44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 14, 2022 10:00AM
- Jun/14/22 11:35:01 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, if the topic were not so serious, this kind of argument would make me smirk.
For weeks, or even months, the Minister of Justice has been trying to convince us that minimum sentences have no effect on the criminals who commit these offences.
Now they want to convince us that increasing the maximum sentences will impress them. I do not think so.
I think that what offenders do not want is to get caught. They do not want to go to prison, period. If a minimum sentence for the crime they are committing does not make them think twice, I do not think that a maximum sentence of 12, 14 or 20 years is going to change anything.
That said, Bill C-21 primarily addresses the issue of legal guns by restricting certain provisions, but it does not in any way address illegal arms trafficking, which the government is being asked to contain.
157 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 11:53:55 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I think my colleague is conflating Bill C-21 and Bill C-5. I think we need to come back to Bill C‑5, the bill we are discussing today.
As I said, we have stated our position. We agree with the introduction of diversion measures, but since this is an omnibus bill, it contains two confusing and intertwined items. We certainly have the right to ask questions about minimum sentences.
However, one thing is certain: For these reasons, especially since diversion is so important and has such positive effects, as we have seen in various countries around the world, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the bill. That said, as my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord so aptly put it, we will do it while holding our noses.
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 12:46:12 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her interesting speech.
I will ask her the same question I asked my Bloc Québécois colleague earlier. She mentioned that she wants to restore judicial discretion so that judges can set minimum sentences based on their judgment. If that is the objective, why have maximum sentences yet not give judges the same discretion when it is a serious crime punishable by a sentence of more than 25 years? I do not understand the double standard.
Having said that, I want to make it clear that I am not in any way against the goal of reintegrating and rehabilitating people, but it needs to happen at the appropriate time. In the case of serious crimes, like the gun crimes being committed in the greater Montreal area at the moment, it seems to me that a minimum sentence would be entirely appropriate. The fact that Bill C-5 will eliminate them is deeply troubling to me and to many citizens in Quebec and in Canada.
178 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 1:17:57 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, for the parliamentary secretary to have such little knowledge of the justice system makes sense given this bill. That question displays a stunning amount of ignorance. By eliminating mandatory minimums, the judge has discretion to go lower. The judge always had discretion to go higher. A mandatory minimum is not a maximum. The member should look that up.
When we say that this would lead to lower sentences, it is because the floor is gone. Judges would have the discretion to say, if the minimum was five years, that they do not have to give five years and can give three years. That is a lowered sentence, and that is what will happen for weapons traffickers, human traffickers and a whole of host of other offenders. I do not know how the Liberals do not see it.
139 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 1:20:12 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, there were dozens of mandatory minimum sentences added to the Criminal Code under the Harper government, and now there are even jurisdictions in the U.S., such as Texas, that have declared mandatory minimums expensive failures. Canadian courts have been striking them down as unconstitutional, yet we see the Conservative Party digging in further and further.
The hon. member said that the parliamentary secretary did not know what she was talking about, yet the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the National Police Federation appeared at committee and supported Bill C-5. I assume they know what they are talking about. Could the member explain why he does not believe they know what they are talking about?
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 1:21:38 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, the problem with the question is that it compares American justice with Canadian justice and compares American mandatory minimums, which are extraordinarily high, with Canadian mandatory minimums, which are quite low in most cases. That is a false narrative and a false comparator.
Mandatory minimums can serve a whole bunch of purposes, including showing society's denunciation of what is happening. When we look at the context of the gun crime going on in this country, the fact is that almost all of the guns are coming from the United States. Does the member agree that we should be reducing mandatory minimum penalties for gun traffickers? These are the people who are bringing the weapons in that are used to commit all these terrible crimes. That is just one example of why I believe this should not happen.
140 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 1:32:27 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, it is important to clarify that what the bill before us would actually do is allow judges to evaluate the circumstances before them. Removing mandatory minimum sentences means empowering our judges. It means that if someone poses a threat to society—for example, as the member cited, a drug trafficker—certainly a judge is capable of evaluating the person before him or her and imposing a sanction or sentence that fits the crime. Therefore, we absolutely support judges in exercising that discretion, and where they are warranted, we would insist on high sentences.
97 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 3:16:26 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, I have only two and a half minutes left for my speech on Bill C-5. The point I want to emphasize to the House is this: There is a middle ground.
We have talked about what the government wishes to accomplish and we have considered how the government should go about accomplishing it. What I would propose and have proposed is to add a mechanism to this law that would allow mandatory minimums to remain in place but make an exception, by way of an exceptional circumstances provision, for somebody who represents a group that is overrepresented in the justice system or has had a life-changing event. This would enable the government to maintain mandatory minimum sentences, but in exceptional circumstances they would not apply.
This would do exactly what my counterparts on the other side of the House have advocated. It would allow for judicial discretion where necessary, but would still communicate to the public that gun offences will be taken seriously and that things like robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm and reckless discharge, as in a drive-by shooting, would still result in a substantial sentence, absent very significant circumstances.
Such a provision would be constitutional, and it is my belief that it would strike an appropriate middle ground. I wish the government had done the same in this circumstance; it did not, and I exhort the government to do so in the future.
243 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 3:48:48 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, I know how hard the member works and how much she loves this country, but I would reject the notion that mandatory minimums are racist. By definition, regardless of the colour of one's skin or ethnicity, one gets a mandatory minimum.
Because there is no rehabilitation and there is such a high rate of recidivism, would it not be better to address the root causes of this overrepresentation, such as poverty, abuse, mental health and addictions? Would the member not agree?
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
