SoVote

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

Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.)

Jun/14/22 4:23:08 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear the member's comments. We know that time and time again the courts have struck down mandatory minimum penalties as unconstitutional. The Conservatives were in full-throated support of charter rights during the truckers' convoy, yet that seems to be expendable during this debate. The question I have relates to judicial discretion. Mandatory minimums take away judicial discretion. The Conservatives and the Liberals have both appointed some excellent judges. Why do the Conservatives not trust them?

83 words

Mrs. Kelly Block

Jun/14/22 4:23:52 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his observation. My answer will be to the point, as was his question. It is up to Parliament to decide what the minimum and maximum sentences for an offence should be and it is a judge's duty to decide how he or she will apply those maximums and minimums based on the circumstances in each case.

64 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

Jun/14/22 4:24:28 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I am by no means an expert in this field. It is true that, at first glance, I feel a little worried. However, I have done some reading and learned that we have known for some time that mandatory minimum sentences do not deter certain crimes. For example, the United States has the toughest mandatory minimum sentences for drug use, but they have had no effect on people. If mandatory minimums have no effect, what could the member suggest to ensure that our society is better off?

90 words

Mrs. Kelly Block

Jun/14/22 4:25:15 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member if she supports mandatory minimum sentences that remain for crimes such as murder, high treason and other violent crimes. If she does not, then we should do away with those mandatory minimums as well. Victims of crime deserve better from the government and this Parliament, and I would encourage all members to reject this bill.

62 words

Mr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP)

Jun/14/22 4:26:03 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, literally dozens of mandatory minimum sentences were added to the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act under the Harper government. Now, even when jurisdictions in the U.S., like Texas, have declared mandatory minimums as expensive failures and the Canadian courts have been striking them down as unconstitutional, have Conservative members changed their minds and recognized both the ineffectiveness and injustice of mandatory minimum penalties?

70 words

Mrs. Kelly Block

Jun/14/22 4:26:32 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that it has been entertaining to watch New Democrats, since March 22, contort themselves into a pretzel to support whatever the government introduces and to continue to import American politics into everything that is happening. When someone commits a crime and is subsequently convicted of it, there is always a victim. I do not understand why the NDP claims to support victims, but then is so inconsistent when its support for the government is reliant on a bill that would do anything but.

89 words

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC)

Jun/14/22 4:27:28 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, does the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek think our country is going in the right direction when warning labels on the front of beef are coming soon and the fact that my kids are going to grow up in a country where there are warning labels on beef, but fentanyl is decriminalized? Does she think the government is going in the right direction on that?

69 words

Mrs. Kelly Block

Jun/14/22 4:27:54 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, absolutely not. I hear from constituents every day who are deeply alarmed about the direction in which this country is going under the Liberal government.

27 words

Mrs. Shannon Stubbs (Lakeland, CPC)

Jun/14/22 4:28:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-5 is a perfect example of the Liberals' backward approach to crime and justice. Liberals seem to believe that public safety means treating criminals like victims and treating law-abiding citizens like criminals. That is the reality of their soft-on-crime pattern. It is most obvious with gun crimes. The Liberals implement a billion dollar confiscation of legally acquired firearms from lawful owners, hunters, farmers, collectors and sport shooters that the Toronto Police Service says is not an effective public safety measure, while Bill C-5 will get rid of mandatory jail times for gangsters and criminals who terrorize Canadian communities with drive-by shootings, robbery with guns and all kinds of existing gun crimes relating to illegal possession and trafficking, all crimes that, by the way, are skyrocketing in places like Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver under the Liberal government. Meanwhile, it would also allow for dangerous criminals to remain in communities among their victims instead of in prison where they belong. Of course, the Liberals are limiting debate and pushing through this deeply flawed bill with time allocation. As our colleague, the MP for Barrie—Innisfil, said last week: [O]nce again, we are privy to a front row seat to the decline in democracy. Bill C-5, the soft-on-crime bill, has gone through committee, and there have been thousands...of dissenting voices on this bill. There have been advocates and stakeholders, and there have been police chiefs and police forces across Canada that have spoken against this bill.... The minister claimed during committee hearings that Bill C-5“will have no negative impact on public safety and will not signal to the courts that the offences concerned are not serious.” The minister also often suggests that others have not read this legislation, but it appears he himself does not understand the consequences of the bill or he is being deliberately obtuse about it. Here is the reality. Under Bill C-5, a victim of sexual assault or a victim of kidnapping will be more likely to have to be back at home or in the same neighbourhood with the very predator convicted of assaulting or traumatizing them in the first place. Drug manufacturers and traffickers do not have to worry about mandatory baseline jail sentences either. Between Bill C-5 and the Liberals' plans to decriminalize significant and dangerous amounts of fentanyl, the Liberals are keeping addicts as open prey for emboldened dealers who are already usually chronic repeat offenders. It just makes no sense. How can the minister tell Canadians that public safety will be protected by Bill C-5? Law enforcement, victims advocates, policy experts have all spoken out against it precisely because it will undermine public safety. At committee, the executive director of the London Abused Women's Centre said the conditional sentencing provisions of Bill C-5“put women at greater risk. It puts them in harm's way. It puts them in the communities where the offenders are going to be.” The chief of the Brantford Police Service said, “With Bill C-5 we are now going to see sentencing become a joke. Victims will live in fear of gun violence and fearful of retaliation by armed criminals.” Importantly, Chief Davis is a Mohawk from the Six Nations of the Grand River territory where Brantford is and the only indigenous leader of a municipal police service in Ontario. Chief Davis has served more than half of his career in indigenous communities, with most of that time in Six Nations and also in Ontario's far north. He said, “Conditional sentences” as suggested by this Liberal government under Bill C-5 “clearly will not work.” This serious warning is echoed by the president of the Association of the Chiefs of Police of Quebec. At committee he said, “For the public to maintain confidence in the justice system, criminals who commit serious crimes, particularly with firearms, must face serious consequences.” The truth is in Canada right now, the entire system, from charges to release, is already set up to support and protect rights, rehabilitate and reintegrate offenders, however, usually not very effectively given the high rates of recidivism. I would note that the Liberals have taken no action on the private member's bill by the Conservative MP for Tobique—Mactaquac, which actually is about resources and new strategies to reduce recidivism. The truth is there is actually very little by way of institutionalized, systemic and ongoing support for victims who can never get past or pardoned or freed from what was done to them. However, the Liberals seem to see nothing wrong with setting up even more conditions that would enable criminals to revictimize people who have already been harmed. The Liberals' mixed messages and contradictions on gun crime are particularly mind boggling. The Liberals talk a lot about cracking down, usually right after a tragic shooting that takes the lives of innocent victims and leaves loved ones and communities struggling with a lifetime of fear and grief. The truth is that over many years, the Liberals have failed to stem the tide of illegal weapons entering Canada to stop the rise in gun crimes which has actually escalated while they have been in government or to make communities safer. There is a gun trafficking problem in Canada, but the Liberals, actually through Bill C-5, are going to lower penalties for it. The Conservatives have always taken a more realistic approach to combatting gun crimes and to keeping communities safe. We would increase funding and coordination for border security to combat illegal smuggling, ensure a floor of jail time for violent gang members, and target gangs and criminals instead of making life more difficult for law-abiding firearms owners, retailers and the airsoft sector, by ending automatic bail, revoking parole for gang members and new and tougher sentences for ordering or involvement in violent gang crimes. These are the kinds of measures that can and do make streets and cities safer, not the Liberals' approach, which helps criminals get softer sentences while subjecting law-abiding Canadians to warrantless searches and confiscating legally acquired property. I can understand the Liberals want to claim otherwise, but Bill C-5 will eliminate mandatory minimum jail time for many serious existing firearms offences, like robbery, extortion, trafficking, unauthorized importing or exporting and possession, discharging with intent, using guns for offences, possession of prohibited or restricted firearms with ammunition, possession of weapons through an offence, trafficking, and discharging a firearm with recklessness. Stéphane Wall, the retired supervisor for Montreal's police service, stated: [W]e see young people laughing at the justice system.... We are already in this situation. The passage of Bill C-5 would lead to lower standards and trivialize the possession of firearms for a criminal purpose. The chief of police of the Six Nations Police Service pleaded with MPs to, “consider the well-being not only of the people of Six Nations, but also of all indigenous communities on Turtle Island” with regard to Bill C-5. He also stated, “We deserve to feel safe and, more importantly, our children deserve to grow up in a community free from violence”, which is exactly what indigenous leaders and constituents in Lakeland have said to me, but the Liberals are ignoring him and all of them. The Liberals also often claim Bill C-5 will assist people struggling with substance abuse to get the help they need. Conservatives believe addicts should receive treatment, and with the discretion of law enforcement to decide between charges and recommendations for treatment or options in sentencing, as already exists with, for example, the Edmonton drug court, but that is not what Bill C-5 is about. The bill will eliminate mandatory jail time for convictions of trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking several types of illegal drugs. It will let drug manufacturers and traffickers off the hook, while Liberals have the gall to suggest it will help people get the treatment they need. Actually, the Liberals are great for dealers, but bad for addicts. One of the more perverse aspects of Bill C-5 is it enables the greater use of conditional sentences like house arrest for extremely serious offences, such as prison breach, criminal harassment, sexual assault, kidnapping, human trafficking, abduction of kids under 14, thefts, breaking and entering, being unlawfully in someone's house, arson, fraud, causing bodily harm by criminal negligence, assault causing bodily harm or with a weapon, and assaulting a peace officer causing bodily harm or with a weapon. These are not minor offences. They are major or permanently damaging and traumatizing crimes for which I know the vast majority of people in Lakeland believe convicted offenders should be in prison where they belong with an automatic mandatory minimum penalty, not out on the streets or back at home where they can revictimize their targets or harm others. Law-abiding Canadians, victims of crime and their loved ones deserve to live freely and without fear. Government must ensure the laws and systems deliver justice for victims, real consequences for offenders and deter criminal activity. The only thing worse I think than a government that fails in this core duty is one that promotes conditions that will ultimately lead to and frankly guarantee that violent criminals will strike again. Bill C-5 will not do anything to make Canadians safer. It will put victims of crime and innocent Canadians in harm's way. It ignores the rights of victims completely. All of this and more is why Conservatives, and certainly the vast majority of people in Lakeland who I represent, oppose it.

1635 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/14/22 4:37:33 p.m.
Watch

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock, Health; the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Foreign Affairs; the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York, Taxation.

58 words

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed (Vancouver Granville, Lib.)

Jun/14/22 4:38:01 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. colleague for her speech, but I was left a bit concerned, because every piece of research out there shows that mandatory minimums do not work. Every piece of research in Canada, the United States and around the world shows that the only people who are disproportionately affected by mandatory minimums are people of colour. What I would love to understand from the member opposite is how—

73 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/14/22 4:38:25 p.m.
Watch

I am going to have to stop the member. There is no translation. I am going to let the member back up and get is question in. The hon. member for Vancouver Granville.

33 words

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed

Jun/14/22 4:38:39 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's speech, but I really fail to understand it. There is no data that shows mandatory minimums work. In fact, every piece of data says mandatory minimums do not work, whether from Canada or the United States. The only thing it does prove is that people of colour, indigenous people and Black people are the ones who are disproportionately affected by mandatory minimums. Can the member opposite share any data she has that proves mandatory minimums work and that they do not disproportionately affect people of colour and indigenous people?

97 words

All Topics

Mrs. Shannon Stubbs

Jun/14/22 4:39:17 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I would point out the lack of coherence in the member's argument, as well as the argument by the NDP-Liberals overall on this bill. If that is their premise, then, as my colleague for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek said, he should be up in arms and encouraging the government to remove the other 67 mandatory minimum penalties that continue to exist under the government. Here is where we have a conflicting world view: There are disproportionate representations in prisons of populations who live in situations of domestic violence, who are at risk, who have a lack of education and job opportunities, and who are being traumatized by gangs. I am glad that the government followed the lead of the former Conservative government to recognize, for example, the impacts of residential schools and the sixties scoop that destroyed individuals, families and communities, and led to what we see today, which are disproportionate socio-economic challenges and challenges with the justice system. If what the Liberals want to get at is actually dealing with that disproportionate representation, then they need to deal with the root causes. They need to ensure there are educational opportunities, Internet service, basic infrastructure for quality of life, standard of living, mental health supports and services, and services for victims of violence. They need to ensure there are opportunities and hope for people who are ending up in criminal lifestyles, because they do not have those things. They should fix the corrections system to make it functional and effective, but frankly, Bill C-5 does not do any of that.

267 words

All Topics

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

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

Mr. Speaker, given that Bill C‑5 mixes two issues, diversion for addiction and simple possession of drugs, and mandatory minimum sentences, I will ask my colleague a two-part question. First, with respect to mandatory minimum sentences, does she not believe that, in the current context of gun violence in Montreal and other areas, it would have been better for the government to accept the Bloc Québécois's amendment, which involved maintaining these minimums but giving judges, whose prerogative is to determine the sentence, the possibility of deviating from them in mitigating circumstances? I will limit myself to this first question, Mr. Speaker, as you are indicating that my time is up.

118 words

Mrs. Shannon Stubbs

Jun/14/22 4:42:08 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, the member raises an interesting point on which to challenge the Liberals for another one of their chief premises of this bill. The Liberals could have taken the approach to have some sort of exceptional circumstances provision where judges, in certain factors or cases, would have the ability to choose something other than the mandatory minimum, while maintaining mandatory minimum penalties for serious crimes. They are not doing that in Bill C-5, either. The brass tacks are that Conservatives believe there should be stronger, stiffer and tougher sentences for all crimes, including and especially gun crimes, which are terrorizing the streets of cities across the country, and real action against gangsters who do not follow the laws already, and who traffic and trade in illegal gun smuggling, which is a major source of gun crime in this country.

141 words

Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, NDP)

Jun/14/22 4:43:05 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I hear some of the critical points raised by the member, but I am wondering how she can reconcile the need to be tough on the root causes of crime with the agenda of the Conservatives, when they were in power, that saw the expansion of our prison system and led to greater representation of indigenous and racialized inmates, including indigenous women. The reality is that when the Conservatives were in power, they were not tough on the root causes of crime, and instead turned around to further criminalize communities that are overly represented in the criminal justice system. How can we believe that the Conservatives now want to actually come up with sound policy when it comes to Canadians on the margins?

125 words

All Topics

Mrs. Shannon Stubbs

Jun/14/22 4:43:51 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, that is just not true, given that the former Conservative government is actually the government that launched the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It was the first government in Canadian history to review education outcomes and programs for indigenous people right across the country and to actually propose improvements. It was the first government, on a whole host of issues, to try to better the outcomes and the lives of indigenous Canadians everywhere, especially young indigenous Canadians who are disproportionately the highest growing group of young people in the whole country. I happen to be a person of Ojibway descent, so it is pretty wild to get accused by Liberals of only being hard on indigenous people. I proudly represent multiple indigenous communities in Lakeland, just as I proudly do every other citizen. Every single one of those leaders and those people tells me they deserve to live in safety and peace with equal opportunities and better outcomes, just as every other Canadian does. That is what I will keep fighting for.

173 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 88