SoVote

Mr. Stephen Ellis (Cumberland—Colchester, CPC)

Jun/9/22 1:27:20 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's opinion on human trafficking with material benefit. Is it right for such a serious issue to be buried in the bill? Is this crime, which overwhelmingly affects women and girls, not important?

42 words

All Topics

Mr. Alistair MacGregor

Jun/9/22 1:27:44 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Again, Madam Speaker, this is an example of the Conservatives completely ignoring what I just said. Of course I will acknowledge it is a serious crime, but what my hon. colleague failed to mention is that a judge would have the ability to look at the case before him or her, look at the defendant involved, look at the circumstances of the case, and if it is warranted, levy a hefty prison term against that individual. I have a counter-question for the member. Why does he and his party have so little faith in the judges? Why do those members not just come clean and say that to Canadians point blank?

112 words

All Topics

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

Jun/9/22 1:28:30 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I want tell my colleague that I truly appreciated his enlightening speech. We both served on the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying. I want to tell him that I agree with his analysis of the work that judges do, especially with respect to sentencing. I would like him to tell me about some of the negative effects of minimum sentences with respect to these changes, because minimum sentences do have negative effects. Can he provide some examples to help us understand why judges should have full responsibility over sentencing, which is the nature of their job?

101 words

All Topics

Mr. Alistair MacGregor

Jun/9/22 1:29:28 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, in my speech, I referenced the statistics, which are there for everyone to see, but I will go even further. There could be unique circumstances where charges have been levied against an individual who may have been in the wrong place at the wrong time, mixed up with the wrong crowd, and the judge would have no choice on a guilty verdict. The judge may say, “I can see that the circumstances in which you find yourself are markedly different from the people I usually see before me, but my hands are tied and because of this mandatory minimum sentencing provision in the Criminal Code, I have to give you a three-year sentence.” It completely binds the hands of the judge. Justice is not black and white. As much as the Conservatives want to see that it is, it is not black and white. Judges need to have the ability to make sure that the sentence is appropriate to the person before them.

168 words

All Topics

Mr. Ken Hardie (Fleetwood—Port Kells, Lib.)

Jun/9/22 1:30:35 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, the member gave a thoughtful speech, as thoughtful as his colleague from Courtenay—Alberni and the bill that he had to decriminalize possession of small amounts of drugs. The first reaction to the bill that the House did pass was from Alberta, saying that what was happening in B.C., which was an agreement with B.C., is not good and it will not happen in Alberta. I would ask the member to reflect on that and Bill C-5, which again attempts to allow local jurisdictions to consider local circumstances and have judges make the appropriate judgment on what kinds of penalties should apply.

108 words

All Topics

Mr. Alistair MacGregor

Jun/9/22 1:31:23 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, on the last part, I agree that this is a fundamental reason that Bill C-5 needs to pass, but I will expand on it. The problem with the Liberals voting down Bill C-216 is that while there may be a jurisdiction like British Columbia which is very open to reaching agreements with the federal government, there will be other jurisdictions like Alberta that refuse to do that. While the agreement with British Columbia is a great thing, what about all the Canadians in other provinces who do not have progressive premiers? They have to wait for the law to be changed and they are out of luck. That is the problem. That is why it is shameful that the Liberals voted against Bill C-216.

129 words

All Topics

Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay (South Surrey—White Rock, CPC)

Jun/9/22 1:32:07 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, this past December, the Liberal government revived Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The government has claimed that the purpose of this act is to root out systemic racism in the criminal justice system and address the root causes of substance abuse in light of the worsening opioid crisis. Conservatives have another view. We have outlined the dangers in the government's Bill C-5 with regard to violent criminals, lessening sentences for gun crimes and the removal of mandatory minimum penalties, among other concerns. The Liberals are eliminating mandatory prison time for criminals who commit robbery with a firearm, weapons trafficking and drive-by shootings. They are doing this because they feel these laws are unfair. They are more interested in standing up for criminals than defending our communities. Tell that to the families of victims in my own riding of South Surrey—White Rock. As a member of Parliament from British Columbia and as a mother, I know illegal drugs are a scourge in our society. This enactment amends the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to repeal too many mandatory minimum penalties, allowing for a greater use of conditional sentences and establishing diversion measures for simple and first-time drug offences that are already in place. B.C. already has drug courts. Mandatory minimum sentences are not used for simple possession now; they do not exist. Despite what the Liberal government has said about Bill C-5, the Supreme Court did not declare all mandatory minimums unconstitutional. The courts have struck down some, but these punishments have been on the books for decades. In fact, a majority of the mandatory minimums were introduced under previous Liberal governments. For example, the mandatory minimum penalty repeal for using firearms in the commission of an offence dates back to the Liberal government of 1976. While the government claims to be undoing the work of the former Conservative government, it would truly be undoing the work of many former Liberal governments as well. This Liberal government is maintaining many of the mandatory minimums were introduced or strengthened by the former Conservative government. In Bill C-5, the government is eliminating six mandatory minimums under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that target drug dealers: trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking; importing and exporting, or possession for the purpose of exporting; and production of a substance schedule I or II, like heroin, cocaine, fentanyl, crystal meth. The government is claiming this is solely to help those who struggle with addictions, but instead, the government is removing the mandatory minimums for those criminals who prey on those with addictions. Imagine what parents go through when their child is addicted to fentanyl. It is so addictive that it is only a matter of time before the person overdoses. With carfentanil, young people take it once; their first hit is their last, and their heart stops before they hit the floor. The bill allows for greater use of conditional sentence orders, such as house arrest, for a number of offences where the offender faces a term of less than two years' imprisonment. The offences now eligible include trafficking in, or exporting or importing schedule III drugs. That includes mescaline, LSD and others. What exactly is being done right now by the government to crack down on the drug trade? Why is the government not tackling the massive issue of supply in Canada? According to Criminal Intelligence Service Canada, which has strategically allocated resources to investigate organized crime groups with a higher threat level, there are over 1,800 OCGs in Canada. Larger OCGs do not generally restrict themselves to one illicit substance and are importing an array of illicit substances. Around 75% of OCGs analyzed by Criminal Intelligence Service Canada are involved in cocaine trafficking. The legalization of cannabis has done little to disrupt or displace OCGs due to the fact that 97% of them involved with importing cannabis are also involved in multi-commodity trafficking. It was noted that organized crime in Canada has grown due to an increase in criminal entrepreneurs who have harnessed the anonymity of the Internet to perpetrate crime. In addition, the dark web has given rise to an increasing number of criminals who are operating independently to implicate themselves in the fentanyl market and rapidly growing meth market due to the relative ease of obtaining precursor chemicals used in their production and synthesis. In addition to OCGs, there have been increasing threats observed from outlaw motorcycle gangs. For instance, the Hells Angels is an outlaw motorcycle gang with global ties to other active OCGs in Canada. The organization has expanded across the country, and 50% of organized crime can be attributed to its operations. Hells Angels has increased the number of its support clubs from 40 to 120. This expansion has resulted in approximately double the amount of criminal activity. Hells Angels uses that coordination to ship fentanyl and methamphetamine together, contributing to the trend of polydrug trafficking. Their operations vary in terms of sophistication but pose a threat to public safety nonetheless. Violence surrounding OCGs is increasing and is commensurate with the increase in firearms-related crime in Canada, the expansion of illicit handguns westward from Ontario and the escalating use of social media to facilitate the illicit drug trade. It was noted that many key players from the largest OCGs have been killed in the past 18 months, both domestically and while brokering drug deals abroad. With respect to importation of illicit substances in Canada, existing OCGs with networks and smuggling routes for cocaine and heroin from Mexico are shifting focus. There has been a large increase in fentanyl and methamphetamine smuggling from Mexico. Favouring profitability, OCGs are moving away from heroin and toward fentanyl. As meth becomes less expensive to produce, its street value is declining, leading to increased demand for meth, as people who use drugs shift away from more expensive drugs to meth. Notably, Canada has been identified as a global transshipment country for fentanyl. Currently, there is a five-to-one import-export ratio, with 300 different OCGs involved in importation. The government has this woke view of criminal justice, that if people are kept out of prison, they will reform and all will be okay. I think drug dealers need to be in prison, not on house arrest where they can continue to ruin children’s lives and families' lives and devastate communities. Those most vulnerable in our society must be protected. I believe that is not in question. In my home province, according to preliminary data released by the B.C. coroners service, the toxic illicit drug supply claimed the lives of at least 2,224 British Columbians in 2021. Lisa Lapointe, the chief coroner, stated, “Over the past seven years, our province has experienced a devastating loss of life due to a toxic illicit drug supply. This public health emergency has impacted families and communities across the province and shows no sign of abating.” In 2021 alone, more than 2,200 families experienced the devastating loss of a loved one. In the past seven years, the rate of death due to illicit drug toxicity in our province has risen more than 400%. Drug toxicity is now second only to cancer in B.C. for potential years of life lost. Fentanyl was detected in 83% of samples tested in 2021. Carfentanil was present in 187 results, almost triple the number recorded in 2020. Illicit drug poisoning is now the leading cause of death among B.C. people aged 19 to 39, people in the prime of their lives. For men, the toxic drug crisis has been so severe that overall life expectancy at birth for males has declined in recent years in B.C. The townships that experienced the highest number of illicit drug toxicity deaths in 2021 were Vancouver, Surrey and Victoria. For me, representing and living in South Surrey—White Rock, these are not just statistics. We live it every day in B.C. I feel for those families that have lost loved ones to drugs. For that reason, I cannot support this government bill. Members can characterize me as they will, but six lives will be lost in British Columbia to drug overdose today, and I do not think Bill C-5 does a thing to deter drug dealers from killing my constituents. It makes their lives easier while they destroy those around them.

1429 words

All Topics

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

Jun/9/22 1:41:25 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I am having a hard time understanding my colleague's logic. Bill C‑5 is not yet in effect, but she is saying that six people will die today. The current approach is rigid prohibition, rigid enforcement, an approach that has never worked. Does she know that harm reduction specifically means focusing police and judicial resources in order to fight back against traffickers and criminal organizations?

70 words

Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay

Jun/9/22 1:42:03 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I have been accused of many things, but usually it is not that I am illogical. I think my arguments are extremely logical, in fact. We know that, in this country, we have very poor supervision of our ports. Resources have not been allocated by the government, either in personnel or in investment in money, to properly monitor the drugs that come into this country through the ports and through the mail. This is a global phenomenon, and they are very easily obtained. What we are talking about is looking to those who traffic in the misery and dependency of others. We should be focused on victims, not helping those who want to traffic in drugs.

118 words

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP)

Jun/9/22 1:42:59 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague quoted Lisa Lapointe, a very respected public health official in British Columbia. She has called for the decriminalization of drugs and for treating drug use and substance use disorders as health issues. My hon. colleague properly empathizes with the unbelievable, astronomical death rate in British Columbia. The New Democrats have pointed to the problem being the toxic street supply, and the fact that decades and decades of a “tough on crime, war on drugs” approach, which attempts to punish and interdict drugs, has been an absolute, abject, empirical, total failure. The member claims to be logical, so could she tell me if she thinks the war on drugs has been successful? Does she think that more punishment and trying to interdict drugs would give any different result than we have had over the last 50 years?

143 words

Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay

Jun/9/22 1:43:55 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague, who has been in this House a long time, even though we often approach things from a very different point of view. The fact of the matter is that just because a fight is hard or just because a fight is not immediate in its results does not mean that we give up the fight and say that we do not like the results of where things are right now, so we should just abandon that. The member mentioned Lisa Lapointe, the chief coroner. She is focusing on addicts and people who need help with drug addiction. That is my focus as well. We need greater and larger expansion of help, with drug treatment centres and with places for families to help their addicted loved ones have a place to go to get off those drugs and be able to embrace a different life. That has nothing to do with going soft on those who traffic in human misery.

170 words

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

Jun/9/22 1:45:01 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by reassuring my colleague. I did not say that she was illogical; I said that I was having a hard time understanding her logic, which is not the same thing. That said, the Bloc Québécois stands up every day to tell the government that Bill C-5 is not enough and that we need to fight organized crime and create a registry of criminal organizations. Given what the hon. member was saying about borders and the current shortcomings in the fight against organized crime, I presume that she supports our bill and will vote for it.

107 words

Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay

Jun/9/22 1:45:37 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, this is where there is an alignment between what I hear from the Bloc and my own personal feelings on this. The Bloc members talk about gang violence and crimes, particularly in Montreal, in their interventions in the House. We have the same issues in Surrey, B.C., where I am from. We have a rampant gang violence problem in that community. It pours over to innocents, such as a local man who is a coach and a nurse at our local hospital. Through mistaken identity and the car he drove, he was shot down in his driveway, leaving his family bereft and grieving. He had nothing to do with it. These are very serious issues, and we are in alignment on that.

125 words

Ms. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau (Laurentides—Labelle, BQ)

Jun/9/22 1:46:34 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, the government's Bill C-5 would amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to repeal certain minimum penalties, allow for a greater use of conditional sentences and establish diversion measures for simple drug possession offences. There are two parts to the bill. The first repeals 20 mandatory minimum sentences for offences involving firearms and drugs, and the second introduces the principle of diversion for simple drug possession. First, I must say that the Liberals' bill is certainly well intentioned. However, the timing of its introduction is rather odd, given that gun violence is spiking and the federal government, which is responsible for managing our borders, is being criticized for doing nothing to stem imports of illegal firearms. Not a day goes by without this issue being mentioned during question period in the House. The number of gun crimes has increased considerably over time. Between 2019 and 2020, the number of gun crimes committed in Montreal rose by 15%, and the number of firearms seized increased by 24%. In addition, the goal is to repeal certain mandatory minimum sentences for drug production, yet the opioid crisis is claiming more and more lives in Quebec and Canada. If I put myself in the shoes of the families who have lost a loved one to a shooting or to the use of drugs laced with fentanyl by a unscrupulous dealer, I am not sure this is the response they were hoping for from the government at this point. The bill repeals several minimum penalties for second and third offences. While it is true that mandatory minimum sentences for a first offence may impact social reintegration, keeping certain mandatory minimum sentences for second or even third offences could be justified as a way of upholding the credibility of our legal system. Maintaining public confidence in our justice institutions is also a concern that should not be dismissed out of hand. Let us remember that, under the Harper government in 2006, a number of mandatory minimum sentences were challenged. Section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects individuals from cruel and unusual punishment in Canada, is often used as an argument against mandatory minimum sentences. Over 210 constitutional challenges have been filed. According to the Minister of Justice, 69% of the constitutional challenges involving mandatory minimum sentences for drug offences and 48% of those for firearms offences were successful. To be honest, we cannot call that a success. That said, we are supporting Bill C‑5 despite being somewhat dissatisfied with it. My esteemed colleagues from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia and Rivière-du-Nord repeatedly asked the government to split the bill in two, because we believe that tackling substance addiction and abolishing mandatory minimum sentences are two fundamentally different issues. Unfortunately, the government rejected our request, so here we are now. We are disappointed with the part about mandatory minimum sentences, but we agree on the principle of establishing diversion measures as introduced in Bill C‑5. With respect to mandatory minimum sentences, the Bloc Québécois wants the legal system to adopt an approach that enables rehabilitation and reduces crime. Considering that mandatory minimums have few benefits and introduce many problems, such as the overrepresentation of indigenous and Black communities in prison, in addition to increasing system costs and failing to deter crime, the Bloc Québécois supports the idea of repealing certain mandatory minimum sentences. However, we believe this is a bad time to repeal mandatory minimums for firearms offences, because many Quebec and Canadian cities are seeing a firearms epidemic, due in part to the Liberal government's failure to implement border controls. Repealing mandatory minimums without strong action by the federal government to counter the illegal importation of firearms at the border sends the wrong message. Although the Bloc Québécois can get behind repealing mandatory minimums for a first offence, we believe that keeping these sentences for second and even third offences can be justified, as this would maintain the public's trust in their justice institutions and the rehabilitation process. Believing in second chances does not mean that people's actions do not have consequences. It is a question of common sense. Although we think it is defensible to repeal mandatory minimum sentences for firearms possession, the fact that the bill repeals mandatory minimums for certain offences involving firearms, such as discharging a weapon with intent and robbery or extortion with a firearm, seems to contradict the government's claim that they are being maintained for certain categories of serious crimes. During the last election campaign and during the debate on Bill C-236, we expressed support for the introduction of the principle of diversion for simple drug possession. However, I would remind the House that such a measure will only be effective if investments are made in health care through transfers to support health care systems and community organizations, which need ways to support people grappling with addiction and mental health problems. They are doing amazing work on the ground, and they need resources to carry out their mission. We have said it before, but it bears repeating: The Bloc Québécois and the Quebec government demand health care funding. I think we have said this 572 times, but we want health transfers to cover 35% of the system costs. Unfortunately, the government has failed to respond. It is silent in the face of the unanimous demands of Quebec and the provinces. Those demands have been reiterated every year since the Liberals came to power, in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and today in 2022. Will they have the audacity to keep saying no until 2023? I hope not.

979 words

All Topics

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

Jun/9/22 1:55:29 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I look at Bill C-5 as a positive piece of legislation. I understand the member's concerns with respect to dividing it, which is what the Bloc wanted to see, but overall I think it is important that we understand and appreciate judicial independence. The idea is that our judges need to have discretionary authority to deal with issues such as systemic racism, which is very real in our court system. I wonder if my colleague could provide her thoughts with regard to that aspect of the legislation and how it would benefit that issue.

98 words

All Topics

Ms. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau

Jun/9/22 1:56:16 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I will not answer the question specifically, but I do have something to say. For weeks now, months even, the Bloc Québécois has been making proposals concerning well-being and suggesting solutions to the current government, which sometimes ends up in reaction mode because it has failed to prepare. This time, we are telling the government that it should split this bill in two because it covers two different things. I have a question of my own. Why are we once again faced with a mammoth bill at the end of the session while being hit with one time allocation motion after another?

109 words

All Topics

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Jun/9/22 1:57:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, it is interesting listening to the debate. The government claims that this bill is about systemic racism and in particular about the overrepresentation of Black and indigenous people in our prison population. If we read the bill, the bill makes no mention of racism and no mention of Black or indigenous communities. There is nothing in there about programs or processes to address the inequalities. It is simply a bill about lowering sentences for broad categories of offences. When there is overrepresentation, reducing overall sentences or removing minimum sentences or sentencing starting points does not change the fundamental cause of overrepresentation. There is nothing in the bill that actually addresses the issue of overrepresentation whatsoever, and the government's rhetorical defence of the bill has nothing to do with what is in the bill. I wonder if the member has a comment on that.

146 words

All Topics

Ms. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau

Jun/9/22 1:58:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, my answer is very simple. We need to start relying on science, legal experts and the right advisers who are giving us concrete proof that there is a right way of doing things. The right way of doing things is to invest in rehabilitation and support, because reducing minimum penalties will not reduce crime. The statistics make that clear. I hope that we will implement structures and concrete measures to help people, because, right now, there are flaws in Bill C-5.

84 words

All Topics

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Jun/9/22 1:58:52 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I share the concerns of my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle about having one bill with two goals. I fully support the elimination of mandatory minimum sentences, which do not work and are a problem for our justice system. At the same time, I am absolutely in favour of measures to achieve the objective of Bill C‑5, which is that problematic substance use must be addressed primarily as a social and health issue, not a criminal one. Both of these elements are in Bill C‑5, but as a result, each is weaker in achieving the results we need.

106 words

Ms. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau

Jun/9/22 1:59:57 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I will be very succinct. I know that we can be proactive because I worked with community organizations in Laurentides—Labelle that work proactively to prevent crime. They have what it takes to help us. I agree that Bill C‑5 should be split in two.

50 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 85