44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 9, 2022 10:00AM
- Jun/9/22 11:07:27 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, the hon. member keeps perpetuating the same myth. He mentioned Newt Gingrich and former prime minister Stephen Harper. The mandatory minimums that would be eliminated in Bill C-5, and it is important for Canadians to know this, are not from a Conservative government. They are from a Liberal government. I do not know why Liberals cannot accept that part of their past.
The mandatory minimums for extortion with a firearm, discharging a firearm with intent, and robbery with a firearm were introduced by Liberal governments. I know the hon. member served with former Liberal MP and parliamentary secretary for justice Marlene Jennings. He knows her. She said, “It was a Liberal government that brought in mandatory minimum sentencing for gun-related crimes. This is a whole category of them, where currently it is a minimum of one year. There is a second category of designated offences where it currently is four years. Liberals sought to increase the one year to two years and the four years to five years at committee.”
Is the hon. member suggesting that Marlene Jennings does not know what she is talking about?
192 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/9/22 12:47:27 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, a mandatory minimum does not mean life in prison. I want to make that very clear to my colleague who was just indicating that, which perhaps would mislead people into thinking that this is what this bill is all about. I will just leave it at that as well.
I am talking about those who are trafficking in these drugs, and drugs are only a part of this. We know that there is smuggling of drugs just as there is smuggling of firearms, and this bill does nothing to stop either one of them.
96 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/9/22 1:16:31 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I have already mentioned this here today, but I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts about human trafficking and the material benefit of eliminating minimum sentences.
30 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/9/22 1:28:30 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I want tell my colleague that I truly appreciated his enlightening speech. We both served on the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying. I want to tell him that I agree with his analysis of the work that judges do, especially with respect to sentencing.
I would like him to tell me about some of the negative effects of minimum sentences with respect to these changes, because minimum sentences do have negative effects.
Can he provide some examples to help us understand why judges should have full responsibility over sentencing, which is the nature of their job?
101 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/9/22 4:26:36 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's speech, and in it he purports that mandatory minimum penalties do not contribute to over-representation of Black, indigenous and racialized folks across the country.
That is not the opinion shared by those from the Black Legal Action Centre, the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Frye Societies and the Women's Legal Education & Action Fund who have called for the repealing of all mandatory minimum penalties for exactly that reason.
What does the member have to say to experts like these?
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/9/22 4:28:10 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I listened very intently to the member opposite's comments on Bill C-5.
I had the opportunity to sit on the justice committee where the bill was deliberated. We heard from witness after witness talking about the negative impact of mandatory minimum sentences, especially on those who are of indigenous or racialized backgrounds.
I want to talk to the point around discretion. In the member's opinion, is it not better and more appropriate for judges who are presiding over cases, who have the benefit of listening to detailed evidence and cross-examinations, to be able to determine, if someone is found guilty, what the appropriate sentence should be, as opposed to legislators preordaining a mandatory minimum sentence when we do not know what the circumstances may be?
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/9/22 5:11:07 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. colleague's speech. There is the perpetuation of a mischaracterization of this bill that is being done here, which is that somehow these are mandatory minimums that came from a previous Conservative government.
I want to quote someone. She was just named a Black Changemaker 2022. She is Marlene Jennings, a lawyer and former Liberal member of Parliament. She said:
It was a Liberal government that brought in mandatory minimum sentencing for firearm related crimes. There is a whole category of them where currently it is a minimum of one year. There is a second category of designated offences where currently it is four years. In committee...[we] attempted to increase the one year to two years and the four years to five years.
That is Marlene Jennings. Does the hon. member suggest that she has it wrong? Will he acknowledge that the mandatory minimums that the Liberals are trying to eliminate are in fact Liberal mandatory minimums?
167 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/9/22 6:44:14 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, the member's speech was very thoughtful, especially when she brought in reports and statistics that show why dropping these minimums is necessary. I too am a mother, of an eight-year-old. I advocated, as a criminal lawyer, for young people caught in the justice system and saw first-hand a lot of these types of cases.
We are constantly hearing that the people committing these crimes are not going to be held accountable, but there is still a process in place. I believe that people are being given the wrong image, as if we are dropping minimum sentences for somebody who commits an atrocious crime. If somebody was to commit a crime against my son, of course I would want them to get the maximum penalty, but I would want that to be proven in a court of law. Only then should the person, the right person, be held accountable.
154 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/9/22 7:02:10 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member is aware that a number of years ago the Supreme Court struck down a number of mandatory minimum penalties because they were unconstitutional, specifically with respect to section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees against cruel and unusual punishment. In the Nur decision, a quote from the Supreme Court was that, “Empirical evidence suggests that mandatory minimum sentences do not, in fact, deter crimes”.
To understand better, I am curious how he sees the opposite here.
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/9/22 7:42:31 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, the mandatory minimum sentences are guidance. They are to prevent repeat offences from happening and to keep people in prison to protect victims and future victims. Mandatory minimums do not take a right away from any judge; they provide guidance, and the judges are supposed to listen to what Parliament decides—not change what the will of the people is, as expressed through through their representation, but interpret what it is we give them and provide for the safety of future victims.
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/9/22 7:45:22 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, quite apart from the history, with respect to the mandatory minimum sentences, the individual about whom I spoke, who killed the three women whom we are reliving the grief with right now through the community, had there been the mandatory minimum sentences in place, would have been kept in place because of his assaults and other choking crimes against these women. Instead, he was allowed to go free—
71 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
