SoVote

Mr. Rhéal Fortin (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ)

Jun/9/22 7:28:18 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-5 deals with the issue of minimum sentences and diversion. Beyond the question of whether or not minimum sentences should be abolished, what impact will their abolition have on the communities in my colleague's riding or province? We are seeing a rise in gun violence, and the government is proposing to eliminate minimum sentences for a number of firearm offences. I would therefore like to hear my colleague's views on this. Once again, I am not talking about whether these minimum sentences should be eliminated; rather, I would like to know what impact eliminating them would have and what people in his riding think about this.

112 words

All Topics

Mr. Arnold Viersen

Jun/9/22 7:29:08 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his work at the justice committee. He has been thoughtful and logical in pursuit of his work there and I appreciate that. In northern Alberta, crime is generally on the rise. In particular, rural crime around theft is a big issue, and firearms are often involved. Folks who are travelling around stealing things in northern Alberta often are armed. That continues to be a major challenge. One thing we see is that the RCMP is unable or does not have the resources to combat this. Also, there are the great distances that have to be travelled across northern Alberta. The criminals seem to operate with impunity in broad daylight. Bail and mandatory minimum sentencing are things that people often come to me to talk about. They say it is just a revolving door, that these guys go in and come out right away. In some cases, they are arrested and are back out on bail the same evening, only to be arrested again within hours. This is a major challenge in northern Alberta. Folks are losing confidence in our justice system and our police force being able to put these people behind bars.

203 words

All Topics

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC)

Jun/9/22 7:30:45 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, Bill C-5 is legislation that seeks to reduce sentences for violent criminals. It is the same bill, unfortunately, that was introduced as Bill C-22 in the last Parliament before the Prime Minister called his completely unnecessary $630-million pandemic election. For the second consecutive election, the Liberal Party received fewer votes than the Conservative Party. The voters did not give the Prime Minister a mandate to experiment with the criminal justice system or any other ideological experiment on how Canadians govern themselves. The evidence on how opportunistic the election was is the length of time it took for the government to recall Parliament to avoid democratic scrutiny of its failed policies. Parliamentary committees were only formed just before we were shut down for the Christmas season. So much for the sense of urgency in calling an election. During the election, the Prime Minister and his party used vulnerable and marginalized Canadians, the same Canadians who they say suffer from systemic racism from a justice system they have been running for the last six and a half years, as a cover for the real objective of the bill, which is to pursue a Liberal ideological agenda of going soft on criminals. Canadians heard endless political rhetoric from the Liberals about how firearms pose a significant threat to public safety and the security of our communities. As has been the Liberal practice in all eight elections I successfully ran in, the Prime Minister, on cue, attacked the one group that is statistically proven to be the most law-abiding, that being Canadians who own and responsibly use firearms. Within three and a half weeks of the House reconvening following the election, what did the Liberal Party do? It introduced legislation not to get tough on firearms offences, but to help criminals who illegally use firearms and put the lives of people at risk. Bill C-5 will allow criminals to stay out of jail and in the community. It is only common sense, when the court system puts dangerous offenders back out on the street rather than putting them behind bars where they belong, that there is going to be a greater risk they are going to commit other offences. It is known that there is a high proportion of repeat offenders in Canada's criminal justice system and Bill C-5 will contribute to the perpetuating of the backlog in the courts. There has been silence from the justice minister that Bill C-5 will lead to our justice system being overwhelmed by repeat offenders, basically exacerbating the situation in our trial system, which is already heavily backlogged with cases. This backlog led to the infamous Jordan decision. Canadians would be interested in hearing how Bill C-5 will increase the safety and security of individuals as applied to the Jordan decision. The Prime Minister and his Liberal-socialist alliance want Canadians to believe that Bill C-5 is only about reducing minimum sentences for simple drug possession, but that is not so. Most Canadians would be alarmed to learn that this legislation is aimed at eliminating mandatory prison time for criminals who prey on our communities and victimize the vulnerable. Bill C-5 puts the rights of criminals first and the rights of victims last. It endangers public safety, while doing nothing to help marginalized vulnerable Canadians. Bill C-5 proposes to eliminate mandatory prison time not for petty crimes, but for crimes like drug trafficking and acts of violence. It would even allow violent criminals to serve their sentences on house arrest and not in prison, putting communities at continued risk. Let us now look at the elimination of mandatory prison time for firearm offences. In contrast to the Liberal election spin that demonizes lawful firearms owners to placate the anti-firearms lobby on it being so-called tough on gun violence, there is the complete hypocrisy of Bill C-5. It will eliminate mandatory minimum sentences related to gun crimes, including serious gun crimes, such as robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, using a firearm in the commission of an offence, discharging a firearm with intent, which is Criminal Code language for shooting at someone, illegal possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm, importing an unauthorized firearm, discharging a firearm recklessly, and other firearms offences, such as weapons trafficking, importing or exporting knowing the firearm is unauthorized, possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition, possession of a weapon obtained by the commission of an offence in Canada and possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking. What Bill C-5 does, which is baked into every piece of legislation brought forward by the Liberal Party, is blame the victim. Conservatives believe that criminals should be held responsible for their actions. Victims should have just as many rights in our criminal justice system as criminals do. Canadians know from the famous Kokanee grope incident comment about women perceiving things differently that the fake-feminist Prime Minister likes to blame the victim. Violence against women continues to be fact of life in Canada. On average, one woman is killed by her intimate partner every five days. On September 22, 2015, Carol Culleton, Nathalie Warmerdam and Anastasia Kuzyk were murdered by someone known to each of them. The man finally convicted of their murders had a long criminal history, including charges involving two of the three women. Happening in my eastern Ontario riding during the middle of the 2015 federal election campaign, their violent death scarcely caused a ripple in the too cynical national media, leaving the families and the rural Ontario communities these women were members of to grieve in silence. I can assure the Prime Minister that I have not forgotten what happened to these women. The system failed these women. Talk is cheap when I hear members of the government saying to scrap the progress our Conservative governments made in reforming the criminal justice system, but I invite the Minister of Justice to spend some time listening to the families of these murdered women. Changing our laws to blame the victims by giving the criminal a pat on the head is just plain wrong. Let us not allow Carol, Nathalie, Anastasia and all the other women who have been murdered by their intimate partners to have died in vain. During this debate, Canadians have heard the Liberal Party confirm in their statements, while omitting the fact that they have been the government for the last six and a half years, that they have presided over a justice system plagued by systemic racism. The Criminal Code is supposed to apply equally to everyone in Canada, and if the government were actually serious about ending systemic racism, it would be tabling a plan to build the communities instead of resorting to blame-the-victim legislation. An Ottawa publication has stated that Sam Goldstein, a criminal lawyer and former Crown attorney, has said that mandatory minimum sentences act as general deterrents to crime and has argued that if there are problems with marginalized communities, like social dislocation and poverty, fixing those makes more sense than adjusting criminal law. He said, "I don't like it when politicians try to interfere in criminal justice for their own social justice ends, because ultimately it doesn't serve people well." He expanded further, noting that moves toward support for therapeutic drug courts makes more sense than decriminalization. Mandatory minimum sentences simply protect society at every level. They deter crime. They make society safer. They do not violate the Constitution. Remember, the Criminal Code is supposed to apply equally to everyone in Canada. Mandatory minimum sentences do not discriminate against those who are marginalized, and if they do intrude on judicial independence, it is to restrain activist judges who forget that their role is to uphold the law, not to rewrite it in every case. Do not tinker with amendments to the law that will make people feel less safe in their own homes. The public has a right to feel safe, and that is no longer possible for Carol, Nathalie and Anastasia, whom our criminal justice system failed. In closing, Bill C-5 puts the rights of criminals first and the rights of victims last. It endangers public safety while doing nothing to help marginalized and vulnerable Canadians. This bill needs to be defeated.

1397 words

All Topics

Ms. Ruby Sahota (Brampton North, Lib.)

Jun/9/22 7:40:37 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, a large portion of the member's speech talked about murder and intimate partner violence leading to murder. I am wondering if the member realizes that this piece of legislation does not apply to murder. I think the House deserves an apology, because it is an extremely misleading speech that the member has given in relation to this piece of legislation.

63 words

All Topics

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Jun/9/22 7:41:20 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, here we go with the Prime Minister's chorus of misinformation and disinformation. What this bill would do is get rid of mandatory minimum sentences for assault, and each one of the victims I mentioned, for whom the inquiry is ongoing right now, had suffered assault by this man previously. He was let out of jail. If he had been kept in prison, these women might be alive today.

71 words

All Topics

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Jun/9/22 7:41:52 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, my understanding of the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, from hearing her speeches in this place before, is that she generally seems to prefer less government interference. Removing mandatory minimum penalties gives more judicial discretion to remove government interference from the sentencing, so I wonder if the member could help me understand this disconnect in this particular speech she just gave.

65 words

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Jun/9/22 7:42:31 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, the mandatory minimum sentences are guidance. They are to prevent repeat offences from happening and to keep people in prison to protect victims and future victims. Mandatory minimums do not take a right away from any judge; they provide guidance, and the judges are supposed to listen to what Parliament decides—not change what the will of the people is, as expressed through through their representation, but interpret what it is we give them and provide for the safety of future victims.

85 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Jun/9/22 7:43:15 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, my colleague's speech really resonated with me, particularly because she spoke at length about femicide and crimes related to domestic violence, an issue that is currently being studied by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. Generally speaking, the Bloc Québécois has expressed some reservations and concerns about abolishing certain mandatory minimum sentences, particularly those related to firearms. We agree that perhaps we should continue to work together on this bill to improve it, particularly in that regard, in order to prevent certain crimes. Could my colleague comment on that?

98 words

All Topics

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Jun/9/22 7:44:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, that was the peculiar thing about Bill C-5. The government says it is very concerned about crimes involving firearms. What it would do is take away the requirement for people who commit crimes using a firearm to go into jail. Instead, they would be let out to commit the same crimes again and hurt more people.

59 words

All Topics

Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC)

Jun/9/22 7:44:34 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, my friend from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke clearly outlined that what we have here is lazy Liberal legislation that again revictimizes people who have had to deal with criminal activity. It would allow more criminals to get out on the street more quickly. It would penalize legal firearms owners while giving illegal gun smugglers and people who use guns in illegal ways a “get out of jail free” card. I want to compliment the member on her great work and ask her why the Liberals are actually reducing and removing mandatory minimum sentences that were brought in by the former prime minister, Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

110 words

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Jun/9/22 7:45:22 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, quite apart from the history, with respect to the mandatory minimum sentences, the individual about whom I spoke, who killed the three women whom we are reliving the grief with right now through the community, had there been the mandatory minimum sentences in place, would have been kept in place because of his assaults and other choking crimes against these women. Instead, he was allowed to go free—

71 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/9/22 7:46:03 p.m.
Watch

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove.

9 words

Mr. Tako Van Popta (Langley—Aldergrove, CPC)

Jun/9/22 7:46:08 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House of Commons to join the debate on Bill C-5, which is a seriously flawed bill, in my opinion. It presents itself as wanting to keep Canadians safe against gun crime and illicit drugs, but if the bill is passed by Parliament, it will eliminate mandatory minimum penalties for many of the serious crimes listed under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and many of the serious firearms-related crimes listed under the Criminal Code as well. This hits very close to home, as it does, I am sure, for many Canadians. Last year we witnessed a series of gangland-style murders in Metro Vancouver, including two in my home riding of Langley—Aldergrove. It was shocking to see familiar places in Langley on the news and in the newspaper. One of the murders happened in front of the sportsplex where I drop my grandsons off to play hockey, right in broad daylight. There was another one in the parking lot of the Willowbrook mall in downtown Langley, and there were a series of other gangland-style murders throughout the Lower Mainland, including at the Vancouver International Airport, do none of this is theoretical; it hits all of us, and it is a real problem that real Canadians across this country feel personally. We want to feel safe when we are out and about in town, on our streets, in shopping malls and schools and hockey rinks, but, sadly, that is not always the case. It is our job as parliamentarians to do whatever we can to develop laws, regulations and policies that are designed to be and will be effective in keeping Canadians safe. However, the soft-on-crime bill before us that would eliminate mandatory minimum penalties for many of these serious crimes does not do that. I believe that the Liberals are introducing the bill in the faint hope that our prisons might become fairer and safer for criminals, and I believe it fails there as well. The public safety committee, on which I sit, recently completed a study on gun control, illicit arms trafficking and the increasing numbers of gun crimes committed by members of street gangs. It is a very important study, and we learned that there is a very close tie between the drug trade and gun violence. In that study, we were seeking to find and introduce tools and policies to give guidance to Parliament to combat both of them, but again Bill C-5 misses the mark. We heard from experts, and in the process we learned that guns and drug trafficking are inherently related to each other. This is what Mitch Bourbonniere, an outreach worker active in the city of Winnipeg, had to say about the tie-in between gang violence, guns and drug trafficking: “Anyone in Winnipeg can purchase a firearm illegally, much the same way as you would be purchasing illegal drugs. My understanding is that guns are manufactured mostly in the United States and smuggled through our two provincial borders and the American border.” Evan Bray, chief of police with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, said that “we can't overstate the importance of seeing the correlation between drugs and drug-related activity and firearms. They are intertwined.” Mike Rowe, staff sergeant at the Vancouver Police Department, said that “Yes, certainly, sir, there's a correlation there that I don't think can be disputed, especially as the manufacturing or sale of fentanyl produces an extremely lucrative drug market.” Grand Chief Abram Benedict of the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne said that “It is no secret to anyone that our community is exploited by organized crime, but what we do know is that many individuals involved in cross-border trafficking do it because of the money.” We discovered at the public safety committee that to tackle gun crime, we need to tackle illicit drug trafficking, as they are so closely tied together. Another fact of life that shocks Canadians is the number of deaths from toxic drugs that are readily available on our streets. I am going to focus on my home province of British Columbia, where last year and so far this year, five people die every day of illicit drug toxicity. This is completely unacceptable. Seventy-four per cent of these victims are age 30 to 59 and 77% are male. More than half of these deaths occurred at home when the person was alone. I grieve for a family whose son died of an apparent overdose about a year go. He had a family. He had people who loved him. He had children who relied on him. He had a good job. He had a boss and co-workers who relied on him. One evening, at home, alone, he consumed fentanyl-laced drugs and became part of our nation's terrifying statistics. The question remains open as to how he got his hands on fentanyl-laced drugs. His family wants to know. Today, we are talking about Bill C-5, which would eliminate mandatory minimum penalties for drug-related crimes. Canadians must be made aware that the government has also introduced, in the province of British Columbia, an agreement by which possession of small amounts of illicit drugs for personal use would be decriminalized. The problem is twofold. First, even a small amount of fentanyl can and regularly does kill people. Second, it would be indisputable evidence before Parliament that gun trafficking and illicit drug trafficking are the opposite sides of the same coin. It should be evident even to the casual observer that easing up on penalties for drug traffickers and gun traffickers is the wrong way to go, and certainly will not make our streets any safer. The criminal justice system talks a lot about the principles behind sentencing. The two principles are denunciation and deterrence. Society denounces certain behaviour and, of course, we want to deter future behaviour like that. Parliament, over the years, has recognized these principles and has created mandatory minimum sentences in response thereto. We want to denounce and we want society to develop safer environments for everybody. There is a quote from an important Supreme Court of Canada decision, R. v. Proulx, from 2000, which is, “the need for denunciation or deterrence is so pressing that incarceration will be the only suitable way in which to express society's condemnation of the offender's conduct or to deter similar conduct in the future.” This is the principle that has guided Parliament over many years to introduce mandatory minimum penalties and, as previous speakers have said, it is a mystery to us why they would now want to reduce that. We recognize that prison is not right for all people and for all situations. The Conservatives believe that those struggling with addictions should get the help they need, treatment for their addictions rather than prison. In the 2021 federal election, Conservatives put forward in their platform a plan to create 1,000 drug treatment beds, to create 50 recovery community centres and to support local and culturally appropriate addiction treatment. We recognize that prison is not always the best way forward. We think that people should always be given the hope of recovery, not just reduced harm, not just safe supply and not just safe injection sites, but real long-lasting solutions full of hope for a better life.

1253 words

All Topics

Ms. Ruby Sahota (Brampton North, Lib.)

Jun/9/22 7:55:31 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I was very interested in the member's focus on victims of drugs and those who are using drugs. Does he not feel that being allowing these people who have addictions to come forward without fear is important in order to treat them? This legislation, as well as what is being done in B.C., I think will help lead us to that place. Even family members who see another sick family member who needs treatment at this time are too scared to come forward and to tell anybody that their family member needs help because of fear of being criminally penalized. Removing this, I think, would really help in order to get people the help that they need. What does the member have to say?

128 words

Mr. Tako Van Popta

Jun/9/22 7:56:36 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, the member's comments are well thought out and sensitive to the needs of many people. Bill C-5 eliminates mandatory minimum penalties for very, very serious crimes. That is the objection I have to this legislation. I believe that addiction should be, in certain circumstances, treated as a health issue, rather than a criminal issue, but that is not what we are talking about today. We are talking about drug traffickers. We are talking about people who are trafficking in guns. We are talking about people who are in gangs. We are talking about people in my home community of metro Vancouver who are using guns out on the streets, out in the public, in places where my grandchildren go. That is unacceptable.

126 words

Ms. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ)

Jun/9/22 7:57:30 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, my colleague and I work together on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, notably on the gun control file. Every time I hear my Conservative colleagues ask questions about Bill C-5 in question period, I hear the Minister of Public Safety respond with something about Bill C-21. I find that somewhat unfortunate because they are not the same thing. Although I quite like my colleague, we both know that our opinions differ on this subject. For example, the Bloc members are big believers in rehabilitation and social reintegration. I think that Bill C-5 will help with that. However, I think my colleague will agree with me that this is not the time to be introducing this bill, given the rise in gun crime across the country. We are trying to find ways to combat that situation. What message does my colleague think is being sent to the public by introducing this bill at this time?

165 words

All Topics

Mr. Tako Van Popta

Jun/9/22 7:58:30 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I do enjoy working with the member at the public safety committee. We, the whole committee, have done some very good and important work together. We have put out some pretty good studies, including the one on guns and gangs. I hope that leads to further legislation and policies to be considered by this Parliament. Bill C-5 is not one of them. I do not think that Bill C-5 accomplishes what the government says is the stated purpose of reducing or responding to the overpopulation of indigenous people and people of colour in our prison system. In one of our earlier studies, we also talked a lot about indigenous policing. That, to me, is a much better government response to the problem of overpopulation of indigenous people in our prisons.

134 words

All Topics

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Jun/9/22 7:59:32 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, one of the reasons why I believe in repealing mandatory minimum penalties is that it is one of the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. While there is a lot of talk of following through on these calls to action, we need more follow through. Call number 32 specifically calls upon the federal government to amend the Criminal Code to allow trial judges to depart from mandatory minimum sentences and the restriction on the use of conditional sentences as well. I know the member for Langley—Aldergrove is mindful of hearing the priorities of indigenous peoples in this place. I would like to hear his reflections on that.

114 words

Mr. Tako Van Popta

Jun/9/22 8:00:15 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I have an indigenous community in my riding and I have developed a very good relationship with them. I have been advocating for a government response to the recommendations from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the ones that are important to them, particularly relating to residential schools. I think that the Gladue principles are very important. Judges need to be educated on them and to apply those principles to make sure there is justice for indigenous people.

79 words

Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC)

Jun/9/22 8:00:55 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I rise in this House today to speak to Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. I have listened to voices on all sides of this House, from members whom I have known and worked with, and I hear a conflicting difference in the connection between crime and sentencing, crime and punishment as Fyodor Dostoevsky would say. I hear from some friends and colleagues in this House that there is no connection between longer, mandated prison sentences and the rate of recidivism in society and the rate of crime increasing in Canada. I hear the other side that clearly illustrates the connection between the length of time mandated for a specific crime and the reduction in criminal offences of that nature. Further, I have listened to the government speakers on the legislation and I hear a familiar refrain from those on the government bench, as in all things, that this bill will let society have its cake and eat it too at the same time, as in there are no real choices to make here. But there are real choices. Somewhere in this sea of data and information, there is obvious narrative, all of which cannot be completely factual. That is that all these facts cannot live in the same narrative. I will deviate a little here because I have seen this much from the Attorney General of Canada playing fast and loose with the facts and trying to make the facts fit his narrative when examination clearly shows the insincerity of his statements. With this cacophony of facts, statements, theories and postulations, and yes, misstatements, I took the liberty of examining my own pre-established beliefs in the connection between crime and punishment. Life is a good teacher. I remember a time in our history when society was less safe. Murders were more common. Criminal activity was growing. There were parts of our cities across North America where people ventured at their own peril. Some brave politicians in the United States started implementing a program knows as “broken windows” at the time. In short, if we prosecute small crimes to the utmost, the perpetrators understand the consequences of crime and do not drift into more serious crimes. The effect over the years was a reduction of crime in the cities. Places became safe again. People moved back downtown in large cities. Social problems abated. People knew where they stood in the eyes of the law again. We are far from that in our current society. In fact, we are moving quickly in the opposite direction. I walk to work and it is obvious over the past two and a half years that there is more crime on the streets of Ottawa and on the streets of Calgary. We can go over the statistics, but at this point, they are redundant. The connection between the proliferation of severe drug abuse and street crime is clear, as is the increase in mental health problems among those at-risk people. However, the government wants the criminals who have preyed on these poor people in our society, pushing more of them onto the street and outside of the care they require, pushing them further toward the final outcome that the proliferation of drugs, like fentanyl, lead to, which is untimely death, to receive lighter sentences. I try and resolve these clear inconsistencies being offered by various narrative constructors on all sides. I think it is healthy to overcome what might be confirmation bias, which is something I used to deal with in my previous profession, and that is the propensity to accept data that confirms one's own preconceived opinions on any given matter. The source of data I found to be instructive was from Public Safety Canada and the report entitled “2019 Corrections and Conditional Release Statistical Overview”. I used the government's own source to determine which information was fact, as we know it, and which is narrative fiction. The report clearly shows that Canada's federal incarceration rate declined from 2009 to 2019 from 117 people per 100,000 Canadians in 2009, down to 107 people per 100,000 Canadians in 2019. That is a 9% reduction over a decade. There are many other touchpoints and I know that correlation and causation are not necessarily the same thing, but something clearly was going right during the period where mandatory minimums were enforced. I like to believe I am a rational thinker and the notion of what drives people to the choice of criminal activity as a means to earn a living is, like all things, a measure of pros and cons. I will reference the common phrase of do not do the crime if one cannot do the time. When the assessment of return, with the proliferation of a misery that is a trait of the trade in hard drugs, is greater than the assessed cost of being caught in that trade, the logical choice, outside of absolute shame, is to make that calculation. They make millions of dollars illegally and visit absolute misery upon society's most vulnerable with an assessed chance of imprisonment of, say, 20%. That is one in five perpetrators of this death and destruction will get caught and serve time for committing that crime. That punishment had better suit that crime. The calculation of risk versus return needs to be very punitive. In contradiction to my colleagues who have spoken in favour of lowering sentences, the cost needs to include the shame of being removed from loved ones and communities. These crimes impact our society significantly. There should be no free pass for the consequences, particularly when those consequences are so unequally shared by our Canadian society. We cannot normalize crime. What are these costs? They are addiction, rehabilitation, property crime, violent crime and death, and the dismantling of the social contract that binds us as a society to take care of each other. Removing these consequences for tearing down society will accelerate dire outcomes. Now, let us address the inequities the government hangs its virtue hat on in every speech it gives about this bill, which is that Canadians of certain ethnicities are over-represented in our prisons. That fact is true, sadly, and it bears out in the statistics. It is not getting better. Let us revisit my previous comments on what drives rational people to attempt to profit from criminal activity, which is an assessment that the return is higher than the risk. Crime is a big business. Where do criminal organizations, those making millions moving fentanyl and other destructive drugs through our cities, get their foot soldiers? I looked at a study, an American study, that examined factors correlating with recidivism. The clear correlation with lower recidivism was education level. This legislation will tilt the scales back towards forcing Canadians in marginalized communities to make choices early in life that would remove their future opportunities. It is doing exactly the opposite of what the government seems to pretend it is intended to do. I also want to draw upon clear data, and that is that crime committed by Canadians in minority communities is inordinately committed against Canadians in their own communities. Sadly, crime is a local activity. Thus, the legislation reduces the legitimacy of the victims in those minority Canadian communities in the eyes of the law. If we were tilting the law to avoid incarceration from certain minorities, we are penalizing those same minority Canadians who no longer have the same legal protection as other Canadians. It is discrimination, and it will lead to more unequal outcomes in society. Surely we could do better. Lastly, I will comment on the ability of judges to interpret what minimum sentences should be delivered. Judges are human beings who bring their own outlooks and emotions to their job. They are not perfect. They are not social workers. Having appeared in court and having heard judges at committee here in Parliament, I am certain the outcomes they decide are also imperfect. We have an imperfect judicial system, but perhaps it is less imperfect than other judicial systems. Let us not make the perfect the enemy of the good, as we say. That being said, we need to recognize the limits of what we expect judges to do. As much as they believe they could decide all matters, it is our job as parliamentarians to clearly decide for society what are the consequences of certain crimes. We will hear examples where mandatory sentences are absurd. All rules have exceptions. There is already much leeway in sentencing for crimes before our judiciary. Let us not put them in a position where they are responsible for the societal outcomes for which we, as parliamentarians, are responsible. This is an attempt by some of my colleagues to delegate their responsibilities to appointed judges. I would ask them why. Society, which is made up of our constituents, has elected us to decide these issues, and as the pendulum of issues swings, we will see again that Canadians will demand their cities and communities to be safe. They will demand it from their elected representatives, who are responsible. We cannot delegate this responsibility. I know where my constituents stand on this issue. I know the clarity I have heard in meetings I have had with citizens in communities as they have seen the significant rise in crime. Mandatory minimum determination is our job. Let us not dumb down Parliament by delegating this important function to others. We are responsible.

1605 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 85