SoVote

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Dec/14/21 1:07:38 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, a very long time ago, a man named Thomas More wrote a book called Utopia. In the book, he basically says that a society's customs and habits can end up supporting crime. Here is my question today. In some cases, is our society not supporting crime by failing to invest in social systems, by failing to provide support and supervision for young criminals, who could turn away from crime if they received the necessary support instead of being locked up for long periods of time with far more hardened criminals?

93 words

Mr. Rob Morrison

Dec/14/21 1:08:33 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, yes, absolutely we do need to help our youth. The opioid crisis is a great example. If we were to have a program that could help them and get them on the right track, a rehabilitation program that would get them through this so that they were being helped rather than continuing in the criminal justice system that would be a huge bonus.

65 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Dec/14/21 1:09:04 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for talking about the opioid and overdose crisis. Chief James Ramer from the Toronto Police Department wrote in a letter to Dr. de Villa, Toronto's medical health officer, that the force supports a new approach to decriminalization. He said: We agree that the current approach to managing drug use does not support safe communities or advance the health of people who use drugs. He cited that: Decriminalization of the simple possession of all drugs - combined with the scale-up of prevention, harm reduction, and treatment services - is a more effective way to address the public health and public safety harms associated with substance use. He said that a decriminalization model should include a safe supply of drugs, something health care workers have demanded for years. Does my colleague support the Association of Chiefs of Police, medical health officers across this country and experts in their call to action to end the poison drug supply crisis and save lives?

167 words

All Topics

Mr. Rob Morrison

Dec/14/21 1:10:07 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, having been a former member of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, I am very familiar with where they are going and I agree that right now we are in decriminalization of most drugs because the courts cannot handle that. That is at the discretion of the members and that is where they are working right now. I believe that we need to do a lot of work to support people with addictions and that criminal prosecution is not the answer in many cases, especially for those who are addicted to opioids, for example.

97 words

All Topics

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Dec/14/21 1:10:50 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, this being my first time rising to give a speech of this length, I wanted to pause to give some thanks. First of all, I thank my neighbours across Kitchener Centre for placing their trust in me to be our community's voice in this place, as well as the hundreds of people who joined to knock on doors and make phone calls. In particular, there was a core group: Jackie, Devon, Ros, Joanna, Janet, Zoe, Scott, Wayne, Noah, Greg, Brenden and Jenna. As well, I give a special thanks to Mats for all the work over the last three years leading up this point, and of course to Asha, who managed both campaigns. I would not be here without them. I give a final thanks to my mom, my dad, my brothers Brad and Rob, and my sister Emily. They have been there alongside me every step of the way, including knocking on doors and making calls, all of which has led me to having the privilege to speak in moments like these, in this place, on our community's priorities. This brings me to Bill C-5. I would like to start with what I appreciate about this proposed legislation, which is the stated goal of addressing systemic racism in Canada's criminal justice system. By targeting mandatory minimum penalties, I appreciate that the government is seeking to address the fact that in 2020, despite representing 5% of the Canadian adult population, indigenous adults accounted for 30% of federally incarcerated inmates; that the proportion of indigenous offenders admitted with an offence punishable by a mandatory minimum penalty has almost doubled between 2007-08 and 2016-17, from 14% to 26%; and, finally, that in 2018-19, Black inmates represented 7% of the federal offender population but only 3% of the Canadian population. By removing the mandatory minimum penalties included in this bill, I appreciate the government’s intent to address these injustices. That being said, we need to be honest with ourselves. Mandatory minimum penalties do not deter crime, and all mandatory minimum penalties contribute to systemic racism. However, Bill C-5, as currently proposed, targets less than one in five of all mandatory minimum penalties in full. That is just 13 out of 73, less than one-third in full or in part, or 20 out of 73, and only 10 of the 28 that courts have already found unconstitutional. In this way, it seems reasonable to assess this bill as one of half measures. I have been in this place for only just over three weeks, and I often hear the word “reconciliation” used. On this topic, I would like to read call to action 32 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which states the following: We call upon the federal government to amend the Criminal Code to allow trial judges, upon giving reasons, to depart from mandatory minimum sentences and restrictions on the use of conditional sentences. I note, particularly for the members in this place who purport to support every single one of the calls to action, including, I assume, call to action 32, that this does not say one in five. I would also like to read call to justice 5.14 of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, which states the following: We call upon federal, provincial and territorial governments to thoroughly evaluate the impact of mandatory minimum sentences as it relates to the sentencing and over-incarceration of Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people and to take appropriate action to address their over-incarceration. I have heard the members who are concerned about crime, including the most recent speaker in this House. To be clear: Removing mandatory minimum penalties is really about placing our trust where it should be, which is in the judiciary. In place of mandatory minimum penalties, sentencing judges would still be required to impose a sentence that is proportionate to the degree of responsibility of the offender and the seriousness of the offence, taking into account all aggravating and mitigating factors. This includes the risk to public safety. It also includes the individual and all relevant circumstances of the case in front of them, including acknowledging and redressing the realities of colonialism and systemic racism in the lives of indigenous people, Black Canadians and other racialized groups. A final point I would like to make is that this bill misses a significant opportunity, which is that even with mandatory minimum penalties removed, people across the country would still be going to jail for simple possession of illicit drugs and would continue to die from addiction and from a dangerous supply. We would continue to be applying an outdated understanding of drug use from the 1980s instead of applying the very clear public health advice from experts, including the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which we have in front of us. That advice is to decriminalize illicit drugs, to offer a regulated safe supply, and to treat this like the mental health and addictions crisis that we know it to be. So far this year, in my community alone, we have lost 120 community members to a poisoned drug supply. Since January 2016, across the country, over 25,000 lives have been lost, each one a preventable death. For this reason, I support the calls made by others in this House, encouraging the minister to move this bill to committee before second reading so its scope can be expanded to include decriminalization. In closing, I would like to offer two considerations to the government. The first is to consider expanding the list of mandatory minimum penalties to be repealed by this bill to address the government's stated intent of addressing systemic racism. The second is to consider offering clear evidence that the small fraction of mandatory minimum penalties currently included to be repealed by Bill C-5 would in fact reduce the overrepresentation of Black and indigenous people in federal prisons.

1005 words

All Topics

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

Dec/14/21 1:17:58 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I would like to welcome our new colleague from Kitchener Centre to the House. I congratulate him on his election. With respect to the bill itself and to conditional sentencing orders, what does he think the overall impact of that will be on ensuring that we have off-ramps for those who are just getting involved in the criminal justice system? Could he comment on its potential impact on the overall incarceration of racialized people?

77 words

All Topics

Mr. Mike Morrice

Dec/14/21 1:18:37 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the parliamentary secretary on his re-election. We heard a significant amount from a previous member on CSOs. I would rather focus the commentary, whether it is now or in committee, on expanding the number of mandatory minimum penalties that should be repealed. Doing so would be the effective way. We have seen in the research that it is by repealing the mandatory minimum penalties that we have the best chance of reducing the overrepresentation of Black, indigenous and racialized inmates in incarceration.

87 words

All Topics

Mr. Larry Brock (Brantford—Brant, CPC)

Dec/14/21 1:19:19 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, with respect to the offences of possession of a controlled substance under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, where in section 4 of that act does it speak to any mandatory minimum penalties? You spoke about automatic jail sentences. I would like clarification—

46 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/14/21 1:19:42 p.m.
Watch

I remind members that they are to speak through me, please. I did not say anything. The member may complete his question, but just speak through me and not directly to the member.

33 words

Remarks addressed to the Chair

Mr. Larry Brock

Dec/14/21 1:19:57 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I would like the hon. member to inform me where in section 4 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act it speaks to mandatory minimum penalties.

28 words

All Topics

Mr. Mike Morrice

Dec/14/21 1:20:12 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, again, the point I was making is that for all mandatory minimum penalties, when they are repealed, sentencing judges would still be required to impose a sentence proportionate to the degree of responsibility, and I trust in the judiciary to follow through appropriately.

45 words

All Topics

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Dec/14/21 1:20:39 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, what people know of St. Anne's Residential School is that it was where children were tortured in an electric chair. What they know is that the justice department suppressed thousands of pages of police evidence. We just had a new report by a justice, a total whitewash, in which it says that the adjudicators who rejected claims of survivors who were tortured in the electric chair were right because, at the time, torturing indigenous children in an electric chair was considered a form of entertainment by the priests. If we have that view in 2021, that justice is the right of the government to suppress evidence when it comes to indigenous rights, and that it is okay, how can we expect that anyone in this system who is indigenous will ever get justice in Canada?

138 words

All Topics

Mr. Mike Morrice

Dec/14/21 1:21:31 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, that is why I am so glad to have members like the hon. member for Nunavut in this place, so that the voices of indigenous peoples are increasingly being heard directly in this place. I included citations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the national inquiry, because this place is better served when the voices of indigenous people are heard directly and their calls are answered appropriately, as they should be.

74 words

All Topics

Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC)

Dec/14/21 1:22:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, it truly is a pleasure for me to speak to this bill today. It is unfortunate that we are already seeing the government's soft-on-crime approach come up at the first available opportunity. Bill C-5 is the unfortunate perfect example of this approach. This bill would do nothing to make our communities safer for Canadians. Instead, it would reduce punishments and accountability for drug dealers and for those who commit violent gun crimes. This bill would see the individuals responsible for harming our communities serve their time in our communities alongside victims, rather than in prisons where they truly belong. Bill C-5 would be responsible for eliminating a large number of mandatory minimum sentences for some of our most serious crimes, like robbery with a firearm, weapons trafficking, discharging a firearm with intent and extortion using a firearm. These are just a few of the crimes that would no longer be served with mandatory minimum sentences. If this bill is passed, it clearly would not achieve the result of making Canadian communities safer. The crimes this bill would affect are incredibly serious offences. Canadians would be alarmed to learn that the mandatory minimum jail time for the possession of an unauthorized firearm, possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm, possession of a weapon obtained by commission of an offence, and possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking would all be reduced by this bill. The government must assume Canadians lack common sense if it thinks this bill would stop gun crimes by reducing the mandatory minimum prison sentences for criminals. The Liberals propose that this bill would help those struggling with addiction to find the treatment they so desperately need. Canadians who are struggling with addiction should be able to access treatment. Instead, this bill would eliminate mandatory prison time for the criminals who traffic and import or export these deadly substances under schedule 1 or 2. To be clear, the Liberals are proposing to let drug traffickers and manufacturers off the hook, while at the same time claiming this would help people suffering from addiction. This pandemic has shown us just how serious the opioid crisis is in parts of our country. Now is the time we should be cracking down on those who are poisoning our communities. The Liberal solution is to take away the mandatory prison sentences those fuelling this crisis should face. We have heard a representative of the government state that it would be getting rid of the minimum penalties put in place by those nasty Conservatives. Many of those laws were put in place during the mid-90s, when Pierre Elliott Trudeau was prime minister, by the Liberal government of the day. The Liberals blaming Conservatives for the laws of a previous Liberal government is a little steep. The Liberals try to convince Canadians they are helping addicts and communities, but what they are actually attempting to do is reduce the sentences and eliminate accountability for those who traffic and manufacture the drugs that fuel crime, addiction and death in this crisis that we are seeing in communities across our country. Instead of punishing gangs, they are attempting to crack down on law-abiding firearms owners. We have a very thorough system in place in our country for law-abiding firearms owners. The firearms community, hunters and sport shooters are all in agreement that we need a robust system. Background checks are already in place. They are proven to be very effective. It should be no surprise that we do not understand how this bill would tackle firearms offences by eliminating mandatory prison sentences for the gangs and criminals who do not follow the already robust system. It should not be a surprise that during the last Parliament, the government had its members vote against a Conservative private member's bill that would have seen punishment for those who traffic weapons strengthened. Now we see the government proposing to weaken the punishments. The disconnect could not be more obvious. I have seen what these types of offences can do in my own community of Oxford. Canadians are seriously concerned about the rise of violent and drug-related crimes in their communities. It is extremely concerning to see the government taking a soft-on-crime stance and not one that stands up for victims and their communities. As a former police chief in my community, I have witnessed the struggle that officers have had to continue to go through in keeping our communities safe. Instead of providing officers with the expansion of resources, the Liberal government would like to see fewer protections for our victims and softer punishments for criminals. We are talking about criminals. These are people who have been convicted in our courts, convicted of crimes such as robbery with a firearm, trafficking firearms, and the production of schedule 1 or 2 substances, such as heroin, cocaine or fentanyl. These are the people the government would like to see let out of their sentences earlier. Further, the government would like to see the expansion of the use of conditional sentences. Kidnapping, sexual assault, human trafficking or the abduction of a minor are all crimes the government would like to see criminals serve on house arrest in the communities where these crimes were committed. We keep hearing the government say that it wants to help those struggling with drug addiction. We know the justice system and police in our country already have the ability to utilize discretion in dealing with folks who are struggling with addiction, such as for a simple possession. The government needs to get serious about the expansion of support for people who are struggling with addiction and their mental health. Canadians have elected all of us to the House to take action. Where is the action on the call that was passed in the House for the institution of a national three-digit suicide prevention hotline? This would be an example of concrete action. It is unfortunate that it seems the only reason the government is dragging its feet on this action is because it was one of my Conservative colleagues who proposed it. We heard the Prime Minister state that one of his reasons for calling a $600 million election in the middle of a pandemic was because of a lack of co-operation with the opposition parties in the House. Where is that co-operation from the Prime Minister's government? It took two full months, after what the Prime Minister called our most important election in Canadian history, to get the House back to sitting. Now that we have reconvened, the government takes one of its first opportunities to introduce a bill that is seriously concerning to Canadians. Drug and gun traffickers and manufacturers belong in prisons, not in our communities. This bill is what sport fishermen would call a “catch and release”. It really is not going to help our communities.

1163 words

All Topics

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

Dec/14/21 1:28:58 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, the member touched on the fact that he was a former police chief in his community, and I would like to thank him for his service. I suspect in the lead up to becoming the chief of police, he would have served on the front lines. He has mentioned, of course, some of the diversion elements of the bill that try to treat individuals who have an addiction to drugs and who have simple possession and to pursue other means. When he was on the front lines and dealing with individuals who had addictions, did he see that through a criminality lens or did he see that as people who had health issues and perhaps have different ways to help solve their challenges?

125 words

Mr. Dave MacKenzie

Dec/14/21 1:29:35 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, police officers see it from a variety of lenses. The biggest single lens they see it through is the individuals before them. It may be someone who has committed a criminal act, but needs help and will not go to prison. It is also trying to help the victims to see that justice is being served by having help provided to the individual. The member is absolutely right. There are a variety of resources in our communities, but we need a lot more of those resources. Letting the traffickers and people who manufacture drugs get a one-way ticket to freedom is not right.

106 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Dec/14/21 1:30:26 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Uqaqtittiji, I have been concerned today hearing the Conservatives' view about their labelling criminals, and criminals being criminals. I do not think criminals are born criminals. They become criminals because of the system in which they live. Does the member recognize that criminal records for personal possession of drugs is a significant barrier to employment and housing? Both are necessary for recovery from addictions based on the situations they have been forced to live in many for years, decades and maybe even generations, especially given the communities in which they live. All we have heard today is that most over-incarceration rates are racialized communities. Qujannamiik.

106 words

All Topics

Mr. Dave MacKenzie

Dec/14/21 1:31:16 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, in actual fact, there are so many reasons crime occurs, but getting a record for simple possession is not one. Police officers have not been laying those charges for an awfully long time. It goes back into the sixties perhaps, but I do not think we will find those charges being laid in the last 30 years.

59 words

All Topics

Mr. Dan Muys (Flamborough—Glanbrook, CPC)

Dec/14/21 1:31:46 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, in the province of Ontario, where the hon. member is also from, we had a very unfortunate circumstance a few years ago. An indigenous inmate who was 24 years old was held for four years in solitary confinement in a prison in Thunder Bay, Ontario. My colleague spoke about various mental health conditions, supports and considerations that must be taken into account when we deal with legislation that is put forward. Could the member comment on that from his perspective as a former police chief? Could he also comment about the irony of the fact that we have a Liberal government introducing this legislation when it was the Liberal government under which this unfortunate circumstance in Thunder Bay took place?

122 words

All Topics

Mr. Dave MacKenzie

Dec/14/21 1:32:35 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I am not familiar with that situation, but it sounds horrendous. It should never have occurred. That is a mental health issue, but this bill would not help that situation. It is abominable that someone would serve four years in solitary confinement in any institution.

47 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 17