SoVote

Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC)

Jun/14/22 10:20:42 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the next petition is from Canadians from across the country who are concerned about the changes to the law around conversion therapy. They are calling on the government to define the definition in a way that does not ban talk therapy. They are calling on the government to ensure that parents and clergy are able to have discussions with children around their sexuality. They call on the government to ban coercive integrating practices that are intended to change a person's sexual orientation or identity, but to amend the current law so that conversion therapy does not ban discussions that happen between parents and their children.

108 words

Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC)

Jun/14/22 10:20:42 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the next petition is from folks living in Fox Creek and Swan Hills. These are two towns located in northern Alberta. The petitioners say that the rising costs of heating and fuel make life more expensive, particularly for those living in the north. They also have to travel great distances to get groceries and go to shopping centres. They are calling on the government to move the arbitrary line that runs across Alberta and prevents Fox Creek and Swan Hills residents from accessing the northern living allowance. They call on the government to include Fox Creek and Swan Hills as communities within the prescribed intermediate zone, allowing these people to receive the northern residents deduction for living in northern Alberta.

122 words

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Jun/14/22 10:20:47 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to stand in this place to present a petition signed by more than 100 Canadians who are very concerned about the possible application of a values test or a values-test-like rule when it comes to charitable status in Canada. Therefore, the citizens and residents of Canada call upon the House of Commons to: one, protect and preserve the application of charitable status rules on a politically and ideologically neutral basis without discrimination on the basis of political or religious values and without the imposition of another “values test” and, two, to affirm the right of Canadians to freedom of expression. It is an honour to stand and present this petition in the House of Commons today.

128 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Jun/14/22 10:21:50 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

12 words

Stand
Ask

The Speaker

Jun/14/22 10:21:55 a.m.
Watch

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

Hon. Carolyn Bennett

Jun/14/22 10:22:13 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

moved that Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, be read the third time and passed.

26 words

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)

Jun/14/22 10:22:33 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see you back in your seat. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill C-5, An act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which proposes to consider alternatives to incarceration in appropriate cases while reducing recidivism and keeping society safe. I want to acknowledge that I am speaking on the traditional unceded lands of the Algonquin people. Bill C-5 is an important step forward in addressing systemic racism and discrimination. It puts forth an approach that promotes fairer sentencing outcomes for everyone, notably indigenous peoples, Black persons and members of marginalized communities who are disproportionately and negatively impacted by inflexible sentencing laws. These changes would continue to denounce and hold offenders accountable.

126 words

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree

Jun/14/22 10:24:22 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

The bill advances three broad categories of reforms. I will speak on the specifics later on. I want to speak today about what it means to be incarcerated. I know that the Conservative approach to crime is about locking people up and throwing away the key. The reality is that many jurisdictions where this was tried have realized its innate failures. I want to note that Newt Gingrich, one of the early proponents of mandatory minimum penalties, has now recanted and suggested that mandatory minimum penalties do not work. All across the United States, this realization is coming into the public discourse. Incarceration is not the answer to all people. There is a need for us to use incarceration only for crimes that are of a serious nature and that pose risks to individuals. We need to provide off-ramps. Systemic racism in the criminal justice system is real. While we may think that our justice system is blind, the outcomes tells us a different story. Indigenous and Black Canadians who go to prison are treated differently; that is, they are mistreated. Their lives are devalued. I would invite anyone who still doubts that to look at the latest Auditor General's report on our correctional system. I want to give members some snippets of her findings. For example, indigenous and Black offenders faced greater barriers to safe and gradual reintegration into society than other incarcerated groups. The process of assigning security classifications, including the use of the Custody Rating Scale, and frequent overrides of the scale by corrections staff, result in disproportionately higher numbers of indigenous and Black offenders being placed in maximum security institutions. I quote: We noted Indigenous representation gaps among correctional officers across institutions, Black representation gaps among program and parole officers at institutions with a high number of Black offenders, and gender representation gaps among correctional officers at women’s institutions. Indigenous and Black offenders, for example, were placed at a higher security level on admission into custody at twice the average rate of other offenders. Indigenous and Black men were placed at maximum security institutions at twice the rate of other offenders and made up 51% of maximum security placements. The report added: We also found that Indigenous women were placed at maximum security at more than 3 times the rate of non‑Indigenous women and made up almost 70% of maximum-security placements. Corrections staff can override classifications, which means that once a classification is completed, corrections staff have the discretion, at times, to override them. In this case, corrections staff overrode up to 53% of minimum security placements, compared with 27% for non-indigenous women. Indigenous women were classified upwards by 53%, while the average was 27% for non-indigenous women. For indigenous men, correctional staff overrode up to 46% of minimum security placements to higher levels compared with 33% for non-indigenous offenders. The report said: ...more Indigenous offenders remained in custody until their statutory release and were released directly into the community from higher levels of security. This essentially means that once somebody is classified, the higher the security classification, the harder it is for them to get the programs of support necessary for them to reintegrate into society. It also means that they serve a longer period of their sentence in custody, while those who were maybe classified at the lower levels are able to spend less time in custody and more time in bridging programs that will allow them to integrate within the community. This essentially leads to higher levels of recidivism. For me the most profound thing about the Auditor General's report is that, for the first time, it has quantified systemic racism within our criminal justice system. As we look at reducing mandatory minimum penalties, a very important takeaway is for us to reflect on what that means. We know the offences that are the subject of Bill C-5, for which we are repealing many of the mandatory minimum penalties, directly have an impact on indigenous and Black offenders. It is so critical that we keep that in mind as we look at this bill. I do want to talk about my personal experience working with young people in the criminal justice system. I used to run an organization called the Canadian Tamil Youth Development Centre back in the late 1990s, early 2000s, before going to law school. I dealt with a number of young people who were involved in the criminal justice system as young offenders and even young adult offenders. I was able to work with them for many years. I still continue to call many of those people my friends because of the relationships we built during that time. Some of these young people were involved in violence. Some of them were involved in petty theft or other mishaps within the community. What I realized during that time was that they needed support. It is very easy for us, as a society, to incarcerate someone. It is the easiest thing we can do. The harder thing for us to do is to support young people as they redeem themselves as they come out and reintegrate into society. One of the things I realized is that the more support that we were able to give young people, the more off-ramps we provide to those who may engage, for the first time or second time, in the criminal justice system, the better off society is in the long term. I have consistently seen, in a number of cases, these young people who have come out of the system, and they are now very active and contributing members of our society. That is not always the case, but based on the vast majority of the people I have worked with, that continues to be what I have seen. During the deliberations at committee, we heard from a number of important stakeholders. I want to highlight the testimony of Raphael Tachie, who is the president of the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers and who obviously supports the repeal of many of the mandatory minimum penalties that are here. He spoke about what his lived experience was as a young Black man growing up in British Columbia. He talked about the first time he was at a theatre and there was some commotion going on outside of the movie theatre. He was there on a date. He found himself, with many other young Black men, surrounded by police and essentially questioned. Luckily for him, he had a great support system that allowed him to really defend himself because he did nothing wrong. However, the reality for many is that over-policing oftentimes leads to over-arresting and subsequent convictions because, once one is within the cycle of the criminal justice system, it often just perpetuates. The safeguards are limited. When Mr. Tachie spoke, his words resonated with me and my personal life, considering the number of times, as someone who is racialized and who grew up in Scarborough, I have been stopped by the police. I continue to be stopped, and this is not something that unique to me. It is the same for many people who may have grown up in my community. They get randomly stopped and questioned. This happens to me even as an MP. It did not stop when I became an MP, a parliamentary secretary or the candidate for the Liberal Party. It continued. Especially for young people, this means that oftentimes they are without the right supports, without the right legal advocacy and without parents who are able to support them, perhaps because they have multiple jobs or have jobs where they cannot take time off. It really does put young people at an enormous disadvantage. I often reflect on what Mr. Tachie spoke about and on what my life might be like today if, during one of those half a dozen or dozen times when I had been pulled over or subjected to this type of inquiry, I had given the wrong answer or had been with the wrong people. This is the story for so many people, not only within my community of Scarborough—Rouge Park, but also in many other parts across Canada. It is so profound. The incident that occurred with George Floyd two years ago really tells a story of the disparity we see in the U.S., but it is not unique. We know there have been a number of times in Canada where indigenous men and women have oftentimes been arbitrarily arrested or arbitrarily beaten up. We have seen where discrimination does not really stop, even with chiefs and people who have a national or local profile, because of who they are, and we see that particularly with young Black men. In 2019, just before or around the election, I remember the current Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada came to my riding on his way to the GTA, and we were able to meet with a whole bunch of stakeholders, most of whom work with youth in our communities. The overwhelming message was that we need to ensure that mandatory minimum penalties are addressed. They have disadvantaged many indigenous and Black Canadians. It is a system that does not work. They are failed policies of the past and something we need to address. Louis March, who many members may know is the leader of the Zero Gun Violence Movement, was one of the people there. His entire life has been devoted to fighting gun violence. He profoundly stated that the system of mandatory minimum penalties does not work and asked that our government address it, so here we are. First, we are here to repeal all MMPs for drug offences, tobacco-related offences and 13 firearm-related offences. I know that when we say we want to reduce the mandatory minimum penalties for firearms there are many in the House who may legitimately ask why we are reducing the penalties when the use of firearms is on the rise. It is a question that is very pertinent here because Bill C-21, which was introduced by the Minister of Public Safety, addresses that issue as it would increase the maximum penalty for gun-related offences from 10 to 14 years. We are saying there is a need for judicial discretion. That is what that bill would do, it would ensure judicial discretion. It would give discretion to the judge to look at the individual and the circumstances of the case and increase the penalty up to 14 years. I think that is a very important point that is sometimes missed in this debate. Second, it would remove certain restrictions that would prevent a sentencing court from considering the imposition of conditional sentencing orders. That is a very important issue. It is important to note that our criminal justice system is an unfair system, and I have outlined the issues of systemic racism, particularly as they relate to indigenous and Black Canadians, which not only results in over-incarceration, but also unfairly misclassifies people. What conditional sentencing orders do is allow the judge to impose conditional sentences, which may be out of custody, on individuals who do not pose a risk to society. This is a very important point again. Oftentimes it is not about giving every offender a conditional sentence. It is about smart policy that says, when we put someone in institutions, we criminalize them even further. We do not give them the right supports. We take them away from their families, and we take them away from the addiction treatment they may need. We also take them away from their responsibilities of going to work, doing work in the community, being a member of their church or being part of the local community, which would give them the support they need to get out of the criminal justice system. It is a very smart policy. Oftentimes it is mischaracterized, but this would not be available to everyone. It would be available to those who are deemed to not pose a risk to society. If we look at the numbers over the years, prior to many of these mandatory minimum penalties coming in, there were over 11,000 conditional sentencing orders in Canada. That number is now down to about 6,000. I know many colleagues who are very progressive would also say that this bill does not go far enough. I would tell them that this is an important bill because it would allow conditional sentencing orders to be expanded in a very smart way, which would allow judges the judicial discretion to place individuals who do not pose a risk and allow them to pay their debt to society while allowing them to continue their lives at the same time. This is about 5,000 Canadians, as per the statistics we have seen. The final part of this is that we are looking to encourage alternate approaches at an early stage for responding to persons in possession of illicit drugs. I know the Minister of Mental Health recently supported the call from British Columbia and allowed British Columbia to take more control over issues around drugs. We know that the right supports are essential to ensuring that addictions and mental health are supported. This bill allows that. Unfortunately, I do not have sufficient time to complete my speech. I do want to emphasize that this is smart public policy. This is smart criminal justice policy. I look forward to the support of all members here.

2272 words

All Topics

Mr. Frank Caputo (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC)

Jun/14/22 10:42:34 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. Members would think that the hon. parliamentary secretary was speaking to the private member's bill just tabled by my colleague, the member for Kelowna—Lake Country, because he focused so many of his comments on the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. As somebody who worked in corrections, I can say that there needs to be reform, but why are we not doing the reforms there? I want to focus on one of the sections. I believe it is proposed section 244.2, which essentially deals with drive-by shootings. There have been a number of incidents of gun violence. I would like this hon. parliamentary secretary to look into the camera and say “I am comfortable with people who commit drive-by shootings have a community-based sentence because...” Right now, they will not be going to jail.

162 words

All Topics

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree

Jun/14/22 10:43:30 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, this is the type of outrageous manufactured stories that we get from the Conservatives. This bill on conditional sentence orders does not— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

30 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/14/22 10:43:48 a.m.
Watch

Order. First of all, the hon. member had an opportunity to ask a question. I am sure he wants to hear the answer. For anyone else who is thinking out loud, I would ask them to hold off until it is time for questions and comments and to be recognized at that time when they can certainly participate in the discussion. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

65 words

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree

Jun/14/22 10:44:05 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I want to be clear here. A conditional sentencing order is one tool that judges have at their discretion to ensure that public safety is protected. One of the prevailing issues is that the individual who gets a CSO does not pose a risk to society. We could come up with the worst criminal offenders, the worst types of crimes, and we could manufacture all of these scenarios, but those offenders would not get conditional sentencing orders. Let us be clear on that. This is about smart public policy, criminal law reform that is important that would address the issues of systemic racism.

105 words

All Topics

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

Jun/14/22 10:44:58 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I think my colleague got some things mixed up in his speech. I believe that we must work to stop profiling by police. However, I do not think that eliminating mandatory minimums with Bill C‑5 for people who discharge a firearm with intent will help eliminate racial profiling. I think that this sends a mixed message in Quebec, which is seeing a surge in gun crimes. Could my colleague explain how removing mandatory minimums on people who discharge a firearm can help eliminate racial profiling?

90 words

All Topics

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree

Jun/14/22 10:45:48 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I have spoken extensively on systemic racism within the criminal justice system and why it is important to ensure that those who do not pose a risk do not end up in jail. With respect to gun violence, it is a very important and real issue. My community of Scarborough—Rouge Park has dealt with this. I dealt with this when I ran a youth organization. I have buried my share of young people disproportionately in my community and it is an awfully painful process. It is one that I am still traumatized by. What is important is that Bill C-21 addresses the issues that my friend opposite is talking about. It increases penalties for those firearm offences. It gives discretion to the judge to impose a sentence of up to 14 years, which is higher than we have right now. What we are impressing in Bill C-5 is to make sure that those who do not pose a risk and maybe are first-time offenders are given an opportunity to get out of the criminal justice process and continue their lives.

187 words

All Topics

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP)

Jun/14/22 10:47:07 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for the good work that we managed to do together at committee to improve the bill. We have just seen a couple of examples from the Conservatives and the Bloc of the attempt to somehow say that Bill C-5 threatens public safety. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could talk about the actual evidence we heard at committee on the impact of mandatory minimum sentences and how their impact, if anything, actually improves public safety by eliminating them.

88 words

All Topics

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree

Jun/14/22 10:47:37 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend opposite for his very important work in improving the bill at every stage. I agree with him. This is smart criminal justice policy reform. It is important to recognize that not everyone needs to go to jail. There is a need to have off-ramps that will support individuals who do not pose a risk to continue to be in their community, continue to be integrated as part of the community. If they pose any risk, the judge will have the discretion to put them in jail. That is precisely what the bill does.

103 words

All Topics

Ms. Julie Dabrusin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.)

Jun/14/22 10:48:28 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, in my colleague's speech, he talked about the impact that he sees in his own community and how this would support people within his own community. I was wondering if he would share with us how the bill would have a direct impact on young people who are Black or indigenous in a city like Toronto to make sure they are able to get the full breadth of judicial discretion and the importance of judicial discretion when we are approaching this issue.

85 words

All Topics

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree

Jun/14/22 10:48:59 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, Scarborough is one of the most diverse areas in Canada. I represent a riding that is highly racialized, particularly a very large percentage of Canada's Black community is in Scarborough. Every time I go door to door, I hear stories from mothers, from siblings, from young men who continue to complain about over-policing which in turn has led to over-incarceration. My community is a stellar community in every respect save and except for the trauma that they face with the criminal justice system. I believe that Bill C-5 is a very important starting point in addressing the over-incarceration of Black and indigenous people, but this is not the only answer. As a government, we are working on a Black and indigenous justice strategy. We look forward to bringing that to Parliament.

138 words

All Topics

Ms. Raquel Dancho (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC)

Jun/14/22 10:50:13 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is probably very sincere in his remarks. However, I do have a legitimate concern regarding Bill C-5 with sexual violence against women. In Bill C-5, the conditional sentencing of house arrest would now be an option for sexual assault. The member and the Liberal Party continue to refer to vulnerable communities. They mention Black and indigenous communities repeatedly. My concern is that someone would be sexually assaulted and the individual responsible for that heinous crime would be able to serve house arrest in the community or maybe even next door to the victim whom the individual sexually assaulted. I am very concerned about that and would like to hear the member's thoughts on this serious issue with Bill C-5.

128 words

All Topics

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree

Jun/14/22 10:50:53 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, again, I come back to the same answer. We can come up with a whole bunch of scenarios where, in fact, conditional sentencing orders may not be appropriate. What is important is that we give judicial discretion that allows a judge to look at the facts of the case to weigh the risk that an individual would pose to society and, when there is no risk, a conditional sentencing order may be appropriate. That is exactly what is happening here. I do want to highlight for my friend opposite the over-incarceration of indigenous women. In terms of penitentiaries for women, over 50% of the people in penitentiaries for women are indigenous women. What does my friend have to say about that?

124 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 88