SoVote

Jun/9/22 5:12:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague on one point, very much so, which is that there is a continuing perpetuation of a mis-framing of this bill. I could not agree more with that. The existing sentencing policies that were enacted by the Conservatives focused on punishment through imprisonment. They disproportionately affect indigenous people as well as Black and marginalized Canadians. MMPs have also resulted in longer and more complex trials, consuming resources. The bottom line in all of this is of course that MMPs do not work, particularly for these drug-related offences and others.

97 words

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP)

Jun/9/22 5:12:58 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, removing mandatory minimums, as is included in this bill, instead of decriminalizing personal possession of substances creates a system through which people struggling with substance misuse will still end up in the criminal justice system instead of in the health care system, where they can get the support they need. Why is the government only taking a half step with this bill and refusing to treat this toxic drug supply crisis like the emergency it is?

78 words

All Topics

Mr. Andy Fillmore

Jun/9/22 5:13:28 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question very much. Of course, the great success that the federal government has had with the Province of British Columbia in addressing the legality and illegality of certain drugs is very promising. We plan to work closely with the other provinces to ensure that we can roll that out across the country appropriately, within the bounds of our constitutional jurisdiction, with provinces, as far as they are willing. What is important about this bill is that not only would it allow the use of CSOs for drug-related offences, but it is also buttressed by important announcements in the fall economic statement and budget 2021 for wraparound services for people who are experiencing these hardships in their lives.

123 words

All Topics

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Jun/9/22 5:14:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I certainly agree with the point that my hon. colleague from Halifax has made. There have been a number of allegations about Bill C-5 that I find disappointing, because the evidence is quite clear. As well, some of the evidence has not been raised by government members, which surprises me. Some of the evidence is about the cost to provinces, since the effect of mandatory minimums is to overcrowd prisons and to increase the demands on provincial governments to pay for the incarceration of prisoners who might have been able to have punishments that fitted the crime and not be incarcerated for as long. I wonder if my hon. friend, the parliamentary secretary, has any comments on the costs to the provinces of imposing mandatory minimums.

129 words

All Topics

Mr. Andy Fillmore

Jun/9/22 5:15:04 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I made a very light touch in my previous answer on the resource intensity of these MMPs and the tough-on-crime stance that the Conservative government enacted into law prior to this government. There is no question that provincial governments can expend the resources of their taxpayers in more important and more effective ways to make society more equitable and improve access to all kinds of societal supports, rather than putting people behind bars and depriving them of those very supports that they need so dearly.

89 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/9/22 5:15:46 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-8, an act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update tabled in Parliament on December 14, 2021 and other measures.

51 words

Mr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC)

Jun/9/22 5:16:17 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on the Liberals' do-no-time, soft-on-crime bill, Bill C-5. This do-no-time, soft-on-crime Liberal bill eliminates mandatory jail time for serious firearms-related offences and serious drug offences, and significantly expands conditional sentencing orders, otherwise known as house arrests, for an array of violent and other serious offences. Yesterday in the House, the Minister of Justice, in an effort to defend this soft-on-crime bill, said something truly remarkable. He said not to worry about it, because Bill C-5 targets “situations where public security and public safety are not at risk.” Really? Perhaps the minister should read his own bill because if he did, he would learn that Bill C-5 eliminates mandatory jail time for such firearms offences as robbery with a firearm, weapons trafficking, extortion with a firearm, using a firearm with the intent to injure and using a firearm in the commission of a crime, among other serious firearms offences. However, the Minister of Justice says that Bill C-5 targets “situations where public security and public safety are not at risk.” Is he kidding? I think Canadians would be absolutely shocked if they knew that the Minister of Justice thought that robbery with a firearm, using a firearm in the commission of an offence and discharging a firearm with the intent to injure constitute crimes in which public security and public safety are not an issue. We literally cannot make this stuff up, yet there he was in this place asserting that with a straight face. It goes on. As I noted, this bill significantly expands house arrests. With the passage of Bill C-5, criminals convicted of such offences as kidnapping a minor, arson for a fraudulent purpose, assault with a weapon, impaired driving causing death and sexual assault would be able to serve their sentences at home, instead of behind bars where they belong. There we have it. These are offences such as sexual assault, kidnapping a minor and arson for a fraudulent purpose, but the minister says that Bill C-5 targets “situations where public security and public safety are not at risk.” As I said, we cannot make this stuff up. I will tell members who disagrees with the minister: Many of the key witnesses who came to the justice committee, representatives of law enforcement, victims' advocates and community leaders. They have a very different take on the impact that Bill C-5 is going to have. Take the crime of sexual assault. Jennifer Dunn, of the London Abused Women's Centre, came before the committee and said now that perpetrators of sexual assault would be able to serve their sentences at home, the victims of sexual assault, particularly women, were going to be put at even greater risk because they were going to be stuck in the same communities, often, as the perpetrators. No kidding. This is a news flash to the minister. Then there is André Gélinas, a retired detective sergeant from the Montreal police service who characterized Bill C-5 as “a race to the bottom”. He went on to say: It is paradoxical and totally dichotomous to think that abolishing mandatory minimum sentences that apply to criminal offences involving firearms will have a beneficial effect on our communities. Staff Sergeant Michael Rowe appeared before the committee representing the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. With respect to the mandatory jail times involving serious firearms offences that Bill C-5 seeks to repeal, he said that these specific mandatory jail times “hold significant value when addressing public safety and gang-related violence”. Anie Samson, a former Montreal municipal councillor and mayor of a borough in the most multicultural part of Montreal, which has unfortunately been ravaged by serious gun and gang violence, said that Bill C-5, in eliminating mandatory jail time for serious firearms offences, “exacerbates impunity”. There we have it. Contrary to the Minister of Justice's ridiculous assertion, key witnesses before the justice committee said very clearly that Bill C-5 would in fact undermine public security, undermine public safety and put victims at risk, particularly victims of such crimes as sexual assault. Do members know who would also be hurt and put at risk, contrary to the talking points of the Liberals? It would be persons struggling with addictions and vulnerable Canadians. The Minister of Justice, at second reading, spoke about the fact that we have an opioid crisis in Canada, and he is quite right. He spoke about the need, in order to address that crisis, to implement measures around education, treatment and rehabilitation. He would not find argument on this side of the House on that point. However, Bill C-5 would do none of those things. What Bill C-5 would do is eliminate mandatory jail time for the very people, the very criminals, who are profiting from putting poison on our streets that is killing 20 Canadians a day and 7,000 Canadians a year in the opioid crisis. Those are the people who are going to benefit from Bill C-5, because Bill C-5 would eliminate mandatory jail time for producers and pushers of schedule 1 and schedule 2 drugs under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. These are drugs such as fentanyl and crystal meth. I challenge the Minister of Justice to explain how it is that simply eliminating mandatory jail time for the producers and pushers of these killer drugs would make anyone safer. It simply would not. This bill really does speak to the priorities of the Liberal government or, I would submit, the misplaced priorities of the government. The government's priority is to put criminals first, public security, public safety and the rights of victims be damned. This is a reckless and dangerous bill that would undermine safety in our communities, put victims last and put vulnerable Canadians at risk. That is why we on the Conservative side of the House will continue to fight this bill every step of the way.

1028 words

All Topics

Mr. Anthony Housefather (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.)

Jun/9/22 5:26:11 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, while I disagree with my hon. colleague on his framing of the bill, I always appreciate the very well-delivered speeches he gives. The member selectively quoted Jennifer Dunn in her appearance before the committee, talking about conditional sentencing. I also read what Jennifer Dunn said at committee, which is that, “Women are not protected by the law unless all mandatory minimum penalties are considered.” Basically, she seems to be arguing that all mandatory minimums should be removed from the Criminal Code. Does the hon. member believe that really buttresses the case that he is making in his speech?

103 words

Mr. Michael Cooper

Jun/9/22 5:26:49 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I do not know how we are going to make anyone safe by eliminating mandatory jail time for serious firearms and drug-related offences. With respect to conditional sentencing, which was the main purpose of her testimony, she noted that it is going to have a very negative impact on women because those predators are going to be serving time in the victims' communities. On top of that, it is often difficult to supervise these people, which again is putting vulnerable people at risk. Very simply put, this bill from start to finish is a badly drafted bill that gets it precisely backwards. It is why we are going to continue to fight it.

116 words

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

Jun/9/22 5:27:45 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I thank our colleague for his speech. He made a lot of references to safety. I do not think anyone in the House doubts the importance of safety. Montreal is going through some tough times these days. Does my colleague really believe that a person with mental health issues or a substance abuse problem is a safety threat?

61 words

All Topics

Mr. Michael Cooper

Jun/9/22 5:28:17 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, with respect to my colleague, that is not what I said. What I said is that when it comes to addressing those who are struggling with addictions, we need to look at alternatives. We need to support treatment and rehabilitation efforts. Incarceration should be a last resort, and indeed there is a directive issued by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada not to prosecute in case of simple possession. Where this bill is wrong, however, is that it would eliminate mandatory jail time not for simple possession, for which there is no mandatory jail time, but for the producers and pushers of the very drugs that are hurting those who are suffering and struggling with addiction. That is the problem with Bill C-5.

126 words

All Topics

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Jun/9/22 5:29:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Uqaqtittiji, if we are to address systemic racism in our justice system and the overincarceration of indigenous peoples, racialized people and Canadians living in poverty, then we need to do more than the timid measures put forward by the Liberals in this bill. Can the member share some ideas of how this bill can be improved so it is less timid and actually serves to address the systemic racism we see in Canada?

73 words

Mr. Michael Cooper

Jun/9/22 5:29:49 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, respectfully, my position regarding this bill is that it needs to be scrapped. It needs to be defeated and the government needs to go back to the drawing board. On the issue of systemic racism and the impacts the criminal justice system has on marginalized Canadians, yes, it is an issue that needs to be addressed. One of the things that was noted at committee is that many of the victims, in fact a disproportionate number of victims, also come from racialized and vulnerable communities. What we need to make a priority is putting victims first, and this bill puts victims last and criminals first.

107 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/9/22 5:30:55 p.m.
Watch

There being no motions at report stage on this bill, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

34 words

Mr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC)

Jun/9/22 5:31:28 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-206

moved that the bill be concurred in.

7 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/9/22 5:31:43 p.m.
Watch

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.

37 words

Division

Mr. Michael Cooper

Jun/9/22 5:31:43 p.m.
Watch

I request that it be adopted on division.

8 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/9/22 5:31:43 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-206

I declare the motion carried on division. When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now? Some hon. members: Agreed.

23 words

All Topics

Mr. Michael Cooper

Jun/9/22 5:32:39 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-206

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed. He said: Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak to Bill S-206 at third reading stage. It is an act to amend the Criminal Code relating to section 649, otherwise known as the jury secrecy rule. This bill, which I was proud to sponsor in the House of Commons, is a straightforward piece of legislation that would carve out a narrow exception to the jury secrecy rule. As it currently stands, former jurors are unable to disclose any aspect of their jury service with anyone for life, even a medical professional bound by confidentiality. This bill addresses that by carving out an exception whereby former jurors who are suffering from mental health issues arising from their jury service could disclose all aspects of that service with a medical professional bound by confidentiality. This bill is a needed piece of legislation that would go a long way to supporting juror mental health, and I will get into the substance of that momentarily. I am very pleased that this bill has been reported back to the House from the justice committee unamended and with unanimous support. This bill has already passed the House unanimously at second reading stage. A bill that I introduced in the 42nd Parliament, Bill C-417, a bill that is substantively the same as this bill, passed the House at all legislative stages but did not progress due to the call of the 2019 election. Thanks to the leadership of Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, who introduced this bill in the Senate, and Senator Lucie Moncion, a former juror who suffered from mental health issues arising from her jury service, we have seen this bill clear the other place, again with unanimous support. I speak to the unanimity around this bill because it really does underscore that this is a common-sense fix. It is not often that we can find unanimous support across the board from all parliamentarians and all stakeholders involved, including former jurors, mental health professionals and lawyers, among others. This bill is a product of the study the justice committee undertook on juror supports, the first parliamentary study of its kind. It was initiated by the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. I had the privilege of serving on the justice committee during the study and continue to serve on that committee. I can tell members that while there are many people I can thank for leading the bill to where it is today in being on the cusp of passing into law, this bill would not have happened but for the jurors who came before the justice committee. These former jurors came to our committee and talked about the impact the jury service had on them. Jury service is something that I think sometimes we do not know enough about, unless we are summoned to serve on a jury or know someone who has been. Jury service can be stressful. Jurors can be exposed to horrific evidence, and it can have an impact on their mental health. To provide just a bit of context in terms of the experiences of former jurors who conveyed their stories before the justice committee, I want to take a moment to read into the record some of the testimony we heard four and a half years ago. Mark Farrant, a jury foreman in a gruesome murder trial, said: In court as a juror, I took all the evidence in silently, as was my role. As jurors, we ingest the evidence and the facts. We do not interact with it. We are not afforded an opportunity to look away or raise our hands and say to the courtroom, “Turn that off; I've had enough.” Tina Daenzer, who served as juror number one in the gruesome Paul Bernardo trial, said, “Imagine watching young girls being raped and tortured over and over again. You couldn't close your eyes and you couldn't look away because your duty was to watch the evidence.” Patrick Fleming, who served on a jury involving a 10-month gruesome murder trial, spoke about jury service and the impact it had on his life. He said: When my civic duty was done and I was able to go home to my family and return to my “normal” life, I pulled into my driveway and expected feelings of relief to wash over me, but something was different. I did not feel at my place of peace. Something was not right. He went on to say: We need assistance getting back to our “normal” life. We are civilians who did not choose this path for ourselves nor are we trained to deal with this type of situation. Being a juror is a monumental job that has had a major impact on my life. In the course of our study, we heard about the jury secrecy rule and the degree to which it can impede jurors getting the full mental health supports they need. In that regard, there are at least two impediments. The first is that the deliberation process is often the most stressful aspect of jury service. To not be able to talk about what is often the most stressful aspect of jury service is clearly an impediment to getting the help that a juror suffering from mental health issues requires. The second issue, which is more general in nature, is that it can impact the ability of former jurors to have full and frank discussions with mental health and other medical professionals because there is a lack of understanding about what the boundaries are regarding what can be talked about in light of the jury secrecy rule. We even heard that some medical professionals are reluctant to take on former jurors as clients as a result. That is where this bill comes in. It provides clarity in the law and ensures that former jurors can have those full and frank discussions in a strictly confidential context. These full and frank discussions are often so vital to getting better in the face of mental health issues. This legislation is not novel. It may be new to Canada, but it has been successfully implemented in the Australian state of Victoria, where it has worked very well. This issue and the way this bill has moved forward speak to Parliament working at its best. We had a groundbreaking study on juror supports in which an issue was identified regarding jurors getting mental health supports, and a solution was identified. Rather than letting the unanimous report sit on the shelf and collect dust, I took it upon myself to introduce a bill, Bill C-417, a few months after the release of that report. However, at all stages, up until today, I received full support and collaboration from all members on all sides, including the member for Mount Royal, who was the chair of the justice committee during the study, the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford and the former member for Victoria, who is the minister of aboriginal affairs today in the Government of British Columbia, among many others, all of whom recognized that this was an issue and that we needed to work together to implement a key common-sense recommendation that is small but will have a meaningful impact. This bill is very close to crossing the finish line, and I hope it will cross the finish line today so that we can send it to the Governor General. It is a step forward, but a lot more work needs to be done around juror mental health. When we think about it, in a criminal trial, the lawyers, the Crown, the defence, the presiding judge and court workers all have access to various mental health programs and supports, but guess who often do not. It is the men and women who do not have a choice to be there. They are there because they have been summoned. They are performing their civic duty, and often they have nothing in the way of mental health support programs. Fortunately, there has been some movement. Four provinces now have juror support programs, but they are not robust enough. In short, jurors in those four provinces have access to up to four counselling sessions free of charge. Often that is about it, and those measures were only implemented in the last number of years. I recognize the member for Ottawa Centre because when he was the minister of justice, he heard Mark Farrant and took it upon himself to see that the Province of Ontario developed a juror support program. However, there is more work to do because in six provinces there are essentially no supports and we need to do better. What I hope is that after we pass this bill, the government will take seriously the implementation of another key recommendation of the report on juror supports: to work with the provinces to address the patchwork in the lack of supports and the inadequacy of supports, and provide, among other things, one-time funding so that we can have the supports that jurors deserve. Jurors play an integral role in the administration of justice. We owe this to them. They should not have to suffer from mental health issues, unable to get help. This bill is a step in the direction of helping former jurors. I say very simply that it is a bill that has been studied and debated exhaustively. We all know the issue and we know what needs to be done. Let us get this bill passed and sent to the Governor General today to be brought into law.

1629 words

All Topics

Mr. Yasir Naqvi (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Emergency Preparedness, Lib.)

Jun/9/22 5:47:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-206

Mr. Speaker, given the member was involved in the initial study that was done by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, perhaps he could outline some of the other recommendations that were part of the report on juror support.

41 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 85