44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 9, 2022 10:00AM
- Jun/9/22 11:21:48 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter is that when a judge hears the matter of a serious crime of the nature the member is talking about, there will be serious sentences. In fact, they can go far beyond the mandatory minimums. That is not what we are talking about here.
I will go quickly to the example in California. In California, people, for political reasons, decided that it was really worthwhile to play up the worst offences—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
84 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/9/22 12:20:59 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, at points in my hon. colleague's speech, and he may have misspoken, he seemed to suggest that Bill C-5 would mean there are no punishments for these horrific crimes.
I support Bill C-5. As a matter of fact, as the member will know, I put forward amendments to include other crimes that now have mandatory minimum sentences.
The key point here, and it has been taken up by governments around the world, is that mandatory minimums are not a deterrent to violent crime. They have perverse results, in that they promote the district attorneys and prosecutors having more power than judges, in that they are able to force plea deals, because the mandatory minimums are so severe and a threat to people who have not been shown to be guilty of the crime.
We are looking here at making criminal justice fairer and at ensuring the punishment fits the crime, but no one is suggesting these violent criminals should not be punished. We think that judges should decide.
173 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/9/22 12:32:53 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to speak today to Bill C-5.
In the same month the Liberal government introduces legislation that specifically targets law-abiding firearms owners, the House is now debating a bill that eliminates mandatory minimums for robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, willfully importing or exporting illegal firearms, discharging a firearm with intent, using a firearm in the commission of offences, possession of an illegal firearm and possession of a firearm obtained illegally.
As people say, we cannot make this up. No one in my constituency has called me to tell me they want mandatory minimums repealed for these serious crimes. People are furious, and rightly so.
As Sergeant Michael Rowe of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police said at the justice committee, “The police in Canada support the primary objectives of mandatory minimum penalties to ensure consistency in sentencing, to protect the public and to discourage others from engaging in similar conduct.” He also mentioned that these mandatory minimums “hold significant value when addressing public safety and gang-related violence: the use of a firearm or imitation firearm in the commission of an offence”.
The government is not even listening to the recent report published by the public safety committee right here in Parliament. Recommendation 11 states:
That the Government of Canada recognize that serious crimes involving firearms and drug trafficking should bear serious penalties given the threat to public safety, and that violent offenders should be kept off our streets to protect the public, while a public health response should be adopted to deal with people suffering from substance abuse.
I have always believed that serious violent offences that are committed with firearms deserve mandatory prison time. It is astonishing that the Liberals want to weaken the punishment of these crimes in Canada. I also have grave concerns with the Liberals' proposal to allow criminals to serve house arrest rather than jail time for a number of offences, including those involving sexual assault, human trafficking and kidnapping.
This bill is soft on crime and puts communities and victims at risk. The sad irony of the Liberals' plan to make our streets safer is, in fact, going after trained Canadian firearms owners, while at the same time reducing penalties for those who commit violent gun crimes and sell hard drugs. Bill C-5 is sending the wrong message to criminals and organized crime.
I doubt any of these criminals are watching CPAC at this very moment, but I can assure members that law-abiding firearms owners are watching. The government is insulting hundreds of thousands of law-abiding firearms owners, who are being blamed for the government's lack of action to tackle gun smuggling and organized crime.
Gun violence has gone up significantly over the past seven years of the Liberal government. That is a fact. It is also a fact that most guns used in violent crime are smuggled in from the United States. According to CBSA's departmental results report, almost 20,000 illegal firearms and prohibited weapons were confiscated before coming into Canada. Those are just the ones that were confiscated, and just the illegal ones we know about. No one knows how many slipped through the cracks and were used in a violent crime. Gun smugglers and gun traffickers are directly responsible for the murder of too many innocent Canadians.
As the president of the National Police Federation said at the justice committee, “Bill C-5 strikes down some mandatory minimum penalties related to weapons trafficking and firearms offences. This is inconsistent with the expressed intent of the government to reduce firearms violence in Canada.” He went on to say that if the Liberals are going to repeal these mandatory minimums, they must provide “additional deterrence measures to address criminal activity, such as providing more resources to stop the import of illegal drugs and firearms at the border.”
Through Bill C-5, the Liberals are proposing to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for the very crimes that are putting illegal firearms on our streets in the first place. Tell me how the Liberals can justify placing heavy restrictions on law-abiding citizens while removing them for violent criminals on the streets. The short answer is they cannot. Let us not forget that last year, the same Liberals voted down a Conservative bill that proposed making the punishment harsher for criminals using smuggled guns.
I received an email from John Schneiderbanger the other day, who asked me to share his comments in the House of Commons. Before any of my Liberal colleagues start smearing John as some sort of firearm lobbyist, let me tell his story.
John proudly served in the Canadian Armed Forces and rose to the rank of lieutenant colonel. He was posted to CFB Shilo, which I am honoured to say is in my constituency, where he served as base commander. He is a firearms expert and has decades of experience and a wealth of knowledge of which we should take heed.
While Bill C-5 repeals mandatory minimums for actual criminals, the Liberals are going after sport shooters in his case. If the Liberals get their way, they will be impacting legitimate shooting sports such as Cowboy Shooting Action, International Practical Shooting Confederation, 3-Gun, IDPA and Cowboy Mounted Shooting.
Many of these competitors participate in high levels of competition, some of them around the world, and there are governing bodies at the provincial, national and world levels. They are legitimate and organized sports that are recognized around the world and would no longer exist in Canada due to the Liberal government's inability to focus on correct root causes of violent crime committed by criminals with illegal guns.
As John said, these shooting sports will wither away quickly as the current membership becomes older and leave the sport, as other sport shooters cannot replace the competition handguns over time. No new members will be able to join these activities, as there will be no legal handguns available to acquire.
If the Liberals will not take my advice, they will at least listen to one of Canada's finest, Mr. Schneiderbanger, who also knows the Firearms Act inside and out.
Along with eliminating sentences for gun crimes, this Liberal bill would eliminate mandatory prison time for serious drug-related offences. These include sentences for drug trafficking as well as importing, exporting and producing drugs such as heroin, fentanyl and crystal meth.
Canada is in the midst of an opioid crisis. We all know that. In 2020, the opioid crisis claimed the lives of 6,306 people. That is the equivalent of 17 opioid deaths per day. The volume of police calls related to suspected overdoses has also been increasing. As of right now, police services across the country are dealing with an average of 687 calls per month of suspected overdoses. One would think the Liberals would have proposed some solutions in the latest budget to help, but they did not offer a single new dollar to assist police services with this increased demand.
It gets worse. The Liberal platform promised $250 million in 2021-22 and $625 million in 2022-23 for a Canadian mental health transfer, but none of those dollars have materialized. While provinces and municipalities are in dire need of help, once again they were promised action but given platitudes. My Conservative colleague from Edmonton—Wetaskiwin has repeatedly asked why the Liberals did not keep this promise, and all he has heard back is useless talking points.
I know my Liberal colleagues care about this issue; I just do not know why they are not holding their own government's feet to the fire. Why are they letting the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance get away with this broken promise and then voting in favour of Bill C-5, which is going to lessen the penalties for the gangs and organized crime that are peddling the opioids?
I want my Liberal colleagues to know how bad drug-related offences are under their watch. Cocaine trafficking is up 24% since 2016. Trafficking of drugs other than cocaine and cannabis is up 73% since 2016.
Contrary to Liberal talking points, Bill C-5 is not about reducing mandatory minimum sentences for simple possession. In fact, mandatory minimums for simple possession do not exist.
In closing, I want to say that it is unfortunate that the Liberals on the committee used their majority and turned the report into an one-page report that was void of any substance—
1437 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/9/22 4:30:37 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, we need to be very clear that there are no mandatory minimums for personal possession-related offences for drugs. Our party does not support mandatory minimums for personal possession for personal use offences. We do believe that it should be against the law to possess drugs for personal use, but we do not support mandatory minimums in those cases.
I am concerned about the fact that this legislation reduces sentences for very serious violent crimes like sexual assault, kidnapping and weapons trafficking. Those are clearly very different cases from the cases the member spoke about.
97 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/9/22 4:57:31 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I have a two-part question for the member.
The first part is that I agree with him that we need to do more for mental health and addictions, especially within our criminal system, so I would just like the member to explain where in Bill C-5 the Liberals address the needed resources for mental health and addictions. Where in the bill does it state that?
The second part is that the member talks about these mandatory minimums being done by previous Conservative governments. When I look at the table of the 12 mandatory minimums that are being addressed in Bill C-5, there are only two of them that were brought in by Prime Minister Harper. One was brought in by Prime Minister Trudeau senior, and the other nine by Prime Minister Chrétien.
Could the member allude to how this is tied to the previous Conservative government, when in fact the vast majority of mandatory minimums that are being proposed to be dropped in this legislation were actually done by previous Liberal governments?
179 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 5:12:58 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- 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 7:42:31 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
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
