44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 15, 2021 02:00PM
Madam Speaker, I look forward to seeing Bill S-223, and would ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time.
23 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/15/21 3:41:46 p.m.
- Watch
Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/15/21 3:42:06 p.m.
- Watch
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
The hon. chief opposition whip.
42 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/15/21 3:42:06 p.m.
- Watch
moved that a ways and means motion to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update tabled in Parliament on December 14, 2021, and other measures be concurred in.
30 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/15/21 3:42:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would request a recorded division.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/15/21 3:42:45 p.m.
- Watch
4 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/15/21 4:27:26 p.m.
- Watch
I declare the motion carried.
5 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/15/21 4:27:58 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
moved that Bill C-8, An Act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update tabled in Parliament on December 14, 2021 and other measures, be read the first time and printed.
34 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/15/21 4:28:41 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to take a moment to recognize the passing of bell hooks today. She was a trail-blazing Black feminist author who brought the intersectionality of race, gender and class into the public consciousness, and really helped shape the conversations that we continue to have today. My condolences go out to her family and to countless people across the world, especially the Black women she touched through her writing. May she rest in power.
The conversation on Bill C-5 is one that I have been having a lot throughout my life, since my university days when I was studying criminology and throughout law school when I was studying the justice system. In the past six years, as a member and the chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the question and purpose behind what our justice system is meant to do and what our prison system is meant to do really help guide guide the moral framework of communities and societies.
Access to fair justice is a vital pillar of our due process. While we have made progress over the past six years, the fact remains that our justice system is not yet properly equipped to provide access to everyone. We see that in Black and indigenous communities and among people who struggle today to find a job, make a living and build a better life for themselves. It is because of their interaction with the justice system.
There are Canadians suffering from addiction and dying from overdoses or withdrawal because the law states that drug possession means jail time. This is not fair justice. Studies show us that mandatory minimums for lesser offences like this do not solve anything and often do more harm than good. They force first-time offenders into a cycle that prevents them from building a better life for themselves.
When people talk about the supposed success of these programs, they are bringing individual lives down to a statistic of those who are being imprisoned. They are too busy trying to appear tough on crime to stop and ask whether these policies are actually accomplishing anything productive and accomplishing what our justice system is meant to accomplish. The supposed success of the mandatory minimums they point to is the over-incarceration of people in Black and indigenous communities. As far as I am concerned, that makes them a failure.
It is time for a better approach. That is why I am pleased to participate—
421 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/15/21 4:31:48 p.m.
- Watch
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. I would ask members to have conversations outside the chamber, please.
The hon. member has the floor.
25 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/15/21 4:32:11 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I am really pleased to participate today in the continuing debate on Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
A great deal of time has already been spent describing the objectives of the bill, its proposed reforms and the expected impacts of it. I support these changes and really believe they will make a significant, positive contribution to our criminal justice system and contribute to efforts to address the disproportionate impacts that existing criminal laws have had on certain communities in Canada.
We know certain communities in Canada and in other countries are involved in the justice system at higher rates than others. In Canada, the over-incarceration of indigenous persons and Black Canadians is very well documented. Many of these reasons are systemic, including our laws on sentencing. It is clear the issue of over-incarceration must be addressed by revisiting our existing sentencing laws. That is exactly what Bill C-5 proposes to do.
Canada is not alone in recognizing the increased and indiscriminate use of mandatory minimum penalties, or MMPs, has proven to be a costly and ineffective approach to reducing crime. Indeed, many jurisdictions around the world are moving away from this approach to the criminal justice system. While MMPs can be a forceful expression of government policy in the area of criminal law, we know they do not deter crime and can result in unjust and inequitable outcomes, which contradicts the purpose of our justice system. The Supreme Court of Canada has very been clear about these issues.
Criminal justice policy is not developed in a vacuum. Evidence-based policy is informed by relevant research, including comparative studies from other countries. By examining a particular policy's successes and failures, we can develop reforms that build on what we know works and addresses what we know does not work.
For instance, while the United States, both at the federal and the state levels, has historically made great use of MMPs, in the last decade many states have moved toward reducing or eliminating mandatory sentences, with a particular focus on non-violent and drug-related charges. These trends reveal a shift motivated by, among other things, a need to address high levels of incarceration and the corresponding social and fiscal costs. This is being done by governments of all political stripes in the United States, and I encourage all parties in the House to recognize the true impacts of MMPs and work to continue to improve our justice system.
Some in the U.S. have termed the removal of MMPs as being a “smart on crime” movement. This approach recognizes the need to address high levels of incarceration of young Black and Hispanic Americans who are disproportionately negatively impacted by the use of mandatory minimum sentencing laws in the U.S., particularly, as I have noted, for non-violent, drug-related offences.
Some have also pointed out that mandatory minimum sentencing actually encourages cycles of crime and violence by subjecting non-violent offenders, who could otherwise be productive members of society, to the revolving door of the prison system.
Recently, the President of the United States indicated his intention to repeal MMPs at the federal level and provide states with incentives to repeal their mandatory minimums as well.
Other countries have made similar changes. For example, in 2014, France repealed certain MMPs, predominantly citing evidence showing the reconviction rate had more than doubled between 2001 and 2011, increasing from 4.9% to 12.1%.
When we examine the trends in like-minded countries, we can see a clear policy shift toward limiting the use of mandatory minimum penalties to the most serious of cases and restoring judicial discretion at sentencing.
While international comparisons cannot be the only lens through which we develop sentencing policy in Canada, particularly given our unique cultural traditions and diversity, such comparisons provide a useful backdrop to which we assess the adequacy of our own sentencing laws.
Currently, the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act provide MMPs for 73 offences, including for firearms offences, sexual offences, impaired driving, kidnapping, human trafficking, sex trade offences, murder, high treason and drug-related offences such as trafficking, import/export and production of certain drugs such as cocaine and heroin. Thirty offences have been amended in the last 15 years, almost entirely by the Harper government, to increase existing MMPs or to impose new ones.
Bill C-5 would reverse that trend and in so doing it would make the criminal justice system fairer and more equitable for all. It would repeal MMPs for 20 offences, including MMPs for all drug-related offences as well as for some firearms ones.
These reforms should not be viewed as a signal from Parliament that drug and firearms offences are not serious or are not noteworthy of important denunciatory sentences in appropriate cases. They can be very serious, and I have full confidence in our courts to impose those appropriate penalties.
I realize that I am running out of time, but I have a lot more to add to this. It is a very interesting debate and I look forward to this discussion continuing.
872 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/15/21 4:38:46 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the citizens of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.
My question is a narrow one. The mandatory minimum penalties sought to be repealed includes section 95 of the Criminal Code, which is one of the most serious firearms offences, because it is an unlicensed individual possessing a restricted or prohibited firearm. The Nur decision from the Supreme Court of Canada, which my colleague referenced, talked about the seriousness of that offence, endorsing language from the Ontario Court of Appeal, saying:
At one end of the range, as Doherty J.A. observed, “stands the outlaw who carries a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm in public places as a tool of his or her criminal trade.... [T]his person is engaged in truly criminal conduct and poses a real and immediate danger to the public”.
The vast majority of people may fall into this.
We have heard from the government that we do not want to capture people who may not fall into that on a first-time basis. Why then is the government repealing the mandatory minimum for subsequent offences for the people for whom that first time does not apply?
203 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/15/21 4:40:07 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I have to remind the member that it is up to the judges, and the removal of mandatory minimums gives them the discretion to say that these are the circumstances in which a crime has occurred and that they will ensure the penalties are fitting to the crime. That discretion to the judge helps to build that pillar of equitable justice, which we are seeking through this bill.
70 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/15/21 4:40:48 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech.
Earlier this week, I too had the opportunity to give a speech on Bill C-5. As I studied the bill, several things came to mind and jumped out at me.
Unfortunately, this feels a bit like a kitchen sink bill. The government is combining two very different subjects, when diversion and decriminalization are two very sensitive issues. It is also combining crimes involving the possession of firearms with simple drug possession offences. Having worked for an organization that tries to help people turn their lives around, I am very familiar with that subject.
My colleague even touched on the issue of mandatory minimum sentences for sexual assault in the context of the rising rates of femicide.
Is the member aware that Quebec is also in the midst of a crisis involving gun crime, that the mayor of Montreal and the Premier of Quebec are asking—
157 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/15/21 4:41:48 p.m.
- Watch
Order. I must allow the hon. member to answer the question, and we have to be able to hear other questions.
The hon. member for Mississauga—Erin Mills.
29 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/15/21 4:41:55 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question.
My colleague is absolutely right. What we need to understand is that with Bill C-5 and with the removal of mandatory minimums, providing punishment and mandatory minimums is not enough to create the equitable justice we are looking for. We need to find and build that proper framework around society to provide supports for victims of, for example, gender-based violence as the member referenced, and to provide support for those who are suffering from addictions. That fulsome and wholesome approach is the way we will have a more equitable and more fair society, not by punishing people for simple non-violent crimes.
114 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/15/21 4:42:56 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, my community is facing these two interconnected public health emergencies: COVID-19 and the toxic drug supply. Too many people have lost their lives or lost loved ones to drug poisoning, and it is fundamentally because the government refuses to stop treating this as a criminal issue and follow the evidence to treat this as a health issue.
B.C. has taken the important step of applying for the federal government to remove criminal penalties under section 56. Full decriminalization would help reduce the fear and shame associated with substance use.
Will the member push her party to accept British Columbia's application? This bill is a half measure. Getting rid of these mandatory minimums is important, but is the member not disappointed—
126 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/15/21 4:43:42 p.m.
- Watch
I have to interrupt the hon. member. We have issues with translation.
Is there a problem with interpretation?
18 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/15/21 4:43:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the interpreter cannot hear the member properly.
10 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/15/21 4:43:56 p.m.
- Watch
Apparently the member's sound is not very clear for the interpreters to catch. The connection is not terribly good, even with respect to image.
I will give the hon. member for Mississauga—Erin Mills an opportunity to comment on the question the hon. member just asked.
48 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
