SoVote

Dec/13/21 1:31:52 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague touched on judicial independence, a fundamental part of this legislation, which would tell judges and those adjudicating these cases that they are better placed to make decisions based on the nuances of the facts of each individual case. I know the member opposite has a legal background. Could he speak to how fundamentally important it is to allow judges to take this on, as opposed to parliamentarians imposing it?

74 words

Mr. Arif Virani

Dec/13/21 1:32:21 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, it is fundamental. On this side of the House is a government that believes in the quality of our judiciary, as well as its ability to analyze an individual accused before the court and consider factors of social context, including systemic racism and discrimination, something we amended in legislation on judicial training in the last Parliament. That is exactly the kind of characterization that judges need to account for in allowing them to calibrate the penalty for an individual accused, which is fundamentally to avoid recidivism.

88 words

Mr. Glen Motz (Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, CPC)

Dec/13/21 1:32:55 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, before I begin today, I would like to first thank the fine people of Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner for putting their trust in me for the third time. It is an absolute honour and privilege to serve them in this capacity. I thank my core campaign team, including our chair, Ryan Thorburn; volunteer coordinators, office managers, get-out-to-vote leaders, full-time encouragers, and basically the real bosses of the campaign, Sharlyn Wagner and Margo Dick; our IT go-to guy, Dean Grey; my financial wizard and agent, Dave Camphor; planning and printing logistics, Tim Seitz; volunteer care and event planning, Val Seitz; and all things signs, Alex Dumanowski and Gary Proctor. I thank them all so much for their dedication and hard work. They are a testament of what can be accomplished when people get together as a team. I will always be indebted to them. I thank the many volunteers who door knocked, put up signs, helped in the office and volunteered with scrutineering on election day. None of this is possible without them, and I thank them very much. I will turn my attention now to Bill C-5, which is the exact same bill, ironically, that was introduced as Bill C-22 in the last Parliament before the Prime Minister called his snap vanity election. The Liberals would want Canadians to believe that Bill C-5 is simply about reducing minimum sentencing for simple drug possession, but that is not so. Most Canadians would be alarmed to learn that the Liberal bill, Bill C-5, is aimed at eliminating mandatory prison time for criminals who prey on our communities and victimize the vulnerable. Bill C-5 proposes to eliminate mandatory prison time not for petty crimes but for things like drug trafficking and acts of violence. It would even allow violent criminals to serve their sentences on house arrest and not in prison, putting our communities at continued risk. Over the last six years, Liberal legislation on crime and the criminal justice system has been largely out of touch with the realities of most Canadians, especially those impacted by crime. Canada's crime stats confirm that we are seeing rising crime rates all across this country, increased gang violence and shootings, increased organized crime activities, and increased drug trafficking, drug use and drug overdoses. Let me focus for the next few minutes on examining several of the main areas of Bill C-5, those being the elimination of mandatory prison time for firearm offences, the elimination of mandatory prison time for drug dealers, the expansion of conditional sentences and the diversion for simple drug possession. I try to look at this legislation through the lenses of having been in law enforcement for 35 years and of being a parliamentarian representing the constituents of my riding and their voices. Let us first of all look at the elimination of mandatory prison time for firearm offences. In contrast to the Liberal spin on their being so-called tough on gun violence, which is what they have been feeding Canadians, there is the complete hypocrisy of Bill C-5, which proposed to eliminate several mandatory minimum sentences related to gun crimes, including serious gun crimes such as robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearms, using a firearm in the commission of an offence, discharging a firearm with intent, which is Criminal Code language for shooting at someone, illegal possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm, importing or exporting an unauthorized firearm, discharging a firearm recklessly and other firearm offences such weapons trafficking, importing or exporting knowing the firearm is unauthorized, possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition, possession of a weapon obtained by the commission of an offence in Canada and possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking. What does this really all amount to? Because the Liberals believe the current laws are unfair, they would be eliminating mandatory prison time for criminals who commit such crimes as robbery with a firearm, drive-by shootings and unlawful possession of firearms. It is clearer than ever that the Liberals are more interested in protecting criminals than they are protecting our communities. If we think things are bad now, just wait for this legislation to take effect, should it pass in its current form. I am afraid the worst is yet to come. Let us look at the second area of the bill, which is the elimination of mandatory prison time for drug dealers. At a time when we are experiencing the heartbreak of addiction and overdose deaths in our country, the Liberals' solution is to eliminate mandatory prison time for several offences in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which specifically targets drug dealers and offences such as trafficking, or possession for the purpose of trafficking; importing or exporting, or possession for the purpose of importing or exporting; and production of a schedule 1 or schedule 2 substance, which are drugs such as fentanyl, crystal meth, heroin, cocaine, the very drugs that are wreaking havoc on our communities. How does that even make sense? The Liberals are trying to spin it and say that Bill C-5 will help those who struggle with addictions. Come on, Canadians are not that naive or stupid. They know the Liberals are purposely failing to point out that the mandatory minimums they are eliminating are for drug dealers who specifically prey on those with addictions. This is not the solution. It would only make the current problems a lot worse. The next area I want to look at in Bill C-5 is the expansion of conditional sentencing. The bill allows for greater use of conditional sentencing orders, such as house arrest, for a significant number of serious offences for which the offender faces a prison term of less than two years. Those offences now include sexual assault; kidnapping; criminal harassment; human trafficking; abduction of a person under the age of 14; assault causing bodily harm or assault with a weapon; assaulting a peace officer causing bodily harm, or assaulting a peace officer with a weapon; trafficking or importing schedule 3 drugs, which are hallucinogenic like LSD and psilocybin; and many other offences, such as prison breach, motor vehicle theft, theft over $5,000, breaking and entering a place other than a dwelling house, being in a dwelling house unlawfully, arson for a fraudulent purpose, causing bodily harm and criminal negligence. What this all means is that criminals who prey on victims in their communities can now serve their sentence at home, many times in the same neighbourhood as their victim. Again, this clearly puts communities at risk. For years now we have heard whispers that the Liberal government was trying to empty out our prisons, expedite parole and reduce sentences. It now appears that those whispers are coming true. I wonder how conditional sentences will deter criminals who prey on our communities. I also want to touch briefly on another aspect of Bill C-5, which is the diversion measures for simple drug possession. Again, the Liberals are trying to tell us, and are asking Canadians to believe, that the diversion section in Bill C-5 all of a sudden gives police and prosecutors the ability to use their discretion when determining for simple drug possession whether to lay charges, warn, or refer to support programs. It might come as a complete surprise to the Liberals, but that has been the case all along. Police have been doing that. For decades they have been using their discretion whether to lay charges on someone for drug possession. In fact, Canada's Public Prosecution Service has previously issued a directive to prosecutors to avoid prosecuting simple drug possession unless there are major public safety concerns. Yes, I admit, Bill C-5 now does codify this approach, but it is unlikely to have any impact because this is already the practice when dealing with simple drug possession. This legislation is out of touch with rising crime on our streets. It is out of touch with the needs of victims and communities battling gang violence. It is out of touch with law enforcement from across the country, who continue to report rising crime, increased violent crime and more gang shootings. This legislation is out of touch with our country's opioid epidemic. Crime has been increasing every year the Liberals have been in power, reversing a two-decade trend. This is the worst government on keeping Canadians safe in the last 20 years. According to Stats Canada, the crime severity index has risen since 2015 from a 66.9 rating to a 79.5 rating in 2019, a 25% increase in serious crime. The violent crime index has increased from 70.7 in 2014 to 89.7 in 2019, which is also a 25% increase in the last five years. Stats Canada also reports that rural crime and the rates of rural crime are increasing 23% faster than urban crime rates. The Toronto Police Service has some of the best publicly available stats when it comes to the realities in its community. There has been an increase in shootings, gun homicides and injuries in each year of the last six years the Liberals have been in government. In comparison, let us first look at 2014, before the Liberals formed government, as the baseline for the Toronto numbers. In 2014, there were 177 shootings in Toronto alone, which resulted in 103 people killed or injured. Those are unacceptable numbers, but pale in comparison to the years that followed. In 2016, there were 393 shootings in Toronto, with 183 people killed or injured. In 2017, there were 367 shootings, with 180 people killed or injured. In 2018, Toronto again had 393 shootings, with 208 people killed or injured. In 2019, those numbers jumped to 492 shootings, with 284 people killed or injured. In 2020, there were 462 shootings, with 217 lives lost or injured. So far, in 2021, those numbers are continuing, at similarly unacceptable rates, with over 380 shootings and 198 people killed or injured. I am sure Canadians are wondering how this bill will reduce shootings and people dying even by just one. What will removing mandatory minimum sentences on firearms offences such as the ones I have mentioned do for our communities? Safer communities should be the focus of the current government, but sadly they are not. Since 2016, nearly 30,000 Canadians have died from opioid-related addiction and overdose. Why is the first action of the Liberal government to reduce sentences on drug trafficking? How does this help the tens of thousands battling addictions whose habits are being fed by the very drug dealers preying on the vulnerable this bill is meant to protect? Going after these drug dealers should be the priority of this place. Canadians do not feel safe and nothing in this bill will help them be any safer in their homes and communities. In 2020, an Angus Reid survey found that 48% of Canadians felt crime was getting worse. Canadians are rightly tired of being afraid in their own neighbourhoods and homes. The top priority of any government should be the protection of its people. This bill does nothing to address those threats against Canadians; it only protects criminals from being held responsible for their crimes. The bill really shows how far out of step the Liberal government is with the needs and concerns of everyday Canadians. A legal scholar recently suggested that when looking at legislation we should be asking what the problems are that we are trying solve and whether the proposed legislation would solve those problems. It is the kind of question that should be asked in this place every time the Criminal Code or any similar act is used to try and solve policy problems. I can say that after reviewing Bill C-5, I would assert that the legislation may actually contribute to the problems we are facing in this country, rather than trying to solve them. It does nothing to improve public safety. Let us be clear. The problem the government should be trying to solve is gun violence committed by criminals and gangs using illegal firearms, mostly smuggled into this country and used to kill in communities across Canada. It should be trying to solve the addiction and drug problems we have and the overdose deaths plaguing our communities across this country, not catering to those who are contributing to the epidemic. It should hold criminals responsible for their violent crimes and drug dealing and focus on rehabilitation, not a revolving door of justice. However, the Liberal solution to these problems is a lazy, misguided approach that caters to criminals, ignores victims and does not protect Canadians.

2132 words

All Topics

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)

Dec/13/21 1:48:11 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, one of the statistics that my friend did not mention is on the racialized nature of incarceration. For example, 42% of women in federal penitentiaries are indigenous women. As another example, 7% of the male population in prison are Black males whereas they only represent 3% of the population. He also did not mention the term “systemic racism” at all in the context of this debate. I wonder if the member can reflect on it and maybe incorporate that into what we need to ensure that there is fairness within the overall criminal justice system.

99 words

All Topics

Mr. Glen Motz

Dec/13/21 1:49:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, yes, it is fair to say. I was in public safety for a number of years with some of my colleague from across the way, and there are a disturbing number of incarcerated individuals who are racially marginalized. However, one of the things we found through those studies is that certain individuals, by nature of who knows what, and the studies are still ongoing, do not access the programs that are available. They do not access the justice system supports that are available to help them navigate their way through the justice system. That being said, I do not know what in the bill before us would prevent people from being held responsible for their crimes, nor does it abdicate the responsibility of those individuals to be responsible. Furthermore, there are some offences that we are talking about here that are not petty crimes. They are not things that society would consider to be more property offences or things where we can rehabilitate an individual. Generally, we are talking about people who commit crimes against other people, and in that case—

184 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/13/21 1:50:21 p.m.
Watch

I am sorry, but I have to allow for other questions. I am sure the hon. member will be able to continue during the next question. Questions and comments, the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.

36 words

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

Dec/13/21 1:50:29 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, when we hear the Conservatives talk about crime, it always seems that their solution is to lock up all the criminals and throw away the key, as my colleague said earlier. Unfortunately, that is not consistent with the facts. There is a report from a few years ago posted on the government's own website that compiles the very interesting findings of 50 studies involving over 300,000 offenders. Government researchers state the following: None of the analyses found imprisonment to reduce recidivism. The recidivism rate for offenders who were imprisoned as opposed to given a community sanction were similar. In addition, longer prison sentences were not associated with reduced recidivism. In fact, the opposite was found. Longer sentences were associated with a 3% increase in recidivism. An analysis of the studies according to the risk of the offender also did not show a deterrent effect. What does my colleague think about those figures?

158 words

Mr. Glen Motz

Dec/13/21 1:51:43 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, it is fair to say that, certainly on this side of the House, we advocate for a compassionate, fair and rehabilitative approach to criminal justice and incarceration, but that also includes accountability for those who have committed a crime. However, that does not stop people from reoffending, and I appreciate the comment that these numbers do not support people from reoffending, whether they have served a short or long period of time. I think the problem is inside, where the programs are not available for folks to receive the help they need, whether it be addiction counselling or skills training. One of the gaps we have in Correctional Service Canada is the limited ability for individuals to be rehabilitated and learn new skills, and that is the biggest issue we have for those who find themselves incarcerated.

139 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP)

Dec/13/21 1:52:55 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I have been curious throughout today's debate on Bill C-5. Is it the position of the Conservative Party that its members do not have faith in the men and women of this country who serve as judges? The Conservatives do not seem to believe at all in judicial discretion. The problem with the Conservative approach is that they think that by supporting this bill, or supporting the idea that mandatory minimum sentences should be done away with, means that we somehow also believe that people should just walk away scot-free, when nothing could be further from the truth. I would like to draw the attention of the member to section 718.2 of the Criminal Code, which gives judges the ability to either increase or reduce a sentence based on aggravating factors. Would the member not agree that we cannot have a black-and-white approach to every single case? I would rather put my trust in the person who is sitting on the bench who can look at an individual's circumstances and look at the particular severe aspects of the crime and then make the appropriate judgment in each individual case.

198 words

Mr. Glen Motz

Dec/13/21 1:54:03 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I do have faith in our judicial system. I have a number of provincial court judges and Queen's Bench justices as friends whom I respect highly. I have been in courtrooms where I have watched the adjudication process and admired the skill and the fairness approach that our justice system has. However, one of the things we have to remember is that our court systems are busy. Prosecutors are looking at ways to limit the number of court exposures. While that may work in some cases, it does not work in all cases. Many times, the habitual criminals continue to be habitual criminals preying on our communities.

110 words

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC)

Dec/13/21 1:55:02 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his service as a police officer. The government has been clear that it wants to reduce gun crime in Canada, and all Canadians would agree that is the right thing to do. However, I do not understand why reducing the penalty for gun crime would actually reduce gun crime. I wonder if the member could illuminate me.

67 words

All Topics

Mr. Glen Motz

Dec/13/21 1:55:24 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, many things from the government have baffled me in the last five years that I have been here, and its whole approach to solving the public safety issues surrounding gun violence is certainly one of them. Targeting law-abiding Canadians who statistically have been shown to not be the problem with gun crimes in our communities, and targeting them by taking the lazy approach to firearms legislation is certainly an example of that. The Liberals are considering having no mandatory minimum sentences for people who important firearms, who are in possession of firearms, who use a firearm in the commission of an offence and who shoot at people with a firearm. What deterrent is there? It is interesting. I had the privilege of being in the now public safety minister's riding a couple of years ago. We visited a mom whose two daughters who were shot, thankfully not killed, in the crossfire of gang violence. I asked the woman what should be done by us, legislators in this House, to solve this problem. She said clearly that the gangs who shoot up their streets in Toronto are not afraid of the police, are not afraid of the law; that we need to have some teeth in the law that is going to hold those who commit gun crimes to account in our country, and that until we do that, we will continue to see gun crime and the killing of their kids in their communities.

248 words

All Topics

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport, Lib.)

Dec/13/21 1:57:02 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I would like to acknowledge my colleague's 35 years of service in policing and also acknowledge his very clear sense of duty. Sadly, the member used the word “liberal” more than he used the word “racism”, so I would remind him that this bill is not about parties or politics but more so about who mandatory minimum penalties actually harm. Mandatory minimum penalties have not improved public safety one bit. In fact, they have only exacerbated racial disparities in the criminal justice system. Therefore, I would ask him to perhaps reflect in his comments with respect to his inclusion of the term “systemic racism”.

113 words

All Topics

Mr. Glen Motz

Dec/13/21 1:57:45 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, it is fair to say that in my years of service in law enforcement, watching the criminal justice system for years and listening to debate in this House on public safety, we have biased outcomes throughout all aspects in the justice system and the prison system. I would think that it is a fair assessment to say that there is some work to be done.

67 words

All Topics

Hon. David Lametti (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)

Dec/13/21 1:58:47 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, my thanks for the opportunity to begin my speech at second reading debate on C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Today, our government is taking an important step toward making our criminal justice system a more effective and fair justice system where decisions are based on facts. Most importantly, we are delivering on our promise to reintroduce former Bill C-22 within the first 100 days of our government. Indigenous people, Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities are overrepresented, both as victims and as offenders in the criminal justice system. They face systemic racism and discrimination and are the collateral damage of law reforms that have not made us safer or the justice system more just. Bill C-5 is an important part of our government's plan to address this unfortunate reality in our criminal justice system. It is also an important step in reorienting our criminal justice system so that it is both fairer and more effective, while ensuring public safety. This bill accomplishes these important objectives by advancing a series of coordinated sentencing measures and policies in three broad areas, which I will take up afterward.

203 words

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk (Windsor—Tecumseh, Lib.)

Dec/13/21 2:00:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, 40 years ago today, at midnight, the communist dictatorship in Poland declared martial law. Tanks and soldiers filled the streets. Communications were cut to the outside world. Minutes after midnight, armed secret police arrived at our family’s door in Poland and arrested my father. Like thousands of members of Solidarnosc, the first free and independent trade union in the Soviet bloc, he was imprisoned without trial. Families were left wondering for weeks whether the arrested were alive or dead. After the crackdown, Canada opened its doors to over 6,000 Polish immigrants and political refugees like my family, who shared their talents and energy to build communities across Canada, while never forgetting the struggle in their homeland. This evening, on the 40th anniversary of the imposition of martial law, Polish Canadians across Canada will light a candle in their window representing the light of freedom, to show solidarity with those who fought for democracy then and solidarity with those around the world fighting for freedom, democracy and human rights today.

174 words

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

Dec/13/21 2:01:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, 40 years ago Polish communist leaders imposed martial law across Poland to crack down on the growing democratic trade union movement known as Solidarnosc. Military units would occupy cities; labour unionists would be jailed until 1986, and the families of Solidarity members would be persecuted and expelled. My father was a member of Solidarnosc. A shipyard worker at the Lenin Shipyard, he would leave Poland in 1983 during martial law. That is how my family was eventually allowed to come to Canada in 1985. Canadians responded to this Solidarity wave. The Roman Catholic diocese in Vancouver created a Polish emergency fund and a refugee fund. Hundreds of Polish sailors trawling the waters off the west coast would be welcomed by Canadians and allowed to stay. Canadians from coast to coast welcomed Poles in their homes, raised funds for them and marched in the streets in solidarity. On this historic 40th anniversary, let us celebrate the indomitable will of freedom shown by Solidarity members and recognize the dehumanizing cruelty of Soviet communism.

173 words

Ms. Yvonne Jones (Labrador, Lib.)

Dec/13/21 2:02:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the Labradorians who recently received the Labradorians of Distinction Award. The award was created in commemoration of Canada’s 150th celebrations, and it recognizes individuals who have contributed to the social, cultural, environmental and economic development of Labrador society. It has been through their achievements, advocacy and contributions that Labrador continues to proudly chart its own path. This year's winners now join 160 past winners, who have instilled themselves in the fabric of Labrador’s history and its people. Congratulations to Toby Obed, Todd Kent, Claude Rumbolt, Mabel Russell, Craig Porter, Lucy Pike, Mark Nui and my mother, Barbara Rumbolt, on receiving this award this year. Also, congratulations to the posthumous recipients, William Grayson Crowley and Barbara Wood. Their legacy will live on in this award and the amazing impact they have had in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Canada.

150 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

Dec/13/21 2:03:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Christmas is a time of joy for many, but it can be a time of distress, anguish and worry for others. People say the face of poverty has changed. One person who knows a lot about that is Colette Thibault, who has been in charge of an organization called Fin à la faim for over 25 years. This organization plays a crucial role in our community by addressing families' basic food needs, and that is no small task. In Lanaudière, the number of requests for food aid has gone up by 60% in the past year, and let us not forget that food prices are expected to rise by 7% in 2022. When food is available but prices are too high, that puts a major strain on lots of people. It does not take much for people to start going into debt. They can find themselves caught in a downward spiral that is difficult to escape. It is for all these reasons that I want to stress how vital a role Fin à la faim plays in our region. I am grateful to Colette and her team of amazing volunteers, who make sure everyone has access to food because nobody should have to go hungry.

209 words

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde (Orléans, Lib.)

Dec/13/21 2:05:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it was a privilege to invite the people of Orléans to a movie night at Ciné Starz last Friday. As everyone knows, the pandemic has had a profound effect on our ability to host events and meet in person, so I am proud that we were able to get together before the holiday season. It was heartwarming to see generations of families spending rare quality time together, and enjoying a free movie with popcorn and juice for people of all ages. I would like to thank the 350 or so residents of Orléans who came out for the event, as well as the staff at Ciné Starz for hosting us. Special thanks go to my team and to the many volunteers who contributed their time to ensure everyone's safety by checking for proof of vaccination and making sure public health guidelines were followed. In closing, as this will be my last speech in the House before the break, I want to wish everyone in Orléans and all my colleagues a very happy holiday season and all the best in 2022.

191 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 16