SoVote

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Jun/14/22 3:51:07 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, in a younger life, my wife and I lived and worked with men coming out of prison, and we worked with people on the streets. What we saw was the enormous amount of public money that gets wasted when police sit all night in an emergency ward with people who should be in detox or when people were jailed over the weekend. There is a failure to deal with the mental health issues we see in people on the street and in marginalized communities. We talk time and time again about fixing this, but it always thrown at us that we are being soft on crime or that we are hugging the thugs. I would like to ask the hon. member about the larger sociological issues of a society that treats people as disposable, locking them away in places such as the jail in Thunder Bay, without the support networks to actually get people off their addictions and back into civil society?

164 words

Hon. Judy A. Sgro

Jun/14/22 3:52:07 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, we have put millions of dollars into the issues of addictions and mental health in the last several years. I think we are finally recognizing that arresting people and putting them in jail is not going to help. I was recently in Vancouver and was absolutely blown away by the number of people I saw living on the street, suffering from mental illness. The other day I was on King Edward Ave. here in Ottawa, and I saw the exact same thing. There are so many people suffering from addiction who should be getting help, not sleeping on the streets of our cities. We are going ahead to find ways to continue to do the investments our government is doing to help these people.

126 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Jun/14/22 3:53:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated the beginning of the member's speech when she talked about the fact that she was here decades ago, although she must have first gotten elected when she was six years old, and was part of the parliamentary process when these mandatory minimums were brought in. However, she has since had time to reflect on that and come to a different conclusion. That is what this place is all about. It is about continuing to evolve. I am wondering if the member could just expand on that slightly.

93 words

Hon. Judy A. Sgro

Jun/14/22 3:53:37 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, we are all doing what we are doing with the best of intentions, and in 2007, when mandatory minimums were introduced, many people thought they would really help to reduce crime and improve public safety. What we have seen is that they have done far more damage than good.

51 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)

Jun/14/22 3:54:02 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand and speak to this bill. As I was preparing my speech, I was thinking back to the 1990s, when I came to Ottawa as a legislative assistant. It was after the 1993 election. The winds of change had swept through this place. The Bloc Québécois was the official opposition and the Reform Party had a big presence, with around 50 members. I remember following question period, which was part of my job. I do not mean to be partisan, and this is not a partisan tone, but I remember that in question period member after member of the Reform Party would get up and ask questions about criminal justice. They would talk about specific cases and describe these cases in great detail. The message in every question was that one could not trust the courts. The questions were intended to impugn the courts and to make people believe that judges were not approaching issues with an objective framework but just injecting their own personal biases into the decisions they made. I think that is very dangerous. I think we are heading in this direction more and more in our political culture. That is very unhealthy for our democracy. I am looking more toward the United States right now, where I think people are starting to view the courts as an extension of the political system. When people start doing that, they just lose faith in the constitutional democracy. I read something in the paper the other day and I was just flabbergasted. The state legislature of Ohio passed a motion. It came down to party lines. It is a Republican-dominated state legislature. The Republicans voted for it and the Democrats voted against it. The motion was that Canada should be put on the watch-list of states that suppress religious freedom, ignoring the fact that we have a constitutional democracy and that we have courts that defend charter rights and so on. I think this is a very dangerous thing. It is a kind of new populist relativism and it is not healthy for democracy. Let me get more specifically down to the bill. There is unconscious bias in sentencing, for sure. This bias is embedded in the long-standing practices of sentencing. It is embedded in the system. For example, according to Canada's prison ombudsman, Ivan Zinger, whom I had the opportunity to meet when I was the public safety critic in opposition, indigenous women now account for half of the female population in federal penitentiaries, whereas only one out of every 20 women in Canada is indigenous. Similarly, recently the Auditor General found that Black and indigenous prisoners are more frequently placed in higher-security institutions at admission, compared to their white peers, and that they are not paroled as often as others when they first become eligible. Personally, and this is not a partisan statement, I believe the Harper government's approach to sentencing reinforced and aggravated this bias. At the time when the Harper government was introducing tough-on-crime legislation, one after the other, to my knowledge those bills did not have to be accompanied by a charter statement the way they have to be today. That meant that the Harper government really pushed the limits on this issue. That is why so many of the bills that have been struck down by the courts were passed between 2006 and 2015. I am referring to a document from the Library of Parliament, a multiple-page document. That said, sentencing has been used intentionally to suppress racialized groups, not to my knowledge in this country, but it can happen. Someone said before in the House that the same sentence applies to everybody regardless of creed, colour or whatever, but sentencing has been used to suppress particular groups. I want to read a quote. As I said, I am not attributing anything to any Canadian politician I know, but it is interesting to see that it can be used deliberately. John Ehrlichman, counsel and assistant to Richard Nixon and a Watergate co-conspirator, is quoted as saying: The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people.... We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did. Of course, that was a particular period of American history, one that was extremely divisive. What about Bill C-5? It is not about being soft on crime. It is about having sentences that fit the crime and the circumstances. It is about law reform, a work in progress that draws on evolving and accumulated wisdom. It is about removing an approach to sentencing that has proven not only discriminatory but also costly and, in many cases, futile and ineffective. It is costly because minimum sentences clog up the courts. There is no incentive to plead guilty. It is ineffective because they involve a greater use of prosecutorial discretion. For example, a research paper by Doob, Webster and Gartner, from the University of Toronto and the University of Ottawa, stated: On 1 April 1995, a sentencing referendum (Measure 11) brought in by the voters in Oregon resulted in long mandatory minimum sentences.... [I]t was found that there was a decrease in the prosecution of Measure-11-eligible cases and an increase in the prosecution of “alternate” cases (typically lesser degrees of the same offences which did not attract the mandatory penalty). Trial rates for Measure-11-eligible offences also increased in the first two years after implementation, and then reverted to their former levels. But the nature of pleas changed: there was an increase in the number of cases in which the accused decided to plead to lesser included offences, and a decrease in pleas involving the original charge. It is futile because a slew of Harper-era minimum sentences have been struck down by the courts, and I just referenced a document from the Library of Parliament a moment ago. There is something called “deterrence through sentencing”, and this is the policy that was adopted in the Harper years. Again, Doob, Webster and Gartner state: At this point, we think it is fair to say that we know of no reputable criminologist who has looked carefully at the overall body of research literature on “deterrence through sentencing” who believes that crime rates will be reduced, through deterrence, by raising the severity of sentences handed down in criminal courts. We need to realize that there is nothing objectively true about minimum sentences. They are not something handed down by Moses. Those who advocate for minimum sentences do so based on an accepted but false intuition whose appeal is a simple but misleading logic: The greater the penalty, the greater the deterrent. However, intuition is often wrong. This is why we invest in research and analysis. Even without the benefit of science, there are some who possess uncanny insights at different times. John A. Macdonald, Canada's first Prime Minister, is quoted as saying, “Certainty of punishment, and more especially certainty that the sentence imposed by the judge will be carried out, is of more consequence in the prevention of crime than the severity of the sentence.” Doob, Webster and Gartner said: We suspect that what Macdonald meant by “the certainty that the sentence imposed by the judge will be carried out” is simply the certainty that there will be a criminal punishment. But whatever John A. Macdonald meant by that phrase, clearly he did not think that “severity” of sentences was very important. He was almost certainly correct in this. They also said, regarding the assumption about minimum sentences, “An additional problem is that people really don’t have much of an idea about what the sentences are likely to be for ordinary crimes.... Most offenders do not meet the relevant 'thought' requirements—that is, believing they might be caught”. There are a lot of misconceptions and a lot of policies in the last few years that have been based on a sort of intuition. We know that intuition can sometimes be correct, but sometimes it can be extremely misleading. Bill C-5 is about reaffirming trust in our judicial system, and this is fundamental to a healthy constitutional democracy. I know that is something that everyone in this House desires. The Conservatives used to believe that our institutions needed to be respected because they evolved organically and contained the inherited wisdom of our forebears. Those values seem to be from a bygone Conservative era, long ago, before the party veered into hard-right politics.

1523 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/14/22 4:04:07 p.m.
Watch

The hon. government House leader is rising on a point of order.

12 words

Rising

Hon. Mark Holland (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/14/22 4:04:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to order made on Monday, May 2, I request that the hour of daily adjournment for the next sitting be 12 midnight.

26 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/14/22 4:05:09 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to order made on Monday, May 2, the motion is deemed adopted. The hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola is rising on a point of order.

31 words

Mr. Dan Albas

Jun/14/22 4:05:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this is a question on the point of business that was just referred to by the government House leader. The Conservatives would like to know which opposition House leader was consulted, because it certainly was not the Conservatives. I believe the government owes Canadians and the House a little more transparency and openness.

55 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/14/22 4:05:53 p.m.
Watch

I thank the member for his intervention. As the Chair has previously pointed out, the motion adopted on May 2 simply states that a minister must have had the agreement of another House leader. It does not require that the parties to the agreement communicate to the House. In making the request, the minister implicitly acknowledges that there is an agreement. There is a long-standing principle that takes members at their word. There is therefore no reason to doubt the existence of an agreement at this time. Returning to questions and comments, the hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

102 words

Mr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP)

Jun/14/22 4:06:50 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I think Bill C-5 is a remarkable missed opportunity to make some really good progress in Canadian justice. We have an opioid crisis. People are dying by the hundreds and the thousands through a poisoned drug supply, and they are being held back from the services they need and the medical attention they need by the fact that they are considered criminals. We should be decriminalizing simple possession of drugs, and yet the Liberals and the Conservatives voted against Bill C-216, which asked for that. They could have put it in Bill C-5, but they did not. Why are the Liberals refusing to make real progress and save the lives of Canadians?

117 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)

Jun/14/22 4:07:49 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, the member knows that our government has come to an agreement with the Government of B.C. to decriminalize. However, decriminalization without a proper framework that involves the forces of the law and that involves those who work on the front lines in mental health and addiction, that kind of simple decriminalization would just lead to more problems. We need a comprehensive, multi-dimensional approach. That is what I believe is going to be taking root in B.C., but I am not at all certain that the situation has evolved to that point in other provinces. I believe the government has said that if other provinces request this, it will consider that request for decriminalization.

118 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

Jun/14/22 4:08:46 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech. When I spoke with the member for Rivière-du-Nord, who is the Bloc Québécois critic on this issue, he began reading me the list of offences for which mandatory minimum sentences would be repealed, including using a firearm in the commission of an offence, possession of a firearm or weapon knowing that its possession is unauthorized, possession of a prohibited firearm, possession of a firearm obtained by the commission of an offence, and weapons trafficking. When he read all this to me, I must admit that I felt worried. Will the bill we are discussing this afternoon make the public feel safer, or will it make them feel worried?

127 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia

Jun/14/22 4:09:41 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I personally believe that the bill should make Canadians feel safer, unless doubts are put into people's minds. Unfortunately, that is what is happening in the House, as the opposition reads out a whole list of crimes and tries to lead people to believe that judges will be obliged to impose house arrest. This is not the case. Judges have the choice, if the sentence is less than two years. It is judges who are in the best position to determine whether offenders pose a danger to society or whether they have a better chance of rehabilitating in a context of community supervision. It will depend on the judge, and judges will know more than we do here in the House of Commons, where we can only speculate on hypothetical situations when it comes to the Criminal Code.

141 words

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Jun/14/22 4:10:48 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member for Lac-Saint-Louis sharing how mandatory minimum penalties contribute to systemic racism. He made many important points in his speech. However, Bill C-5 only repeals mandatory minimums from 14 of the 67 offences in the Criminal Code that currently carry them. The Black Legal Action Centre is the only legal clinic in Ontario that focuses specifically on anti-Black racism. I wonder if the member is aware that the Black Legal Action Centre, among many other organizations, has been calling for the removal of all mandatory minimum penalties to more fully realize the government's stated commitments to racial justice and indigenous reconciliation.

111 words

All Topics

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia

Jun/14/22 4:11:37 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I understand that stakeholders often make requests that are quite broad and far-reaching. The role of the government is to consult, yes, but also to use the best judgment possible with access to the best experts possible, legal and otherwise. These are the crimes with minimum sentences that have come up in the bill, and I trust the Minister of Justice and others in the government on this. I believe they are doing the best they can at the moment.

83 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/14/22 4:12:14 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is rising on a point of order.

15 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Jun/14/22 4:12:22 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago, there was a discussion about the hour of adjournment for tomorrow's sitting. The official opposition asked which leader had agreed to that. I want to make it clear that it was not the leader of the Bloc Québécois, and we would also like to know who it was.

60 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/14/22 4:12:48 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member for his intervention. As the Chair has previously pointed out, the motion adopted on May 2 simply states that a minister must have had the agreement of another House leader. It does not require that the parties to the agreement communicate to the House. In making the request, the minister implicitly acknowledges that there is an agreement. There is a long-standing principle that takes members at their word. There is therefore no reason to doubt the existence of an agreement at this time. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.

101 words

Mrs. Kelly Block (Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, CPC)

Jun/14/22 4:13:32 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, at third and final reading. I will be splitting my time with the amazing member for Lakeland, who served our caucus very well in a previous Parliament as the shadow minister for public safety. This is yet another bill brought back from the previous Parliament that died when the Prime Minister called his snap election. To say that I am extremely disappointed with the introduction of this ill-conceived bill, as opposed to something that is wanted and needed by Canadians, would be an understatement. There are so many other issues facing Canadians that are more important than this misguided legislation. First and foremost for Canadians would be relief from the rising inflation tax brought on by the government's out-of-control spending. The price of everything is increasing, and the government has decided that now is the time to decrease sentences for criminals. Another top-of-mind issue for Canadians has been ending all federal mandates. It seems the pressure by Canadians has finally had the desired effect. However, in the case of this bill, the Liberal government is doubling down on its soft-on-crime agenda and making life easier for criminals. While the government claims that its focus is on protecting Canadians from harms, such as COVID-19, it is making society less safe with this proposed legislation by eliminating mandatory minimum prison time for criminals. With the bill, the Liberals would eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for firearms offences, including robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, importing or exporting knowing it is unauthorized, discharging a firearm with intent, using a firearm in the commission of offences and more. As Canadians learn more about this proposed legislation, they are alarmed and are finding it difficult to believe. Imagine a convenience store worker, maybe making minimum wage. It is one in the morning when suddenly someone walks into the store, pulls out a gun, fires one shot into the ceiling and then points the gun at the worker, demanding cash. The trauma that this scenario would create for someone is difficult to comprehend. What the Liberals are saying, however, is that the criminal in this realistic but made-up scenario should not receive a mandatory minimum sentence for what they have done. Why are the Liberals doing this? They believe that mandatory minimum prison sentences are unfair. Really? Unfair to whom? Obviously, the Liberals are taking the side of the criminal. By eliminating mandatory minimum sentences, the government is standing up for criminals and completely ignoring the victims. What about fairness for the victim of the crime? What about fairness for the family members of the victim who will need to support the loved who has gone through such a traumatic experience? What about fairness for the community, as a whole, in which the crime was perpetrated? Remember, we are talking about convicted criminals, not innocent people. When someone is sentenced, they have already been found guilty of the crime for which they were charged. Why are the Liberals more concerned with the impact of mandatory minimum sentences on criminals than on the benefit and reassurance they provide to the victims and the community at large? I cannot leave the subject of eliminating mandatory minimum sentences for firearms offences without commenting on the cognitive dissonance held by the Liberals as it relates to firearms policy. On one hand, they want to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for offences such as weapons trafficking and importing or exporting a firearm knowing it is unauthorized, but on the other hand, they are increasing rules and regulations for law-abiding firearms owners. Talk about a lack of fairness. According to the Prime Minister and his government, if a person follows the rules and does not commit a crime, they will punish that person. However, if a person commits a crime, they will make that person's sentence lighter. If this was not bad enough, not only would Bill C-5 eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for certain firearm offences, but it would also eliminate mandatory prison time for drug dealers for crimes such as trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking, importing and exporting or possession for the purpose of exporting, and production of substances such as fentanyl, crystal meth and others. To be clear, we are not discussing simple possession. We are talking about eliminating mandatory minimum sentences for those who traffic or produce these harmful drugs. I would like to read a few lines from a Global News story from last September in relation to a drug bust carried out by the Saskatoon Police Service. It states: Police said they seized a total of 6158.3 grams of methamphetamine, 339.8 grams of powdered cocaine, 5.2 grams of psilocybin and 0.3 grams of fentanyl. Cellphones, scales, packaging materials and over $67,000 in cash were also seized, police added. “The message must be clear, organizations responsible for the importation, manufacture and distribution of illicit drugs in Saskatoon are responsible for an overwhelming proportion of harm within our community. The drug trade is intrinsically linked to guns, violence and victimization,” Supt. Patrick Nogier said in a release. “The Saskatoon Police Service will continue to focus on organizations benefiting from illegal activities as they pertain to the drug trade in Saskatoon.” These are the types of crimes that the legislation proposes to eliminate mandatory minimums for. These criminals prey upon people with addictions. Furthermore, as the quote by Superintendent Nogier indicates, these criminals use violence in carrying out their activity, which negatively impacts the broader community in which they exist. Police forces across Canada do their utmost to protect the communities they serve. They are not helped by this type of legislation. I would like to read a section from another Global News story from last fall. It states: Superintendent Patrick Nogier with the Saskatoon Police Service (SPS) said drug and general seizures have increased by almost eight per cent over the last year and SPS is continuing with efforts to reduce drug trafficking. “These are significant seizures that are taking a product off the street that has the potential of doing a lot of harm to your community,” said Nogier. The Street Crimes Unit alone has seized over 15 kilograms of crystal meth over the last year. How can any member of the House say he or she supports the police and the work they do while at the same time supporting this legislation? Criminals belong in jail and addicts need help to break free of their addiction. With this bill, criminals would spend less time in jail and addicts would not get the help they need. Lastly, I want to highlight my opposition to one more misguided aspect of this bill, and that is the expansion of conditional sentencing options for many violent crimes. If passed, this legislation will allow criminals convicted of serious crimes, such as prison breach, sexual assault, kidnapping, trafficking in persons for material benefit, assault causing bodily harm or with a weapon and many others, to serve their sentence in some way other than in jail, such as through house arrest. Once again, what about the victims? How does allowing a criminal convicted of sexual assault or trafficking, for example, to serve their sentence in the community, and potentially the same neighbourhood as the victim, make any sense? The Liberal government is eroding our justice system by passing laws that support convicted criminals while ignoring the victims of crime. I will vote against this bill, and I encourage all members to join me.

1296 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 88