44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 9, 2022 10:00AM
- Jun/9/22 2:33:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, last night at the health committee, the president of PHAC confirmed that the Prime Minister’s continued mandates are driven by political science. He said that there were no metrics to justify these mandates and no metrics that can be met to lift them.
While infectious disease experts and now PHAC are both pointing to politics as the reason for the federal mandates, officials are dropping the last of the provincial mandates. When will the Prime Minister and the government drop the politics and end the mandates?
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/9/22 2:34:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary talks about political games. He is talking about vaccines. The Liberal government has already thrown five million doses in the garbage. We have heard from infectious disease specialists that their mandates are saving zero lives. They are ineffective. They are political in their entirety.
Dr. Tam said last night that the government would not do away with mandates because they would be too hard to force upon Canadians later. Does that sound like medical science to anyone?
The Prime Minister would not give up his control over Canadians because they would not let him take it from them again. Enough is enough. When will the Prime Minister end the mandates?
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/9/22 6:56:26 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I know we cannot call for quorum based on the unconstitutional provisions of Motion No. 11 brought forward and adopted by the NDP-Liberals, but it is very important to note that the Constitution requires that we have quorum. In consideration of this bill, should it be challenged in court later, the House will not have done its work to ensure that quorum was in place for the debate of that bill. That speaks to the unconstitutionality of the motion that prevents us from doing that quorum call.
There was a ruling from the Supreme Court in 1985 that section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and section 23 of the Manitoba Act, 1870 respecting the use of English and French languages in the records and journals of the House of Parliament of Canada are mandatory. They must be obeyed.
The House is the master of this place. However, it cannot change the Constitution when it sees fit unless bills are passed and unless the Constitution is cracked open for that purpose. It is very important that this is considered, and that it is noted for posterity, and that it is noted in Hansard. Should this bill be challenged in court, it is going to be a foundational piece of an argument against the constitutionality of this bill that it was debated without quorum as required by the Constitution of this country.
239 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/9/22 8:16:31 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to join the debate this evening, and I think I will be bringing it home before we move on to the other piece of government legislation we are going to discuss.
Bill C-5 is problematic for a number of reasons, and I am going to articulate why I will not be able to support this bill. We have heard a lot of rationales presented by members on the government benches as to why this bill is compassionate, why they believe it is important that this needs to be done and why it is urgent that it be done now.
I would note that this bill was progressing through the House in its previous form in the last Parliament, and during that Parliament the Prime Minister and members of this place undertook not to call an election during the pandemic. However, politics being politics, the Prime Minister saw that the polls seemed favourable for his party's electoral fortunes, called an election and killed the bill.
Now we are back, and I guess it is urgent once more. The Liberals believe that, but it was not in the intervening period.
Let us talk about what the bill really would do. I want to address some of the arguments made in favour of it by the bill's proponents. One of those arguments is that eliminating mandatory prison time for some of these offences would help racialized Canadians and minorities who are disproportionately affected and over-represented in the justice system, so the Liberals are going to eliminate the MMPs for those individuals.
That is what they say Bill C-5 would do. In about 12 minutes we are going to debating Bill C-21, so let us talk about what Bill C-5 would do and what Bill C-21 would do.
Bill C-5 would remove the mandatory prison time for possession of a weapon obtained by the commission of an offence, so there would be no minimum. Bill C-21 would increase the maximum. Bill C-5 would remove the minimum penalty for weapons trafficking, while Bill C-21 would increase the maximum amount of time. For possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking, Bill C-5 would eliminate the minimum penalty, and Bill C-21, as members guessed it, would increase the maximum penalty. The same is true for importing or exporting a weapon, knowing it is unauthorized. The bills would remove the MMP and increase the maximum.
If the contention by the government is that it would be removing the minimum penalty because the folks who are being convicted of these offences are racialized Canadians and they are disproportionately represented in the justice system, why is it that the government wants to increase the maximum penalty?
There seems to be a bit of mental gymnastics happening for the Liberals to put forward these two pieces of legislation, which we are going to be debating in the House literally minutes apart.
We have talked about the opioid crisis in recent days in this place, and we talked about it today. It is a scourge in our country. People are dying every day, and the perpetrators, the dealers of this poison, who are preying on people in all of our communities, should know that what they are doing will carry the harshest penalties in our justice system. They are not the victims.
Bill C-5 would eliminate mandatory prison time for trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking, importing and exporting or possession for the purpose of exporting, and production of a schedule 1 or 2 substance. Schedule 1 and 2 include heroin, cocaine, fentanyl and crystal meth.
I have heard conflation regarding this bill and the government's work with the Province of British Columbia to decriminalize what they call “simple possession” of those same substances. When we talk about fentanyl and carfentanil, two and a half grams is considered personal possession. That is enough to kill 1,000 people. That is 1,000 lethal doses.
Yesterday at the health committee, we heard Canada's chief public health officer say that if there is an overdose at a party or someone is carrying two and a half grams of carfentanil or fentanyl, the first step would be to administer naloxone, or Narcan. I do not know what the situation is like in British Columbia with respect to its emergency service preparedness for overdoses, but I do not know of a lot of fire or police departments or public health agencies that have 1,000 Narcan kits on hand. That is incredibly troubling.
This bill also talks about the expansion of conditional sentencing. This is where someone who is found guilty of an offence is able to serve their sentence in the community. The first thing I would draw to the attention of members in this place is bizarre, to put it gently. Someone would be eligible for conditional sentences, which means not serving their sentence in jail, if they are found guilty of prison breach. Therefore, when they break out of jail, the judge will say that it would be more appropriate for them to serve their sentence in the community. It is absurd.
To move from the absurd to the serious, I note offences such as sexual assault, kidnapping, trafficking in persons for a material benefit and abduction of a person under the age of 14. Someone found guilty of these offences would be eligible to serve their sentence in the community where they perpetrated the offence on their victims. They could be in the house right next door. That is not justice. We need to concern ourselves very much with the effects this legislation would have on the victims. This country needs to take an approach where the lens we put on everything we do has victims in mind. These perpetrators are not the victims.
Consider offences such as assaulting a peace officer causing bodily harm or with a weapon. Of course, we can go back to trafficking in or exporting and importing schedule III drugs. After putting poison in our communities, someone can serve their sentence in the community they were poisoning.
We have also heard about diversion for people who have simple possession for personal use of drugs and are struggling with addiction issues. We should have legislation in the House with a comprehension approach for treatment in every single one of the provinces. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Justice should be working with the provinces every single day to come up with a framework for a national strategy on treatment. Right now, there are no Crown prosecutors bringing people before the courts for simple possession. There has already been a directive given by the prosecution service for that not to happen.
This bill is deeply flawed, and there are a number of ways we could work together in the House to make sure we are standing up for victims and make sure we are addressing those who are struggling with addiction. That is what I would like to turn my attention to and I will not be supporting this legislation.
1215 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/9/22 8:26:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we request a recorded division.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member opposite talked about how the bill would not affect the sport shooting community, so let us engage in a quick hypothetical.
Young children today observe their favourite Olympic sport shooter on TV and would like to get involved in that sport. With the freeze on the purchase of handguns, which will not affect the overwhelming majority of guns used in crimes because they are not used by law-abiding gun owners but by criminals who use smuggled guns, how would those children, once they become 18, get their PAL and RPAL? How would they get into sport shooting if they are never able to legally and safely acquire a gun for sport shooting?
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
What would they shoot with? They need a gun. Be serious.
11 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
