So V ote

Jun/1/22 5:43:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's speech. The problem is that a number of times I heard the words “simple possession”. The issue is that this is not what Bill C-5 deals with. The mandatory minimum penalties being repealed in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act have to do with trafficking, importing or exporting controlled substances, or the production of schedule I or schedule II drugs, that is, cocaine, heroine, fentanyl and crystal meth. Would the hon. member maintain that production, trafficking and importing are “simple possession”?

95 words

All Topics

Jun/1/22 5:32:35 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I wish all Canadians could have been watching when we saw the Green Party move amendments at our committee to remove every single mandatory penalty from the Criminal Code, including sexual offences against children. It was appalling. They moved the amendments, but then they did not want to speak about them. I am happy to speak about them. We, the Conservatives, believe that Parliament needs to send a message that individuals who victimize young people and Canadians, cause fear in our communities and engage in drive-by shootings, weapons trafficking, the importing and exporting of firearms illegally, robberies with a firearm, extortion with a firearm and the discharging of a firearm with intent, as in a drive-by shooting, need to be off the streets and there need to be serious consequences for those types of crimes.

139 words

Jun/1/22 5:31:01 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I will absolutely acknowledge that we have a difference of opinion. I, for one, believe that criminals who are putting Canadians at risk and engaging in activities in our communities such as using a firearm in the commission of an offence, weapons trafficking, robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, and discharging a firearm with intent should get jail time. I think most Canadians would agree with that, whether they live in an urban or a rural area.

81 words

All Topics

Jun/1/22 5:29:37 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I am shocked that the member opposite raised this issue because, for a number of the offences within Bill C-5, such as weapons trafficking, discharging a firearm with intent, and possession of a weapon obtained in the commission of an offence, the government said last week that people would not go to jail at all, and this week, in Bill C-21, for those very same offences, it has increased the maximum penalties. It cannot have it both ways.

82 words

All Topics

Jun/1/22 5:18:07 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-5 at report stage. It is actually hard to believe that a bill this reckless with the safety and security of Canadians has even gotten this far in the legislative process. This bill seeks to make changes to the Criminal Code in order to make life easier for criminals charged with violent firearm offences and criminals who are fuelling the opioid crisis in Canada. The Liberals have made themselves dizzy by the amount of spin they put on Bill C-5, but today I want Canadians to hear just the facts about this dangerous piece of legislation. Most of the offences we are discussing today, for which the Liberals want to get rid of mandatory jail time, are crimes that involve firearms. However, the Liberal government has chosen to leave in the Criminal Code many of the mandatory minimum penalties, particularly some escalating ones around gun violence that came in under the previous Conservative government. I want to make another point before I get too far into my speech. The charges for which the government is removing mandatory jail time are not for an otherwise innocent individual who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. This bill specifically allows repeat offenders to avoid mandatory jail sentences. These are hardened criminals who have already made the choice to live outside the law and have not made an effort to change their behaviour. These are the people the Liberals are helping with Bill C-5. In the government press release announcing Bill C-5, there was not a single mention of guns or gun violence. How, then, would the average Canadian know that this bill would eliminate mandatory jail time for criminals charged with robbery with a firearm; extortion with a firearm; weapons trafficking; importing or exporting knowing that a firearm is unauthorized; discharging a firearm with intent; using a firearm in the commission of an offence; possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition; possession of a weapon obtained by the commission of an offence; and possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking, just to name a few? These are the very offences that are ripped from the headlines today, the stories that we are hearing in many of our large cities of gang crimes and drive-by shootings. These are the types of offences for which mandatory jail time would be removed in Bill C-5. Why would the Liberals keep Canadians in the dark about getting rid of mandatory jail time for these serious offences? I am sure they are familiar with these mandatory prison sentences, as most of them were actually introduced by previous Liberal governments. The Liberal Party used to recognize that public safety should be a key factor. In 2007, Roy Cullen, the former parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, said that the Liberals “support mandatory minimums for gun related crimes because the research shows they work.” It was Marlene Jennings, the former parliamentary secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada, who correctly stated, “It was a Liberal government that recognized minimum mandatory penalties in very targeted areas could send a clear message and could be effective in the sense of removing the offender from the community and ensuring that the victim and the community were not re-victimized.” In the 2006 election campaign, the Liberal Party of Canada, under the Right Hon. Paul Martin, ran on a promise to increase mandatory minimum sentences. The version of the Liberal Party that we see today is not using Bill C-5 to reverse Conservative policies. The Liberals are using Bill C-5 to turn away from their own party's long-established values. Unfortunately, Canadians are seeing the same disregard for foundational beliefs among the members of the NDP as well. It was not so long ago that the former NDP leader, the late Jack Layton, ran on a platform that promised to increase the mandatory minimum penalty for the possession, sale and importation of illegal arms such as handguns, assault rifles and automatic weapons. He also promised to add mandatory minimum sentences to other weapons offences. It is hard to believe how in such a short time, the Liberals and the NDP have turned their backs on the principles and values that were deeply held by their predecessors. I want to be very clear: The changes to the Criminal Code imposed by Bill C-5 are a radical shift away from long-standing and bipartisan values and principles held by members of this House when it comes to public safety. The Liberal members and the government across the way cannot pretend that they have not recognized the rising rate of violence in Canadian communities. They have seen it first-hand in their own ridings. While support for this bill would indicate otherwise, I am sure many of the Liberal members are aware of the tragic firearms incidents that are happening weekly in their own ridings. We are talking about gun violence on the streets of Canada's big cities every day. The member for Mississauga—Streetsville would be aware of the increasingly bold behaviour of violent firearm offenders. In April, a young person was rushed to a hospital in life-threatening condition following a shooting at a townhouse complex in her riding in the middle of the afternoon. The member for Laval—Les Îles is well aware that in his riding, less than a month ago, a young man was shot just after 1 o'clock in the afternoon. Just a few weeks ago, on May 11, the Montreal police announced that the city's ninth homicide this year had taken place shortly after 4 o'clock in the afternoon. That shooting occurred in the riding of Papineau. Criminals carrying firearms are become more brazen, and it is happening right in the Liberal members' own backyards. Instead of coming down hard on these violent offenders, the Liberals are rewarding their behaviour by giving them changes to the Criminal Code as proposed in Bill C-5. André Gélinas is a retired detective sergeant with the Montreal police service with years of experience, particularly with gang violence in Montreal. We have all seen the headlines out of big urban centres like Montreal and the rising gun and gang violence terrorizing communities within Canadian cities. The retired sergeant told the justice committee, in no uncertain terms, that “anything remotely related to firearms trafficking must continue to be subject to mandatory minimum sentences.” He called Bill C-5 “a race to the bottom.” Anie Samson is a former municipal councillor and mayor whose jurisdiction included the most multicultural neighbourhood in Montreal. Unfortunately, this neighbourhood had a very high crime rate. It was also in the top 10 of the poorest neighbourhoods in Canada. Ms. Samson has shared heartbreaking stories about youth and even young children being victimized and targeted by organized crime in her community. When Ms. Samson spoke to our committee last month, she told us that not only would Bill C-5 fail to protect the young people in her community from getting involved in criminal activity, but abolishing certain mandatory minimum penalties would actually increase the feeling of impunity for criminal behaviour that we are seeing every day in the headlines. She went on to say that criminal organizations are becoming more bold in our communities and have less regard for the law and for the implications of getting caught and facing some kind of consequence. Bill C-5 makes that stark reality even worse. In other words, Bill C-5 gives gang members licence to continue to terrorize her community, a community that already faces a multitude of hardships. I should also mention that the borough of Montreal that Ms. Samson represented as mayor also happens to be in the home riding of the Prime Minister. Over the past seven years, it has become increasingly obvious that the Prime Minister does not prioritize the safety and security of Canadians in general, but it is particularly disappointing and even cruel that he would disregard the safety and security of his own constituents. In contrast, justice committee members were privileged to hear from individuals and organizations who care very deeply about the safety and security of all Canadians, in particular those who have been victimized by violent crime or have lost a loved one due to some of the offences where punishment will be reduced by Bill C-5. In this bill, the Liberals are making more criminal charges eligible to receive conditional sentences, also known as house arrest. There may be cases where house arrest is acceptable, but house arrest should never be made available to dangerous offenders and criminals whose actions have victimized an innocent person or family. The fact of the matter is this: The crimes that would become eligible for house arrest under the Liberals' Bill C-5 are not victimless crimes and are, in fact, dangerous. Should a criminal who abducted a child under the age of 14 be eligible for house arrest? The Liberal government says yes. Should a criminal who benefits financially from the scourge of human trafficking be eligible for house arrest? The Liberal government says yes. Should someone convicted of kidnapping get house arrest? The Liberal government says yes. Should criminals charged with sexual assault be able to serve their time back in the same community of their victims? I would argue absolutely not, but the Liberal government says that it is absolutely appropriate. The Liberals are trying to expand house arrest for those charged with prison breach. In what world does one reward people for trying to break out of jail by offering them a sentence of house arrest? This is just one example of how the Liberal government is trying to make a complete mockery of the Canadian justice system. I will wrap up my remarks. I will be very strongly voting against Bill C-5, and I encourage all members of this House to do the same.

1688 words

All Topics

Jun/1/22 5:17:19 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

moved: Motion No. 2 That Bill C-5 be amended by deleting Clause 5. Motion No. 3 That Bill C-5 be amended by deleting Clause 6. Motion No. 4 That Bill C-5 be amended by deleting Clause 7. Motion No. 5 That Bill C-5 be amended by deleting Clause 8.

53 words

Jun/1/22 2:38:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, thoughts are not enough. This decision means that the person who killed three RCMP officers in Moncton will now be eligible for full parole at age 49. The Supreme Court ruling hands this issue back to Parliament for this Parliament and the current government to do something about it. Will the government and the Prime Minister act to ensure that families will not have to go through the retraumatization every two years of parole hearings to ensure that their loved one's killer remains behind bars?

88 words

Context: House Hansard - 77 - May/30/22

Jun/1/22 2:37:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, three RCMP officers were killed in Moncton. Six worshippers were killed inside a Quebec City mosque. Two grandparents and their grandson were murdered in Calgary in 2017. Their killers were given jail sentences of 40 years or more, but the Supreme Court has now capped sentences for mass murderers at 25 years. The Prime Minister likes to say that he has Canadians' backs. Will he stand up for the families of these victims?

75 words

Context: House Hansard - 74 - May/18/22

May/30/22 2:45:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, a troubling and recent Supreme Court of Canada decision allowing some of Canada's worst mass murderers to apply for parole much sooner means that families are revictimized by a vicious cycle that forces them to relive the worst day of their lives over and over again at repeated parole hearings. That includes the families of three RCMP officers who were killed in the line of duty in Moncton, New Brunswick in 2014. The families of victims are speaking out and standing up for their lost loved ones. Will this government do the same?

96 words

Context: House Hansard - 74 - May/18/22

May/18/22 2:43:20 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is not standing with victims. Victims have spoken loud and clear. As a matter of fact, a poll published this week found that most Canadians feel that gun violence is getting worse in their communities. Rather than stopping illegal firearms from coming across the border, the Liberals' Bill C-5 will help repeat offenders charged with multiple violent gun crimes escape accountability. We know the Prime Minister likes to govern by opinion polls, so will he finally do the right thing, reverse course and abandon the soft-on-crime Bill C-5?

97 words

Context: House Hansard - 73 - May/17/22

May/18/22 2:42:08 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' Bill C-5 goes soft on violent crimes that are ripped right from the headlines. Just yesterday, a news headline read, “Montreal man charged with firearm offences after investigation into drive-by shootings”. This was right in the Prime Minister's own neighbourhood, yet Bill C-5 lets drive-by shooters off easy. Why is he putting his own neighbours' lives at risk with the soft-on-crime bill, Bill C-5?

78 words

Context: House Hansard - 69 - May/11/22

May/17/22 2:32:32 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, it is Victims and Survivors of Crime Week, but the Liberals refuse to do even the bare minimum to support them. The government has abandoned its responsibility to victims of crime, but it remains a champion to its friends, the criminals. The Liberals' Bill C-5 would mean lighter sentences for violent gun crimes and that offenders charged with human trafficking and sexual assault would be able to serve their time from the comfort of their own homes. Why will the Liberals not provide the same sense of security to victims and survivors of crime?

97 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 69 - May/11/22

May/11/22 3:10:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about the lives of vulnerable Canadians, yet the Liberals took months to reconstitute the committee to review this legislation after the Prime Minister put a stop to its work when he called his election. Now we are learning of Canadians who see medically assisted death as an alternative to a lack of health care or a lack of safe housing. When it comes to this tragic misuse of medically assisted death, why does the Prime Minister continue to ignore the pleas of vulnerable Canadians?

98 words

Context: House Hansard - 68 - May/10/22

May/11/22 3:08:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, exactly 14 months ago the Conservatives stood in this House and warned the government not to ignore Canadians with disabilities and mental health advocates and their very real concerns with the Liberals' medically assisted dying bill. Look where we are now. We have all read the horror stories over the last few months of medically assisted death being administered to people not because they were near death but because they were vulnerable. Does the Prime Minister see any issues with how medically assisted death is now being misused in Canada?

92 words

Context: House Hansard - 65 - May/5/22

May/10/22 2:13:22 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the president of the National Police Federation told the justice committee that the Liberal government's effort to get rid of mandatory jail time for serious crimes related to weapons trafficking and firearms offences is “inconsistent with the expressed intent of the government to reduce firearms violence in Canada.” In no uncertain terms, the Liberals' Bill C-5 would make Canadian communities less safe. We are all familiar with the long trail of broken promises left by the Liberal government over the past seven years, but it seems particularly offensive to tell Canadians that the government will crack down on gun crime while writing a bill that does exactly the opposite. Regardless of whether people live in an urban centre or in a rural community, they deserve to feel safe. I invite the Minister of Justice to take the bill back to the drawing board and to shift his focus from protecting criminals to protecting Canadians.

162 words

Context: House Hansard - 43 - Mar/22/22

May/5/22 2:12:05 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' soft-on-crime Bill C-5 would end mandatory jail time for serious crimes such as robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm and weapons trafficking. The Liberals are also using this bill to allow criminals who benefit financially from human trafficking or people charged with sexual assault to serve their sentence from home. These are violent crimes, but the Liberals do not consider them to be serious offences. Of course, victims and those who support them know that is simply not the case. Just last week, the executive director of the London Abused Women's Centre told the justice committee that putting an offender back in the community puts women at higher risk. This bill flies in the face of those who call on the government every day asking for safer streets and safer communities, and it is an absolute affront to victims. The government must stop trying to tip the scales of justice in order to benefit violent criminals over their victims and survivors.

171 words

Context: House Hansard - 33 - Feb/17/22

Mar/22/22 2:12:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, next week the Liberal government will yet again increase its carbon tax that disproportionately punishes rural Canadians, like those living in my riding of Fundy Royal. While the price of gas is already breaking records in New Brunswick, the Liberals want to shatter those records by raising their carbon tax to an additional 11¢ per litre on April 1. However, 11¢ per litre is going to look quaint by 2030, when the Liberal carbon tax is fully implemented and charging Canadians an additional 40¢ per litre. The Liberal carbon tax does not care if people have to drive to work in order to pay the bills and provide for their families. It does not care if someone is a senior on a fixed income. All it does is add pressure on the increasingly strained wallets of everyday Canadians. This is unacceptable. In fact, 53% of Canadians say that they simply cannot keep up with the cost of living right now. The last thing we need is another tax that makes life less affordable. People are struggling, and the government can no longer pretend that it is helpless to do anything about it. It is time the Liberals did the right thing and suspended their carbon tax increase on April 1.

215 words

Context: House Hansard - 33 - Feb/17/22

Feb/17/22 6:25:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, a lot of members in the House seem to be confused. If something is an emergency or an inconvenience or if there is something we want to change or disagree with, it is a matter of debate. The fact of the matter is, to enact the Emergencies Act, the territorial integrity, security and sovereignty of Canada have to be at risk. No one can seriously claim that the protest on Wellington Street is impacting the territorial integrity and sovereignty of our country. If it is, we have bigger problems than we think.

94 words

All Topics