44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 13, 2021 11:00AM
- Dec/13/21 11:29:03 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to this bill.
It is unfortunate, though, that the government is taking the first opportunity possible to flex its soft-on-crime approach. They have very much reinforced this approach with Bill C-5. It would do nothing more than reduce punishments, and truly reduce accountability, for perpetrators of violent gun crimes and drug dealers. It would keep those individuals in our communities, among their victims, rather than in prison, where they belong.
Bill C-5, for those who are just tuning in, would eliminate a number of mandatory minimum sentences for very serious crimes. I am talking about a soft-on-crime approach, and I would like to contextualize that. This bill would reduce the mandatory minimum jail time for robbery with a firearm, weapons trafficking and discharging a firearm with intent. The hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo demonstrated very ably, in response to a question by the parliamentary secretary, why this approach is so problematic, and why the example given does not make sense. It would not achieve the result they are looking for.
This bill would also reduce the mandatory minimum jail time for possession of an unauthorized firearm, possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm, possession of a weapon obtained by commission of an offence and possession for purpose of weapons trafficking. These are incredibly serious offences, but the government is taking its first opportunity to reduce the accountability mechanisms available for the commission of these serious offences. Instead, we are seeing the Liberals posturing, and they hope Canadians will confuse motion for action on gun crime. The motion and activity they will generate will be to crack down on law-abiding firearms owners instead of gun smugglers and drug traffickers.
I find one talking point the Liberals use particularly offensive, and that is that this bill would help those who are struggling with addiction get the help they need. Of course, it would not do that. Canadians, and anyone who is struggling with addiction, should be receiving treatment, but that is not what this bill would do. In fact, the problem would get worse under these Liberals because this bill would also eliminate mandatory prison time for those convicted of trafficking, or possession for the purpose of trafficking; importing and exporting, or possession for the purpose of exporting; and production of a substance in schedule 1 or 2.
The Liberals would literally be letting drug traffickers and manufacturers off the hook while saying it is helping addicts and people in our communities. We are in the grips of an opioid crisis in this country. People are dying every day. We should crack down on the people who are peddling that poison in our communities. However, that is not the approach the Liberals are going to take.
I also heard mention from a representative of the government that they would be getting rid of these nasty Conservative minimum penalties. Rightly, many of these laws came into force in the mid-nineties, and the government of the day was a Liberal government, so there is a bit of a disconnect between what they are saying and what they are doing, as is often the case.
The Liberals want to blame Conservatives for laws that former Liberal governments enacted. They say that they are helping addicts and communities, but they are actually reducing sentences and eliminating accountability for traffickers and manufacturers. Instead of punishing gang members, they are looking to crack down on law-abiding firearms owners.
To be clear, the process and the system we have in place in this country for law-abiding firearms owners is robust. There is no disagreement in the firearms community, with hunters and sport shooters, on the need for that system to be robust. Background checks and CPIC checks are already in place. They are effective and important. When we have a group of citizens who are following the laws in place, it might seem like low-hanging fruit for the government to say that they will just make tougher restrictions and demonstrate that they are putting more laws on the books, and Canadians will somehow believe that they have gotten serious about this.
However, it speaks to the priorities of this government when, last year, its members voted against the Conservative private member's bill that would have seen punishments for weapons trafficking strengthened, but here we are with them proposing to weaken it with this inadequate law. While Conservatives seek to empower victims of crime and to defend their rights, this Liberal government wants to empower the criminals: the drug manufacturers, the traffickers and the gang members.
I have heard from people in my community who have been victimized, or who have loved ones who have been victims of violent crime, and they have serious concerns about the rise of violent crime in Canada. However, it seems like the approach that this government is taking is one that is soft on crime and not one that stands up for victims.
I have certainly heard from police who are at their wits' end. They are doing their part to keep our neighbourhoods and communities, our country, safe, but they are dealing with a justice system and a government that would rather see criminals released back into the community instead of putting them in jail. For example, the police will pick up someone for a violent offence, for one of the offences listed here, on Friday, and by the end of the weekend, that person is back in the community, then rearrested on a different crime, released and rearrested in the same week.
I took the opportunity to go on a ride-along with local police in my community, and in the time it took us to drive five minutes away from the station, the officer observed someone who was violating their release conditions. When the officer called back to dispatch to say that the person was detained and there would be an arrest, the person was still showing as being in the system because the person had been released so recently. The release was processed, and the person was rearrested. The officer was tied up with that individual for the evening.
I then went out on the road with another officer, and before the end of the shift, that same person was back on the street again. I heard story after story from these officers and from officers across Canada who, while dealing with fewer resources, are dealing with a government that wants to see police further taxed with fewer resources available for our law enforcement, less protection for our victims, and leniency and less accountability for criminals.
It is important to note that we are not talking about someone who is accused of a criminal offence. We are talking about individuals who have been convicted. They have, in fact, committed and been convicted of committing the offence, and the government's response is to let them out. They would let them out for robbery with a firearm or for extortion with a firearm or weapons trafficking. It is unbelievable to think that these are the priorities of the government.
We heard the government talk about conditional sentencing and the expansion of conditional sentencing. That means that someone could be put on house arrest, as the parliamentary secretary said, for a number of offences, including kidnapping, sexual assault, human trafficking or trafficking in persons, abduction of a minor or a person under 14 years of age, and being unlawfully in a dwelling house.
It is incredibly concerning that this is the approach that the government wants to take. Those individuals ought not to be released into the community after having been found to have committed the offence for which they were accused. They were found guilty. This bill would only result in an increase in violent crime, fewer resources for our police and law enforcement, and more fear in our communities.
This soft-on-crime approach is full of talking points about helping folks who are struggling with an addiction, but it does not do that. We know that currently the justice system and the police are exercising their discretion in dealing with folks who are struggling with addiction for things like simple possession. If the government wants to get serious, we should be talking today about its expansion for support for people who are struggling with addiction or their mental health.
We know that the House passed a call for a national three-digit suicide prevention hotline, but government members have not done that. Instead, they are dragging their feet and dragging the pot, talking about CRTC consultations that go on and on and on. Get serious. Members from across the country called for this to take place.
That would be a concrete action, but it looks like the government does not want to do it because it was proposed by a member of the official opposition, by one of my Conservative colleagues. That is not in the spirit with which we should be approaching serious issues like addictions and mental health. How will Canadians get the help they need when the government will not even streamline the process for them? We know that that three-digit number is not currently in use. We need to get the lead out.
We saw the government take a full two months after what it deemed to be the most important election that we have had. It certainly did not do that to hand out mandate letters to their ministers, name parliamentary secretaries, or consult with Canadians on any of a number of things that it now wants to rush through this place. It is concerning. Canadians are concerned.
I hear those in the Liberal benches heckling that they have a mandate. Do you have a mandate to let people out for kidnapping someone under the age of 14? Do you have a mandate—
1667 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/21 11:43:37 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I do appreciate that. I will direct them through you. Of course, I hope that the government is reminded about its heckling, as the opposition is held ruthlessly to account.
We want to ask the government these questions: Does it really have a mandate to expand conditional sentences for these crimes? Does it have a mandate to let someone out, and to not have someone go to jail for a minimum amount of time, for the crimes of importing or exporting an unauthorized firearm, extortion with a firearm, and robbery with a firearm? The government says it has a mandate. Did government members really go to their communities to say that this is right, and that the community wanted them to let people out who have committed robbery with a firearm? Is that the kind of accountability in justice that we want in this country? I do not think so.
Does the parliamentary secretary have a mandate for recklessly discharging a firearm?
164 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/21 11:45:50 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
I am concerned, Madam Speaker, that the parliamentary secretary has been named as a representative of the government, but does not understand how simple debate works in the House. He thinks that if a rhetorical question is put through the Speaker to the government in response to Liberals creating disorder in the House, suddenly they have standing to interrupt debate and start answering questions.
However, I have more questions for the parliamentary secretary and perhaps he will rise and courageously proclaim that the Liberals' expansion of conditional sentencing for people convicted of dangerous and violent offences is what Canadians sent them here to do. I would encourage him to do that, to stand up and say just that, not to blame previous Conservative governments for enacting mandatory minimum penalties. It was Jean Chrétien who put most of those on the books.
It is unbelievable that Liberals are so fearful that the truth about this bill is going to be exposed that they do not even want the debate to unfold. It has been happening for 40 minutes and they are already in a panic. I hear members on the Liberal benches again attempting to create disorder. The heckles do not come from the official opposition. We know that, rightfully—
212 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/21 11:48:06 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, much to the chagrin of the member for Kingston and the Islands, who is very upset that the Conservatives continue to expose the Liberal government's soft-on-crime approach, we are going to continue to do that, because we have a mandate from Canadians. We know the government wants to crack down on law-abiding gun owners while letting gangbangers out with a warning. It is no problem if someone possessed a firearm for the purpose of weapons trafficking, no problem at all. The Liberals will continue to push their soft-on-crime approach, a criminal-first agenda, and everyday Canadians will suffer the consequences. It is truly shameful. Hug a thug, indeed.
Conservatives will stand up for the victims of crime and for the safety of our communities. In spite of the disorder Liberals look to create in this place, we will not be silenced by their attempts.
152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/21 11:50:50 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is talking about Bill C-22, which is really interesting. We are dealing with Bill C-5. Why are we dealing with Bill C-5 and not Bill C-22? It is because the Liberal Prime Minister, against the agreement of all parliamentarians in the previous Parliament, called an election during a pandemic. He killed his own legislation. He did not want to enact anything he had put forward at the time, because Liberals like to try to confuse motion for action. They get very little done. In this case, it is dangerous that one of the first pieces of legislation they are looking to enact is a soft-on-crime bill that punishes victims and rewards criminals.
123 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/21 11:52:52 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, we know that the Public Prosecution Service of Canada has already issued a directive with respect to these types of diversion measures. The effect of codifying them and having Bill C-5 enacted is that there will not be much of a difference between what is currently happening and what would happen as a result of this bill being put in place for those measures.
What we would see is the repeal of these mandatory minimum penalties and conditional discharges, weakening the accountability for folks who are committing drug trafficking and drug manufacturing offences. This, of course, is going to gravely impact our communities and have a negative impact on folks who are suffering from addiction. With respect to diversion measures, the ones that are currently in place and the directive issued are appropriate.
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/21 11:54:43 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, it is incredibly important that we have accountability measures in place. The mandatory minimums being repealed are going to weaken accountability; it is that simple. The crimes that are going to be impacted and the criminals who will be impacted will have been convicted of committing serious offences.
Victims need someone speaking up for them. That is exactly what we are doing here today. These crimes, the list I have read out twice, are not minor offences. They are serious and dangerous offences committed by dangerous people. The penalties being repealed serve as an accountability mechanism and should remain in place.
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/21 11:56:39 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the member for Kingston and the Islands just accused the member for Regina—Lewvan of lying. I am just wondering, with respect to—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
37 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/21 11:57:18 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, with respect to your response, I am sure, if you consulted with Hansard, you would find that at the conclusion of the member's comments he did in fact make that very assertion. The member for Kingston and the Islands said the member for Regina—Lewvan lied. My understanding is that is not how we speak in this place.
62 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/21 12:01:28 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, with respect to the comments on the elimination of mandatory prison time for people who have committed serious offences, it is contrary to ensuring we have accountability when these crimes are committed. Again, I remind people these are not folks who are accused of committing crimes, these are people who have been convicted of committing criminal offences such as discharging a firearm with intent, weapons trafficking, extortion with a firearm or robbery with a firearm.
Surely we can all agree one should go to jail for those offences, but it does not seem we have an agreement on that in this place. I heard from a previous member that this is an argument of decades past. I do not think so. I want to ensure the folks who live in my community know that anyone who commits those offences will be held fully accountable, and that includes time in prison.
152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/21 12:04:01 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I think we do agree that Canadians who are suffering from addiction should be getting treatment, and if the crime is simple possession, there are currently directives in place and the discretion can be exercised to divert those individuals from the criminal justice system to help them get help. That is entirely appropriate. We absolutely need to help people who are suffering from the scourge of addiction, and this bill is not about that. It does codify the discretion currently in place, but I would much prefer we have a conversation about helping people who need help instead of relaxing important accountability measures in place for people who commit serious crimes.
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/21 7:29:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise this evening and take part in these Adjournment Proceedings.
When I last addressed this issue in the House, it was a question to the Prime Minister about housing affordability. We are hearing a lot about cost of living and housing affordability challenges that Canadians are facing right across our country from coast to coast to coast. We are seeing those same challenges in my community of Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.
It is staggering to think more than 80% of Canadians between the ages of 18 and 28 worry they will not be able to afford a home in their city of choice thanks to soaring real estate prices and a skyrocketing cost of living. This cost of living crisis affects people when they are at the grocery store. We have seen the forecast for next year, with families expected to pay $1,000 and more per year in groceries, with prices on dairy up 8%, fruit up 5%, and bread and vegetables up 7%. That is going to hurt people every time they try to feed their families.
Gasoline for people's cars is forecasted in some parts of the country to be up to $2 per litre. Where I live, driving a car is not a luxury, it is a necessary reality for so many folks. The vast majority of my riding does not have public transit people can hop on. One cannot take the subway or the light rail from Kemptville to Prescott. One cannot take it from Brockville to Gananoque. People are driving between those locations. They are driving to get to work, to get to medical appointments, and to take their kids to dance or hockey.
Why do we have skyrocketing increases to people's cost of living? We know there has been a half-trillion dollars of Liberal deficits that have ballooned our inflation to an 18-year high. It is currently pegged at an 18-year high. We will see what that number looks like in a couple of days.
There are a couple of things the government could do to address this instead of saying that it is bad everywhere, that we will compare outrages and that we are not as bad as some other people and better than others so it is really nothing to worry about. Folks trying to feed their families, put gas in their cars to get to work and who need to heat their homes are worried about it.
We can produce more Canadian world-class energy and we can cancel planned payroll taxes that will hurt small businesses and their employees alike. We need to get government spending under control. We had our opposition day motion that pitched real solutions on the housing crisis to the government, which it voted against.
There are options available such as making government real estate available, banning foreign investment in Canadian properties and of course committing to Canadians that the government will never introduce a capital gains tax on their properties. The government has to take real steps today to end “just inflation”, and that is what we are calling on the government to do.
539 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/21 7:35:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have this debate with the parliamentary secretary this evening, and I congratulate her on her appointment to this position.
I am pleased she mentioned the work being done in my community with respect to affordable housing, particularly the program between the federal government and the provincial government that saw affordable housing units created. That is where we see what the government can do. When the government is spending Canadians' tax dollars and we are seeing half a trillion dollars in government spending, those are the kind of results we expect to see: real results where people can see the change in their communities.
We need government to make smart choices that help the folks who work to end homelessness and work to create affordable living spaces. However, we do not want to see skyrocketing debt and deficit with no plan to bring them under control, which unfortunately has very much been a hallmark of the government.
163 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
