SoVote

Mar/30/22 4:35:47 p.m.
Watch

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon, Taxation; the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, Health; the hon. member for Kenora, Health. It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the house. The question is on the motion. Shall I dispense? Some hon. members: Agreed. Some hon. members: No. [Chair read text of motion to House] The Deputy Speaker: If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division, or that the motion be adopted on division, I invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

136 words

Mr. Blaine Calkins

Mar/30/22 4:37:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded division.

7 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/30/22 4:37:25 p.m.
Watch

Call in the members.

4 words

Call

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/30/22 5:21:44 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

I declare the motion carried. The hon. Minister of Justice is rising on a point of order.

17 words

All Topics

Hon. David Lametti

Mar/30/22 5:21:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling the government's responses to Order Paper Questions Nos. 323 to 332.

19 words

All Topics

Mr. Iqwinder Gaheer (Mississauga—Malton, Lib.)

Mar/30/22 5:22:43 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, inscribed at the top of one of the great law schools of this continent is the motto “Not under man, but under God and law”. I would read these words and feel a sense of pride that ours was a nation of laws, not men; a nation of citizens, not parties; of Canadians, not Liberals or Conservatives. For a nation as big and diverse as ours, our institutions, our norms and our rules bind us together, give shape and order to our common lives even when we disagree, and especially when we disagree. However, every so often comes a time to make a change, a step in a better direction, a turn of the page, because in our very creed as Canadians, we are always striving to do better. The time has come to turn the page—

142 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/30/22 5:23:39 p.m.
Watch

I must interrupt the hon. member very briefly. I wish to inform the House that, because of the proceedings on the time allocation motion, Government Orders will be extended by 30 minutes. The hon. member for Mississauga—Malton.

39 words

Mr. Iqwinder Gaheer

Mar/30/22 5:23:53 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, the time has come to turn the page on many mandatory minimum penalties. This was a policy that in the end did not discourage crime. It certainly did not make our justice system any more fair. All it did was imprison far too many indigenous, Black and marginalized Canadians. The evidence is in the numbers of the prison population, and the numbers are stark. Indigenous individuals represent 5% of the general population but account for 30% of federally incarcerated inmates. This is double what it was 20 years ago. The number is profoundly higher for indigenous women, who represent 42% of those who are incarcerated, and these numbers are even more exaggerated in some provinces. Black inmates represent 7.2% of the federal offender population but only 3% of the general population. This is shameful. The numbers are so high because of sentencing laws that focus on punishment through imprisonment. The centre of this is the mandatory minimum regime. The broad and indiscriminate use of MMPs, or mandatory minimum penalties, and restrictions on the use of conditional sentences have made our criminal justice system less fair and have disproportionately hurt certain communities. This rigid one-size-fits-all approach takes power away from judges to look at mitigating factors. I want to be very clear: This is not a soft-on-crime approach and these are not hardened criminals we are speaking of. We are speaking of low-risk, first-time or non-violent offenders. We are introducing legislation to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Bill C-5 is an important step in the right direction, as the legislation would make reforms to sentencing. We are proposing to repeal MMPs of imprisonment for all drug offences and certain firearm offences. These MMPs in particular have been shown to have had a disparate effect on Black, indigenous, and marginalized communities. This bill would increase the availability of conditional sentencing orders in cases where offenders do not pose a risk to public safety. CSOs allow offenders to serve sentences of less than two years in the community under strict conditions, such as house arrest and curfew, while still being able to benefit from employment, educational opportunities, family ties, community and health-related support systems. By repealing these MMPs, we will restore the judge's ability to impose an appropriate sentence, moving away from the one-size-fits-all approach. Again, this is not a soft-on-crime approach. To be clear, we are keeping some mandatory minimum policies in place for murder, sexual offenses, impaired driving offenses and serious firearm offences, including those that involve organized crime. The powers of judges will not be limited. In fact, we will allow them to do the job they have been trained to do. I was in law school, and that is where I was introduced to certain ideals or principles within a justice system, one being that the aim of justice is not just retribution. Mandatory minimums are just that—retribution. There are more useful aims, such as rehabilitation. We can make ourselves into better people even after we have wronged and especially after we have wronged. The justice system should be a part of that rehabilitation. Mandatory minimum penalties do not work in criminal law terms. They do not have a positive effect on recidivism. They tend to overpunish people who should be helped through other channels. When it comes to deterrence, MMPs do not do any better. In sentencing for less serious crimes, imprisonment is often ineffective and unduly punitive. A longer sentence is not going to do anything more than a shorter sentence will, except destroy entire lives. In America, for example, the notion that harsh minimums could seriously dampen the drug trade has collapsed in the face of the manifest failure of the drug war. With the way our current justice system is set up, we have criminalized poverty, mental illness and problematic addiction. It is so much harder to get that second chance with MMPs in place. Once a person is out of prison, their opportunities are limited and their circle oftentimes becomes the people that they met in prison. This has to stop. Canada is not alone in recognizing that the increase in the indiscriminate use of MMPs is problematic. They have proven to be costly and ineffective in reducing crime. Indeed, other nations have move away from this regime because it encourages cycles of crime. MMPs are a failed policy, and we are turning the ship around. What we propose is a necessary reset for our criminal law, which is necessary to address systemic racism in the criminal justice system. This policy change is necessary, but further work must also be done. We are also developing an indigenous justice strategy in collaboration with indigenous peoples, and we are developing a Black Canadian justice strategy. We will continue to address the social determinants of crime. Every action that we take to improve access to housing, mental health care, addiction treatment and youth employment helps build a safer country. Criminal justice policy is not developed in a vacuum, and we must do more so that we are better informed. In my life, I have come to understand certain principles and rules, and that we are not just our mistakes. We are not just the worst thing that we have ever done. I believe we are more than that. As a society, we should make no mistake that we will be judged for our reason and our intelligence and for our technology and tools. We will be judged by the towers we build. Ultimately, our society will be judged for not how we treat the powerful, the rich and the privileged, but for how we treat the poor and condemned.

969 words

Mr. Frank Caputo (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC)

Mar/30/22 5:30:58 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the citizens of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. My hon. colleague and I do agree on a number of points, one of which is that there is a necessity to keep and to lower incarceration rates for marginalized people. Now, where he and I part company is when he frames the discussion as one around retribution. The courts in this country have consistently highlighted the need for denunciation and deterrence, and part of denunciation and deterrence comes by way of sentencing. When we are talking about shooting at people, these are not the low-risk, first-time offenders, necessarily, that the hon. member highlighted. How does he reconcile those concepts?

122 words

Mr. Iqwinder Gaheer

Mar/30/22 5:31:45 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I disagree with the premise of my hon. colleague's question. These policies have been shown through data to affect marginalized communities, and by repealing them, we are helping those communities and those individuals who were targeted to rejoin society. The way the policies are currently set up, they are focused on retribution, and we are trying to change that.

62 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

Mar/30/22 5:32:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5 Bill C-216

Madam Speaker, in his comments, the member talked about ending the war on drugs, and he talked about addressing the overdose crisis. From that perspective, I would ask him whether or not he supports the private member's bill, Bill C-216, of my colleague, the member for Courtenay—Alberni, which calls for the decriminalization of a small amount for personal use. It is one way to ensure that people are not criminalized. It is one way to ensure that we end the war on drugs, and it is one way to ensure that we actually help save lives.

100 words

All Topics

Mr. Iqwinder Gaheer

Mar/30/22 5:32:59 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5 Bill C-216

Madam Speaker, I agree with the sentiment behind my colleague's question, but my speech was on mandatory minimum penalties, which is what we are here to talk about. This is an important step in the right direction. I would like to see the data surrounding other MMPs to see if they are also having a desperate effect on communities to see if we could further repeal those.

68 words

All Topics

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ)

Mar/30/22 5:33:37 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague across the aisle. Earlier I asked the Minister of Justice about the relevance of imposing a gag order. If he ever gets a chance to speak with me about it, I would be pleased to do so, but I would like to come back to the issue that has also been raised by some of my Bloc colleagues. The bill currently before the House deals with mandatory minimum sentences for gun possession, but it also deals with everything related to the decriminalization of drugs. We are dealing with two very different subjects. Why did the government reject our proposal to split the bill in two? By splitting the bill, we would have had the opportunity to study each of its two aspects in greater depth, so that they could be dealt with in an intelligent manner, and this would mean that members would not have to vote for or against the bill in its entirety. I think the government is mixing things up. This is creating confusion both in the debate and in the study of the bill.

187 words

Mr. Iqwinder Gaheer

Mar/30/22 5:34:30 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I humbly reject the premise of my hon. colleague's question. We would not be decriminalizing drugs with this bill. We are looking at mandatory minimum penalties. I want to be clear that this is not a soft-on-crime approach. Those who commit serious offences would continue to receive serious sentences. Our bill is about getting rid of the failed policies that filled our prisons with low-risk, first-time offenders, who just needed help.

78 words

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Mar/30/22 5:35:03 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Mississauga—Malton for his focus on this being about trust in the judiciary, first and foremost. My question for him builds on a comment he made earlier on wanting to go further. Recognizing this legislation only targets one of five of the existing mandatory minimum penalties in the Criminal Code, and that, for example, Truth and Reconciliation Commission call to action 32 calls for departing from this, could he share more about his interest in going further in removing mandatory minimum penalties?

90 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/30/22 5:35:47 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Mississauga—Malton has time for a very brief answer.

14 words

Mr. Iqwinder Gaheer

Mar/30/22 5:35:49 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, again, these proposed measures represent an important step in further addressing systemic issues related to existing sentencing policies. We know rooting out systemic racism and discrimination cannot be accomplished with just one measure—

36 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/30/22 5:36:10 p.m.
Watch

Unfortunately, we need to move on to the next speaker. The hon. member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

21 words

Mr. Gary Vidal (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, CPC)

Mar/30/22 5:36:17 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, when I spoke to the first iteration of this bill back in April 2021, I remarked at the time on how out of touch the Liberal government had become. If anyone from the new NDP-Liberal coalition actually took time to come and speak to mayors, chiefs and councillors, or the RCMP members in northern Saskatchewan, they would know that bills like this do far more to hurt communities than to help them. When I speak to elected leaders, I constantly hear that there are violent offenders they do not want in their communities. In fact, they are searching for ways to keep them out. They wonder why these repeat offenders cannot remain in custody and why they are allowed to keep returning to victimize their communities. They are frustrated. They realize that when certain people are removed, they seem to have a time of peace and quiet. This bill would add to the frustration. Bill C-5 would eliminate mandatory minimums for offences such as robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, importing or exporting knowing a firearm is unauthorized, and discharging a firearm with intent. The list goes on. The Minister of Justice, just this afternoon, told us that he believes these are just minor offences. I do not believe these are minor offences. Police officers, judges, prosecutors and many others in the communities already do everything they can for non-violent offenders to ensure they have every opportunity to stay out of prison. Sometimes the peace of mind that comes with mandatory minimums is essential to ensure our communities feel safe and are safe. In northern Saskatchewan, there is a concerning trend of witness intimidation, as well as increasing recruitment of young people into gangs and the drug trade. Mandatory minimums assist the police and prosecutors to ensure the safety of witnesses. By keeping violent offenders off the street, greater opportunity is provided to engage in early intervention and prevent criminal gang recruitment. March 17, just last week, Meadow Lake's RCMP Staff Sergeant Ryan How wrote an article in Saskatchewan Today. It reads: From October 1, 2020, to March 15, 2021, Meadow Lake RCMP responded to 66 firearms complaints. In the same time frame in 2021 to 2022 RCMP have received 30 firearms complaints. Any level of gun violence is unacceptable and the Meadow Lake RCMP Detachment is unfortunately still busy dealing with violent occurrences, while at the same time noting that this reduction in gun calls is welcome progress. A focused formal enforcement project led by North Battleford Provincial GIS was put in place in early 2021 to dismantle one of the gangs involved in the violence and has resulted in the following convictions.... He goes on to list the names, the offences they are charged with and the sentences of several violent gang members. It is shocking that the charges include one that is being proposed to no longer have minimum sentences under this bill. The Government of Canada ought to be supporting more initiatives like the one Staff Sergeant How talks about and supporting enforcement officers like him who are investing time and energy in building relationships in the communities they serve, rather than basing Criminal Code policy on political ideology. I am neither an RCMP officer nor a crown prosecutor, like some of my colleagues, but when I hear from experts on the ground that getting rid of mandatory minimums like those proposed in Bill C-5 would put our communities in greater danger, I tend to believe them. We need to be equipping law enforcement to carry out their duties and keep our communities safe, not neutering their abilities to keep violent offenders off the streets. One of the questions that keeps coming up around this bill is regarding judicial discretion. While I agree that judges should have some discretion when it comes to sentencing, this is also the role of Parliament. Parliament, in the past, has assigned not only maximum sentences, which impact judges' discretion, but also minimum sentences. This has been done with Parliament's wisdom. It is up to us and within our power to change that, but it has always been the case that Parliament sets out the parameters whereby judges sentence people. We are the ones who decide, through the Criminal Code, what is a criminal act, and we set out the parameters for sentencing. That is part of our job, and it is not partisan. Many of the minimums being eliminated by this Liberal government were in fact introduced by previous Liberal governments. This is about ensuring there is an appropriate sentence for someone who commits a very serious crime. Again, as I said previously, Bill C-5 is not about minor and insignificant offences. It deals with what I would conclude are very serious offences, such as robbery with a firearm and extortion with a firearm. I have not even begun to discuss the sections in the bill dedicated to drug-related offences. Bill C-5 would also eliminate mandatory prison time for trafficking or possession for the purposes of trafficking, importing and exporting or possession for the purpose of exporting and production of a substance under schedule I or II. Examples of those are heroin, cocaine, fentanyl and crystal meth. When I read the legislation, it seems clear to me that no one from the Liberal-NDP coalition has ever sat across the table from a chief and elders pleading to get and keep these drug dealers out of their communities. When I first spoke to Bill C-22 in the last Parliament, I shared a story from a local paper. The story was about a judge's decision, arguments by the Crown prosecutor and the victim impact statements of some RCMP officers. Today I am going to take a few minutes of my time to share that story again, one of the victim impact statements of one of the officers. I truly hope today that all members in this House, even if they ignore everything else I say today, will listen to this story. The statement said: When I encountered the gold truck you were in north of Loon Lake the only emotion I felt was sadness. I knew right away how this was going to end. It’s always the same, just a varying degree of tragedy. When I saw your co-accused run from the Equinox and point what may have been a gun at me, I just felt tired and defeated.... I knew what you would do when you came up to the road block. And you did the same thing every other desperate criminal does—you accelerated and swerved towards the police. As you did that, I took off my seatbelt and accelerated my truck directly at you. I wanted to be able to at least have the chance to manoeuver in the cab if you and your fellow gang members started shooting at me. As I lined up my truck to yours head-on I fully expected to be shot but I tried to make sure my truck would stay on a straight path and hit you even if I couldn’t steer because you needed to be stopped.... Even after all of this, after hours of chasing after you, hours of being frustrated, angry, and tired, [I] was required to be of calm mind and use sound tactics as I drew my gun on you and the people with you.... At that moment I was furious that it had come to this. I was furious that your stupidity was causing me to miss an important family event going on right at that moment I had you in my gun sights. I was furious that I might have to shoot and kill you.... I didn’t shoot you...My coworkers didn’t shoot you, even though we were taunted and dared to do it by the people in the truck with you. Even though your actions caused one of my coworkers to almost be run over and killed. We made sure you were safe. It was a joke and a game to you. It was life and death for me, for my partners, and the public. I’m telling you that on January 17, 2019, you were lucky to be arrested by some of the most capable and experienced police officers in the country. They showed incredible restraint and professionalism to make sure you lived to be here today. I had the opportunity to speak to Sergeant How after this and he shared with me how these events had become almost routine in his world. I am asking members to imagine this becoming part of the daily routine. I remember having to fight back the emotion. Finally, this bill would allow for greater use of conditional sentence orders for a number of offences. Allowing criminals who commit violent acts to serve their sentences on house arrest puts communities in my riding at risk. In closing—

1510 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/30/22 5:45:17 p.m.
Watch

It is 5:45 p.m., and I have to stop the debate. It being 5:45 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House. The question is on the motion. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair. The hon. House leader of the official opposition.

104 words

Interrupt

SoVote

House Hansard - 49