so they can develop and redevelop as people, or is it all just about punishment?
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/21 12:04:01 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I think we do agree that Canadians who are suffering from addiction should be getting treatment, and if the crime is simple possession, there are currently directives in place and the discretion can be exercised to divert those individuals from the criminal justice system to help them get help. That is entirely appropriate. We absolutely need to help people who are suffering from the scourge of addiction, and this bill is not about that. It does codify the discretion currently in place, but I would much prefer we have a conversation about helping people who need help instead of relaxing important accountability measures in place for people who commit serious crimes.
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
