SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 314 - May/21/24

Hon. Robert Oliphant (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.)

May/21/24 4:55:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been consultations among the parties, and I believe, if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That the name of the individual referenced by the member for Don Valley West during his speech on the opposition motion standing in the name of the member for Carleton, be struck from the House of Commons Debates of Thursday, May 9, 2024, and from any House multimedia recording, and that the Parliamentary Publications be authorized to make the necessary editorial changes.

94 words

Context: House Hansard - 314 - May/21/24

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/21/24 5:30:03 p.m.
Watch

I am going to cut the hon. member off. Just as a reminder to members, if they plan to finish their speech, they should not end their speech too quickly. The hon. member will have seven and a half minutes the next time this matter is before the House, plus five minutes for questions and comments.

56 words

Context: House Hansard - 314 - May/21/24

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

May/21/24 6:08:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will try to give a nuanced speech, without too much partisanship, because partisanship too often hinders debate. Bill C‑381 fulfills a promise made by the leader of the Conservative Party. The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C‑381 in principle. This bill aims to reinstate mandatory minimum sentences for extortion crimes, particularly crimes involving weapons. My colleagues have gone into a lot of the details. I will avoid repeating the same things they said. In this speech, I will briefly go over the position that the Bloc Québécois took during the study of Bill C‑5. I will reiterate our position on minimum sentences for crimes. Lastly, I will suggest a few avenues for tackling the sources of the problem. When Parliament was studying Bill C‑5, which is now law, the Bloc Québécois was in favour of abolishing mandatory minimum sentences, except in cases involving crimes against the person. It is very important to mention that. We were in favour of abolishing minimum sentences, but not for the same reasons as other colleagues in the House. We were in favour of this because mandatory minimum sentences do not take into account the context in which the crime was committed. For some people, mandatory minimum sentences can take away their hope of improving themselves, of repenting, of getting their lives together. It also removes the potential discretion judges should have. One of the reasons mandatory minimum sentences were removed is that certain populations are overrepresented in prison. The Bloc Québécois acknowledges that as well. However, is the problem really mandatory minimum sentences, or does it go deeper than that? For example, is it tied to socio-economic issues? Would removing mandatory minimum sentences really solve the underlying problem? We have to ask ourselves those questions. It is important to do so. I am going to fumble my way through some of Thomas More's thoughts in Utopia. He basically says that punishing a crime without tackling its root cause simply ensures it will happen again. The more modern way of putting it is that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. If the same punishments are continually handed down in a broad, indiscriminate way and we fail to see any results in terms of helping people get their lives together and improving their socio-economic situation, then it should come as no surprise if repeating the same actions fails to achieve the desired results. It is important to understand what is causing a particular problem. Several years ago, a father was sentenced to six months in prison because he was caught stealing medicine for his children, who had colds. It was an unarmed robbery, but he was caught stealing, and stealing is a crime. No consideration was given to the context of his crime. Nevertheless, he was sent to prison, which made his family's situation even worse. That is why it is important in some cases to contextualize and understand what happened. In other cases, the crime might be serious enough to warrant a mandatory minimum sentence. It is a well-known fact that overcrowding is a problem in our prisons right now. We all know the impact that overcrowding has on people. The impact can be significant, particularly on mental health, but also on the physical health of inmates. These effects have been linked to an increase in violence and they undermine inmates' ability to integrate into the community and engage in good behaviour. When prisons are overcrowded, inmates are always on high alert. When people's thoughts are focused mainly on their safety, they spend a lot less time thinking about empowerment or getting their lives back on track, even in prison. Yes, we support minimum sentences for crimes against the person, but with some allowance made to depart from them in exceptional circumstances. The word “exceptional” is important because it refers to an exception, something that very rarely happens. If used indiscriminately and without regard for the circumstances of the offence or the situation of individuals, minimum sentences can create injustice. It seems quite a paradox that the justice system could ultimately create injustice. We must ensure that our justice system does not cause injustice. Nevertheless, we believe that maintaining mandatory minimum sentences for violent crimes is justified, because we believe that legislators have the legitimate authority to rank crimes in order of severity and that mandatory minimum sentences ensure that the penalties reflect that ranking. It should be noted that the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased over the past few years, especially firearm-related violent crime. In Ontario, there were 1,016 more cases, or a 24% increase; in New Brunswick, there were 64 more cases, or a 24% increase; in British Columbia, there were 194 more cases, or a 12% increase. This is serious, and we must take action. I will come back to how we might do that. During our study of Bill C‑5, lawyer Julie Desrosiers told us that if we decided to keep minimum sentences in some cases, we should also provide a possibility of making an exception to them in exceptional circumstances. What I suggested just now has the support of Julie Desrosiers. Her colleague Mr. Henry also mentioned it. If a minimum sentence is prescribed and the judge is not given the discretion to depart from it in exceptional circumstances, the sentence will not reflect the complexity of reality. Let us also focus on the sources of the problem, namely protecting our borders, education, social integration, socio-economic support. Let us not cause injustice from birth. I invite everyone to read Thomas More's very edifying writings on this topic. Let us think back to the Heritage Minute about the Klondike, where the RCMP officer would not let anyone with a weapon into Canada. Right now, our borders are like Swiss cheese, and weapons that should not be crossing our borders are constantly being let into the country. Violence is unacceptable in Canada and Quebec, and the mandatory minimum sentences for serious crimes against the person serve as a reminder that it is completely inappropriate and unacceptable to use violence against others. That is also in keeping with our history, or at least the prouder moments in our history. Lastly, the Bloc Québécois invites the government to keep the promise of Quebec and Canadian society, which is that everyone can succeed and live a good life within the law. In order for that to happen, the necessary foundations must be laid, and those who did not have those foundations must be given an opportunity to get back on track. Everyone has the right to a second chance, but we need to send the message that violence is unacceptable and that, eventually, something has to give.

1167 words

Context: House Hansard - 314 - May/21/24

Mrs. Laila Goodridge (Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, CPC)

May/21/24 10:39:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Regina—Wascana for his wonderful speech. He and I share a passion when it comes to supporting Canada's world-class energy industry. Can he share some of what he hears from people in Regina on the impact the anti-energy government has had on the people and the jobs in Regina—Wascana?

64 words

Context: House Hansard - 314 - May/21/24

Mrs. Jenica Atwin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.)

May/21/24 11:37:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I greatly thank my colleague for his rousing speech this evening. I am sure this is on the minds of all members in this chamber: When will the member treat us to another homemade rap video? I would really love to see that.

45 words