So V ote

Dec/14/21 11:46:40 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I would certainly welcome the questions once I have finished. The statistics have been borne out. Again, I really think fundamentally that this is about judicial independence and discretion. The facts are quite stark. Five per cent of the adult population in Canada are indigenous. They represent 30% of our incarcerated population, and 42% if one considers women; 7.2% of our incarcerated population is Black, despite the fact that they represent only 3% in this country. This bill means a lot to my indigenous communities and my Black residents in Kings—Hants. What I heard in the debate, and perhaps what some of the members opposite were trying to intervene with is “a crime is a crime”. I hear that. A crime is proportionate. It does not matter what a person's background is. At the end of the day, we need to look at the circumstances behind the behaviour. I agree that serious crime represents and should represent serious punishment, but at the same time, by imposing mandatory minimums and taking that discretion away from common law principles in terms of sentencing, we are not giving that discretion for the judges to be able to look at the best-case scenario. The same applies to prosecutors in terms of their ability to look at the circumstances and provide recommendations that will keep our communities safe. Again, I would agree with the idea that this piece of legislation alone would not solve the issue. There has to be a focus on investment in social support systems, in housing and in recreation. All of that is important to reducing crime, writ large, in communities across the country. This is important to creating challenges for individuals for whom there may perhaps be better programs and supports than just imposing a mandatory minimum penalty. I want to also mention the point around encouraging diversion for simple drug possession. I know we have a challenge in this country. I would be naive to stand here in the House and say that drugs are not a problem in Kings—Hants. They certainly are. The opioid crisis is something that is often mentioned in the House, particularly by our colleagues from British Columbia. It is just reasonable, sensible public policy to allow and give further discretion to police officers to be able to use their discretion to treat these instances as a health issue versus a criminal issue, and to try to make sure those supports are in place. I know the members of the NDP would be asking for a step even further. There are circumstances where the Minister of Health and the Minister of Justice are able to work to allow municipalities to go further. I do not have the section at the moment, but I know those are going to be things our government will consider in the days ahead. I do not know how much time I have, perhaps two or three minutes, but I would suggest this in terms of my conclusion. All members of this House agree that serious crime and activity deserve a serious penalty and that we should not be light on crime in that sense. However, looking at the mandatory minimum penalties in place, in some cases they have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada. We know they have a detrimental impact on visible minorities in this country. They take away the discretion for judges to be able to look at the circumstances of a case and move forward. Indeed, many members of this House have said that the mandatory minimum penalty almost provides a cap in terms of what the courts will award, as opposed to maybe looking at the circumstances, recognizing that there is an aggravating factor and saying that this individual in question actually deserves a higher sentence. Sometimes the courts will simply look at the mandatory minimum and put that in place, and that is really problematic as well. We need to be able to move forward. I will certainly be in support of this legislation. It is reasonable, and I look forward to taking questions from members opposite in this House.

699 words

All Topics

Dec/14/21 11:52:19 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, nowhere in my speech did I ever mention that there should not be jail time or criminality for those types of behaviours. In fact, all I said is that we should not be imposing a mandatory minimum. We should allow the judiciary to make the decision on an appropriate sentence. With all due respect, this type of fearmongering is problematic for important debate on being able to reduce systemic barriers in our criminal justice system. I believe that serious crime deserves serious time, but I also believe that we should give that discretion to judges to make the choice; it does not belong to us as parliamentarians here in this place.

113 words

Dec/14/21 11:53:54 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question. I definitely agree with her when it comes to the discretion of judges and the courts. I think that it is important that both aggravating factors and mitigating factors be taken into account when examining a file. Rehabilitation and other measures can be considered as a solution to help the person move away from crime.

67 words

All Topics

Dec/14/21 11:55:29 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, at the end of the day, we are moving in terms of our understanding in this country about how we treat these particular issues. I believe the member's riding covers the Lower Mainland, where the opioid crisis is quite severe. I would say that although it would retain the criminal powers, the bill would certainly give discretion to be able to treat this as a health issue, which is extremely important. We know there are other measures through the Minister of Health, whereby we can treat issues around the opioid crisis as a health crisis and be able to put measures in place. I look forward to working with the member in the days ahead.

118 words

Dec/14/21 1:28:58 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, the member touched on the fact that he was a former police chief in his community, and I would like to thank him for his service. I suspect in the lead up to becoming the chief of police, he would have served on the front lines. He has mentioned, of course, some of the diversion elements of the bill that try to treat individuals who have an addiction to drugs and who have simple possession and to pursue other means. When he was on the front lines and dealing with individuals who had addictions, did he see that through a criminality lens or did he see that as people who had health issues and perhaps have different ways to help solve their challenges?

125 words

Dec/14/21 3:43:02 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. First, I would like to say that on the issue of gun violence, nothing in Bill C‑5 removes penalties for those involved in serious gun crimes. My question is simple. With respect to the discretion that judges have to assess the specific circumstances of a case, does my colleague agree with me that judges are in a better position to have that discussion than members of the House?

81 words

Dec/14/21 5:38:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Joliette for his speeches this morning and this afternoon. I am sure all members of the House think a robust health care system is a good thing, but I think we also need to consider a sustainable plan to increase funding for things like the health care system. Does the member support reducing interprovincial trade barriers to generate the necessary revenue and ensure sustainable investments in health?

76 words