SoVote

May/6/22 1:01:09 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, we have completed five meetings with around six witnesses at each meeting, so we have heard from about 30 witnesses. Another meeting started a couple of minutes ago and there are two more scheduled meetings. In total, by the end of the study, we will have heard from roughly 45 witnesses who are experts in their fields, representatives of organizations that support those in the criminal justice system or people with lived experiences who have gone through the criminal justice system. In the following week, we have will clause-by-clause. By splitting the bill, we will be in danger of having to go back and do the study again, which would involve bringing back the same witnesses, who would then have to repeat their heart-wrenching testimony about their lived experiences. I do not think it is fair. We have a bill that is balanced and needs to be debated in its entirety. If opposition members do not like the bill, they are welcome to vote against it. In fact, I am not expecting the support of the Conservative Party on this bill.

186 words

All Topics

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

May/6/22 1:02:22 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I am very confused now by the Conservatives, who, for a week and a half, have been blocking routine proceedings, blocking the ability of all members of Parliament to present petitions, often presenting the same thing two or three times in a row. Today they put forward a substantive motion, yet they refuse to want any debate. They just want parliamentarians to vote on it. It seems bizarre to me, to say the least, this erratic notion to put forward a substantive motion and, at the same time, not want parliamentarians to talk about it at all. It is very strange. The House responded to the Conservatives saying they were not blocking legislation by introducing more debate with evening sessions, and they voted against that too. They did not want to work evenings. The Conservatives have taken a very strange approach to the work of the House of Commons and the importance of taking action to help Canadians. My colleague seems to be talking about a consensus at the justice committee. I am very happy about that. It appears that those on the committee are working well together. As the member knows, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke has raised some legitimate concerns about ways that Bill C-5 could be improved. Has the member understood those concerns and is he supportive of the concerns that have been brought forward?

234 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/6/22 1:04:04 p.m.
Watch

The parliamentary secretary has 15 seconds.

6 words

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree

May/6/22 1:04:07 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I have been working very closely with the member who represents the NDP at committee, as well as the member for the Bloc and, as much as I can, with those in the Conservative Party. I tend not to be very partisan, but it is abundantly clear that there are games taking place today. This matter does—

60 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/6/22 1:04:35 p.m.
Watch

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Whitby has the floor.

10 words

Mr. Ryan Turnbull (Whitby, Lib.)

May/6/22 1:04:40 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to this bill, although I am very displeased with the fact that we are doing this today. This strikes me as a form of obstruction in the House when we were set to debate the budget implementation act, which is a seriously important piece of legislation. One could argue that it is probably one of the most important agenda items for the House to be debating and moving forward on. However, here we are with a Conservative motion on a Friday afternoon that derails our progress on that important debate. I am very disappointed by that, but at the same time I feel very passionate about the fact that Bill C-5 should not be divided. It certainly hangs together in my view, and I come from a crime-fighting family. My father was a homicide detective for most of my life, and he became an inspector for the Peel Regional Police. I, myself, worked with federal offenders for quite a number of years to reintegrate them back into society. I know full well that mandatory minimum penalties, based on the research and evidence, do not actually have a deterrent effect on crime. This bill, in fact, focuses on non-violent crime, mostly small offences, that having mandatory minimums applied to, as we know from the evidence, certainly increases the number of incarcerations for individuals who come from diverse backgrounds. This is clearly systemic racism, which has been embedded in our justice for quite some time. I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which seeks to address the detrimental impacts that certain mandatory sentencing provisions have had on marginalized populations. Specifically, I will focus my remarks on the firearms-related amendments proposed in Bill C-5, which I believe will address the negative impacts that a number of mandatory minimum penalties of imprisonment have had on marginalized populations, while in no way diminishing the ability of the courts to impose penalties for firearms offences that reflect their seriousness and keep Canadians safe. Indeed, in our platform, the government made a number of significant firearms commitments in order to make Canada safer from gun violence. One of those commitments includes increasing the penalties around firearms smuggling. The government has also committed to reintroduce legislation to enact red flag laws to allow for the immediate removal of firearms from a person if they pose a threat to themselves or another person, which is a significant measure that will help respond to gender-based violence. I am also pleased that the government will seek to work with the provinces and territories who implement handgun bans in their jurisdictions. These changes build on important milestones, including the important May 1, 2020, changes to ban prohibited firearms, approximately 1,500 assault-style rifles. These are weapons that are designed to kill a maximum number of people in the shortest amount of time, and I think it is great that we are getting them off our streets and out of the hands of those who intend to use them. While the opposition does not have a plan to tackle firearms violence at all, as was made clear during the campaign, we do. I have great confidence that the government will continue to move forward to address the harm posed by illegal gun activity in Canada. In addition, the government has shown an ongoing commitment to addressing the overrepresentation of indigenous people, Black Canadians and marginalized populations in the criminal justice system and to enable courts to impose sentences appropriate to the circumstances of individual cases. Bill C-5 backs up that commitment and builds on financial investments to make our criminal justice system fairer for everyone. Bill C-5 would repeal mandatory minimum penalties for 13 firearms offences, including possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm, possession of a weapon obtained by the commission of an offence, possession of an unauthorized firearms and importing firearms knowing that it is not authorized, to name just a few. Repealing some firearm mandatory minimum penalties would give sentencing courts discretion to impose a just and fit sentence, including a non-custodial sentence where appropriate, depending on the facts of each case. Repealing these mandatory minimum penalties does not, however, mean that these offences do not address serious conduct. They do address serious conduct, and in those cases, I am confident the courts will impose the right sentence. For example, we know that cross-border smuggling of firearms poses a serious threat to the safety and security of Canadians. The illicit firearms market in Canada is supplied primarily by smuggled firearms and firearms stolen from private residences or commercial venues. Smuggling and trafficking of firearms and other weapons are often closely tied to organized crime and are associated with various other types of criminal activities such as drug trafficking. Former Toronto police chief Mark Saunders has publicly stated, “When it comes to the handguns, I believe, 82 per cent—give or take—of the ‘crime guns’ in the city are coming from the United States.” This conduct deserves strong condemnation. At the same time, these reforms would mean that, for example, a martial arts enthusiast who brings a ninja star into Canada for a private collection without authority would be subject to a mandatory minimum penalty. I trust that a sentencing court would make the right decision on punishment in cases like this. What is more, research shows that indigenous, Black and other racialized Canadians are more likely to become entangled in the criminal justice system as a result of pressure to join gangs and limited choices, for example, and this is often due to systemic racism and other socio-economic factors. Statistics also indicate that these groups are overrepresented in our correctional institutions, including for firearms offences punishable by a mandatory minimum penalty. For instance, between 2007-17, the Correctional Service of Canada data indicates that the proportion of indigenous offenders admitted for a firearm-related offence punishable by an MMP increased dramatically. In fact, it went from 17% in 2007 to 40% in 2017. At this time, the Harper government was adding mandatory minimum penalties, so even though they were found to be systemically racist, they continued to be added. Black offenders also—

1069 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/6/22 1:12:01 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Joliette is rising on a point of order.

12 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie

May/6/22 1:12:04 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, obviously, the members are so embarrassed by this filibuster that we do not have quorum in the House, even if we count the cameras that are on. Even the member for Winnipeg North is not in the chamber. I would ask you to call quorum.

47 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/6/22 1:12:18 p.m.
Watch

I would remind the hon. member that he is not to mention the absence or presence of other members in the chamber. Calling out a lack of quorum, however, is another matter. And the count having been taken: The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): Counting the six members participating virtually, we have 22 members and we therefore have quorum.

62 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/6/22 1:12:47 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, members on all sides of the House are very much aware that when we think of quorum, we should think about the members here virtually and those here in the chamber. The member made reference to me specifically but I never left the chamber. I ducked out to the corner to get a pedestal so that one of my colleagues would be able to speak, but that would have been for about three seconds.

76 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/6/22 1:13:17 p.m.
Watch

I did remind the hon. member that we do not reference the presence or absence of members in the House. The hon. member for Joliette is rising on that point.

30 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie

May/6/22 1:13:25 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I want to apologize to the member for Winnipeg North. The rule against mentioning the absence or presence of a member had slipped my mind. I offer my sincere apologies to him. However, I would like to point out that when I mentioned the lack of quorum, only four members had their cameras on to participate in the debates virtually. We were therefore nowhere near the quorum of 20, which is why I raised a point of order.

80 words

All Topics

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif

May/6/22 1:14:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I support the hon. member from the Bloc Québécois on the same point. There were only four people online, plus only a few here.

30 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/6/22 1:14:09 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I think this is an important aspect, and I would ask you as the Speaker to maybe have a discussion on it. I just brought it up with the Table. When we think of the members here virtually, to the best of my knowledge, there is no rule that says they have to have the camera on or off, nor was any formal thing written that says if a member's camera is off, they are not part of the quorum. I am not looking for a response now, but I think the Speakers should have a discussion about this because there are arguments for and against having the camera on or off. I bring that up for what it is worth and would appreciate a ruling.

129 words

All Topics

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

May/6/22 1:15:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, just to follow up, this has already been mentioned, but members in the chamber do not have the benefit of seeing who is online, whether members have their cameras on or not. That is one thing, which is why my colleague did not assume that there was no quorum. He asked that quorum be checked. In addition, given our hybrid mode, we know that we can also rise to speak from a seat other than our own. However, for the purposes of calculating quorum, I understand that the member for Winnipeg North referred to members who were in the lobbies. I would perhaps ask the Chair to clarify, in the hybrid context, what she considers as having quorum.

120 words

All Topics

Mr. Michael Barrett

May/6/22 1:15:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, to the request from the hon. parliamentary secretary, the previous chair occupant already ruled and spoke to this. As he said, the requirement is that the camera must be on for a member to be counted toward quorum. That was said, and I am sure that if you check with our good folks at Hansard, they will confirm that was the ruling of the chair occupant on a previous quorum call today. I would also note that while the parliamentary secretary—

84 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/6/22 1:16:18 p.m.
Watch

We are getting into debate. We will definitely look into this. I am not going to make a ruling on it today, but I will certainly bring it to the attention of the Speaker, and we will come back to the House with a proper definition of quorum and what counts as quorum. The hon. member is rising on the same point of order.

64 words

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif

May/6/22 1:16:40 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I respectfully disagree with the member for Winnipeg North on his remarks regarding the rules. He should know the rules; he is in government. I think you should check those rules and clarify them.

36 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/6/22 1:16:51 p.m.
Watch

I have just given an answer to that. We will look into it and come back to the House with a definition of “quorum”. The hon. member for Whitby may resume his debate.

35 words

Mr. Ryan Turnbull

May/6/22 1:17:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that was riveting, but I am glad to get back to the matter at hand. Obviously, the Conservative Party has—

23 words

8212
Glad

SoVote

House Hansard - 66