44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 13, 2021 11:00AM
- Dec/13/21 3:21:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the next petition is with respect to the carbon tax and the GST.
The petitioners are concerned that the government's carbon tax system results in double taxation, a tax on a tax. They want to see the government eliminate the GST on federal carbon tax levies and additional costs, the newly announced standards charged to Canadians.
59 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/21 3:21:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the next petition I am tabling highlights the Uighur genocide, a very important topic again, because the House has recognized that Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims are subject to genocide. The government has not yet taken steps and there are various measures that people are calling on to respond to that genocide.
The petition highlights the genocide, forced abortion, forced organ harvesting, forced insertion of IUDs and other measures targeting Uighur women and the whole Uighur community.
The petitioners call on the government to formally recognize Uighurs in China have been, and are being, subject to genocide and to use the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, or the Magnitsky act, to sanction those responsible for these heinous crimes.
123 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/21 3:21:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the next petition I am tabling highlights concerns about the definition used in the government's conversion therapy legislation.
The petitioners support efforts to ban conversion therapy. They want to see the government fix the definition to provide greater clarity in the law.
45 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/21 3:21:50 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-7
Madam Speaker, the next petition highlights concerns about Bill C-7 from the last Parliament.
The petitioners note this bill raised significant concerns from the disability community about how this would really push people toward death instead of giving them options for life. They called on the House to reject this approach of allowing mental illness to be an adoption for assisted death and to protect Canadians struggling with mental health challenges by facilitating treatment and recovery, not death.
79 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the next petition highlights the human rights situation of the Hazara community in Afghanistan.
The petitioners are very concerned about an ongoing series of human rights abuses the Hazaras have experienced for centuries. Of course, this has become all that much more acute with the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan.
The petitioners want to see the government formally recognize the 1891 to 1893 ethnic cleansing perpetuated against the Hazaras as a genocide and to designate September 25 as Hazara genocide memorial day. They are also supportive of Bill C-287 from the last Parliament, aimed at ensuring all development assistance is contributed to peace and security of all people in all regions.
113 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/21 3:26:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is my honour to table, in both official languages, a petition from the citizens in Guelph, started by Bob Fanning. This petition is looking to enact transition legislation on the climate emergency.
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/21 3:27:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have a petition here from Canadians from British Columbia who point out that the costs of prescription medicines are excessive across the country and that, very widely across the country, those costs continue to rise. Many Canadians cannot afford to fill their prescriptions, so the petitioners ask the government to develop a comprehensive, pan-Canadian, single-payer universal pharmacare plan across Canada.
65 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have one petition to table today, and it is to support volunteer firefighters, who account for 83% of Canada's total firefighting essential first responders. In honour of these incredible volunteer firefighters, the people of Beaver Creek, Cherry Creek and Port Alberni are calling on the Government of Canada to support the private member's bill, Bill C-201, and increase the tax exemption from $3,000 to $10,000 to help our essential volunteer firefighters and volunteer search and rescue people across the country.
Currently, the tax code of Canada allows volunteer firefighters and search and rescue volunteers to claim a $3,000 tax credit if 200 hours of volunteer services were completed in a calendar year, which works out to about $450 a year that we allow these volunteers to keep regardless of their own income and regardless of their regular jobs.
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present my first petition in this Parliament.
The petitioners are very concerned over the practice of forced organ harvesting and people travelling abroad to regimes where people are not adequately protected from the practice of forced organ harvesting. There is currently a bill before the Senate, Bill S-223, and the petitioners are calling on all parties in the House to support legislation to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration Act to ensure that Canadians are not going abroad and procuring organs that have been procured as a result of acts of intimidation or forced organ harvesting.
The petitioners are calling on the government to take action on this.
116 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/21 3:29:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, members from across Canada have signed this petition. It is based on the fact that we still have the gold digger clause, which disallows pensions to survivors of veterans who married after the age of 60. We know the National Council of Veteran Associations, the RCMP Veterans' Association and the Armed Forces Pensioners' Association of Canada have advocated for the elimination of this clause, and we also know that the Prime Minister's 2015 and 2017 mandate letters to his minister of veterans affairs directed the elimination of the “marriage after 60” clause.
I am hoping this will be dealt with.
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/21 3:30:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time, please.
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/21 3:30:41 p.m.
- Watch
Does the hon. member have the House's consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
13 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will pick up where I left off on Bill C-5.
This bill would accomplish important objectives by advancing a series of coordinating sentencing measures and policies in three broad areas. First, it would repeal mandatory minimum penalties for certain offences; second, it would increase the availability of conditional sentences without compromising public safety; and third, it would amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to require police and prosecutors to consider diverting cases of simple drug possession away from courts at the earliest point of contact. I will address each of these important amendments in turn.
With Bill C-5, we are proposing to repeal the mandatory minimum sentences for 14 Criminal Code offences, 13 related to firearms and one related to tobacco. We are also repealing the mandatory minimum sentences for all offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. These offences are associated with the overrepresentation of indigenous people, Black Canadians and members of other marginalized communities in our prison system.
These reforms will also repeal the three- and five-year mandatory minimum penalties for illegal possession of a restricted or prohibited firearm and the one-year mandatory minimum penalty for drug trafficking struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada.
Our reasoning is simple. Sentences must be appropriate to the unique circumstances of the crime. All too often, a rigid approach to sentencing results in a grossly disproportionate outcome, particularly when the offence is broad in scope. It has been shown that mandatory minimums have not only failed to protect our communities, but also contributed to the overrepresentation of indigenous people, Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities in our prison system. That is especially true for drug- and firearm-related offences.
I want to pause here for a moment and let the numbers speak for themselves. Data from the Correctional Service of Canada from 2007-2017 reveals that 39% of Black people and 20% of indigenous people incarcerated in a federal institution between those years were there for offences carrying a mandatory minimum penalty. Further, during the same years, the proportion of indigenous offenders admitted to federal custody for an offence punishable by a mandatory minimum penalty almost doubled, from 14% to 26%. During this time frame, indigenous people also represented 40% of all federally incarcerated offenders admitted for a firearm-related offence.
Regrettably, the data does not get better when we look at the experience of Black Canadians and their interaction with the criminal justice system. From 2007-2017, nearly half, more specifically 43% of all federally incarcerated offenders convicted of importing or exporting a controlled substance or possessing controlled substances for exporting under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act were Black adults.
These statistics are a sad testament to policies that focus on incarceration and the increased use of mandatory minimum sentences. Some would have us believe that mandatory minimums are the only way to fight crime. That is simply not true.
Mandatory minimum sentences have been around for decades because the previous Conservative government brought in a whole host of new ones without taking into account what kind of impact they were actually having. We know that a more nuanced approach is needed, and that is exactly what our government is doing.
The data show who is in prison and why. If the mandatory minimum sentences are repealed, as provided for in Bill C-5, people can still be given tough sentences. However, the courts will be able to take into account the unique circumstances of each offence and determine the most appropriate sentence, rather than being limited by the mandatory minimums.
I know that many people are concerned about the rise in gun violence we are seeing now. As a Montrealer, I want to say that I understand them, but I also want to be very clear: When it comes to firearms, serious crimes will continue to receive serious penalties.
The repeal of mandatory minimum sentences for some does not mean that public safety will be compromised. Bill C-5 gives the courts the flexibility to consider alternatives for low-risk offenders. By repealing mandatory minimum sentences, we are reducing these individuals' risk of reoffending and building a safer society.
For example, let us look at the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Nur, which struck down mandatory minimum sentences but upheld a sentence above the prescribed minimum.
That is why the repeal of mandatory minimums in the bill is expected to reduce the overall incarceration rate for indigenous and Black Canadians.
Repealing mandatory minimum sentences ensures that an individual convicted of an offence receives a sentence that is proportionate to their degree of responsibility and the seriousness of the offence, taking individual factors into account. These factors could include an indigenous offender's experience with intergenerational trauma or residential schools, or a Black offender's experience with systemic racism.
To this end, the government recognizes that restoring a sentencing court's ability to consider important sentencing principles is only one part of the equation. The other part is getting this important information before the sentencing court, so that it can account for all relative sentencing factors in imposing a fit sentence.
That is where program funding comes in. The government is providing $49.3 million over five years to support the application of Gladue principles and the integration of Gladue reporting writing in the justice system. This is critical to help address systemic barriers for indigenous peoples in the criminal justice system by ensuring that the background and systemic factors that bring them into contact with the justice system are taken into account at sentencing. It is also critical to help inform reasonable alternatives to sentencing for indigenous accused.
What is more, the government is making investments of $6.6 million per year over five years and $1.6 million in ongoing funding in support of the implementation of impact of race and cultural assessments, or IRCAs, which will ensure that a sentencing court can consider the disadvantage and systemic factors that contribute to racialized Canadians' interactions with the criminal justice system.
The government is also investing $21.5 million over five years to support access to legal information and advice for racialized Canadians. This would support organizations that provide free public legal education and information, as well as those that provide legal services and advice to racialized communities.
I want to be very clear about who we are targeting and not targeting with this bill. This bill is about low-risk offenders.
Bill C‑5 does not repeal mandatory minimum sentences for the most serious firearms offences, which of course include offences that result in people being injured, offences committed with a restricted or prohibited weapon and offences involving gangs or organized crime.
We are determined to crack down on the major crimes that make our cities and communities less safe. Let me reiterate: Serious crimes will continue to have serious consequences.
In its platform, our government committed to continuing to combat gender-based violence and fight gun crime with measures we had previously introduced, such as lifetime background checks to prevent those with a history of abuse against their spouse or partner from obtaining a firearms licence; red flag laws that would allow immediate removal of firearms if a person is a threat to themselves or others, particularly to their spouse or partner; increased maximum penalties for firearms trafficking and smuggling from 10 to 14 years of imprisonment; and enhancing the capacity of the RCMP and the CBSA to combat the illegal importation of firearms.
Bill C-5 would make our justice system more fair and more just for young, first-time or non-violent offenders by giving judges back the ability to impose a sentence that fits the crime and the offender. However, nothing in this bill would prevent a judge from imposing a serious sentence where it is warranted.
I would like to turn to the proposed changes in Bill C‑5 regarding the elimination of restrictions on conditional sentences. Bill C‑5 would allow for greater use of conditional sentences so that courts can impose community-based sentences of less than two years when the offender does not pose a threat to public safety. Here too the evidence is clear. Incarceration, especially for low-risk offenders, is associated with higher rates of recidivism. That is not my opinion; that is a fact.
It has also been proven that alternatives to incarceration, such as sentences served in the community, can have a significant positive impact and improve the likelihood of successful reintegration into the community, which also helps reduce the risk of recidivism. Once again, that is a fact, not an opinion.
It has also been proven that recidivism rates among offenders who receive conditional sentences are relatively low. This is according to a large body of research showing that tackling the root causes of delinquency can produce long-term benefits for the individual, improve the efficiency of the justice system and protect society as a whole. It is not hard to see why. Community-based sentencing is an option that eliminates the negative effects of incarceration, thereby promoting offender rehabilitation.
Restrictions enacted by the previous Conservative government in 2007 in former Bill C-9, an act to amend the Criminal Code, and in 2012 by former Bill C-10, the safe streets and communities act, made it much harder for a sentencing court to impose these sentences. These reforms made conditional sentences unavailable for all offences punishable by maximum terms of imprisonment of 14 years or more, as well as for some offences prosecuted by indictment and punishable by a maximum of 10 years imprisonment. These laws tied the courts' hands. These amendments to the conditional sentencing regime, coupled with the increased use of mandatory minimum penalties, have produced negative impacts on the criminal justice system as a whole.
This bill would increase the availability of conditional sentence orders when offenders do not pose a risk to public safety and are facing terms of imprisonment that are under two years or less, and where imposing such a sentence would be consistent with the purpose and principles of sentencing. CSOs would be available for all offences that do not carry a minimum mandatory penalty, including those repealed by this bill, with certain exceptions. Conditional sentences of imprisonment would not be available for the serious offences of advocating genocide, torture, attempted murder and any terrorism or criminal organization offences that are prosecuted by way of indictment and for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years or more.
I will turn to the other important amendments being advanced in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act shortly. Before I do, let me speak to the positive impacts that can be expected by repealing MMPs and making conditional sentences of imprisonment more widely available.
First of all, as I have already mentioned, we can expect an overall reduction in incarceration rates, particularly as they relate to the overrepresentation of indigenous people, Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities in federal correctional institutions.
Reducing the number of mandatory minimum sentences should also help our courts. In cases involving mandatory minimum sentences, the evidence demonstrates that trials take longer to complete, accused persons are less likely to plead guilty and there is a stark increase in successful charter challenges before Canadian courts.
This all causes delays in the criminal justice system, and we have to deal with them. The bill would improve that situation.
This brings me to the last set of important reforms proposed in Bill C-5. For the first time, we would enact a declaration of principles in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. It is intended to guide police and prosecutors in the exercise of their discretion to divert simple possession of drugs away from the criminal justice system at an early stage.
At the outset, I would like to thank the member for Beaches—East York for his private member's bill in the last Parliament and his leadership in this area. We agree that these changes to treat addiction as a health issue would improve the state of criminal justice in Canada and may well help save lives during the opioid crisis. These principles are consistent with and informed by the large body of research indicating that criminal sanctions imposed for simple possession of drugs can increase the stigma associated with drug use and are not consistent with established public health evidence.
These reforms reinforce the government's ongoing commitment to addressing the opioid crisis and recognize that substance use is a health issue, not a crime. Accordingly, it requires evidence-based interventions to address its causes rather than its effects, with measures such as education, treatment, detox, rehabilitation and social reintegration.
Police forces and Crown prosecutors will be required to consider alternatives to laying or pursuing criminal charges for individuals who are found in simple possession of controlled substances. Possible actions will include doing nothing, issuing a warning, or referring individuals to alternative measures, including treatment programs.
The reforms in this bill align with the August 2020 guideline of the director of public prosecutions. It tells prosecutors to pursue diversion for simple drug possession cases and instead focus on prosecutions for the most serious drug cases that raise public safety concerns. The proposed amendments also align with the advice given by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. They also reflect calls to action made by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, calls for justice from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls and recent calls by the Parliamentary Black Caucus to address anti-Black racism and systemic bias and to make the criminal justice system more reflective of our diverse society.
Taken together, this package of reforms is an important reset of our approach to criminal justice. It would allow actors in the system, including police, the Crown and courts, to determine the right course of action for each individual before them. That could mean diversion to a treatment program for an offender who committed a crime in order to feed an addiction, or it could mean a long jail sentence for the drug trafficker who is profiting from selling those drugs to our most vulnerable citizens.
It is high time that Canada adopted an approach that works. Our justice system must be fair and equitable for indigenous people, Black Canadians and marginalized people, and it must be effective in punishing serious criminal offences and protecting our communities.
We have enough evidence now to know that reflexive and punitive justice policies do not work. They do not make our communities safer, they hurt people and the people they hurt most are indigenous, Black and marginalized Canadians.
Our government is set to turn the page on the failed policies of the past. Bill C-5 is an important step in that direction, and I urge all hon. members of the House to support its swift passage.
2515 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/21 3:49:17 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the minister's speech, and there are a couple of things I would like to point out that are mischaracterizations of the bill. One is that it somehow deals with minor offences, and the other is that somehow these penalties are from an era when the Conservatives were in government, the Harper era the minister referred to.
With regard to robbery with a firearm and extortion with a firearm, those mandatory minimums came in under a Liberal government. Minimums for weapons trafficking, again, came in under a Liberal government. Using a firearm in the commission of an offence came into force in 1976 under the government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
What do those offences have in common? One, they were brought in under Liberal governments. Two, they are not minor offences; they are serious offences. When we talk about hurting people, I am concerned about protecting the communities that are being hit day in and day out with firearms offences. Putting people back out on the streets is not protecting those communities.
Will the minister comment on the fact that these mandatory minimums, one, deal with serious offences and, two, came in under previous Liberal governments?
202 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/21 3:50:28 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. critic for his work on the issue.
To answer the second question first, yes, there has been an accretion of minimum mandatory penalties over the years, and some of them came under previous Liberal governments. However, the real harm or hallmark of mandatory minimums as a central piece of criminal justice policy came in 2007 and 2012 under the Harper government.
Serious crimes will always be punished seriously. We are not talking about maximum penalties. Those are still going to be in place, and if someone does commit one of those offences and is proven to commit one of those offences, judges, given the circumstances, will sentence seriously.
I would also point out that for a number of the offences cited by the hon. member, such as action with a firearm, extortion, robbery, etc., the only weapons we are targeting in those pieces are long guns. If it is a prohibited or restricted weapon, like an assault weapon or a handgun, the mandatory minimum will stay in place.
174 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/21 3:51:46 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very interesting, very relevant, very focused speech. Clearly he knows his file and I congratulate him.
We know that the entire Bloc Québécois caucus will vote in favour of Bill C‑5. If ever there were a free vote across the way, I am not even sure that all of the Liberals would vote in favour, but that is another story. I get the impression that our Conservative friends will vote against the bill.
I would like to play devil's advocate and take the point of view of those in favour of mandatory minimum sentences because they help standardize sentencing for similar crimes and therefore minimize disparities in sentencing based on gender, race and ethnic origin. What does my colleague think of that?
138 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/21 3:52:44 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, the numbers show exactly the opposite. Ever since minimum sentences were adopted in several areas, racialized, indigenous and Black Canadians have been overrepresented in the criminal justice system. We have to maintain some flexibility to allow judges to take into account individual circumstances precisely to address systemic racism and discrimination. It is very important.
56 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there is very little I can disagree with in the minister's speech, but when this bill was introduced in the previous Parliament as Bill C-22, we raised concerns. Given the scale of the opioid crisis and the scale of the over-incarceration of Black and indigenous Canadians, is there really enough in this bill or are we missing an opportunity?
The way this bill is drafted, which is very narrow, means that some topics we would like to discuss are outside its scope, such as expungement and recommendation 32 from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission on restoring discretion to judges completely, not just for a limited number of offences, when it comes to mandatory minimums and conditional sentences.
My question for the minister is very specific. Will he consider referring this bill to committee before a vote at second reading so the committee will have the chance to add some of these things, which are beyond the scope of the bill as it is currently written?
170 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/21 3:54:38 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the work he does on these issues, and I appreciate the sentiment behind the question.
I am never averse to any good-faith suggestion, whether procedural or substantive, to make a bill work better. In this case, he has raised a number of issues that are outside of my ministry, such as expungement, which falls under the Minister of Public Safety, and further measures that might be taken with respect to the opioid crisis, which would fall under the Minister of Health or the new Minister of Mental Health and Addictions.
I will take that question under advisement and get back to him. It is a discussion I will leave to the House leaders as well.
123 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/21 3:55:24 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, this afternoon and even this morning, I heard several members of Parliament make reference to the fact that our criminal justice system disadvantages people who are indigenous, people of colour and people who are racially marginalized. I have read parts of the Criminal Code, although certainly not all of it, and I do not see where inside it there is any disadvantage to being indigenous, a person of colour or racially marginalized. However, I do recognize that the statistics seem to indicate that.
Can the minister tell the House how he comes to that conclusion and where the data is, other than the population?
106 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
