SoVote

Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.)

Dec/14/21 3:07:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his leadership. As members in the House know, it has been my absolute priority to grow the biomanufacturing sector in this country to ensure the health and safety of Canadians for generations to come. Our agreement with Merck means that we will be manufacturing therapies against COVID-19 right here in Canada, in Whitby, Ontario. This project will help grow our biomanufacturing sector and will help make Canada's expertise recognized around the world. We will continue to invest in biomanufacturing. We will continue to attract investment in this country for our workers and our health and safety.

108 words

Mr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP)

Dec/14/21 3:08:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, within the most recent supplementary estimates, the Liberal government has allocated no money to the regional economic development agency that supports small businesses, arts, tourism and community organizations in Alberta and the Prairies. This is outrageous at a time when the omicron variant is surging and Alberta's economy is suffering. The Prime Minister said he would have Canadians' backs, but clearly that is not the case. Will the Liberals immediately reverse this unfair decision and make sure all Canadians are supported through another long winter of COVID?

90 words

All Topics

Hon. Randy Boissonnault (Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance, Lib.)

Dec/14/21 3:08:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the regional development agencies have supported Canadians from coast to coast to coast from the beginning of the pandemic through the regional relief funds and now through the tourism relief fund. There was $15 billion for the tourism sector alone. The funding will continue. The supports will continue. We have had Canadians' backs and we will continue to do so.

62 words

All Topics

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

Dec/14/21 3:09:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, a new report from the Canada Energy Regulator says that oil production in 2050 will be pretty much what it is today. It is no wonder Canada is at the bottom of the G7 when it comes to climate action. We also have the Prime Minister's promise to plant two billion trees. That was a failure because what has he actually planted? It is only 0.5%. The only net zero that the government has actually delivered on is the Prime Minister's environmental credibility. Earth to the environment minister. The planet is on fire. When is he going to start showing up to help Canadians?

109 words

Hon. Steven Guilbeault (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.)

Dec/14/21 3:09:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, if my hon. colleague knew anything about tree planting, he would know that we need to grow the seedlings for between two and three years. I have planted trees— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

37 words

The Speaker

Dec/14/21 3:09:53 p.m.
Watch

The hon. Minister of Environment, go ahead, from the top.

10 words

Hon. Steven Guilbeault

Dec/14/21 3:10:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, anyone who has planted trees would know that it takes between two to three years to grow them so they can be safely planted. I have planted trees. I have even been known to hug trees from time to time. Our government is engaged in fighting climate change. We have invested $100 billion in the last six years, with more than 100 measures, and we will keep going.

74 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

Dec/14/21 3:11:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was very concerned with the comments that were being made during extreme heckling from my Conservative colleagues. Could the environment minister tell us how long it takes to actually make a tree?

42 words

The Speaker

Dec/14/21 3:11:49 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member, but that is not a point of order. The member will have to ask that question at the next question period.

26 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Dec/14/21 3:12:27 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government understands that judges play a very important role in providing additional discretion when looking at the circumstances while sentencing. Why does the Conservative Party not have faith in our judges in Canada?

37 words

Mr. Larry Brock (Brantford—Brant, CPC)

Dec/14/21 3:13:21 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had actually listened to my speech, he would know that at no point in time did I indicate that we, as the Conservative caucus, have no faith in judicial discretion in levelling appropriate sentences. As a Crown attorney for the last 18 years, I was in front of judges every single day. My point was that sufficient tools already exist within the Criminal Code for judges to exercise that discretion. They certainly do not need any further assistance from the Liberal government.

88 words

Mr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC)

Dec/14/21 3:13:54 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I certainly listened intently to the member's speech. His experience as a Crown prosecutor in Ontario excellently lends itself to the debate. There are changes in the bill to conditional sentencing. Obviously, if any mother were to see that someone who is charged with kidnapping could be given a conditional sentence, as in house arrest, they would find it egregious and wrong. Are there other offences that the member believes should not be subject to a conditional arrest?

81 words

Mr. Larry Brock

Dec/14/21 3:14:33 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question. In my respectful opinion, everything in Bill C-5 concerned with removing those offences, which are currently delineated under section 742, the conditional sentence regime, all relate to serious violent offences. To the member's point, kidnapping, sexual assault, criminal harassment and abduction are all serious personal injury offences. In my speech, I was trying to indicate that there are absolutely zero references to amending section 742 to highlight that those offences the bill is delineating can still be substantiated by way of a conditional sentence. A condition precedent to section 742 is that justice must be satisfied that an offender serving that sentence in the community does not pose a risk. Those offenders convicted of a sexual assault, criminal harassment or kidnapping most definitely pose a community risk. Moreover, section 752 of the Criminal Code talks about excluding any offences where there is a serious personal injury offence. Kidnapping certainly qualifies for this, as do sexual assault, criminal harassment and abduction.

170 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Dec/14/21 3:16:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, we heard a lot of people talk about what is missing in this bill and the shortfalls in this bill, especially when it comes to dealing with the health crisis of the overdose and opioid crisis. We have heard many people calling for decriminalization. As a judge, does the member agree with the police chiefs association, medical health officers, social workers, those in science and those leading experts in dealing with the overdose crisis that we need to decriminalize personal possession and ensure that everybody has a safe supply. I would love to hear his perspective as a former judge, given that this is becoming a well-rounded support from right across the country, including the requests from Toronto, British Columbia and Vancouver for an exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

135 words

All Topics

Mr. Larry Brock

Dec/14/21 3:17:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague personally for the elevation of my past career. I was not a judge of the Ontario provincial court or Superior Court. Rather, I was a Crown attorney. To address the important issue the member raised, there already exists a regime that vests federal prosecutors, as it does with provincial prosecutors, in exercising their discretion appropriately to deal with individuals struggling with substance abuse, and to be very creative in how they wish to prosecute or what sort of representations they make to a justice to deal with the rehabilitation issue.

99 words

All Topics

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Dec/14/21 3:18:04 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, it is a huge privilege and honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-5. I also want to take the opportunity to thank the people of Courtenay—Alberni for re-electing me for the third time. I am deeply honoured. I also want to extend my thanks not just to my supporters but to my family as well, especially my three children, who have been there supporting me on this incredible journey to fight for our country and for their future. When it comes to Bill C-5, we are hearing a lot from the Liberals that this is a silver-bullet approach to addressing racial injustice and the overdose crisis by eliminating mandatory minimum sentences for drug offences and a few other firearms and tobacco offences. This is naive, and it is misplaced. As New Democrats, we support removing mandatory minimum penalties for all but the most serious offences. This means that we support the removal of mandatory minimums for all drug offences, expanding access to alternative incentives for personal possession and diversion programs. Decriminalization of personal possession remains the preferred option for minor offences, as it would remove police, prosecutors and courts as barriers to addiction treatment. When it comes to the crisis we are dealing with, we need to ensure that we are taking action quickly. The idea of making conditional sentencing more widely available for court sentences for minor drug cases is just not enough to address the runaway public health emergency, this opioid crisis, that is taking place, which is in parallel to the COVID crisis. A simpler and less costly approach is the full decriminalization of possession of drugs for personal use and the expungement of previous criminal records for personal possession, combined with access for drug users to get a regular safe supply, treatment and supportive housing. We are talking about a comprehensive strategy to address the overdose emergency and save lives. This needs to happen urgently. We could be debating a more comprehensive strategy, but instead the government has put very little effort in the bill before us, choosing instead to reintroduce almost exactly the same bill from the 43rd Parliament, which could have been passed. Instead, they held an unnecessary and costly election. The Liberals have failed. Canadians who use drugs must be free from the threat of criminalization and the fear of losing their liberty and access to substances on which they depend. Criminal records for personal possession must be expunged to remove an often insurmountable barrier to employment and housing. We must assure the right of users to a safe supply of low-barrier, regulated drugs as an alternative to the poisoned substances, which are resulting in an epidemic of overdose deaths. Access to treatment therapies that address the root causes of drug use must be available as a component of public health in our system, and supportive housing, complete with the wraparound services essential for maintaining healthy lifestyle balance, must be made available. New Democrats are not alone in calling for a comprehensive approach to addressing the overdose crisis and the implementation of these measures. We are in good company. First and foremost, Canadians across the country support the overall decriminalization of possession for personal use. With every passing month, the calls for decriminalization become louder, as Canadians are confronted with the evidence of the overdose public health emergency in their communities. Every one of us in the House dreads the call from a constituent who has lost a son, daughter, parent or friend to an overdose from a poisoned drug supply. I have received this call far too often over my six years in the House, and it is not an exaggeration to say that the majority of my constituents know a family affected by the tragedy of overdose. I hear from them about drug users hiding in the shadows in fear of apprehension and criminal prosecution. In fact, my daughter was just at the funeral a week and a half ago of her friend, an 18-year-old young woman who died from a poisoned drug supply. Sadly, this situation is not uncommon to hear about in the House. In addition to hearing from everyday Canadians, we have heard from public health experts from across the country. Dr. Bonnie Henry, the B.C. provincial health officer in my province, continues to call for decriminalization. Most recently, Dr. de Villa, the medical officer of health for the City of Toronto, as well as the former medical officer of health for Yukon, who now sits in the House, and their colleagues from one municipality and provincial jurisdiction to another, from coast to coast to coast, are pleading for simple possession to be decriminalized. It is not a matter for the criminal justice system. It is a health issue. We keep hearing the government say it is a health issue, but it is still treating it as a criminal issue. In this bill, the government is continuing to do that. These are the same public health experts that I just mentioned, who guided our response in the COVID-19 pandemic. We listened to them and heeded their professional advice often, and now we are ignoring them when it comes to the opioid crisis. They are saying the same thing, that we need evidence-based science to lead us out of this terrible crisis, and they are being ignored by the government. They are calling for decriminalization of possession of illicit drugs. This bill could have done that. Standing with the public health community are Canada's police chiefs, who also called for decriminalization. They know first-hand the failure of the criminalization of drug use. They know first-hand the deadly consequences of exposure to an increasingly toxic supply of street drugs across this country. Increasingly, we are hearing the same message from local and national media across the country. It is like Groundhog Day. Every day we read another editorial by journalists who are hearing from their readers and seeing the evidence of a public health emergency that requires the decriminalization of personal possession, the expungement of criminal records, access to a safe supply of low-barrier regulated drugs, therapeutic support through treatment programs, and supportive housing for those in need. We are in good company in calling for these measures. Public health experts, law enforcement officials, the media and everyday Canadians across the country, persuaded by overwhelming evidence, have determined that exposure to death by overdose must stop now. The evidence that is underpinning this call for a comprehensive approach is an 87% increase in opioid overdose deaths in Manitoba last year over the previous year. In British Columbia, as we just heard, there were over 200 deaths in one month. That is the most on record. The COVID-19 pandemic has made it worse, forcing the closure of harm reduction locations and driving users further underground. Currently it is estimated that eight people are dying every day in Ontario, over six in B.C., and 20 across our country. In fact, the overdoses have increased in all regions of this country. We are seeing how it is disproportionately impacting Black, indigenous and racialized Canadians. In October, B.C. chief coroner Lisa Lapointe noted that illicit drug toxicity killed 201 people, the same number as an entire year of deaths 10 years ago. She is calling for a regulated safer supply and decriminalized possession of small amounts for personal use. Just last week, she said that a comprehensive plan to ensure access to safe supply is essential. Shifting from a punishment and stigmatizing regime to a decriminalized, health-focused model is a critical step in reducing suffering and saving lives. Again, we keep hearing from the Liberals that they are treating this as a health issue. We have heard the overwhelming advice from police chiefs and health officials that we need to take the first steps, which are decriminalization of personal possession and providing a safe supply. Why has the Liberal government chosen not to listen to its own health professionals? To end the stigma, the government needs to act, but the stigma starts with the Prime Minister. He has not taken action. He is ignoring his own health experts. He is ignoring parents. He is ignoring the moms and the dads, the parents who have lost loved ones. I am going to go straight to Gary Mason, who wrote this in The Globe and Mail: I feel a sense of hopelessness. Giving out free drugs such as heroin to “addicts” just seems to be too big a leap for governments and society generally. Allowing people to die from their addictions is easier to accept. Which is just crazy when you think about it. Imagine seeing more than 8,500 people die from a drug overdose in just over five years as easier to accept than making a courageous effort to do something that could really make a difference. At this point, what is there to lose? I guess the answer is votes. It is true that politicians are in the way of saving lives right now, and people are dying as a result of the inaction.

1537 words

All Topics

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

Dec/14/21 3:28:06 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member opposite about the conditional sentencing orders that are being introduced here in Bill C-5, to see how that will impact his community and ensure that there is more fairness in the criminal justice system.

43 words

Mr. Gord Johns

Dec/14/21 3:28:33 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I had a hard time hearing the question, but I will say that this bill does not even come close to going far enough. Right now they are talking about leaving it in the hands of judges and police. This is not going to prevent people from coming out of the shadows and from using small amounts of drugs. We heard the evidence. The government's own expert panel on substance use from its own department suggested decriminalization and safe supply as first steps. Why is it ignoring its own expert panel? Why is it taking so long? Every day it does not take action, lives are lost in this country, over 20 a day. Why? Why is it taking so long?

124 words

Mr. Marc Dalton (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, CPC)

Dec/14/21 3:29:23 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, as a member of Parliament from British Columbia, I will also just recognize the impact that the opioid crisis is having. We are seeing a record number of people dying. I presented a motion in the last Parliament regarding steps we could take, including recovery programs, investments and so on. Some of the debate here seems to be a little off as far as debating Bill C-5. I am thinking about mandatory minimums. I think of a girl called Heather Thomas, who died. She was suffocated and killed when she was 10 years old, and her body was thrown into a lake not far from where I live. The criminal was also stalking someone I love. I wonder about mandatory minimums for people who do these sex crimes against young people. Can the member comment?

138 words

All Topics

Mr. Gord Johns

Dec/14/21 3:30:21 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, we have made it absolutely clear that we are not talking about supporting or removing mandatory minimum penalties for the most serious offences. Judicial discretion gives judges the ability to ensure that those who have committed heinous crimes pay the price. The member is very wrong to say that I am delineating away from the bill. The bill is talking about still criminalizing people for personal possession of drugs. I wonder why the Conservatives are going to sit on the sidelines. They have not brought any comprehensive ideas forward that will save lives right now. They are part of the problem. They are failing to take the bold and courageous action that is necessary, to listen to the science and to listen to the experts across this country, including the police chiefs and medical health officers. They are failing. We need to do more. We need to work collaboratively together. We need to let science, our health officials and our police chiefs guide us through this terrible tragedy that is taking place in our country.

177 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 17