SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 85

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 9, 2022 10:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 85 - Jun/9/22
Hon. Mark Holland
  • Jun/9/22 11:08:39 a.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-5 
Madam Speaker, what I am suggesting is that science and evidence have borne out that giving judicial discretion improves community safety. What does that mean? It means that a judge can look at an individual situation and consider— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
44 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 85 - Jun/9/22
Hon. Mark Holland
  • Jun/9/22 11:21:48 a.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-5 
Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter is that when a judge hears the matter of a serious crime of the nature the member is talking about, there will be serious sentences. In fact, they can go far beyond the mandatory minimums. That is not what we are talking about here. I will go quickly to the example in California. In California, people, for political reasons, decided that it was really worthwhile to play up the worst offences— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
84 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 85 - Jun/9/22
Mr. Larry Brock
  • Jun/9/22 12:58:43 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-5 
Madam Speaker, I reflect on this often, and I often hear from government members, NDP members and Green members that we Conservative members can all calm down because the bill would keep communities safe. They say we can trust our judges to always do the right thing. However, judges come from various backgrounds, which is why we have a myriad of different judgements from across this country, from coast to coast to coast. There is no consistency in sentencing. In answer to the question, as a former prosecutor over the last two decades and previous to that as a defence counsel, I have repeatedly seen abuses by defence counsel who were properly retained with illegal funds from trafficking, etc., who shop for a judge, as there are judges who are more lenient than others. Bill C-5—
138 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 85 - Jun/9/22
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
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 85 - Jun/9/22
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
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border