SoVote

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

May/21/24 5:07:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thought my speech made it clear. This budget, with its fiscal irresponsibility and efforts to continue to destroy the Canadian competitive advantage of our natural resources, is so significantly dire that we are at a crucial economic turning point for our country. If this is not reversed shortly, we would be in a spiral that would be very difficult to get out of. All we have to do is look at countries such as Argentina, and others with similar resources that had governments that were not willing to develop their natural resources, to see what our economic future under the Liberal vision entails. Conservatives also believe that we should have a balanced budget. The Liberals used to believe that. In 2015, they said they would balance it in 2019. How has that gone so far? We are now up to a $40-billion deficit after nine years. Every single year, there is a deficit. I guess the Liberal promise in 2015 is not worth any more than the Liberal promise today of this budget.

177 words

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

May/21/24 5:08:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member of South Shore—St. Margarets for his speech. He is eloquent as usual. I really appreciate my colleague. Among other things, I like his thoroughness. I find the previous question on the long-term consequences of the budget interesting, particularly in terms of the debt and the deficit, especially as we will be dumping that on future generations. Why can we not balance the budget? It is because the federal government wants to interfere in something that is not its responsibility or in its area of expertise, by investing in pharmacare, health insurance and dental insurance. These are all things that are not its responsibility. Can we take this money, lower federal taxes and allow the provinces to invest more? If not, can we stop dumping this on future generations? Perhaps there are solutions to explore. I would like to know what my colleague thinks of that.

154 words

Mr. Rick Perkins

May/21/24 5:09:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member from the Bloc and I served together for quite a while on the industry committee, and he added a lot of great value. Conservatives and the Bloc share the same concerns with the constant and historic desire of the Liberal Party to always tell provinces what to do and how to do their job. Apparently, the Constitution that Pierre Trudeau negotiated and signed is something that members on the Liberal side do not hold in high regard because they are constantly breaking the provisions of the Constitution when they intrude in provincial jurisdiction by using the federal spending power, as the member pointed out.

108 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP)

May/21/24 5:10:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to acknowledge that my colleague used the World Economic Forum in his speech to keep the Conservative base happy. I sometimes think that the current leader of the Conservative Party is really unhappy with the WEF because former prime minister Stephen Harper never let him go when he was a cabinet minister. I want to know why my colleague is so tone deaf to the real cause of inflation. If we look at every single major corporate sector that is responsible for the prices that consumers pay, we will see that the increases in costs for shipping containers, fertilizer, oil and gas, and food retail all coincide with massive corporate profit increases over the last three years. Why do the Conservatives refuse to acknowledge this? Are they that intent on running interference in this place on behalf of their corporate Bay Street friends?

148 words

Mr. Rick Perkins

May/21/24 5:11:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague would know from living in B.C. that RBC has a report out now on the housing crisis in Vancouver, which says that it now takes 106% of people's gross income for them afford the average mortgage on a house in Vancouver. That is before paying taxes, buying food or doing anything else. People still do not have enough money. That is the only place in the world where that exists. That is a homegrown issue caused by the government's insane spending, where it has added more debt to the—

97 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/21/24 5:11:50 p.m.
Watch

We have to resume debate. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages has the floor.

22 words

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages, Lib.)

May/21/24 5:12:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, fairness across generations is the quintessential Canadian promise that every individual deserves an equal opportunity, with hard work, determination and a little support, to join the middle class, to secure savings, to purchase a home, to grow a family, and to enjoy retirement and their golden years in dignity. That is what budget 2024 is all about. Budget 2024 is crucial for the health, well-being and prosperity of my community in Windsor—Tecumseh. The foundation of prosperity and a strong middle class are good-paying manufacturing jobs. We know that. More and more, those good-paying manufacturing jobs are in the growing clean tech sector. In this budget, there is record investment in clean technology and record investment tax credits to create tens of thousands of new jobs in the growing zero-emission economy. It builds upon clean tech and climate change investments in the fall economic statement and in previous budgets. It is already working. We have seen over $50 billion in auto investment in just the last four years, including the historic Honda investment in Alliston and Port Colborne, the historic Northvolt investment in Quebec, the historic VW investment in St. Thomas and the Stellantis battery plant that our federal Liberal government delivered for my community in Windsor—Tecumseh, the first battery plant in all of Canada. I drive past the battery plant on the corner of EC Row Avenue and Banwell Road every single day on my way to work. It is an incredible thing to see. The battery plant is the size of 120 hockey rinks. It stretches as far as the eye can see. Driving by it, hundreds of pickup trucks belonging to local skilled workers, iron workers and millwrights can be seen. There are 2,000 workers, Canadian, local, unionized workers, building our battery plant. When it is completed, the battery plant will employ 2,500 local, unionized Canadians. What a remarkable turnaround. Eight years ago, under the previous Conservative government, Canada lost 300,000 manufacturing jobs. My community had an unemployment rate of 11.2%. However, today there is optimism. Today, we are building a bright future. Where Conservatives destroyed manufacturing, Liberals are rebuilding the manufacturing heartland of Canada, right here in southwestern Ontario and in Windsor with a new battery plant and thousands of new jobs. Soon, there will be the return of the third shift at Windsor assembly plant, where proud auto workers in my community will build the Dodge Charger Daytona, the first electric muscle car in North America. Windsor is back, and it is because we have a Liberal government standing by auto workers in Windsor with historic investment, respect and a true partnership. Like many other communities across the country, we also face challenges. One of those challenges is the rate of childhood poverty. Windsor-Essex has some of the highest rates of childhood poverty in Canada. Just last week, I met with the incredible people at ProsperUs, a unique local partnership of 40 organizations, including labour and industry, that are tackling childhood poverty by building wraparound supports from cradle to career in some of the most vulnerable neighbourhoods. It has built a unique neighbourhood opportunity index that gives us neighbourhood-level data on the health of our children and of families. In many neighbourhoods, we see moms and dads, often single parents, working hard, juggling multiple part-time jobs to take care of their children, and sometimes it is not enough. It is hard to make ends meet. Oftentimes, the struggle to balance time and money means that kids go to school hungry. We can have the best teachers in the world in front of a classroom, but they will not reach the student in that classroom if the student is hungry. That is why our Liberal government, through this budget, is investing over $1 billion in a national school food program. That is historic for Canada, and it will be transformative for my community. The national school food program is the result of decades of tireless advocacy by local leaders such as United Way Centraide Windsor-Essex County, VON and the Ontario school nutrition program, as well as the teachers, principals, volunteers and parent councils that have been providing school nutrition on a shoestring budget for years. It would lift 400,000 children across the country, put over $800 back in the pockets of parents and ensure that hundreds of thousands more kids would have access to nutritious meals to kick-start their day. More than food, this is about a fair start, a fair start for all of our kids, regardless of their background or postal code, so that they can be their best, and so that they can help build our Canada. Our budget 2024 is about investing in people and communities. The national school food program is just one example, albeit a great example. It is what differentiates Liberals from Conservatives. Liberals invest. Conservatives cut. Liberals believe in neighbour looking after neighbour. Conservatives believe that one is on one's own. We already know this because the Leader of the Opposition has telegraphed this. Conservatives will vote against clean tech investments such as our battery plant in Windsor. Conservatives will vote against a national school food program for kids. Conservatives will vote against record funding to build more homes and support renters. Conservatives will vote against dental care for seniors. Conservatives will vote against a fairer tax system that asks the super wealthiest to pay a little bit more so that we can strengthen the programs that help young people, working families and seniors. These measures all share a common goal, which is to lift people and to lift communities, to build a Canada that we want, a Canada that rewards hard work and that is fair. I see it in my community of Windsor—Tecumseh. It is not just about building and helping Canadians today. It is also about building a Canada that is fair for future generations and for generations still to come. Here I turn my attention to the environment. Liberals care about passing along a healthy environment, clean air and clean water to the next generation. Last year, I remember stepping out onto my front step, seeing a sky that had turned a burning bright orange while breathing in the thick air and smoke from the wildfires burning millions of hectares of forest in Quebec, New Brunswick and Alberta. Is this the future that we want to pass on to our kids? Budget 2024 confirms our commitment to fight climate change, to take real action to prevent wildfires and floods ravaging our communities. The Conservatives oppose climate action. They oppose investments in wind and solar, and in electric vehicles. Not only do they not have a climate plan, they are actively working to dismantle Canada's climate plan, which is already reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Along that vein, the Conservatives will also vote against the historic investment of $36.1 million in budget 2024 for the creation of the Ojibway national urban park in my community. There is over $40 million in this budget to open and operate an Ojibway national urban park, which our community has fought for, defended and championed for decades. The Conservative Party will vote against an Ojibway national urban park, too. I know our community will be watching for how our local Conservative MPs will vote. Will they vote with their Conservative leader to cut funding for Ojibway, or will they vote with their community and vote for Ojibway? Ojibway is a testament to the resilience and perseverance of grassroots advocates, community leaders, environmental stewards and, above all, first nations. It underscores the power of strong partnerships, local advocacy, solidarity and a government that believes in conservation and in fighting climate change. Budget 2024 will have a huge positive impact in my community, so much so that it feels like this budget was written by Windsor—Tecumseh for Windsor—Tecumseh. In my community, we are building a battery plant and thousands of jobs. We are taking care of the most vulnerable through programs such as the national school food program, and we are fighting climate change, preserving our land and waters and building an Ojibway national urban park. That is what this budget is all about. It is about stronger, healthier and more prosperous communities and a stronger, healthier and more prosperous Canada.

1407 words

Mr. Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, CPC)

May/21/24 5:22:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as a member of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, I was dismayed by the lack of transparency by the government. In the last number of months, over $50 billion has been announced in different EV subsidy contracts. As a member of that committee, I was given only two hours, along with the other committee members, to really scrutinize what the government was committing Canada to for only two of those contracts. In many respects, it is committing Canada to mimicking the programs in the United States. However, we cannot really be sure, because we do not actually know. How much time should members of Parliament have to review 50 billion dollars' worth of contracts?

118 words

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk

May/21/24 5:23:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, here is what I know. Eight years ago, when the Conservative government was in power, my community had an unemployment rate of 11.2%, and 300,000 manufacturing jobs were lost across Canada. Today, we see $50 billion of automotive manufacturing investment under the Liberal government. We are reviving the industrial manufacturing heartland of southwestern Ontario. Communities such as mine and those such as St. Thomas are building battery plants. We are seeing tens of thousands of automotive jobs being created in my community. Our focus is on bringing investment, creating well-paying jobs and lifting up manufacturing communities such as mine.

104 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

May/21/24 5:24:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we will vote against the budget, not because we are against pharmacare or because we are against the creation of a park or because we are against the creation of 2,000 jobs and more in the world of automotive technology. We will be voting against this budget because it creates duplicate services in Quebec and in the provinces that already have drug coverage, by refusing to grant them the right to opt out with full compensation. We are going to vote against it because, strangely enough, it disrespects the Constitution. My question is this: Are we to understand that the government's refusal to respect the Constitution means that it wants to reopen the Constitution? If it reopens the Constitution this time, will it negotiate in good faith, which it did not do in 1982?

138 words

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk

May/21/24 5:25:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is absolutely brilliant at the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. I really enjoy her questions, her insight and her incredible hard work. We need a team Canada approach in order to be able to lift communities across Canada. When I see over $100 billion for clean-tech industries in this budget, I know it is going to impact not only communities such as mine in Ontario but also communities such as those in Quebec, especially with the Northvolt battery investment. It is going to help lift communities across the country from coast to coast to coast. When I see the Canada disability benefit, pharmacare and child care, when I see all these programs, I know that these investments in budget 2024 will lift communities and Canadians from coast to coast to coast. For that very reason, I urge my hon. colleague to continue to work with us as team Canada and vote in support of this incredibly important budget.

166 words

Mr. Matthew Green (Hamilton Centre, NDP)

May/21/24 5:26:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as the very proud spokesperson for employment and workplace development, I am baffled that the parliamentary secretary stands to deliver the comments he did in his speech. Just last month, provincial and territorial labour ministers united across all parties and coast to coast to coast to call an emergency meeting to decry the $625-million cut to workforce development programs for people across the country. This would imply that, somehow, in a just transition, we do not need labour training anymore. Could the hon. member, the parliamentary secretary for this file, please explain to those provincial premiers why the government made cuts to those very important programs?

109 words

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk

May/21/24 5:26:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there is no government in the history of this country that has invested more money in skills training in Canada. Whether it is through sectoral workforce development, UTIP or apprenticeships, the government has made more investments in skills training than have all other previous governments combined.

48 words

Mr. Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, CPC)

May/21/24 5:27:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, to respond quickly to the last speech, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh made many comparisons between the Conservatives and the Liberals. One key thing the Conservatives want to do is fix the budget. That is because the Liberals love to take. They love to increase taxes. They say, “Work hard. We're going to take more of your money and then we're going to mismanage it and not tell you how it was spent”. That is the basis of this budget, and it is why I am opposing it. After nine years under the NDP-Liberal government, life is more expensive. The budget should have invested in a more productive economy and encouraged investment, innovation and economic growth by cutting taxes. Instead, the budget maintains this government's reckless deficits and raises taxes. This year, taxpayers will have to shell out $54.1 billion to pay interest on the Prime Minister's debt. That is more than we send to the provinces under the Canada health transfer. After nine years of this policy, is the average Canadian better off? I do not think so.

190 words

Mr. Brad Vis

May/21/24 5:29:03 p.m.
Watch

After nine years of the NDP-Liberal government, life is more expensive. The budget should have invested in a more productive economy while encouraging investment, innovation and economic growth with lower taxes. Instead, the budget continues the government's reckless deficits and raises taxes. This year, taxpayers are on the hook for $54.1 billion just to pay the interest on the Prime Minister's debt. That is more than we send to provinces through the Canada health transfer. The budget is yet another incremental push toward socialism. With everything the government has done, it has never been about making life better and more affordable for the average Canadian. It is about how the government can take more of people's hard-earned money and more control over their lives. After nine years of this, is the average Canadian better off? I do not think so. Nine years of this—

151 words

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

Ms. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ)

May/21/24 5:30:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C‑381. This is a private member's bill introduced by a member of the Conservative Party. It fulfills a promise made earlier this year by the leader of the Conservative Party. He said that if his party came to power, he would establish mandatory minimum prison sentences for individuals convicted of extortion. We have already heard my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord explain the Bloc Québécois position on this matter. We support the bill in principle. It is quite a simple bill. It would change the text of the Criminal Code to “amend mandatory minimum penalties in relation to the offence of extortion, including when the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization”. It proposes a mandatory minimum penalty of three years for extortion and the reinstatement of a four-year mandatory minimum sentence for extortion with a non-prohibited firearm. The mandatory minimum sentence was repealed by Bill C-5. The Conservative Party wants it to be reinstated. The bill also speaks of a five-year mandatory minimum sentence for extortion “for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization”. Moreover, the bill proposes to “add arson as an aggravating factor for the purposes of sentencing when a person is convicted of extortion”. It is quite simple. As I said the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of this bill. We would like it to be referred to committee so we can study it in more detail. Given the rise in crime, I believe this bill is important. In Canada, extortion is often committed during auto thefts, which are also increasing nationwide. Recently, we have seen newspaper reports of armed robberies and physical assaults when offenders tried to steal cars from ordinary citizens. I think this bill is very relevant. At the same time, it gives us the opportunity to set the record straight about the Bloc Québécois's position on Bill C-5. During study of this bill, the member for Rivière-du-Nord proposed an amendment to reinstate the mandatory minimum sentence for extortion with a firearm. This position became somewhat lost in the debate. We often heard the Conservative Party, with its slogans, say that the Bloc Québécois was helping the government in its efforts to let criminals serve their sentence at home. This has confused people a bit. It is important to clarify what happened. I would like to remind members that Bill C-5 dealt with the repeal of certain mandatory minimum penalties. The Bloc Québécois is in favour of repealing minimum penalties, except for crimes against people. We believe that if mandatory minimums are to be maintained, at the very least judges have to have the necessary latitude to occasionally depart from them with justification. This proposal was made by the Bloc Québécois, but it was rejected. That is why we voted in favour of Bill C-5 in the end. This proposal was rejected, but let me point out that the bill dealt with something else. It was proposed that Bill C‑5 be split in two, because it dealt with two completely different topics. There was also the part on diversion measures for simple drug possession offences. We were in favour of those diversion measures. That put us in a rather difficult position. We even tried to amend Bill C-to make it more reasonable, but our amendment was rejected. We support abolishing mandatory minimum penalties for less serious crimes, as we recognize that these types of penalties are not necessarily effective in dissuading criminals from committing a crime. They can also needlessly increase the size of prison populations. Police officers who were recently invited to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to speak about the rise in auto theft in the country said as much. I asked them if the offenders or youths who were associated with street gangs were aware of the sentences connected to crimes they were preparing to commit. We often hear, in political circles, certain parties say that increasing sentences will solve all the problems. I thought that maybe criminals were aware of the sentences associated with the crimes they wanted to commit, or maybe not at all. I asked if that made any difference to them. The police officers explained that criminals were well aware of the sentences associated with the crimes they were going to commit, but decided to commit those crimes anyway. Nevertheless, we believe that maintaining mandatory minimum sentences for violent crimes is justified because legislators have the legitimate authority to rank crimes in order of severity, and mandatory minimum sentences ensure that the penalties reflect that ranking. Obviously, mandatory minimum sentences are not perfect. Because they apply to everyone convicted of a particular crime, they sometimes lead to unjust sentences. That is why the Bloc Québécois wanted the Criminal Code to include a notwithstanding clause to allow judges to depart from minimum sentences in exceptional circumstances. That is what lawyer Julie Desrosiers reminded us when we were studying Bill C-5: One thing for certain is that if you decide to keep minimum sentences in certain cases, you should also provide a possibility of making an exception to them in exceptional circumstances. In fact, that is what my colleague, Mr. Henry, suggests. In other words, you prescribe a minimum sentence, but you give discretion back to judges not to apply it in exceptional circumstances. Exceptional circumstances do exist. The reality is complex, and it isn't just hardened criminals who sell guns to children. The courts have to manage all sorts of situations, and sometimes it is not appropriate to apply a minimum sentence. That is what this lawyer told the committee. Let us not forget that gun crime has surged in recent years. Canada's rate of firearm-related violent crime was 36.7 incidents per 100,000 population in 2022, and the increase is mainly attributable to increases in Ontario, New Brunswick and British Columbia. In this context, I believe that we, as legislators, must send the public a message that violent crime is unacceptable and, above all, that it is punishable by law. Lastly, while we note and condemn the fact that certain communities are overrepresented in Canadian prisons, we reject the Liberal-NDP suggestion that mandatory minimum sentences must be abolished to reduce their sentences. We do not see it that way. When an individual commits a crime, that individual must be held accountable for their actions, pure and simple. If the government is sincere about wanting to reduce Canada's prison population, I think it needs to invest in giving people the resources they need and, above all, in providing genuinely equal opportunities for all communities in Canada. Let us return to gun crime. Despite what it is saying today, during our study of Bill C-5, the government chose to maintain its position on abolishing mandatory minimum sentences for serious crimes. It is important to say that the Bloc Québécois opposed these amendments. For example, the government deleted the mandatory minimum sentences from subsection 244(1) of the Criminal Code, concerning discharging a firearm “with intent to wound, maim or disfigure, to endanger the life of or to prevent the arrest or detention of any person”, and from subsection 346(1), regarding extortion with a firearm. These are serious crimes. It is essential that such crimes be punished according to the degree of violence involved and the consequences for the victims. This was our position during the study of Bill C‑5, and our stance has not changed. It is unreasonable for someone convicted on such charges to get off with a paltry sentence or a conditional discharge. The public judges the justice system harshly, and with good reason, when the courts are too lenient with criminals who are prepared to use firearms to terrorize their victims. On this matter in particular, we will always stand firm. I would like to return briefly to organized crime. Although the provisions of the bill are legitimate and relevant, I believe the Conservatives seem to be unaware of the burden of proof required under the Criminal Code to establish ties with organized crime. In recent years, we have seen growing numbers of young people, sometimes minors, commit violent crimes without necessarily being affiliated with a criminal organization. This is especially true for auto theft. Madam Speaker, you are signalling that my time is up. I did not get the message. We will be voting in favour of Bill C‑381.

1490 words

Hon. Steven MacKinnon (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/21/24 5:41:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I request that the ordinary hour of daily adjournment of the next sitting be 12 midnight, pursuant to an order made on Wednesday, February 28.

27 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/21/24 5:41:53 p.m.
Watch

The request to extend the sitting is deemed adopted, pursuant to an order made on Wednesday, February 28.

18 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP)

May/21/24 5:42:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate being able to stand in the House today to give my comments with respect to Bill C-381 as the NDP's public safety and national security critic. The bill is brought in by a Conservative MP. It does seek to amend the Criminal Code by adding mandatory minimum penalties in relation to the offence of extortion. This would include when the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization. The bill would also add arson as an aggravating factor for the purposes of sentencing when a person is convicted of extortion. It is important to note that the bill before us is actually seeking to reinstate a mandatory minimum penalty that was repealed by Bill C-5 in this very same Parliament. In fact that bill passed third reading in the House of Commons by a vote of 206 to 117 on June 15, 2022. It had the New Democrats', the Bloc Québécois' and the Liberals' support, so it did pass with overwhelming support. It received royal assent later that year. Therefore, this is a Conservative attempt to try to address an issue which was already decided on by the House in the current Parliament. It is important also to make mention of the fact that there is an important clause in Bill C-5, which was passed in 2022. Section 21 of the bill stated that a review of the provisions in the bill was to happen by the fourth anniversary of the bill's coming into force. We have not yet even met that part of the original Bill C-5. There has been no review of Bill C-5 and its provisions. Essentially, Bill C-381, as a consequence, would be jumping the gun before any such review. We have not had the chance to look at how the provisions are acting in Canadian society. We have not had a committee call forth witnesses to find out testimony. It would also be going back on something to which the House has already given due consideration. With all due respect to the member who introduced the legislation, I have to say that I get the sense that every time I see a Conservative private member's bill dealing with the Criminal Code, it is “Here we go again.” I have to say that it is a fairly weak effort at writing legislation, because I again am reminded of the fact that many of these bills seem to be all style with no substance. There is a lot of flavour to them and they make a big impact. They get a lot of people all riled up. However, when we look at what they would actually accomplish, there is really not much there. When I see these kinds of bills brought forward by the Conservative Party, I am often reminded of an undergraduate student who wrote their term paper the night before it was due and then handed it in. If I were the teacher grading that paper, I would ask the person to show their sources. Unfortunately for the Conservatives, whenever it comes to these kinds of bills, especially when they are trying to talk about mandatory minimum penalties, when we ask them to show their sources, they are unable to do so. If Conservatives actually did their homework instead of using the sloganeering that is often associated with these types of bills, they would realize a few things. Number one is that mandatory minimum penalties do not work as a deterrent. There is no evidence. I will give a case in point. When criminals are out there committing crimes, they are not thinking of the sentencing provisions in the Criminal Code as a deterrent. No, what they are actually wondering is what the chances are that they are going to get caught while committing the offence. The bigger deterrent is having increased police resources and more intelligence gathering so we can disrupt attempts and not have an after-the-fact solution. Furthermore, on a statement of principle, as New Democrats we remain opposed to the use of mandatory minimum penalties. I do acknowledge that there are some that exist in the Criminal Code as presently written, but there is cold, hard evidence that their use has disproportionately affected indigenous, racialized and poor Canadians. One need only look at Canada's prison population and at the number of racialized Canadians who are inmates there, and then look at their percentages as a part of the general Canadian population. They will see just how disproportionate the statistics are. I also want to say that I firmly believe in the ability of our judges to render appropriate sentencing by taking the existing Criminal Code and case law into account when making their decisions. I will refer members again, as I have with other pieces of legislation that deal with similar subject matters, to section 718.2 of the Criminal Code. This part of the Criminal Code contains sentencing principles that inform a judge on aggravating factors or mitigating circumstances that they can then use when looking at the defendant standing before them to increase or reduce a sentence based on the circumstances of the individual. A mandatory minimum sentence takes all that away. I will point out that the sentence can be increased or reduced for a number of things, such as if there is “evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin”, and a whole host of factors that, if the crime was committed with those in mind, can lead to an increase of the sentence. There is also a point in section 718.2 of the Criminal Code that, if there is “evidence that the offence was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization”, that is an aggravating factor. Again, with respect to the bill we have before us, Bill C-381, not only has the House of Commons already voiced its opinion on this matter, but the bill is redundant. One thing I learned as the NDP's justice critic back in 2017 is that the existing Criminal Code is littered with redundancies. It is one of the most inefficient pieces of federal legislation that exists, and many efforts have been made over the years to try to clean it up. There are clauses in the Criminal Code that exist for crimes that are not committed anymore, and there is a terrible amount of redundancy, often because we have bills such as this attempting to amend certain sections of it. On another point, when focusing our efforts on the Criminal Code, it is important for us to understand that it is primarily a reactive instrument. It comes into play after the fact. As a legislator, a policy-maker and a representative of the proud people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, I am more interested in tackling the crime before it happens, putting in effective policies, and making sure that people are not enticed into joining gangs and committing crimes on their behalf. I am interested in making sure our police have the right kind of tools at their disposal and can gather important intelligence, so they can break up these criminal elements, which are often preying on the most vulnerable people in our communities. It is also important, again speaking of the Criminal Code, to note that it already has a five-year mandatory minimum sentence for first-time extortionists who use a restricted or prohibited firearm or any type of gun on behalf of a criminal organization. Therefore, this is a completely redundant and unnecessary bill. In conclusion, I want to underline that I understand the concerns of communities throughout Canada on the issue of extortion and the rise of organized crime. I support reversing the cuts that were made to the RCMP organized crime units, which were mandated by the previous Conservative government and have not yet been reversed by the Liberals. The lack of resources has resulted in the rise of the crimes we are witnessing today. We need to provide not only local but also national law enforcement with the resources they need to keep Canadians safe. I prefer that we bolster those resources in organized crime to make sure that crucial intelligence allows them to really confront this problem in a meaningful way. It is very clear that our police services are facing a rise in extortion-related crimes across the country. However, new sentences and laws are not what is needed to tackle this very important issue; rather, police services need the resources to investigate and apprehend those who are committing the offences. We do not need virtue signalling in another Conservative criminal justice bill to do that.

1492 words