44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 15, 2021 02:00PM
- Dec/15/21 4:44:46 p.m.
- Watch
Before resuming debate, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, Infrastructure; the hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, Health; the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, Veterans Affairs.
61 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/15/21 4:45:32 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, because this is my first speech in the 44th Parliament, I hope the House will indulge me to spend a minute to thank the good people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for again putting their trust in me and sending me to this place for a third time. It is a privilege to be here, and I carry that trust on my shoulders every day. I could not be here if it were not for an amazing campaign team, an army of volunteers and the support of my family. Being here, I really feel the weight of the responsibility of being the voice for approximately 100,000 people on beautiful Vancouver Island.
I am very pleased to be rising today to speak to Bill C-5, which tries to start the conversation on serious criminal justice reform. It is a conversation that we have been waiting for in Canada for quite some time, and it begs a question: Why are we here as members of Parliament?
I am not here to make a fancy video for an email fundraiser. I am not here to launch serious attacks against the government or for a great clip. When it comes to a subject as weighty as this, we each have a responsibility to treat the subject matter before us with the seriousness and responsibility it deserves.
In the 42nd Parliament, I was honoured to serve as my party's justice critic. When dealing with subject matters involving the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act or the Criminal Code of Canada, and when we know that the decisions we make and the reforms we pass in this place have real-world consequences for people, it adds another layer of gravity to the debate and the deliberation.
When I look at Bill C-5, I see the intent of the government. It also had an intention in the previous Parliament, which was interrupted by an unnecessary election call, but it honoured that part of its mandate to bring forward criminal justice reform. As to whether it goes far enough, that is the question before us. I would argue no, it is indeed an important first step, but this bill makes me realize there is so much more that could have been done.
We talk about low-hanging fruit. This fruit is almost on the ground compared to what could have been achieved. The Liberals should find it in themselves to seize the moment and be bold, because I do not think they realize that a significant percentage of Canadians out there are asking us as parliamentarians to seize that moment, to make that once-in-a-lifetime change that would have a significant effect on people's lives.
I want to walk through sections of Bill C-5, and I am going to start with the part that deals with mandatory minimum reform. I have sat through a significant part of the debate on Bill C-5 on Monday, yesterday and today, and I have to disagree with the Conservatives' position. I am hearing terms like “hug a thug” or “criminal-first agenda”, and they not do justice to the seriousness of the subject matter before us.
If we here to follow evidence-based policy-making, the evidence all around us, in peer-reviewed journals and examples from countries all around the world, shows that mandatory minimums simply do not achieve their stated objective. They do not deter crime. They do not reduce rates. In fact, they have been such an abject failure in terms of expanding prison populations, many states around the world have started to roll them back, even in Texas. Texas has decided that system does not work.
We do not know what motivates people to commit crimes. The reasons are as varied as the individuals themselves. Do we think that someone who is about to commit a crime will stop for a single moment to think they had better not do it because they could possibly being put in jail for 14 years as punishment? No. The punishment is not a deterrent. The heat of the moment is often what motivates people to commit crime.
I think that the approach of mandatory minimums, its philosophical underpinning, is a lack of trust in judges to make the right decision. In our corner of the House, we believe that judges are the only ones who understand the facts of the case, the unique circumstances of the individuals and the factors surrounding the crime that was committed.
The Criminal Code, lest we forget, already has provisions which allow judges, through subsection 718.2, to take aggravating factors into account. Judges can look at the severity of the crime, whether it was perpetrated because of racially motivated hatred or whether it was against a person with a disability. They can take all of those factors into account and can increase or reduce the sentence as necessary.
We cannot have a one-size-fits-all approach to criminal justice because no two cases are the same, and no two individuals who appear before a judge are the same. I have every faith that, if a hardened criminal who has not learned his or her ways and is again appearing before a judge for a similar crime, that the judge is going to be fully capable of looking at the individual's record and doling out the appropriate punishment.
I will leave it at that because the part I really want to focus my attention on is the part that would amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
Bill C-5 would add a declaration of principles, and a warning and referrals section. In my mind, these are good, important first steps, but they come nowhere near the importance of actually moving towards full decriminalization.
My home province of British Columbia is the epicentre of the opioid epidemic. Communities in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, particularly Duncan, are seeing the effects of this every day. It is an epidemic that, over the last six years, has left a wake of carnage. It has destroyed families, and loved ones are gone forever, for something that we had the power to prevent through good policy-making, but have so far failed to do so. That is what I was talking about when I referred, in my opening remarks, to missed opportunities and not seizing the moment to implement bold policy.
Warnings, referrals and a declaration of principles is in no way a replacement for the decriminalization that we need to go. I am very thankful that I am in a caucus with members such as the member for Courtenay—Alberni, who today introduced a bill to do just that, because, if the Liberals are not going to go that way, we are going to show Canadians the path we could have taken had they elected a New Democratic government.
The reason this is a problem is that, last year, the public safety committee released a report on systemic racism in policing in Canada. The bill before us would give far too much discretion to police officers, and there are so many racialized Canadians, Black and indigenous people in Canada, who have a fundamental distrust of the police. They are still having problematic interactions with the police. However, the bill would give police officers the ability to make the decision as to whether to engage in a warning or a referral, or to press criminal charges. I do not believe that is right. The City of Vancouver, the Province of British Columbia, the City of Toronto and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police all support decriminalization, and they are calling for this bold move.
To conclude, I would like to see the government take the bold step of referring Bill C-5 to committee before we get to the second reading vote, which would allow the committee to study the bill and possibly expand it beyond its current mandate. If we have a second reading vote and then refer the bill to committee, the mandate of the committee will be severely limited. I am asking government members to allow this to happen so we can hear from the experts, expand the scope of the bill and truly get ahead with the bold criminal justice reform this country so desperately needs.
1403 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/15/21 4:55:22 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on my friend opposite's last comment respecting the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, or CDSA. The amendments to the CDSA would allow prosecutors to also offer diversion. So, there is pre-charge, as well as post-charge, diversion in the bill.
I also want to speak about his reflections on the CSOs provided for here and whether he can give us some insight into how he feels this would impact the overall criminal justice system.
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/15/21 4:56:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will have to ask the parliamentary secretary to repeat the last part of his question. I did not catch the part about CSOs.
26 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/15/21 4:56:14 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, concerning the conditional sentencing orders, what are the member's reflections on the provisions that allow for the expanded use of these orders for inmates?
27 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/15/21 4:56:26 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, that follows the remarks in my speech where I said this is generally a positive thing, as it is allowing for more discretion. I think it fits within a philosophy that we do not have a one-size-fits-all approach to justice.
Where the circumstances warrant, and when a judge or Crown prosecutors believe that someone would be best served with an alternative to jail time, then we should give them the freedom to do so because they understand the facts of the case, the individual and the circumstances in which the crime was committed.
We have far too many racialized—
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/15/21 4:57:05 p.m.
- Watch
I will have to allow time for other questions.
The hon. member for Brantford—Brant.
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/15/21 4:57:19 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, following up on my friend's latter comments, does he think that those convicted of sexual assault, criminal harassment, trafficking of minors or abduction of minors deserve to be punished by way of a denunciatory sentence, which could include jail?
42 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/15/21 4:57:49 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, as I said in my remarks, the person who is best qualified to mete out that kind of a sentence is the judge who has heard all the facts of the case and the individual circumstances. I am quite confident that should a person deserve a lengthy sentence and a long jail term, they will get it.
Again, I am asking for Conservatives to publicly declare that they support our judges to look at the facts of the case and mete out the appropriate punishment.
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/15/21 4:58:36 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, at 8:30 this morning, a resident of my riding who was a victim of violent sexual assault 11 years ago, was going to testify before the Parole Board of Canada to prevent her attacker, a multiple offender, from being released. Every time this man has been released since the early 2000s, he has re-offended.
In cases like this, or in sexual assault cases like those raised earlier by my Conservative colleague, is there no way to better to provide a better framework within which judges can operate and use their discretion in sentencing sex offenders, even first-time offenders?
105 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/15/21 4:59:18 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, yes, I think the discretion part is very important. In answering my colleague's question, our justice system has struggled from underfunding right across this country, which has led to a lot of people being released without having their appropriate day in court.
We covered this at the justice committee two Parliaments ago, and I believe we need a significant increase in funding and an agreement between the federal government and the provincial governments, which are responsible for the administration of justice, because this hurts victims of crime, but it would makes sure that the people before a judge are getting their full day in court.
Yes, the financial problems of our justice system are well understood, and they do need to have this funding to give them the seriousness they deserve.
134 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/15/21 5:00:19 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, because this is my first time rising in this Parliament to give a substantial speech, if my colleagues allow me I would like to thank my riding of Pickering—Uxbridge and all of the residents for once again putting their faith in me.
I would also like to thank my team of volunteers, my riding association, my family and my mom, who is probably at the door. If anyone thinks I am tough, they have not met my mother.
I would also like to thank my parliamentary family who are here, too: the member for Kingston and the Islands and the Minister of Seniors. My grandfather was not here for this due to COVID. He is in Newfoundland but his MP, the MP for Avalon, is behind me here. My thanks to all for that.
I am proud to rise today to speak on Bill C-5. I have listened to this debate through the course of the week. The Conservative arguments have been incredibly disappointing and frankly disconnected from reality. I want to speak on this because I think it is incredibly important that we speak in facts about the reality in this country and what is going to keep Canadians safe. Conservatives love the idea of mandatory minimum sentences because they feel safe, but they do not actually keep Canadians safe.
I enjoyed listening to the speech of the hon. member before me. I enjoy hearing where we could improve things further, but we must stop continuing the failed, so-called tough-on-crime policies that we know do not work. They do not keep Canadians safe. They do not reduce crime, and they certainly do not help those individuals who could be rehabilitated.
I think it is really important to talk about some of the things I have heard over the course of this debate this last week. Something that Conservatives talked about was a rise in crime. They tried to blame that on Liberal policies, but in fact their Conservative so-called tough-on-crime policies were in effect when they quoted previous years of high crime rates. They do not understand that criminals are not wondering who is sitting in power on this side of the House and whether they should commit a crime. They do not realize that the actual laws of the land were the Conservative policies that were not based in the reality of reducing crime. In jurisdictions such as the Netherlands, for example, they have seen that by implementing rehabilitation there have been significant decreases in crime rates. They have seen people be rehabilitated and, in some cases, jails standing empty because they are able to deal with the social issues that in a lot of cases undermine this.
Let us not be naive. Of course there are criminals who commit egregious crimes and absolutely need to be held accountable for them. Anyone who commits a crime needs to be held to account for it. What I have heard over the course of this debate from my colleagues, as well as from those in the NDP, is that there are judges to determine extenuating circumstances and the nature of a crime. Sitting here in this chamber, this place of extreme privilege, we cannot paint everyone with the same brush. It would be fundamentally wrong. We are not here to make a determination on each granular situation of each crime that has been committed in this country. We have in place a legal system that allows the prosecution to present its case and the defence to present its case, as well as a judge and a jury in many cases to determine the facts of a case, rather than a group of parliamentarians who do not have all the details. We are to set a framework of what we think is fair and reasonable for the criminal justice system.
It has been proven time and again in multiple jurisdictions that mandatory minimum sentences do nothing to discourage crime. All they do is overpopulate the criminal justice system with marginalized, racialized and indigenous communities.
On that point, for example, in 2020, even though indigenous people represented only 5% of the overall Canadian adult population, they represented about 30% of incarcerated inmates. That is the fact. It is shocking to me because Conservatives behave as if justice is blind and anyone who is in jail has committed a crime.
Once again, I recommend that those who think that way ought to think about their own privilege. We do not think about the fact that there are many individuals in this country who come from a place of privilege, who may have committed or been charged with crimes and who could afford the best legal defence team that money could offer. Maybe they are not faced with historical trauma or systemic racism as they go into the judicial system and may never find themselves facing the harshest penalties, because of that privilege.
Not all Canadians have that privilege. In our justice system, this is why we see an overrepresentation of people who have mental health issues, who are from racialized communities or indigenous populations. Anyone who suggests that there are not systemic barriers or systemic racism in our justice system probably does not have a very good grasp on the reality of how a lot of people live in this country. I fully recognize my own privilege in making these statements.
However, I believe, fundamentally, as the previous speaker said, that as a parliamentarian, our job is to move forward on legislation to help Canadians, even if it means lending my privilege to speak up for those who do not sit in this place, who do not have that opportunity to share their experience of how the justice system is not fair and equitable for all people across this country, and to share how mandatory minimums further create those barriers and the inability for some people to have that chance to be rehabilitated and get out of the cycle of crime and poverty.
I would also like to speak about the examples the Conservatives keep raising of heinous crimes I know Canadians would be quite upset about. They are suggesting that this bill would somehow mean that those crimes would go unpunished. That could not be further from the truth. In fact, crimes could still come with harsh penalties and consequences for individuals' actions. However, the point of this legislation is to fix past wrongs, as I just spoke about, and the systemic barriers and racism in the criminal justice system, while still allowing judges to hear from victims, to hear the facts of a case, to hear if offenders are repeat offenders, and to govern themselves accordingly to make the most appropriate determination in sentencing.
I know I am running out of time, and will just conclude with the following. This would allow for the ability to actually rehabilitate people, in particularly younger adults or those who have lived a life of poverty, and would actually provide them with the opportunity to turn their life around, instead of what Conservatives would like, which is for us to turn our backs on them.
We owe it to Canadians across this country to start breaking down systemic barriers and the systemic racism in our criminal justice system while keeping Canadians safe, and actually doing so in ways that give us positive results.
1239 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/15/21 5:09:56 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member opposite's speech. She talked about the Conservatives somehow being out of touch on this issue.
I would retort quite simply that she should come speak to many of my constituents who have told me unequivocally that the Liberal government is incredibly out of touch with the challenges faced by the people I represent, including many who have been affected by rural crime. In fact, I spoke to a constituent just the other day who shared with me the terrifying ordeal of how she and her husband were held up, in their home, by somebody with a firearm, somebody who had gone on a crime spree. There were challenges with the revolving door of the justice system. They do not even feel that our legal system does justice at all. In fact, many of my constituents are losing faith in that system.
Could the hon. member justify the justice system to my constituents, who are facing significant challenges regarding the level of trust they have in it, and reassure them that the criminals committing serious crimes are actually put behind bars? It has literally put the lives of my constituents on the line when the system is not working—
210 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/15/21 5:11:17 p.m.
- Watch
I have to give the hon. parliamentary secretary an opportunity to answer.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/15/21 5:11:20 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, first let me acknowledge how terribly sorry I am that my hon. colleague's constituent went through that, but that is precisely the point. The Conservatives' idea of tough on crime has not worked. As he just said, his own constituent does not even have faith in the criminal justice system because of their failed policies. I recognize that the member opposite would love to blame all of the problems on the Liberals, but we are in fact living under failed Conservative criminal justice policies, so if his constituent does not feel he has good representation, that is precisely why Canadians entrusted the Liberals to fix the Conservative wrongs.
111 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/15/21 5:12:10 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, we could talk and we are talking about minimum sentences. We are talking about firearms, but we cannot—
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
26 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/15/21 5:12:23 p.m.
- Watch
I would ask that member to respectfully allow the hon. member to ask her question, as was the case when he had his turn.
The hon. member for Shefford.
29 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/15/21 5:12:34 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, thank you for reiterating the importance of showing respect in the House.
I would like my colleague to quickly say a few words about two things.
The message this bill is sending by eliminating mandatory minimum sentences for gun-related crimes is that the government will not intervene and form a joint task force to better control firearms at the borders, as per the key request of the mayor of Montreal and the Premier of Quebec and the suggestion of the Bloc Québécois.
My colleague also addressed the issue of public health. How can she hope to help the organizations when her government is refusing to increase health transfers to 35% of total costs, as requested?
122 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/15/21 5:13:18 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, what we are discussing here specifically is mandatory minimums, but that does not mean there are not other pieces of legislation we are working on. When I was a young member of the finance committee, I remember one of the very first things we did was restore the funding to the CBSA that the Conservatives cut from the budget to ensure we could stop gun smuggling.
The point I would make for my colleague is this. Yes, there is always going to be more that we need to do. Those are just a couple of examples I have raised in this short time. We are going to continue to deal with serious crimes in this House that will show results for Canadians.
124 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/15/21 5:14:11 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, British Columbia has seen its worst year ever in opioid-related deaths. As a result of Liberal inaction, non-profits in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith have been working tirelessly to fill the gaps.
For example, the Risebridge project in Nanaimo—Ladysmith posted the following, which I will share, “We do not have enough services to support our most vulnerable of populations. Our overdose rates continue to sky rocket, nobody can find or afford housing in this market, and mental health concerns are at a all time high. Our community is in crisis....”
Can the member clarify when the government will take this crisis seriously and decriminalize the personal possession of substances?
118 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
