44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 7, 2022 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, it is official: 2021 was Montreal's most violent year in a decade. The police released its annual report, and there were 25,000 crimes against the person. Incidents where shots were fired doubled compared to last year. This wave of violence can be traced back to organized crime and its illegal weapons.
The federal government must do more than restrict legal firearms. Illegal weapons are plaguing Montreal. Will the minister admit that Bill C‑21 does not solve this problem?
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 2:43:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, putting a freeze on legal handgun sales is a step in the right direction, I will give him that.
As for illegal firearms, we need to face facts. Criminal groups do not buy their guns at the store, and they are the ones who made 2021 Montreal's most violent year.
The minister may well increase prison sentences, but we still need to be able to arrest these individuals, seize their illegal weapons and lay charges. The numbers show that we did not manage to do it in 2021. Organized crime groups are not worried. Does the minister realize that?
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 2:44:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we need to give the police more resources so that they can take action. One of those resources is a list of criminal organizations, like the Bloc Québécois suggested. That would greatly ease the burden of proof when the police want to lay charges against members of criminal groups. Given that 2021 was the most violent year of the past decade in Montreal, the minister simply cannot afford to deprive the police of such a tool any longer.
Does the minister realize that this sad statistic obligates him to consider our proposal and create an organized crime registry?
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 2:46:04 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, our hearts go out to victims and we will always stand with victims. With respect to the Supreme Court ruling on serious intoxication, we are looking carefully at that ruling. The Court has presented us with a number of different options, and I have already said publicly that we will evaluate those options and come back to this place.
Serious crimes in this country will always carry serious consequences. The failed tough-on-crime Conservative policy needs to be put in the past, and that is precisely what we are doing.
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 3:03:26 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, shootings are happening more and more often in the greater Montreal area. Fear is taking hold in some neighbourhoods, and children have been traumatized by shootings in broad daylight.
What is the government doing to address this? With Bill C-5, it is eliminating mandatory prison time for armed robbery, armed extortion and weapons trafficking.
What is the world coming to? Why is the government so soft on crime?
72 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 3:03:59 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, serious crime will always have serious consequences.
What we are doing with Bill C‑5 is completely different. We are targeting the overrepresentation of Black and indigenous people in the criminal justice system. We are talking about offences where public safety is not at stake. For serious offences, there is Bill C-21. I hope the opposition will support both of these bills.
67 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 7:15:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. colleague and I may agree on one thing, and I want to reassure Canadians. In his speech, the member referenced that criminals doing the most heinous of crimes will be eligible for parole. It is important to emphasize that eligibility for parole does not mean they get parole. There is a lot of literature on this and we have the statistics to know that certainly the most dangerous of criminals are not going to be getting parole.
I am concerned, and I think he can agree with me on this point, that we have not adequately dealt with the rights of victims of crime. He mentioned Sue O'Sullivan, our former ombudsman for victims of crime. She was not satisfied with the legislation we got in 2014.
I wonder if my hon. colleague would agree that we need to do much more for victims of crime.
152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 7:33:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her strong ongoing advocacy for victims.
I wonder if she can comment on the government's overarching theme of being soft on crime. We see it in a number of ways, in different legislation that it brings forth and in how it approaches many different issues. I wonder if you can comment on how the government is not really standing up for victims of crime, but really having this soft-on-crime approach.
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 7:34:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, to that point, being soft on crime is exactly how I see this. We talk about the revolving door that we see in the courts. We talk about that all the time, and we continue to see it because there is loophole after loophole. That is where the government comes in. When it comes to criminal law and laws like this, we need to look at them and ask where the victim fits in.
I have watched different court sessions. I recognize that, at the end of the day, the government wants to get rid of mandatory minimum sentences and so forth. I want to know how many victims' organizations are sitting at the table when the government is talking about that. I have sat with people who have gone to Parole Board hearings and who have been revictimized after the loss of a sister. I have spoken with these people. I ask the government to stand in their shoes for one day and imagine what it is like to lose a loved one, and then imagine having to withstand a government that is soft on crime.
189 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
