44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 14, 2022 10:00AM
- Jun/14/22 10:03:47 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to five petitions. These will be tabled in an electronic format.
34 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 10:21:50 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 11:12:10 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, the amendment has been read. The member should be submitting it to the Chair and should not be further debating.
22 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 11:13:56 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I cannot believe that, just before moving the amendment, the member actually said that police might choose not to do their jobs because of a policy that the government made. I thank God that the police forces throughout Canada do not operate in the same way that Conservative politicians do: picking and choosing when they think it is important enough to actually listen to the policies that have been created by this place.
Nonetheless, one would think, by listening to the intervention there, that individuals would not have to face any jail time whatsoever. We do not even have to read between the lines. The member said, and I quote, that this bill would let criminals “off the hook”. That is absolutely untrue.
What this bill would do is actually put the decision-making into the hands of the judges. They are the people who hear the cases, the people who deliberate over them and the people who render judgment at the end of the day. I am certain that those judges will continue to render strict decisions when necessary.
184 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 11:20:10 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, in response to my question, I could not believe what I heard. The member said, “I respect judges, but they do not always get it right.” That is just an example of the fundamental misunderstanding of the justice system and how it is supposed to be implemented.
The member should also be respecting the decisions that the judges make because that shows that someone generally understands, appreciates and respects the judicial system in Canada. Instead, what the Conservatives are trying to say through that comment is that we are going to try to put a fail-safe in place for when, in their opinion, the judges do not get it right.
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 11:49:24 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I heard the member say something earlier in her speech that gave me pause for reflection, and I apologize if it was lost in translation. Perhaps she could explain it.
I thought I heard her say that perhaps this is not a good time to remove mandatory minimums because of the fact that there is an increase in crime rates right now. That just seems an awkward statement to me, because I would think that one would believe that a policy is the right policy based on its implementation in other jurisdictions and based on data, not based on what happens to be the context in which that policy would apply at any given time.
Could the member expand on that and provide some clarity around that?
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 12:11:26 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I am not sure if the member for Regina—Lewvan is calling into question the ruling of the chair here, but if he would like to do that, I am sure there is a process to do that, instead of just running into this chamber yelling and screaming the way he did.
62 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 12:19:47 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, one of the comments that I have heard Conservatives react to today, in particular I remember the parliamentary secretary for justice making this comment, was when we suggest that the Conservatives' policies with respect to incarceration are pretty much just to lock them up and throw away the key. They are not interested in rehabilitation so that we can reintegrate individuals back into society.
They are heckling me now. One would think that just from a financial policy perspective, it makes more sense to help reintegrate people back into society because, quite frankly, it costs a lot to keep people incarcerated. If not for the reason of the social good of it, one would think that the Conservatives would be interested from the perspective of the financial implications of what it costs to keep people incarcerated.
I realize that the member's main drive here is toward the social impact of it, as it should be, but I am wondering if he could speak to the dilemma that the Conservatives seem to be in, in relentlessly being in favour of mandatory minimums.
184 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 1:02:02 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, when the member for Scarborough—Rouge Park was asking a question of the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, he spoke of manufactured outrage. I cannot think of an example that would better demonstrate manufactured outrage than that speech we just heard.
I realize that the member was probably just reading a speech that was given to him by the Conservative propaganda machine, but nonetheless, he should seriously reflect on the words that he delivered in this House over the last 10 minutes. He actually said that if somebody is convicted of human trafficking, they will probably just be locked up in their house. That is absolutely ridiculous. For starters, the whole part about conditional sentencing would only apply at a judge's discretion if the sentence was less than two years. I am not following this bill that closely and even I know that.
Can the member please explain how he justifies that comment about human trafficking?
161 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 3:34:09 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, I think the member has done a big injustice in his comments about how racialized individuals can end up being in a correctional system that has a lot of systemic problems with it, because we just have to look at the data. Indigenous people make up 5% of our population in Canada, yet represent over 30% of individuals who are incarcerated.
Can the member not at least accept the fact that there are systemic problems that exist within our justice system that are leading to this perpetual cycle? If he cannot, can he explain why it is that indigenous peoples only make up 5% of the population in Canada yet over 30% of incarcerated individuals?
117 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 3:53:00 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated the beginning of the member's speech when she talked about the fact that she was here decades ago, although she must have first gotten elected when she was six years old, and was part of the parliamentary process when these mandatory minimums were brought in. However, she has since had time to reflect on that and come to a different conclusion.
That is what this place is all about. It is about continuing to evolve. I am wondering if the member could just expand on that slightly.
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 4:44:53 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, although it may be true that the former Conservative government did launch the truth and reconciliation report, it is extremely unfortunate that, once it received the results from that report and the recommendations contained therein, it had absolutely no interest and said publicly that it would not move forward with any of the recommendations, but I digress.
In any event, I would actually like to start my speech today, if I could be indulged for a moment, as this is one of the first times I have had the opportunity to rise to give a speech since the last provincial election, by congratulating Ted Hsu.
Ted was the Liberal candidate for Kingston and the Islands running for the Liberal Party. He was elected as the member of provincial parliament in the last election. Ted's name is not unfamiliar to this place, because Ted was elected under very similar circumstances here in 2011. In the provincial election two Thursdays ago, Ted was elected as one of only two new Liberal MPs in the Province of Ontario. Back in 2011, he also was elected to this place as one of only two new MPs who were Liberal, the other being the member for Charlottetown. They both entered into the House at the same time. My best wishes to Ted as he embarks on this new journey in his life as the member of provincial parliament for the riding of Kingston and the Islands. I am glad to see a strong Liberal voice representing the riding of Kingston and the Islands.
I have had the opportunity to be here throughout the entire debate today, listening to the various claims that have been made throughout the House, and I cannot say I am surprised with a great degree of the rhetoric that I have been hearing. One of the things I would like to touch on first is a comment made by the member for Humber River—Black Creek. She did that only about an hour ago in this debate.
She said that she had been here a few decades ago, when mandatory minimums were being introduced and brought on board, and that she was supportive of them at the time. She thought they were the right things to do. I say this because we have heard a lot of rhetoric from Conservatives, indeed before today's debate but in particular today, about the fact that mandatory minimums were not just introduced by Stephen Harper and the Conservatives, but by Liberals in the past.
The reason it is so important to point is that we have one of those Liberal MPs who was here back then saying she was in favour of it back then, but has since come to realize that mandatory minimums are not serving the purpose we thought they would when they were introduced. I think it takes a lot of courage for a politician to come forward and say they have changed their mind on this and that this is not an effective way of dealing with problems we have when it relates to sentencing individuals.
I want to thank her for those comments. I think we can learn a lot as time goes on. We evolve through the various policies we have and our approaches to them. I think that if the Conservatives would take a look at what is going on in other parts of North America right now, they would realize that Canada certainly is not unique in starting to understand and turn against the idea of mandatory minimums, not just because in many cases they are deemed unconstitutional, but also because they are not producing the results they were intended to.
I am very concerned about that rhetoric, but it really comes down to this: When Conservatives are putting forward this notion that there will be endless lineups of people who should be incarcerated out on the streets, they are trying to paint this picture that some of the most heinous crimes out there will result in people being given house arrest or literally not being sentenced as a result of not having a mandatory minimum. That is absolutely false.
What Conservatives are doing is preying on the emotional side of this debate. They are preying on the fact that they know this will touch a chord and hit a nerve with people, and it will have their emotional side see a reaction as a result of what the government is proposing.
That is what they are trying to feed off right now. That is what they are trying to capitalize off politically. It does not come as a surprise to me. Many issues come before this House under exactly the same circumstances, and we see it time and time again.
In my opinion, it comes down to a fundamental difference between small-c conservatives and progressives, or in this case capital-C Conservatives and capital-L Liberals. It is a fundamental difference. If there is one issue that clearly divides Conservatives from Liberals, this would be the issue. It comes down to incarceration.
Conservatives believe that the answer is to impose a penalty: Lock them up and throw away the key. Give them a mandatory minimum that will force them to sit in their cell for x number of days, and at the end of their time, they will have completed their sentence and they will somehow be rehabilitated. That is the Conservative approach. I can appreciate the approach. The Conservatives certainly would not be the only political party that has taken that approach.
I happen to think the solution is different. I come from a riding that used to have seven correctional institutions in the area, but the Conservatives closed Kingston Penitentiary the last time they were in government. What we have is this scenario in which the default response is just to put people in prison and leave them there. Then, after a set time has elapsed, based on what politicians believe is an amount of time that would properly do the job, suddenly people would be rehabilitated and walk out of there as new, changed individuals.
Liberals look at it differently. We believe in helping to rehabilitate individuals when possible—and most of the time it is possible—so that they can be reintegrated back into society and become productive members of society.
What surprises me the most about the Conservative response is that they do not even have to accept the social argument here. They do not even have to, from a Conservative perspective, believe in rehabilitation. They do not even have to do that. However, one would think that at the very least, their interest would be tickled by the financial benefit. Incarceration costs a lot of money. I know this as an individual who has six prisons within a 40-kilometre radius of my home. It costs a lot of money to keep people incarcerated. If we can rehabilitate people and reintegrate them into society, they can become productive members of society and actually give back.
There is a real, solid, financial argument there that I would think would interest Conservatives when it comes to talking about our correctional facilities, but I fail to see it. They do not ever seem to come forward with that.
My idea that all Conservatives care about is “lock them up and throw away the key” does not come just from this debate around this issue but from a whole host of issues. Let us look at the whole prison farm issue.
Prison farms have been seen, not just by inmates and former inmates but indeed by community activists and people throughout the community at large, including many farmers in southeastern Ontario, as productive ways to help rehabilitate individuals. However, the Conservatives have absolutely no interest in them. They do not want to see the opportunities. They almost look at inmates participation in these programs as some kind of luxury that they do not deserve.
I know this because we lived through this in Kingston. We had activists going out and standing in front of Collins Bay Institution every Monday night since the prison farms were closed until they were reopened under this government. Every Monday night they would go out there and hold a protest. These were not former inmates; these were concerned citizens from my riding and beyond.
What is the response now that the prison farms have been reopened and are being utilized, giving opportunities to inmates who in their own words and testimonies say that the farms rehabilitated them to become productive members of society again? What is happening? The member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston is standing up Friday after Friday, followed by late show question after late show question, to challenge the prison farms that are helping farmers in his own riding. He gets up week after week and challenges them.
There is no doubt in my mind that if Conservatives were to get elected again, one of the first things they would do with respect to correctional facilities is close those farms.
We are seeing this behaviour, and it is a pattern that leads to the simple conclusion that all Conservatives care about in terms of our our correctional institutions is providing a sentence to somebody, locking them up, throwing away the key, and when the sentence has expired, the individual, according to their logic, will suddenly be rehabilitated and can go back to society. However, it does not work that way, and the proof is that we see people continually going into and out of our correctional institutions through this revolving door.
I will go back to the rhetoric that I have been hearing, and I have heard a lot of it today, particularly as I was listening to various members. There were things that they were saying. The member for Kildonan—St. Paul specifically said that this bill will let criminals off the hook. How can somebody rationally think that from looking at the bill? The bill would put the power in the hands of judges, so to make a comment like that is just saying that they do not trust judges to do their job. That is what Conservatives are essentially saying: They do not have the trust in judges to perform the responsibilities that are given to them through those appointments.
The member for Yellowhead, when talking about conditional sentencing, suggested that those who were convicted of human trafficking would be able to stay at home under house arrest. That is absolutely ludicrous. Conditional sentencing, as included in this bill, specifically gives the opportunity for a judge to allow for an individual to be under house arrest. However, I would invite those members who have been giving their speeches to go back and read the bill, because it says that a conditional sentence would allow an offender who does not pose a threat to public safety to serve their term of imprisonment in the community under strict conditions, including house arrest and curfew.
Furthermore, unlike other sanctions, the conditional sentence orders would allow courts to focus on rehabilitation by requiring an offender to attend an approved treatment program. The bill is saying that in certain circumstances a judge, under the judge's discretion, can decide that a person is not going to be rehabilitated if we lock them up and throw away the key and that it might be better to put the person under house arrest so that they are not allowed to leave their house but also have to complete a set number of things while they are there. That is called “rehabilitation”. That is trying to get at the core of what the problem is.
Of course, Conservatives will want to spin that, such that a person could murder, be a rapist and do all this stuff and then just sit at home watching Netflix. That is the way they like to portray this bill. Indeed, if we listened to some of the speeches today, that is exactly what they have been saying. The bill specifically points out, as it relates to the conditional sentence orders, that for offences of advocating genocide, for torture, attempted murder, terrorism and serious criminal organization offences, CSOs would continue to be unavailable. The bill addresses some of the rhetoric that we are hearing from across the way, as if we need to be very clear about that.
It really concerns me that rather than trying to have honest discussions about what is in the bill, we instead hear a huge amount of rhetoric coming from the other side of the House, with the intent, as I indicated earlier, to play off people's emotions, to drum up fear and to manufacture outrage. That is exactly what Conservatives are doing and they are doing it with the intent to motivate and rally the troops, probably for the member for Carleton so they can go to his website and sign up to support him, but that is—
2185 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 5:01:23 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member for Timmins—James Bay making that comment. Perhaps we can sit down and I could get into more detail if what I am saying is not resonating with him. I would be more than happy to do that at the appropriate time.
The reality of the situation is that we are seeing the Conservatives try to drum up fear out there, because they are doing it in ways that do not represent what is actually in this bill. I already made this point clear earlier, when I talked about the member for Kildonan—St. Paul saying—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 5:02:16 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, I will end with the Bloc's position on this. I will stop picking on the Conservatives and I will turn to the Bloc. I see this wicked and very dramatically evolving change of heart with the Bloc in terms of its position on this bill. Bloc members seem to now be sitting on the fence. The member for Shefford said earlier that this just might not be the right time for this bill, as if in a couple of months it might be or maybe a few months ago it could have been. They are on the fence. I think they just need a bit of a push at this point to come over.
The member for Shefford, if I remember correctly, also talked about exceptional circumstances. She said she thinks that under certain exceptional circumstances, mandatory minimums might be appropriate, but under other circumstances, more regular circumstances perhaps, they would not be. I would suggest it is very clear, based on what we have seen in our own data as to what has happened over the past few decades, that mandatory minimums do not work and that it is time we actually start to develop strategies that help to rehabilitate individuals so that they can indeed become productive members of society again. At the end of the day, that is what we want. That is what we should want.
I get a kick out of it. The Conservatives are clapping right now in a very facetious manner, as if to suggest that should not be our overall objective and goal, and I think it should be. We have a role. We call it “corrections” because we are looking to help people get better and to change their lives so that they can become productive and contributing members of society once again. Unfortunately, time after time, we see Conservatives go down the exact same road with respect to their approach on this. I certainly disagree with them, and I most certainly will be voting in favour of this bill.
344 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 5:05:41 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not know the details of that case, so I do not think it would be appropriate for me to speculate on it. I will say that I have faith in our justice system. I have faith that individuals will be tried properly, including by, I am sure, very fine prosecutors, such as the member used to be, and perhaps he would like to go back to that profession, I do not know. Maybe there is a good Liberal in his riding who would like to replace him. I say that in a joking way. I have a lot of respect for the member.
I think we need to put faith in the institutions. I have no problem when individuals get up to say that they are not happy with an outcome, but we heard the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, earlier today, get up to say that they respect judges, but judges do not always get it right. Well, one should also, as I am sure this member, as a former prosecutor, would agree, respect the decision. If one respects the institution, one respects the decision.
192 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 5:08:33 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, on why Liberals are not accepting amendments, one would have to talk to the Liberals who are on that committee. Again, I do not have all the details, so I am unable to provide an answer to that, but I will say, to the member's first point, I realize that today the Bloc has come on board, but that was not the case a week ago. That was not the case two weeks ago. As a matter of fact, this morning, the member for Shefford said that this might not be the right time to look at mandatory minimums, given the recent crime rate. She said that.
It is very clear to me that the Bloc is just recently kind of on board with this. For the member to suggest that it is all in and it always has been, I think it is a massive stretch.
I will say, on the last point that she made about investing money, I agree completely. It costs money, and we have to invest in the right things. I would suggest that, instead of investing in more prison guards, which, by the way, would be great for my riding, what we should be investing in are the tools and resources and programs to help rehabilitate people. At the end of the day, that is what is much better for society.
230 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 5:10:37 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, that is because we cannot do it on our own. It involves getting the provinces involved too. They are the ones responsible for administering our health care system. That is why we were able to do it with British Columbia because British Columbia came to the table suggesting that we sit down to talk about how we can do this. Collectively, we were able to put together the framework.
What the member is suggesting is that, through a private member's bill, we should have just ripped off the band-aid for the entire country and exposed the entire country, without making sure that the provinces were in place to help with this along the way and to participate in their way throughout this process. I know this member knows that. That is why doing this, working with provinces, as we have seen in British Columbia, is the right and responsible way to do it.
I have no doubt that the federal government will look to other jurisdictions and the other provinces to see if there are more opportunities to continue to do the same.
187 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 5:12:00 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, what we have here is an opportunity to remove the mandatory minimums that have been set out in the bill because we see a greater good in helping rehabilitate individuals so they can become productive members of society again.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Mr. Speaker, I am continually being heckled by the other side, but what is really at the core of this is that Conservative desire to play off emotions, hype things up and manufacture outrage.
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 5:13:29 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, if that was the case then I certainly would. From my recollection of the events at that time, the Conservatives were very reluctant to suggest that they wanted to move forward with any of the recommendations.
I have no problem. If the member is correct, then I send my deepest apologies to the Conservatives whom I offended in making that comment.
63 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 5:15:16 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, it sounds like I voted in favour of it in the last Parliament, so it must have been a great bill. I congratulate the member.
27 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
