SoVote

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

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

Jun/14/22 4:44:53 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, although it may be true that the former Conservative government did launch the truth and reconciliation report, it is extremely unfortunate that, once it received the results from that report and the recommendations contained therein, it had absolutely no interest and said publicly that it would not move forward with any of the recommendations, but I digress. In any event, I would actually like to start my speech today, if I could be indulged for a moment, as this is one of the first times I have had the opportunity to rise to give a speech since the last provincial election, by congratulating Ted Hsu. Ted was the Liberal candidate for Kingston and the Islands running for the Liberal Party. He was elected as the member of provincial parliament in the last election. Ted's name is not unfamiliar to this place, because Ted was elected under very similar circumstances here in 2011. In the provincial election two Thursdays ago, Ted was elected as one of only two new Liberal MPs in the Province of Ontario. Back in 2011, he also was elected to this place as one of only two new MPs who were Liberal, the other being the member for Charlottetown. They both entered into the House at the same time. My best wishes to Ted as he embarks on this new journey in his life as the member of provincial parliament for the riding of Kingston and the Islands. I am glad to see a strong Liberal voice representing the riding of Kingston and the Islands. I have had the opportunity to be here throughout the entire debate today, listening to the various claims that have been made throughout the House, and I cannot say I am surprised with a great degree of the rhetoric that I have been hearing. One of the things I would like to touch on first is a comment made by the member for Humber River—Black Creek. She did that only about an hour ago in this debate. She said that she had been here a few decades ago, when mandatory minimums were being introduced and brought on board, and that she was supportive of them at the time. She thought they were the right things to do. I say this because we have heard a lot of rhetoric from Conservatives, indeed before today's debate but in particular today, about the fact that mandatory minimums were not just introduced by Stephen Harper and the Conservatives, but by Liberals in the past. The reason it is so important to point is that we have one of those Liberal MPs who was here back then saying she was in favour of it back then, but has since come to realize that mandatory minimums are not serving the purpose we thought they would when they were introduced. I think it takes a lot of courage for a politician to come forward and say they have changed their mind on this and that this is not an effective way of dealing with problems we have when it relates to sentencing individuals. I want to thank her for those comments. I think we can learn a lot as time goes on. We evolve through the various policies we have and our approaches to them. I think that if the Conservatives would take a look at what is going on in other parts of North America right now, they would realize that Canada certainly is not unique in starting to understand and turn against the idea of mandatory minimums, not just because in many cases they are deemed unconstitutional, but also because they are not producing the results they were intended to. I am very concerned about that rhetoric, but it really comes down to this: When Conservatives are putting forward this notion that there will be endless lineups of people who should be incarcerated out on the streets, they are trying to paint this picture that some of the most heinous crimes out there will result in people being given house arrest or literally not being sentenced as a result of not having a mandatory minimum. That is absolutely false. What Conservatives are doing is preying on the emotional side of this debate. They are preying on the fact that they know this will touch a chord and hit a nerve with people, and it will have their emotional side see a reaction as a result of what the government is proposing. That is what they are trying to feed off right now. That is what they are trying to capitalize off politically. It does not come as a surprise to me. Many issues come before this House under exactly the same circumstances, and we see it time and time again. In my opinion, it comes down to a fundamental difference between small-c conservatives and progressives, or in this case capital-C Conservatives and capital-L Liberals. It is a fundamental difference. If there is one issue that clearly divides Conservatives from Liberals, this would be the issue. It comes down to incarceration. Conservatives believe that the answer is to impose a penalty: Lock them up and throw away the key. Give them a mandatory minimum that will force them to sit in their cell for x number of days, and at the end of their time, they will have completed their sentence and they will somehow be rehabilitated. That is the Conservative approach. I can appreciate the approach. The Conservatives certainly would not be the only political party that has taken that approach. I happen to think the solution is different. I come from a riding that used to have seven correctional institutions in the area, but the Conservatives closed Kingston Penitentiary the last time they were in government. What we have is this scenario in which the default response is just to put people in prison and leave them there. Then, after a set time has elapsed, based on what politicians believe is an amount of time that would properly do the job, suddenly people would be rehabilitated and walk out of there as new, changed individuals. Liberals look at it differently. We believe in helping to rehabilitate individuals when possible—and most of the time it is possible—so that they can be reintegrated back into society and become productive members of society. What surprises me the most about the Conservative response is that they do not even have to accept the social argument here. They do not even have to, from a Conservative perspective, believe in rehabilitation. They do not even have to do that. However, one would think that at the very least, their interest would be tickled by the financial benefit. Incarceration costs a lot of money. I know this as an individual who has six prisons within a 40-kilometre radius of my home. It costs a lot of money to keep people incarcerated. If we can rehabilitate people and reintegrate them into society, they can become productive members of society and actually give back. There is a real, solid, financial argument there that I would think would interest Conservatives when it comes to talking about our correctional facilities, but I fail to see it. They do not ever seem to come forward with that. My idea that all Conservatives care about is “lock them up and throw away the key” does not come just from this debate around this issue but from a whole host of issues. Let us look at the whole prison farm issue. Prison farms have been seen, not just by inmates and former inmates but indeed by community activists and people throughout the community at large, including many farmers in southeastern Ontario, as productive ways to help rehabilitate individuals. However, the Conservatives have absolutely no interest in them. They do not want to see the opportunities. They almost look at inmates participation in these programs as some kind of luxury that they do not deserve. I know this because we lived through this in Kingston. We had activists going out and standing in front of Collins Bay Institution every Monday night since the prison farms were closed until they were reopened under this government. Every Monday night they would go out there and hold a protest. These were not former inmates; these were concerned citizens from my riding and beyond. What is the response now that the prison farms have been reopened and are being utilized, giving opportunities to inmates who in their own words and testimonies say that the farms rehabilitated them to become productive members of society again? What is happening? The member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston is standing up Friday after Friday, followed by late show question after late show question, to challenge the prison farms that are helping farmers in his own riding. He gets up week after week and challenges them. There is no doubt in my mind that if Conservatives were to get elected again, one of the first things they would do with respect to correctional facilities is close those farms. We are seeing this behaviour, and it is a pattern that leads to the simple conclusion that all Conservatives care about in terms of our our correctional institutions is providing a sentence to somebody, locking them up, throwing away the key, and when the sentence has expired, the individual, according to their logic, will suddenly be rehabilitated and can go back to society. However, it does not work that way, and the proof is that we see people continually going into and out of our correctional institutions through this revolving door. I will go back to the rhetoric that I have been hearing, and I have heard a lot of it today, particularly as I was listening to various members. There were things that they were saying. The member for Kildonan—St. Paul specifically said that this bill will let criminals off the hook. How can somebody rationally think that from looking at the bill? The bill would put the power in the hands of judges, so to make a comment like that is just saying that they do not trust judges to do their job. That is what Conservatives are essentially saying: They do not have the trust in judges to perform the responsibilities that are given to them through those appointments. The member for Yellowhead, when talking about conditional sentencing, suggested that those who were convicted of human trafficking would be able to stay at home under house arrest. That is absolutely ludicrous. Conditional sentencing, as included in this bill, specifically gives the opportunity for a judge to allow for an individual to be under house arrest. However, I would invite those members who have been giving their speeches to go back and read the bill, because it says that a conditional sentence would allow an offender who does not pose a threat to public safety to serve their term of imprisonment in the community under strict conditions, including house arrest and curfew. Furthermore, unlike other sanctions, the conditional sentence orders would allow courts to focus on rehabilitation by requiring an offender to attend an approved treatment program. The bill is saying that in certain circumstances a judge, under the judge's discretion, can decide that a person is not going to be rehabilitated if we lock them up and throw away the key and that it might be better to put the person under house arrest so that they are not allowed to leave their house but also have to complete a set number of things while they are there. That is called “rehabilitation”. That is trying to get at the core of what the problem is. Of course, Conservatives will want to spin that, such that a person could murder, be a rapist and do all this stuff and then just sit at home watching Netflix. That is the way they like to portray this bill. Indeed, if we listened to some of the speeches today, that is exactly what they have been saying. The bill specifically points out, as it relates to the conditional sentence orders, that for offences of advocating genocide, for torture, attempted murder, terrorism and serious criminal organization offences, CSOs would continue to be unavailable. The bill addresses some of the rhetoric that we are hearing from across the way, as if we need to be very clear about that. It really concerns me that rather than trying to have honest discussions about what is in the bill, we instead hear a huge amount of rhetoric coming from the other side of the House, with the intent, as I indicated earlier, to play off people's emotions, to drum up fear and to manufacture outrage. That is exactly what Conservatives are doing and they are doing it with the intent to motivate and rally the troops, probably for the member for Carleton so they can go to his website and sign up to support him, but that is—

2185 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/14/22 5:00:49 p.m.
Watch

There is a point of order by the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

16 words

Mr. Frank Caputo

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative leadership race has nothing to do with the member's speech and he should not be getting into it.

23 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/14/22 5:00:59 p.m.
Watch

That is getting into debate. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

13 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

Jun/14/22 5:01:04 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I am always absolutely fascinated by the member for Kingston and the Islands, but I have not been able to follow the last 10 minutes of his speech, so I do not think the Conservatives are correct in saying this may not have anything to do with it because it has been very hard to get a coherent message of what he is actually saying.

67 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/14/22 5:01:18 p.m.
Watch

That was not a point of order either. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

16 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Jun/14/22 5:01:23 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member for Timmins—James Bay making that comment. Perhaps we can sit down and I could get into more detail if what I am saying is not resonating with him. I would be more than happy to do that at the appropriate time. The reality of the situation is that we are seeing the Conservatives try to drum up fear out there, because they are doing it in ways that do not represent what is actually in this bill. I already made this point clear earlier, when I talked about the member for Kildonan—St. Paul saying— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

110 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/14/22 5:02:05 p.m.
Watch

Order. I know people are trying to be helpful, but the member has three minutes and 33 seconds remaining in his speech and I am sure he wants to finish. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

38 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Jun/14/22 5:02:16 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I will end with the Bloc's position on this. I will stop picking on the Conservatives and I will turn to the Bloc. I see this wicked and very dramatically evolving change of heart with the Bloc in terms of its position on this bill. Bloc members seem to now be sitting on the fence. The member for Shefford said earlier that this just might not be the right time for this bill, as if in a couple of months it might be or maybe a few months ago it could have been. They are on the fence. I think they just need a bit of a push at this point to come over. The member for Shefford, if I remember correctly, also talked about exceptional circumstances. She said she thinks that under certain exceptional circumstances, mandatory minimums might be appropriate, but under other circumstances, more regular circumstances perhaps, they would not be. I would suggest it is very clear, based on what we have seen in our own data as to what has happened over the past few decades, that mandatory minimums do not work and that it is time we actually start to develop strategies that help to rehabilitate individuals so that they can indeed become productive members of society again. At the end of the day, that is what we want. That is what we should want. I get a kick out of it. The Conservatives are clapping right now in a very facetious manner, as if to suggest that should not be our overall objective and goal, and I think it should be. We have a role. We call it “corrections” because we are looking to help people get better and to change their lives so that they can become productive and contributing members of society once again. Unfortunately, time after time, we see Conservatives go down the exact same road with respect to their approach on this. I certainly disagree with them, and I most certainly will be voting in favour of this bill.

344 words

Mr. Frank Caputo (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC)

Jun/14/22 5:04:38 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I found it interesting that during his speech, the member said we are not going to be dealing with conditional sentence orders on some sort of sexual offence, as I heard it, but I cannot remember the term he used. I will remind him that about two weeks ago, I brought up a case in the House where a seven- or eight-year-old was victimized by the child's caregiver. That person received a conditional sentence order. My reason for rising on that very point was to say that it is incumbent on Parliament to change the framework that led to these types of decisions. This decision may have been a rarity, but the point is that Canadians come to us, as I am sure they do to the hon. member and certainly to me, and say an outcome was unacceptable. Why is it so wrong, if Canadians think an outcome is unacceptable, that it is being represented in the House through a mandatory minimum?

168 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Jun/14/22 5:05:41 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not know the details of that case, so I do not think it would be appropriate for me to speculate on it. I will say that I have faith in our justice system. I have faith that individuals will be tried properly, including by, I am sure, very fine prosecutors, such as the member used to be, and perhaps he would like to go back to that profession, I do not know. Maybe there is a good Liberal in his riding who would like to replace him. I say that in a joking way. I have a lot of respect for the member. I think we need to put faith in the institutions. I have no problem when individuals get up to say that they are not happy with an outcome, but we heard the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, earlier today, get up to say that they respect judges, but judges do not always get it right. Well, one should also, as I am sure this member, as a former prosecutor, would agree, respect the decision. If one respects the institution, one respects the decision.

192 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 88