SoVote

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

Mr. Alex Ruff (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC)

Jun/9/22 8:11:11 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague's speech was really fascinating and it triggered a memory of mine of Michael Sheehan's book, Crush the Cell: How to Defeat Terrorism Without Terrorizing Ourselves. That book talks about an aspect of cleaning up crime in New York. When they went after the subways and cleaned up the graffiti and cleaned up those lower crimes, that lowered crime writ large. Could the member please explain just a bit more about the broken windows theory and the idea that it is important to nip this in the bud right away and deal with criminals at that early stage before they escalate to more violent crimes?

111 words

Mr. Greg McLean

Jun/9/22 8:12:02 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, my colleague is right. I remember, decades ago, going to New York City, the city he refers to, which is where people first implemented the broken windows theory. With the crime in the street, the city was unsafe. Walking around, I saw there was crime everywhere. A new mayor came in and said they needed to start taking care of the broken windows, so the theory followed that he basically started enforcing against small crime, such as breaking windows, graffiti and getting involved with gangs. When people are recruited at young ages, once they get older, they continue in that realm of activity. That is what was nipped in the bud. When they say, “Stop here”, it stops and they no longer have people progressing through criminal organizations. It worked. New York became a beautiful city to visit. It had a whole bunch of tourism opportunities, in addition to the other activities that were there. I thank the member again for that, and I hope we can talk about that further.

175 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Jun/9/22 8:13:05 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. As my colleague already said, the issue is with when this bill was introduced. There is an increase in gun crimes. Yesterday we learned that 173 women and girls were killed in Canada in 2021 alone. That is a lot. People are conflating Bill C‑21, which has to do with firearms, with this one. They are conflating serious gun crimes with simple drug possession. They are conflating everything and making questionable associations. There is an important distinction between these two bills and between gun crimes and the simple possession of drugs. This needs to be simplified. The timing of this bill is strange, however.

116 words

All Topics

Mr. Greg McLean

Jun/9/22 8:14:04 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. My comments were about crimes related to drug use, but there are also gun crimes that are important in the bill. The other bill she mentioned is a firearms bill. I think people with legal firearms are targeted most of the time. We will see if that is a problem. Unfortunately, gun crimes are committed against women. If those firearms are illegal, I think we need to tackle illegal arms trafficking in Canadian society.

83 words

All Topics

Mrs. Jenica Atwin (Fredericton, Lib.)

Jun/9/22 8:15:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, the member brought a lot of dignity to the conversation, and I really appreciate that. I wonder if the member could comment quickly about the issue around the Court of Appeal for Ontario upholding a ruling that struck down the mandatory minimum of five years imprisonment for subsection 286.3(2) of the Criminal Code as being inconsistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I wonder if the member could comment on that specific situation.

79 words

All Topics

Mr. Greg McLean

Jun/9/22 8:15:44 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, there are a lot of courts of appeal that strike down laws in Canada, and we have to look at where the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is. Actually, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is expressed in the Ontario Court of Appeal. I apologize to my colleague because I am not sure where this stands in the appeal process from the Ontario Court of Appeal to potentially the Supreme Court of Canada. However, it is one of those things where different courts of appeal do have certain rights to say something is contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and then of course it goes up to the higher court of appeal, which is the Supreme Court of Canada. I apologize that I cannot give the member more detail on it at this point, being unfamiliar with where it is in the process.

147 words

All Topics

Mr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC)

Jun/9/22 8:16:31 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to join the debate this evening, and I think I will be bringing it home before we move on to the other piece of government legislation we are going to discuss. Bill C-5 is problematic for a number of reasons, and I am going to articulate why I will not be able to support this bill. We have heard a lot of rationales presented by members on the government benches as to why this bill is compassionate, why they believe it is important that this needs to be done and why it is urgent that it be done now. I would note that this bill was progressing through the House in its previous form in the last Parliament, and during that Parliament the Prime Minister and members of this place undertook not to call an election during the pandemic. However, politics being politics, the Prime Minister saw that the polls seemed favourable for his party's electoral fortunes, called an election and killed the bill. Now we are back, and I guess it is urgent once more. The Liberals believe that, but it was not in the intervening period. Let us talk about what the bill really would do. I want to address some of the arguments made in favour of it by the bill's proponents. One of those arguments is that eliminating mandatory prison time for some of these offences would help racialized Canadians and minorities who are disproportionately affected and over-represented in the justice system, so the Liberals are going to eliminate the MMPs for those individuals. That is what they say Bill C-5 would do. In about 12 minutes we are going to debating Bill C-21, so let us talk about what Bill C-5 would do and what Bill C-21 would do. Bill C-5 would remove the mandatory prison time for possession of a weapon obtained by the commission of an offence, so there would be no minimum. Bill C-21 would increase the maximum. Bill C-5 would remove the minimum penalty for weapons trafficking, while Bill C-21 would increase the maximum amount of time. For possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking, Bill C-5 would eliminate the minimum penalty, and Bill C-21, as members guessed it, would increase the maximum penalty. The same is true for importing or exporting a weapon, knowing it is unauthorized. The bills would remove the MMP and increase the maximum. If the contention by the government is that it would be removing the minimum penalty because the folks who are being convicted of these offences are racialized Canadians and they are disproportionately represented in the justice system, why is it that the government wants to increase the maximum penalty? There seems to be a bit of mental gymnastics happening for the Liberals to put forward these two pieces of legislation, which we are going to be debating in the House literally minutes apart. We have talked about the opioid crisis in recent days in this place, and we talked about it today. It is a scourge in our country. People are dying every day, and the perpetrators, the dealers of this poison, who are preying on people in all of our communities, should know that what they are doing will carry the harshest penalties in our justice system. They are not the victims. Bill C-5 would eliminate mandatory prison time for trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking, importing and exporting or possession for the purpose of exporting, and production of a schedule 1 or 2 substance. Schedule 1 and 2 include heroin, cocaine, fentanyl and crystal meth. I have heard conflation regarding this bill and the government's work with the Province of British Columbia to decriminalize what they call “simple possession” of those same substances. When we talk about fentanyl and carfentanil, two and a half grams is considered personal possession. That is enough to kill 1,000 people. That is 1,000 lethal doses. Yesterday at the health committee, we heard Canada's chief public health officer say that if there is an overdose at a party or someone is carrying two and a half grams of carfentanil or fentanyl, the first step would be to administer naloxone, or Narcan. I do not know what the situation is like in British Columbia with respect to its emergency service preparedness for overdoses, but I do not know of a lot of fire or police departments or public health agencies that have 1,000 Narcan kits on hand. That is incredibly troubling. This bill also talks about the expansion of conditional sentencing. This is where someone who is found guilty of an offence is able to serve their sentence in the community. The first thing I would draw to the attention of members in this place is bizarre, to put it gently. Someone would be eligible for conditional sentences, which means not serving their sentence in jail, if they are found guilty of prison breach. Therefore, when they break out of jail, the judge will say that it would be more appropriate for them to serve their sentence in the community. It is absurd. To move from the absurd to the serious, I note offences such as sexual assault, kidnapping, trafficking in persons for a material benefit and abduction of a person under the age of 14. Someone found guilty of these offences would be eligible to serve their sentence in the community where they perpetrated the offence on their victims. They could be in the house right next door. That is not justice. We need to concern ourselves very much with the effects this legislation would have on the victims. This country needs to take an approach where the lens we put on everything we do has victims in mind. These perpetrators are not the victims. Consider offences such as assaulting a peace officer causing bodily harm or with a weapon. Of course, we can go back to trafficking in or exporting and importing schedule III drugs. After putting poison in our communities, someone can serve their sentence in the community they were poisoning. We have also heard about diversion for people who have simple possession for personal use of drugs and are struggling with addiction issues. We should have legislation in the House with a comprehension approach for treatment in every single one of the provinces. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Justice should be working with the provinces every single day to come up with a framework for a national strategy on treatment. Right now, there are no Crown prosecutors bringing people before the courts for simple possession. There has already been a directive given by the prosecution service for that not to happen. This bill is deeply flawed, and there are a number of ways we could work together in the House to make sure we are standing up for victims and make sure we are addressing those who are struggling with addiction. That is what I would like to turn my attention to and I will not be supporting this legislation.

1215 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/9/22 8:25:59 p.m.
Watch

It being 8:26 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House. The question is on Motion No. 2. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 3 to 5. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair. The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

109 words

Motions

Mr. Michael Barrett

Jun/9/22 8:26:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we request a recorded division.

7 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/9/22 8:26:53 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the division stands deferred until Monday, June 13, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 3 to 5.

39 words

Hon. Marco Mendicino (Minister of Public Safety, Lib.)

Jun/9/22 8:27:54 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-21

moved that Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), be read the second time and referred to a committee. He said: Madam Speaker, it is an honour to have the opportunity to commence debate on Bill C-21, which is a bill that represents a culmination of the advocacy, effort and leadership of so many people, most especially the Canadians who have been profoundly impacted by gun violence. I cannot bring enough humility to this chamber and to this speech to convey my gratitude to them and indeed to everyone who has contributed to a law that we believe, on the government side, represents a significant stride and an important step. It is probably the most important step we have taken with regard to gun law policy reform in a generation. I want to bring the chamber's attention to a number of individuals whom I had the privilege of getting to know in the journey leading to this debate. These are good people like Ken Price and Claire Smith, whose daughter Samantha was injured in the Danforth shooting tragedy in my hometown, and people like Nick Beaton, who lost his pregnant wife in the Portapique and Truro shooting in Nova Scotia. I met people from Quebec, such as Imam Boufeldja Benabdallah of the Quebec mosque and Nathalie Provost, an incredibly inspiring survivor of the Polytechnique shooting in Montreal. Most recently, I met Eileen Mohan, who lost her son about 15 years ago. He was only a young boy. It is an innocent life gone, snuffed out in the crossfire in British Columbia. He is one of the Surrey Six. When I met Eileen about a week ago, she said to me, and I will never forget the look in her eye, that she was proud. She had waited 15 years for the government to put forward legislation that would do the things we are proposing to do so that no other mom, no other parent and no other person would have to lose a loved one like she did. There is really no way to articulate that sense of loss, that anguish, in the conversations I have. It is indescribable, and perhaps the single most important motivation for me, and I genuinely hope for all members in the chamber, is ensuring that we do better by them by passing this law. This has been exceedingly difficult, I have to say. I see the patience that these survivors have exhibited. It is as though, since the moment they lost the person who mattered to them or the moment they were directly impacted by gun violence, they have been climbing a mountain that is as high as one can imagine, and the elements are throwing everything at them: snow, rain, wind, boulders and avalanches. These are obstacles, and despite all of it, they have persevered and fought hard. I just want to impress upon everyone here and all Canadians that this is why we are here. We are here for them. We can never forget that. The imperative has only increased over the past number of years for us to take additional steps to revisit not only our gun laws, but also our entire strategy when it comes to fighting gun violence. A Statistics Canada report issued a little less than two weeks ago really shone a light on the extent of the problem. Gun violence is up 81% since 2009. Gun homicides are up. Handgun violence, specifically, is up, and this is the number one type of gun used in homicides. Alarmingly, domestic violence, intimate-partner violence and gender-based violence are all up in connection with the presence of guns and gun violence. This just goes to show that wherever one comes from in this debate, no matter what one's perspective is, there must be one thing that unites all of us, and that is the need to do more. Bill C-21 represents the culmination of the advice we have received from so many constituencies, including from survivors and many others, which I will come to momentarily, to take that additional step to do better. We have had the occasion to start to explain the provisions in Bill C-21, and I will take the next few moments to give additional details on how those provisions would attack, very specifically, the issues that are so pernicious and so prevalent across communities in our country. First and foremost, Bill C-21 would introduce a national freeze on handguns for the first time. In very clear language, this means that on a go-forward basis no one would be able to buy, sell, transfer or import a handgun. There would be limited exceptions for law enforcement and for those who work within the security industry, and there would be limited exceptions for those who compete in international competitions on behalf of Canada and the like. Beyond that, we would cap the market and stop the trend of a universe of classification of guns and handguns that has grown, on average, by about 45,000 to 55,000 new registrations every year. Members can imagine how quickly and how significantly the domain of handguns is growing within Canada. It is no coincidence, in my opinion, that as the universe of those handguns has grown, so has the prevalence of handguns in the commission of serious violent offences, leading all the way to murder: to homicide. As a result of that, we are stopping that trend. That is one of the main centrepieces of the bill. The last thing I will say about the priority and urgency that underlines this particular moment in time is that, since the government has stated its intention to pass Bill C-21 into law, we have seen a spike in the number of handgun sales across the country. This is something that the government was prepared for and was alive to, which is why, in addition to tabling Bill C-21, we also simultaneously put on the floor of the House of Commons regulations that would be modified under the Firearms Act so that we could more quickly bring in the effect of the national handgun freeze to stop the growth of that particular universe of guns. Again, these are increasingly being used in the commission of criminal offences leading up to homicide. Earlier today, a number of MPs who caucus with the government at the Standing Committee on Public Security and National Security brought a motion with the hopes of achieving unanimity that we could more quickly bring in changes to the regulations under the Firearms Act, so that we could more quickly bring in the national handgun freeze and the effect of it. We did not get consensus at committee, unfortunately, and this is part of a sustained pattern that we have seen from the Conservative Party of Canada of an effort to obstruct debate. In fact, this debate was supposed to start last Friday. I was right here in my chair after question period hoping to kick-start second reading, but instead we saw a flood of concurrence motions in a very deliberate effort to postpone the debate of Bill C-21. I am grateful that we are now finally commencing this debate, but let there be no more of it. Let us get on with it. We need to read and debate the bill. The introduction of a national handgun freeze is the first thing. The second thing is that Bill C-21 will take on, in a very intentional and direct way, organized crime. It does this by first and foremost raising maximum sentences for illegal gun smugglers and traffickers at the border, from 10 years to 15 years. What is the effect of that statement of intent? It is to send a very powerful and clear message to anyone who is in the business of illegal gun smuggling that they are at greater risk of facing stiffer sentences. It is entirely appropriate, given the alarming trends that I have already alluded to and given the concerning report of Statistics Canada that shows that gun violence in various categories is on the rise and has been on the rise for some time. In addition to that, and in consultation with law enforcement and provincial and territorial partners, we are also granting new investigatory powers to police by adding to the eligible offences under the Criminal Code under the specific category of firearms offences— An hon. member: Oh, oh!

1429 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/9/22 8:40:34 p.m.
Watch

I hope the hon. member will let the minister finish his speech without interrupting. The hon. minister.

17 words

Hon. Marco Mendicino

Jun/9/22 8:40:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-21

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, Bill C-21 would also grant new investigatory powers by expanding the list of eligible firearms offences so that police can obtain wiretaps. Having worked in the criminal justice system and having worked as a federal prosecutor, I can attest to the fact that wiretap surveillance does allow law enforcement to interdict and to prevent crime before it occurs. By adding these powers, we are sending not only a clear message that if people are going to traffic guns illegally, they are going to face stiffer sentences and we are going to equip police with additional powers to stop them. That is the second thing I wanted to highlight. The third thing I want to highlight is that we need to stop, once and for all, a simultaneous trend. We are seeing gender-based violence in our workplaces, communities, homes or wherever online. There is a trend between gender-based violence and guns. Between 2013 and 2019, the incidents involving gender-based violence and guns went up more than 30%, and that trend has continued. What Bill C-21 would do, among other things, is introduce red flag laws. Red flag laws allow anybody to go to court to ask a judge to seize the gun or suspend the licence of a person who owns a gun if they pose a threat to anyone else or themselves. This is a practical and effective tool that can reverse a negative trend by providing another protective mechanism. On the advice of organizations representing women and survivors, we added an amendment to the red flag laws to protect the identity of the person asking the court to apply this mechanism. This is one example of the work we are doing with communities affected by gun violence. In Bill C-21, we also introduce yellow flag laws that would limit the discretion of authorities by requiring the automatic revocation of the gun licence of anybody who was subject to a restraining order or would be subject to a restraining order in the future. There, too, we listened very carefully to the groups that we engaged with in the formulation of Bill C-21. There are a lot of other things that this bill does. There are some very specific provisions that would deal with the use of replica guns. These pose a significant threat, particularly for law enforcement who, when they are responding to gun calls, find it exceedingly difficult to distinguish between a real gun and a replica gun. There are provisions that deal with the glorification of gun violence. I am sure that all members are concerned about the very targeted and concerted effort to make guns seem unserious, and to make guns seem like they could be abused recklessly by children and young people. No one should glorify violence. There are provisions within Bill C-21 that deal with that, as well. As we looked at the various provisions we could introduce into Bill C-21, we consulted extensively. As I have said, we spoke with survivors' groups, women's groups and advocates: those who stand up for the rights of victims. We took their advice into very careful consideration. It is my sincere belief that as a result of those conversations, they would now see that advice reflected in the text of this bill. We listened very carefully to law enforcement, particularly on the provisions that relate to illegal gun smuggling and deterring gun crime, and to providing additional authorities to them so that they could do their jobs by providing them with the tools they need. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has indicated that Bill C-21 would be a step in the right direction towards protecting our communities. It is for that reason that I believe Bill C-21 enjoys the broad support of so many Canadians. It is not only those constituencies, but also big city mayors and rural mayors, with whom I met last week in Saskatchewan, who have come out in favour and said they supported Bill C-21. It is my hope that we will study this bill with the urgency and the seriousness that it requires. It also has to be said that Bill C-21 has to be seen in the broader context of everything else that the government is doing, including introducing a national ban on AR-15s, which are assault-style rifles that have no place in our communities; taking the next steps that are necessary to introduce a mandatory buyback program, to get those guns out of our communities for good; following through with Bill C-71 to ensure that there are appropriate background checks, so that guns do not fall into the hands of the wrong people; and rolling out more quickly the $250-million building safer communities fund, so that we can address the root causes and social determinants of gun crime. We need to do this as quickly as possible because of those survivors I referred to at the beginning of my remarks tonight. They are still climbing that mountain. They are still fighting their way to the top. It is a long journey, but the government is going to be there with them every step of the way. Bill C-21 is a very significant step in that direction. I hope that all members, after careful consideration, will support this bill. It is the right thing to do. It is how we will eradicate gun violence and protect all Canadians.

923 words

All Topics

Ms. Raquel Dancho (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC)

Jun/9/22 8:47:57 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-21

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for his thoughtful remarks. He mentioned, on a number of occasions in his speech, that the government is increasing maximum penalties to send a message to criminals who commit firearms offences. Again, there is this idea “to send a message, we are increasing the penalties”. At the same time, the minister's government is also sending the message that it is eliminating mandatory prison time for serious firearms offences, such as firing a firearm with the intent to injure: That is shooting a gun at someone with the intent to shoot them with a bullet, robbing someone at gunpoint, extortion with a firearm, and using a firearm in the commission of a crime. These are all very serious, deadly gun crimes. The government is sending the message that criminals may not go to prison if they do that. They could actually serve house arrest in the community they terrorized. I am not quite sure, but I feel there are a lot of mixed signals that he is trying to send to criminals here. Could he perhaps clarify?

188 words

Hon. Marco Mendicino

Jun/9/22 8:48:47 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5 Bill C-21

Madam Speaker, I think my colleague will know I carry no truck for criminals and I carry no truck for individuals who would use guns to do harm to the community or to individuals whatsoever. However, the fact of the matter is that, before she became a member of Parliament, the last time the Conservative Party had the reins of government, there was a failed and prosecuted agenda around sentence reforms that simply did not work. The Supreme Court of Canada repeatedly struck down those failed policies that were introduced under the Conservative government, which is why my hon. colleague, the Minister of Justice, has put forward Bill C-5. Members can reconcile that with what we are doing in Bill C-21, which will ensure that the judiciary, in whom we have respect, trust and confidence, can dispense justice. By raising maximum sentences from 10 to 14 years, we would be sending the very clear and unambiguous signal that if someone is going to illegally traffic across a border or in our communities illegal firearms, they will face stiffer sentences.

181 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 85