44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 30, 2022 02:00PM
- Mar/30/22 3:13:58 p.m.
- Watch
That is all the time we have for question period today. Thank you so much for your interest.
We have a point of order from the hon. Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion.
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/22 3:14:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to correct the record on an answer I gave earlier when I said we would eliminate student debt. I would like to correct the record to say that we will eliminate interest on student debt.
39 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/22 3:14:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We had many discussions in QP today, particularly around the Bank of Canada confirming that the carbon tax is inflationary. I have the letter from the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Tiff Macklem, and would like to table it with unanimous consent. I have it in both official languages, so I think if you seek it, you shall find unanimous consent to hear about the inflationary nature of the tax. I thank the member of Parliament for Northumberland—Peterborough South for asking the question and getting the response.
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/22 3:14:58 p.m.
- Watch
All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion to table the document will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
23 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/22 3:15:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to eight petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.
While I am on my feet, I move:
That the House do now proceed to the orders of the day.
55 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/22 3:15:56 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 please rise and indicate it to the Chair.
The hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition.
46 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/22 3:16:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/22 3:16:32 p.m.
- Watch
4 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/22 4:01:21 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
moved:
That, in relation to Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the bill; and
That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
115 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/22 4:01:21 p.m.
- Watch
I declare the motion carried.
5 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/22 4:04:01 p.m.
- Watch
Pursuant to Standing Order 67(1), there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places so that the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.
Questions and comments, the hon. House leader for the official opposition.
60 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/22 4:04:04 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, obviously, it is a profound disappointment that the government is now moving time allocation on what is effectively a very substantive justice bill repealing, for example, mandatory minimums. Effectively, what it is doing is giving criminals a get-out-of -jail-free card at a cost to victims.
I want to point out, too, that we have dealt with this issue since December of 2021 with only four days of debate on this substantive bill. I also want to point out that I am sure the left hand will be holding the left hand on this one. In the agreement between the NDP and the Liberals, it says that both parties agree that parliamentary debate is essential and they will identify the priority of bills to expedite them through the House of Commons, including expediting sitting hours to allow for additional speakers, so I do not quite understand why they are not allowing for additional speakers on this bill, especially as it is something so substantive.
My question to the Minister of Justice is this. There has been an increase in gun crimes and domestic violence in this country since this bill was introduced. Why is the NDP-Liberal government proposing time allocation? Why is it putting the rights of criminals ahead of the rights of victims?
219 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/22 4:05:27 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill. I agree with the hon. member that this is a substantive criminal justice reform bill that would effectively reverse a series of policies that frankly did not work, and that are being abandoned everywhere around the world, particularly in the United States, which served as an inspiration for the previous Conservative government to bring in these kinds of minimum mandatory penalties.
I was in Washington last week and met with a number of bipartisan groups and think tanks working on criminal law reform. The basic message from all of them was that incarceration does not work. We need to shorten incarceration periods and minimum mandatory penalties, and the kind of flexibility that conditional sentence orders offer is precisely the kind of reform that they are suggesting, and that we are suggesting. Even states such as Louisiana have abandoned minimum mandatory penalties, because they simply do not work.
The idea that this is in some way soft on crime or does not protect victims is completely false, for a number of reasons that I would be able to elaborate upon.
186 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/22 4:06:41 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, it is rather odd to hear the minister say that this is an important bill and that he is imposing closure. If it is an important bill, we must discuss it and express our opinions.
Five Bloc members have spoken about this bill. This is happening against a backdrop of increasing incidents involving firearms in Quebec. The minister knows this. He is from Verdun. He should know that this is a serious problem in Quebec, that we must come up with some useful and intelligent solutions, and that we must have some room for debate.
The Bloc Québécois proposed splitting the bill because it dealt with diversion measures as well as minimum sentences. These are two different matters. We would have liked to have had more debate, because we must have an intelligent discussion. We need a bill that will fix the problems we have on the ground once and for all. The minister is well aware of this.
My question is simple. Why have they decided to move closure when people, especially in Quebec, expect us to do our due diligence?
188 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/22 4:07:50 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. colleague for the question. I am pleased to admit that I, too, have a hard time with the French term for “diversion measures”. We can stumble over it together.
Fighting gangs and gun trafficking is not the objective of this bill. We will be introducing another bill, as we did in the previous Parliament, to tackle the problem raised by my hon. colleague.
In this case, we are talking about minimum sentences for offences that do not pose a threat to public safety and should be considered differently to ensure they are more effective for communities, making them safer, and for the justice system.
112 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/22 4:08:59 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, one of the hallmarks of a successful opposition party is that it does not just oppose all the time but comes to the table to propose.
I have heard the same tired arguments from the Conservatives about mandatory minimums, but they have yet to show the House evidence to back up their point, and they completely ignore sections in the Criminal Code that allow judges to increase or decrease a sentence based on the severity of the crime. Let us face it: Conservatives do not trust our judges.
My question to the minister is this. If Conservatives are so concerned about the content of the bill, would it not be a good idea for them to bring their arguments and their witnesses before the justice committee, propose amendments and demonstrate to Canadians that they are actually serious and know what they are talking about?
146 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/22 4:09:50 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, indeed, in the previous Parliament with this bill's predecessor, Bill C-22, and now in this Parliament, we have had ample opportunities to discuss this bill. We are still waiting for the opposition to show the evidence.
Today, the Parliamentary Budget Officer came out with a report looking at one of the minimum mandatory penalties that was thrown out by the Supreme Court of Canada. The clear conclusion of the Parliamentary Budget Officer was that not only did it contribute to the overrepresentation of Black and indigenous peoples in the criminal justice system, and not only did it cost more money, but it was completely ineffective at reducing the overall sentencing rates.
115 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/22 4:10:44 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, I want to take the Minister of Justice back to 2019 when we had a round table in Scarborough with a number of different stakeholders who were directly impacted by mandatory minimum sentences, particularly members of the Black community. We know that the statistics are quite relevant here because MMPs have disproportionately impacted members of the Black community, as well as indigenous communities.
Can the minister give us a sense of how the changes to MMPs in Bill C-5 would ensure that fair justice is administered when it comes to racialized and indigenous people, as well as talk about conditional sentencing orders and what kind of impact those would have on sentencing?
115 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/22 4:11:37 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, indeed, I remember that round table very well.
This is precisely the reason why we brought forward this bill: to combat overrepresentation of Black and indigenous peoples in the criminal justice system. What MMPs do on crimes that do not threaten the safety and security of our society, but on fairly minor crimes or mistakes, is tie the hands of judges and restrict them from fashioning appropriate orders. The possibility now of having a conditional sentence order, which the previous Harper government rejected, would allow judges to fashion a sentence, often in the community. The community can help to rehabilitate people. If it is an indigenous community, they can use restorative justice. It allows them to fashion a sentence that actually works, that serves victims and that serves the community, instead of what we have now.
A study from Professor Kaiser-Derrick, published by the University of Manitoba Press, highlighted the vastly disproportionate and negative impact that minimum mandatory sentences and a lack of conditional sentence orders had on indigenous women. It is an endemic problem and it is a shame in this country, and we are attacking it.
191 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/22 4:13:00 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.
Through translation, I heard the minister say, if I got it right, that this was tackling issues and offences that were not a threat to public safety. We have reckless discharge of a firearm: that means a drive-by shooting, potentially, of an occupied residence.
First, how is that not a threat to public safety? Second, the Liberal government could make this constitutional by adding a safety valve; that is, by having a mandatory minimum with an exception to address the very issues that the Minister of Justice has addressed. This is a perfect middle ground. Why will the minister not accept it?
123 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
