44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 14, 2022 10:00AM
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 6:11:07 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member was making a comment on the countries that have eliminated vaccine mandates. I cannot really judge the intentions of the hon. member in his comments.
28 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 6:11:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have risen in the House many times and asked many questions raising issues around the Liberals' punitive, divisive and discriminatory vaccine mandates.
I have spoken to many individuals across the country, particularly one gentleman named Cayle, a young man who drove all the way here from Vancouver Island because he could not fly to protest these vaccine mandates.
I know that the parliamentary secretary will want to talk about how the government is now suspending the vaccine mandates as of June 20. While this announcement will bring relief to those who have been stigmatized by the Prime Minister for their personal medical decisions, I want to ask specifically why the Liberals are suspending the mandates.
Today's media release quoted the repeated claim that these were always meant to be a temporary measure. I have heard a lot from the Prime Minister and the government about how these measures were always going to be temporary. The government then went on to say that it would only suspend these required vaccination requirements for domestic and outbound travel, federally regulated transportation sectors and federal government employees. Why is the government only suspending them? If the government really believed that travel mandates were just a temporary measure, it should be ending them, not suspending them.
In the announcement, the Liberal government was clear that it was not eliminating the mandates but was temporarily removing them while keeping them active. The mandates are not really gone, but just not being enforced for now. In everyday life, when we see or hear about a suspension, it is something that is short. In a hockey game, a player can get a suspension for a game or two but then he goes back to the normal life of playing hockey.
With the Liberals' “temporary suspension” of the vaccine mandates, one can believe that will be coming back. Is this suspension a temporary thing? Were the mandates a temporary thing? It seems that there is now a new normal, with vaccine mandates being the norm. I hope that this is not going to be the case, but we have seen how the government has been following political science regarding its COVID policy instead of actual science.
To review, over the past year, the government has suspended the rights of millions of Canadians to travel and see their families. Now it is announcing that it is temporarily un-suspending these rights. With this approach, maybe the Liberals should amend the Constitution to the “Charter of temporary rights and freedoms”.
Members can consider that if one has been convicted of a sexual crime against children, as long as they have a vaccine, here is a passport and off they go. There are 42,000 convicted sex offenders in this country, and the government has only refused eight passports to people who are considered likely to exploit children in another country.
However, the government is spending $30 million to implement—
497 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 6:17:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as I suspected, the parliamentary secretary does not really believe Canadians' rights are absolute, but rather exist at the whim of the government.
One of his colleagues has stated, “The massive majority of Liberal MPs want the mandates to end.” His colleague also noted that “There's never any straight or particularly convincing answer”. Again, we see that right here today.
There is no evidence for imposing these discriminatory mandates and no evidence for suspending the rights of Canadians. Now there is no evidence for the mandates to be suspended, even though the Prime Minister has proven that even with three shots, one can still get and spread COVID.
I want to ask the parliamentary secretary again: What evidence is the government relying on today that changed from yesterday?
135 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
