44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 9, 2022 10:00AM
- Jun/9/22 10:49:23 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and, if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for me to present the petition that I planned to table today.
33 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/9/22 10:49:51 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am at a loss for words with regard to this petition signed by good people from the municipality of Notre‑Dame‑du‑Laus, which reads, and I quote:
Whereas:
We live in the 21st century;
Our astronauts travel to the moon;
We are controlling Perseverance on Mars;
The next generation is leaving the crib with a cellphone in hand;
Cellular phone service must be considered an essential service, just like high-speed Internet;
We reject Bell Canada’s approach to wait until 2024–2025 to invest in a cellular network in our village because, in 2021, being able to use a cellphone is no longer a luxury but essential for safety;
We are a tourist village in a beautiful part of the country that would like to attract young families and entrepreneurs, and we should be able to ensure the safety of the tourists on our roads and of all our residents.
I want to commend the 2,067 people who signed this petition.
173 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/9/22 1:46:34 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, the government's Bill C-5 would amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to repeal certain minimum penalties, allow for a greater use of conditional sentences and establish diversion measures for simple drug possession offences. There are two parts to the bill. The first repeals 20 mandatory minimum sentences for offences involving firearms and drugs, and the second introduces the principle of diversion for simple drug possession.
First, I must say that the Liberals' bill is certainly well intentioned. However, the timing of its introduction is rather odd, given that gun violence is spiking and the federal government, which is responsible for managing our borders, is being criticized for doing nothing to stem imports of illegal firearms. Not a day goes by without this issue being mentioned during question period in the House. The number of gun crimes has increased considerably over time. Between 2019 and 2020, the number of gun crimes committed in Montreal rose by 15%, and the number of firearms seized increased by 24%.
In addition, the goal is to repeal certain mandatory minimum sentences for drug production, yet the opioid crisis is claiming more and more lives in Quebec and Canada. If I put myself in the shoes of the families who have lost a loved one to a shooting or to the use of drugs laced with fentanyl by a unscrupulous dealer, I am not sure this is the response they were hoping for from the government at this point.
The bill repeals several minimum penalties for second and third offences. While it is true that mandatory minimum sentences for a first offence may impact social reintegration, keeping certain mandatory minimum sentences for second or even third offences could be justified as a way of upholding the credibility of our legal system. Maintaining public confidence in our justice institutions is also a concern that should not be dismissed out of hand.
Let us remember that, under the Harper government in 2006, a number of mandatory minimum sentences were challenged. Section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects individuals from cruel and unusual punishment in Canada, is often used as an argument against mandatory minimum sentences. Over 210 constitutional challenges have been filed. According to the Minister of Justice, 69% of the constitutional challenges involving mandatory minimum sentences for drug offences and 48% of those for firearms offences were successful. To be honest, we cannot call that a success.
That said, we are supporting Bill C‑5 despite being somewhat dissatisfied with it. My esteemed colleagues from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia and Rivière-du-Nord repeatedly asked the government to split the bill in two, because we believe that tackling substance addiction and abolishing mandatory minimum sentences are two fundamentally different issues. Unfortunately, the government rejected our request, so here we are now.
We are disappointed with the part about mandatory minimum sentences, but we agree on the principle of establishing diversion measures as introduced in Bill C‑5. With respect to mandatory minimum sentences, the Bloc Québécois wants the legal system to adopt an approach that enables rehabilitation and reduces crime.
Considering that mandatory minimums have few benefits and introduce many problems, such as the overrepresentation of indigenous and Black communities in prison, in addition to increasing system costs and failing to deter crime, the Bloc Québécois supports the idea of repealing certain mandatory minimum sentences.
However, we believe this is a bad time to repeal mandatory minimums for firearms offences, because many Quebec and Canadian cities are seeing a firearms epidemic, due in part to the Liberal government's failure to implement border controls.
Repealing mandatory minimums without strong action by the federal government to counter the illegal importation of firearms at the border sends the wrong message. Although the Bloc Québécois can get behind repealing mandatory minimums for a first offence, we believe that keeping these sentences for second and even third offences can be justified, as this would maintain the public's trust in their justice institutions and the rehabilitation process.
Believing in second chances does not mean that people's actions do not have consequences. It is a question of common sense.
Although we think it is defensible to repeal mandatory minimum sentences for firearms possession, the fact that the bill repeals mandatory minimums for certain offences involving firearms, such as discharging a weapon with intent and robbery or extortion with a firearm, seems to contradict the government's claim that they are being maintained for certain categories of serious crimes.
During the last election campaign and during the debate on Bill C-236, we expressed support for the introduction of the principle of diversion for simple drug possession. However, I would remind the House that such a measure will only be effective if investments are made in health care through transfers to support health care systems and community organizations, which need ways to support people grappling with addiction and mental health problems. They are doing amazing work on the ground, and they need resources to carry out their mission.
We have said it before, but it bears repeating: The Bloc Québécois and the Quebec government demand health care funding. I think we have said this 572 times, but we want health transfers to cover 35% of the system costs. Unfortunately, the government has failed to respond. It is silent in the face of the unanimous demands of Quebec and the provinces. Those demands have been reiterated every year since the Liberals came to power, in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and today in 2022.
Will they have the audacity to keep saying no until 2023? I hope not.
979 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/9/22 1:56:16 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I will not answer the question specifically, but I do have something to say.
For weeks now, months even, the Bloc Québécois has been making proposals concerning well-being and suggesting solutions to the current government, which sometimes ends up in reaction mode because it has failed to prepare. This time, we are telling the government that it should split this bill in two because it covers two different things.
I have a question of my own. Why are we once again faced with a mammoth bill at the end of the session while being hit with one time allocation motion after another?
109 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/9/22 1:58:10 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, my answer is very simple. We need to start relying on science, legal experts and the right advisers who are giving us concrete proof that there is a right way of doing things.
The right way of doing things is to invest in rehabilitation and support, because reducing minimum penalties will not reduce crime. The statistics make that clear.
I hope that we will implement structures and concrete measures to help people, because, right now, there are flaws in Bill C-5.
84 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/9/22 1:59:57 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I will be very succinct.
I know that we can be proactive because I worked with community organizations in Laurentides—Labelle that work proactively to prevent crime. They have what it takes to help us. I agree that Bill C‑5 should be split in two.
50 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
