SoVote

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

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

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

The Deputy Speaker

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

Division

Mr. John Brassard

Mar/30/22 3:16:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

7 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/30/22 3:16:32 p.m.
Watch

Call in the members.

4 words

Call

Hon. David Lametti (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)

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

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/30/22 4:01:21 p.m.
Watch

I declare the motion carried.

5 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

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

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

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

Hon. David Lametti

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

Mr. Alain Therrien (La Prairie, BQ)

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

Hon. David Lametti

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

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP)

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

Hon. David Lametti

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

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

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

Hon. David Lametti

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

Mr. Frank Caputo (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC)

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

Hon. David Lametti

Mar/30/22 4:13:45 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, the fallacy and the argument that is being brought forth by the hon. member is quite clear. We are eliminating minimum mandatory penalties. There is still a maximum sentencing range that exists for all crimes. In the crime that he described, and in the circumstances that he described, a judge would have the flexibility and the opportunity to give a serious sentence. That is precisely what happens. What we are doing is taking away the lower end, where a person perhaps has a few too many on a Saturday night and puts a couple of bullets into the side of an empty barn. There are differences in the way these sentences ought to happen. What we are doing is giving power back to the judges. Judges are the hallmark of our common-law system. I do not know why the other side does not trust them.

148 words

All Topics

Hon. Bardish Chagger (Waterloo, Lib.)

Mar/30/22 4:14:51 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I just heard the response from the minister and I have full confidence in the independence of our judicial system. It was actually quite refreshing to hear about giving that power back to judges. I would appreciate it if the minister could expand on what is being proposed and how the independent judicial system can ensure that justice is being served, rather than perhaps advancing more of the systemic issues that we know are far too common within our prison system.

83 words

All Topics

Hon. David Lametti

Mar/30/22 4:15:27 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and I worked a great deal together, and continue to work a great deal together, on these kinds of issues. What the bill would do is allow for context to be taken into account. I will give an example. In a ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada has allowed a sentencing judge to take into account factors, for an indigenous person, of how that person's life might have helped to account for the crime and what ought to be taken into account for the sentence. This was the so-called Gladue report. A minimum mandatory penalty means the judge's hands are tied, with respect to it. With this bill, the judge would be able to look at, first of all, not having a minimum mandatory penalty, but also being able to fashion, using a conditional sentence order, the kind of appropriate treatment that a person might need. Whether it is a health issue or a social welfare issue, people could get the support they need. That better serves the community, it better serves the victim and it certainly costs us less money in the criminal justice system.

194 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 49