44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 1, 2022 02:00PM
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. I am happy to address this aspect, which I did not have time to talk about in my initial presentation.
First, with respect to Bill C-21, let us forget that. We need to fix this quickly, since there is not a single street gang that buys their guns at Canadian Tire. That does not happen.
With respect to systemic racism, what kind of twisted idea is it to claim that if there are indigenous or racialized people in our prisons, it is because the penalties are too harsh? What kind of an argument is that?
This population needs help, that is what we heard in committee. Yes, there are more people in prison; those are the statistics, and I will not change them. It is true that there are more indigenous and Black people in prison, but we need money, we need to work with these people and help their communities. It takes more than social workers, health care, education and all that to help them not commit crimes. To argue that society will lower its standards, that people from the Black or indigenous communities commit crimes and therefore we will reduce penalties so they do not go to prison, is just mind-blowing. I could not believe it when I read that.
When I saw my colleagues defend that in committee, I was happy I was not in their shoes. I imagine that the caucus forces them to defend these views, but if I were in their shoes I think I would have left the caucus.
270 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/22 6:01:49 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, although I do not agree with absolutely everything my colleague just said, I do agree with almost all of it, especially the part about the current government's reasoning for wanting to, as the member so aptly put it, lower its standards when it comes to crime and sentencing.
I have the privilege of representing the riding of Louis-Saint-Laurent. As members know, Wendake is located in the heart of my riding. Some people who are close to me are outraged about the government's approach and desire to lower the standards. As the member said so well, we should be helping the least fortunate and the most vulnerable among us to prevent these crimes.
The government should be taking a positive and constructive approach to the challenges we face with respect to the first nations and racialized peoples who are unfortunately in our prisons. It should be helping them, but instead, it is lowering standards in a race to the bottom. What are my colleague's thoughts on the government's approach?
176 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/22 6:02:57 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague.
We did not hear a single person or witness in committee say that they wanted to be allowed to commit criminal acts. No one said that. These people are saying they have a problem, they need help, and we need to help them. It is our job as members of Parliament to help them.
Once again, it makes no sense to say that we are going to reduce sentences for crimes that are committed. It is unjustifiable, and it is insulting to these people.
It is true that they need help for all kinds of historical reasons. They have not been treated fairly in the past. This needs to be addressed, and we need to offer support and assistance to these communities. However, allowing them to commit crimes with a lesser penalty is not going to help them. That will not help anyone, on the contrary.
154 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/22 6:03:53 p.m.
- Watch
I encourage members to ask their questions quickly and answer them briefly so that everyone can participate in the discussion.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke.
31 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to rise to speak on Bill C-5 today.
Sometimes the debate strays away from what is actually in the bill and goes into a lot of other things. I would just like to remind everybody what the bill is doing.
It is attempting to attack systemic racism in our criminal justice system by eliminating 20 mandatory minimum penalties, all of those in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and a few relating to firearms and tobacco offences. It also expands access to conditional sentences through things like house arrest and serving time on weekends, which is important in rehabilitating people who, for whatever reason, became involved with the criminal justice system. The third thing it does is provide more discretion for police to provide warnings and diversion instead of charging people, who then end up in jail. All of these three things are key steps in reducing the impact of systemic racism.
In our corrections system, nearly 35% of those who are imprisoned are indigenous, but indigenous people make up less than 5% of our population. We know that about 7.5% of those in prison are Black Canadians, but they only represent 3.5% of the population. Something is clearly going on here in a systematic manner that produces these much worse outcomes for racialized and indigenous people.
Who is in favour of this bill? This is something nobody else has really been talking about here. I know why some people do not raise this point. Most important to me is that the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police is in favour of this legislation, because they know that mandatory minimums do nothing to make communities safer.
Two other organizations I want to mention that are very much in favour are the John Howard Society and the Elizabeth Fry Society. These are two very valuable non-profits that work with those who have served time to help re-integrate them back into the community. They gave very powerful testimony at committee about the impacts of mandatory minimums.
Who is opposed to them? The Conservatives and the Bloc are clearly opposed to this bill that would reduce mandatory minimums. They often fly off into what I would call a fantasy world, where the idea is that if we take away mandatory minimums, somehow people would not get prison sentences and somehow serious criminals would not end up in jail. That is not what would happen with mandatory minimums or their removal. Judges would still assign serious time for serious crime. That is not what we are talking about here.
The fact is that mandatory minimums—and most of those that would be removed are of less than two years—would result in people going into provincial corrections systems, which have very limited rehabilitation programs. It also means, when we take into time served for good behaviour and other facets of our criminal justice system, that people would serve only a few months. Even if there was an addiction treatment program, even if there was a skills training program, the time is too short for those to be successful.
However, the time is not too short to make sure that people lose their housing. The time is not too short to make sure that people lose their job. The time is not too short to make sure that people's families are put at risk. Often the people who go under mandatory minimums are the sole providers for their families, so their kids are at risk of apprehension while they are in prison. All of this contributes to huge social problems that are not necessary.
If we do not have a mandatory minimum, we could use conditional sentences. Someone could stay in their own home, maintain their job, serve their time on weekends, and actually become a productive member of society again, rather than having their whole life turned upside down, which would put them on a path that only leads to further addiction and further crime.
We know that is the record of mandatory minimums. The academic studies all show the same thing: Mandatory minimums, if they do anything at all, actually make recidivism worse, because people have fewer options as a result of serving those mandatory minimums. The evidence is quite clear: They do not work.
Should the government have done more? Yes; as a New Democrat, I agree it should have done more. The government should have done more earlier today when it had the chance to vote on our bill, Bill C-216, which would have decriminalized personal possession of drugs. That would have helped to address systemic racism, because we know that Black Canadians and indigenous Canadians are overcharged and charged at much higher rates for personal possession of drugs when their rates of drug use are not in fact higher. It would have helped tackle that.
I do not think it is enough to say that we are going to reduce mandatory minimums; the government should have voted for Bill C-216. We should have made better progress.
I am happy to see the government grant an exemption to British Columbia under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and I think it will lead to great success in tackling the opioid crisis, but I just do not understand why the government was not prepared to do that for the more than 70% of Canadians who live outside of British Columbia. I was glad to hear the Prime Minister say, in answer to a question, that the Liberals are prepared to consider other exemptions, and certainly New Democrats will be asking them to step up when that time comes.
What was in Bill C-5, as I said, was modest, and so I wish the Liberals had done more on Bill C-216, but I also wish they had done more on the bill, and that is why I proposed two amendments at committee, which I thank the government for accepting.
The first of those, to me, is the most important. It is an amendment that says not only do mandatory minimums cause problems in racial injustice, but the resulting criminal records make things much worse.
There are 250,000 Canadians who have a record for personal possession of drugs. What does this mean? It means that sometimes this record affects someone's hiring. Very often it affects their housing, whether it is social housing, which does not allow people with criminal records, or whether it is landlords who refuse to rent to them. It prevents people from getting bank loans and mortgages. It forces them into the hands of what I call loan sharks, otherwise called payday lenders. It prevents people from travelling.
However, the one I have heard the most in my community is that a criminal record prevents someone from volunteering with kids or seniors, even though it may have been a personal possession charge from 20 years ago and has nothing to do with the way the person has turned their life around. In fact, some of those people might be the perfect people to volunteer with youth and show them a positive way forward.
I thank the government for agreeing. What we agreed on is what it calls a sequestration of records, meaning they will be held separate and apart and will not show up in criminal records. Within two years, we will be wiping out the records of 250,000 people, and I think that is enormously important for rehabilitation and building safer communities.
The second amendment I moved had to do with the expanded discretion for police. Here, New Democrats had a worry that was shared by many in the community, because discretion by the police is often subject to that very same systemic racism. The bill originally did not require record-keeping at all for the use of discretion; my amendment suggests that the police have to keep records on who they grant diversion to and who they warn. Then we will be able to see if this discretion happens just to privileged white folks or is being used fairly among all Canadians.
The second part of that amendment says we will keep records, but those records cannot be used in future proceedings against individuals. Why say that? It may seem counterintuitive. If it is really a warning, then it is a warning, not a conviction, and so it should not be used in future criminal processes. It will make warnings much more powerful for people who get them and diversions much more powerful for people who get them.
If someone successfully stays out of trouble with a warning or they successfully complete drug and alcohol counselling as part of their diversion, then this will never come back to haunt them again. It will encourage success in those programs. I thank the government for supporting those two measures. I fail to understand why the Conservatives and Bloc oppose those two amendments, but I also fail to understand why they are opposing this bill altogether.
I know time is running short, but I want to go back to what I think is most important here.
I have to say that I know people like to put forward their records as prosecutors and as police when they are talking about these things. I taught criminal justice for 20 years and I worked very closely with the John Howard Society and the Elizabeth Fry Society on the question of rehabilitation of people, and we know what works.
We know that when people can stay with their family and when people can have a job and maintain their employment, all of those things push them out of the criminal lifestyle and into the community. This is an important initiative in making all communities safer.
Despite people saying that the bill removes mandatory minimums on serious crimes, I say no, the judges will still give out serious time for serious crime. What it does is take away the injustice of those mandatory minimums falling most heavily on indigenous people and racialized Canadians.
1688 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/22 6:13:51 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the work of my friend opposite in supporting and strengthening Bill C-5.
I do want to pose a question for him with respect to the issue of sequestration of simple possession. I know it is an issue that he fought very hard for.
As he knows, the Minister of Public Safety is also mandated to ensure that there are reforms to the pardon system. Could the member opposite reflect on how important it is to make sure that issues such as simple possession and the records surrounding it are addressed within this bill?
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/22 6:14:36 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary and I worked very co-operatively during the hearings on this bill to try to find some serious improvements, and the government has certainly stepped forward to accept them.
I am going to use an example that is maybe a little counterintuitive to show why I think this is so important. The government has an existing program to expunge criminal records. In two years, of those 250,000 records, the government's program expunged 484 records. That is why I was insisting that this process has to be automatic, with no application and no fee. These records simply disappear. Both the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety met with me personally to discuss this, and I thank them for their support.
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/22 6:15:27 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his work on the justice committee.
He and I obviously do not agree on Bill C-5, but one thing I hope he would agree with me on is the mandatory minimums being repealed in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
The Liberal government likes to speak about simple possession. Mandatory minimums would be eliminated for the offences of trafficking, importing or exporting controlled drugs and substances or the production of schedule I or schedule II drugs, which are cocaine, heroin, fentanyl and crystal meth. Would he categorize those offences as “simple possession”?
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, that may sound like a tough question, but for me, as someone who has been a public advocate of decriminalizing all drugs for more than a decade, that is an easy question. I think all drugs should be decriminalized, and that is what we put forward in Bill C-216 today.
If we actually look at the statistics on the mandatory minimums that are applied by judges, we see that most of them are for things like simple possession or trafficking to support people's own drug habit. I am sorry that I do not have the statistic in front of me, but something like 61% are for those offences. They are not for the offences that the Conservatives have combed through the code to find and fearmonger on by saying that eliminating those mandatory minimums means that those serious crimes would not be punished by jail time. They would be.
153 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/22 6:17:01 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague with regard to diversion measures. We really are on the same wavelength, as I was saying earlier.
That being said, I think we disagree about minimum sentences. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about doing away with the minimum sentences the government is proposing in response to the spike in shootings in Montreal.
Does he think that doing away with minimum sentences will send a reassuring message to the public? If not, what does my colleague propose? The Bloc Québécois is proposing creating a registry of criminal organizations, setting up a joint task force to combat firearms trafficking, and increasing security at the border. What does he think about those suggestions and what does he propose?
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/22 6:17:51 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, I enjoy working with the member on the justice committee.
Of course I support all those measures he is talking about. The law on mandatory minimums is not the solution to everything, but it is a solution to systemic racism and it is a partial solution to the opioid crisis.
Do we need more measures to interdict the illegal importation of guns into our communities? Absolutely, I support those kinds of things, but the reason that this does not create public confidence is that some people are putting forward the myth that somehow eliminating mandatory minimum sentences makes our communities more dangerous. It does precisely the opposite.
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/22 6:18:28 p.m.
- Watch
We got a lot closer to getting people in, but we are now out of time again. If there are quick questions and quick answers, we will get everybody to participate in the process.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge.
43 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/22 6:18:42 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, I rise to join the debate on Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. I will spare members the suspense and say from the outset that I do not support the bill.
The bill sends exactly the wrong message from this Parliament to the judiciary. It sends the wrong message from the government to criminals. It sends the wrong message to Canada's victims of serious and violent crimes. It also represents a missed opportunity to send a message that might help address a serious and growing problem, which is fraud, a crime that the current government has taken no meaningful action to address since it was first elected nearly seven years ago, but I will not have time to talk about that today.
Thankfully, in recent decades there has been a steep reduction in most violent offences and property crimes. Experts and pundits have theories to explain this, but the most recent years show that this overall trend may now be in reverse. It is against this backdrop that the government has chosen to undo a series of minimum sentences for offences that successive Liberal and Conservative governments have passed over a very long time.
Offences for which the government wishes to reduce minimum sentences include some of the most grievous offences on the books. One is left to wonder why.
Who are the Canadians crying out for lighter sentences on, for example, firearms offences? Are there Canadians who think that the Criminal Code is too harsh on gun traffickers or those who smuggle guns illegally from the United States into Canada? Do Canadians think that the judicial system is too harsh on people convicted of robbery with a firearm? Is there really anyone in Canada who thinks that robbery with a firearm should result in anything other than a custodial sentence? Does any Canadian think that if a person uses a firearm to rob someone, they should not do so with full knowledge that if caught they will go to prison? Is there anyone in Canada who thinks extortion with a firearm or discharging a firearm with intent is not a serious criminal offence?
I listened to the justice minister's speech when this bill was first tabled and debated at second reading. He spoke of the need for greater flexibility in sentencing and he used a hypothetical example. He spoke of a 19-year-old man residing in a remote northern community who, after having too much to drink and maybe on a dare from his buddies, discharged a firearm. He fired a gun into a building.
The minister suggested in this example that the current Criminal Code would force this young man into the prison system and into the company of other criminals, destroying his potential for life-long employment and setting him on a life-long trajectory of career criminality. The justice minister's hypothetical critique of a mandatory sentence for this hypothetical crime is riddled with a series of false premises.
First, the minister falsely assumed that in this hypothetical case the police, the prosecutor and the judge would have no other choice but to charge, prosecute and convict this young man of discharging a firearm with intent and sending him to a mandatory sentence.
Second, the minister, in choosing this example, deliberately chose to characterize drunkenly shooting up a building as a minor offence. There was a certain amount of arrogance in assuming that a drunken late-night shooting was somehow more acceptable in a northern community than perhaps in his Montreal riding.
I disagree with the minister. Discharging a firearm is a serious crime with potentially life-altering consequences for victims that ought to carry life-altering consequences for the shooter, such as a custodial sentence should their actions actually meet the high bar for conviction that firing with intent would carry.
Gun crimes are not the only offence for which this bill would reduce floor sentences. Bill C-5 would reduce the penalties for kidnapping and human trafficking, and it would allow for conditional sentences of house arrest instead of prison for those who abduct vulnerable Canadians and force them into unpaid labour or into the sex trade.
I ask again, who wants lighter sentences for human trafficking? Do we live in a country where normal people, even legal experts, would say that the Criminal Code is too strong and inflexible in the way that it robs judges of the flexibility to allow human traffickers and rapists to serve their sentences in their own homes?
Allowing offenders convicted of sexual assault, kidnapping or human trafficking to serve sentences in their homes in their communities would be the ultimate insult to their victims. We all know that the majority of these crimes go unreported, and that is exactly why. Most victims of sexual assault have no confidence, as it is now, that justice will be done if they come forward. The very knowledge that the perpetrators of sexual assault could receive a community sentence is a disincentive to victims of sexual assault to report the crime.
Bill C-5 would also weaken sentencing for criminals at the very top of criminal enterprises: the deadly opioid epidemic. This bill would reduce minimum penalties for the production and trafficking of schedule 1 drugs. We are not talking about simple possession, and we are not talking about street-level addicts who are selling drugs to finance their habit. We are talking about producers and importers of fentanyl and heroin. Every day, these drugs kill Canadians, and every day these drugs create misery and deprivation that rip families apart, yet this bill would reduce the minimum penalties for criminals who illegally manufacture these drugs to be sold to the most desperate and vulnerable members of our society.
If someone manufactures the illegal opioids that are killing Canadians, they belong in prison.
As we have heard, this bill would eliminate the necessity of a custodial sentence for those convicted of crimes that include armed robbery, kidnapping, sexual assault, gun trafficking, opioid production and a bunch of others. What about the administration of justice? The minister has argued that the existence of mandatory prison sentences clogs up the system. Setting aside the question of whether mandatory penalties cause delays within the courts, let us instead ask whether this is relevant in the context of serious violent crime.
The reason for floor sentences for criminals who commit serious and violent crimes is to protect the public from dangerous offenders, to allow communities time to recover from victimization, to address issues such as witness intimidation and, most importantly, to ensure that punishment is proportionate to crime.
If the argument against floor sentences for these crimes is simply to relieve congestion in the courts and reduce the number of people in prison, then I must disagree with proponents of this bill. If our courts are congested, and delay is denying the public, the accused and the victims of justice, the minister should get serious about timely judicial appointments, instead of trying to blame those who disagree with him on the necessity of floor sentence requirements for serious, violent offences.
The member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River raised an important point when he pointed out that peace officers, prosecutors and judges already do what they can to divert non-violent offenders away from prison into other programs. I agree that prison is not the only, nor even the most suitable, option for non-violent offenders when other programs can adequately punish their crimes, contribute to public safety and increase the chances of successful reintegration. One can recognize this fact and still object to this bill.
The point of floor sentences is not to railroad the judiciary into certain decisions or to unduly diminish judges' discretion. It is to ensure that justice is done and the public is protected from violent offenders.
Finally, legislating effective sentencing would not pit the legislature against the judiciary, as the minister would frame it. It is an example of Parliament exercising its legitimate authority over defining criminal offences and setting floors and ceilings on penalties. Setting reasonable parameters for sentencing is part of Parliament's job.
In conclusion, Bill C-5 sends the wrong signals to criminals and society at large about the severity of certain crimes. It risks increasing crime rates and victimization, it continues to miss the mark on addressing gun crime and the opioid crisis, and it goes soft on sexual assault, kidnapping and modern-day slavery.
As such, I cannot support the bill.
1435 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/22 6:28:29 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, I note that within his speech, my hon. colleague did not acknowledge or discuss the notion of systemic racism. I cited the report of the Auditor General a number of times yesterday and highlighted the issue of systemic racism within the correctional system, which is one of the reasons we need to ensure we do not put people in jail when there are alternatives, especially for those who are not deemed to be harmful.
I am wondering if my friend could highlight why he did not use the term “systemic racism”. Does he believe it exists and, if it does, what are his suggestions to address that?
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/22 6:29:15 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that racism exists in our systems, and in our justice system. It is indeed a serious problem, but I will also point out that the victims of many of the crimes for which this bill reduces floor sentences are often the same Canadians, and members of the same communities, who face racism. I do not see that repealing these sentences will adequately address the issue of racism, and it certainly will not help the victims of these serious crimes, who are often among the most vulnerable populations in Canada.
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/22 6:30:11 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. I thank him for it and I would like to ask him a simple question.
He mentioned the possibility of stepping in proactively to prevent certain groups of individuals from committing crimes or to better support certain communities so that fewer crimes are committed by certain people.
I would like my colleague to explain how it would be possible to act proactively and limit the crimes committed by certain individuals, rather than handing down reduced sentences.
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/22 6:30:50 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, indeed, one can acknowledge the vast issues that contribute to offences and acknowledge that there are different ways to deal with the problems of crime and criminal justice without the prison system. The prison system is certainly the last resort in these matters. I do not really have time to get too far beyond the bill itself, which is where we are dealing with a repeal of floor sentences for grievous offences. I do not think that the Canadian public is served by that.
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am thankful to my colleagues in the NDP for not standing up in this round.
I want to make this clear again. I was in this place when, under Stephen Harper, the omnibus crime bill, Bill C-10, was passed. At that time, we already knew that there was no evidence that mandatory minimums would reduce the crime rate. We were watching in the United States as they were being removed in Texas. We saw at the time that these would probably be struck down as unconstitutional, as they are being struck down. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is being found to be violated by a number of these laws. What they do, at their essence, is not deter criminals. They do not make communities safer. There is no evidence that they make communities safer.
I would ask my hon. friend for Calgary Rocky Ridge if he is able to produce at this time, or cite for us, any study by reputable criminologists or any group that works with criminal defence, or anything from the Elizabeth Fry Society or the John Howard Society that would suggest that mandatory minimums make communities safer, because there is no evidence for that proposition.
204 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/22 6:33:03 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, the member launches straight into an attack on the previous Conservative government while ignoring that almost all of the mandatory floor sentences being repealed in this bill were not passed under the Harper government. They came from earlier governments. Successive governments, Conservative and Liberal, with different prime ministers, have, over a very long period of time, created these minimums. Most of them predate the Harper government. It was disappointing to hear her use this as an opportunity just to make a dig at the previous government, when this is something that has been ongoing for many years.
The hon. member disagrees that there should be mandatory minimum sentences. I can agree with her. I can agree with many people who have spoken about the futility, and the blunt instrument that prison can be, but for the most serious crimes there needs to be a floor.
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/22 6:34:15 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this bill today. One thing I find most interesting is that when Liberal members are talking about guns, we hear they are always trying to crack down and ban guns that have already been banned for 45 years. We hear this every day. They blame every problem that happens on guns.
I want to note to the Canadian public what Bill C-5 is doing. It eliminates a number of mandatory minimums relating to gun crimes: robbery with a firearm; extortion with a firearm; weapons trafficking, including firearms and ammunition; importing or exporting knowing it is unauthorized; discharging a firearm with intent; using a firearm in the commission of offences; possession of a firearm knowing its possession is unauthorized; possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition; possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking; and discharging a firearm with recklessness.
The bill would eliminate the mandatory prison times for these firearm offences. It is very simple. There is a great hypocrisy in what is happening here in this country. We have a government fixated on guns, but now it is letting off criminals who bring illegal guns into this country, the illegal guns that are killing children and innocent people in their homes and on their properties. It is letting them off without mandatory prison time.
Now explain to me how Liberals can be bleeding hearts and against guns when they are allowing them to be trafficked into this country and are allowing people to get away with no mandatory prison sentences based on the very guns they are trying to convince the public they are banning and that were already banned 45 years ago. This is a clear example of the government firmly believing that Canadian citizens do not know anything about guns and that Canadian citizens want people who committed crimes with weapons to have lesser sentences. Imagine the hypocrisy in our country in this very bill.
A majority of the above mandatory minimums were introduced under previous Liberal governments, most notably the government of the Prime Minister's own father, contrary to the narrative from the Liberals that they are undoing Conservative legislation. This is yet another hypocrisy. To be clear, the Liberals would eliminate mandatory prison time for criminals who commit robbery with a firearm, weapons trafficking and drive-by shootings. That is shameful.
398 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
