SoVote

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/14/22 11:15:00 a.m.
Watch

I want to remind the member for Battle River—Crowfoot that I did not ask him for questions and comments. I did not recognize him, and if he has questions and comments then he should get up and try to be recognized at that time. For anyone who is yelling “time”, I would just say I do have a clock in front of me and it is to my discretion. The hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul.

81 words

Ms. Raquel Dancho

Jun/14/22 11:15:26 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I can tell that the member opposite is quite fired up about my speech, and that is good. He should be. He should be angry about his government bringing forward a bill that would allow house arrest for those who rape other people. Sexual assault now could have house arrest. The member puts a lot of trust in judges. I respect our judges as well, but I do not always agree with them. For example, the Supreme Court recently said that if a person was intoxicated, that could be a defence for rape. Judges do not always get it right, and the member opposite should remember that.

109 words

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

Jun/14/22 11:16:05 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I take particular exception to the remarks by the previous member that completely distort what is going on in Bill C-5. They distort not only what is going on in Bill C-5, but the position of police in Canada on the bill. Both the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the National Police Federation, which represents RCMP officers, appeared in committee and supported this bill. What is going on here by Conservatives is an attempt to distort the actual impacts of the bill and create some crisis in public safety when, in fact, the bill would do exactly the opposite.

105 words

Ms. Raquel Dancho

Jun/14/22 11:16:40 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I am shocked that the member opposite would suggest that there is not a crisis in public safety, following years and years of soft-on-crime Liberal policies. I talked extensively about that. I guess we will have to see. We will have to see what happens to the crime statistics after Bill C-5 comes in. I hope I am wrong. I hope there are not rapists serving house arrests next to the individuals they raped. Based on the powers of this bill to give discretion to judges, I am deeply concerned that individuals who brandish firearms and shoot them at people in their communities now would not have to go to prison for it. I will not apologize for standing up for vulnerable communities and the risk to them, first and foremost, that this bill would present.

141 words

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

Jun/14/22 11:17:24 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, we have heard a lot about Portugal's successful experience with diversion programs. We have not heard much about what happened in Switzerland. The Swiss tried a tough-on-drugs approach in the 1990s and it was a disaster. AIDS cases skyrocketed and drug houses appeared everywhere, among other issues. They implemented four measures that made all the difference: prevention, treatment, harm reduction and law enforcement. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on these successful approaches to diversion.

83 words

Ms. Raquel Dancho

Jun/14/22 11:18:14 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, again I will reiterate that those suffering from drug addiction need that to be treated as a public health issue. That is why, in the last election, we ran on a policy to build more treatment beds for individuals who are suffering. Those who suffer from drug addiction should not be going to jail. They should be going into treatment. Unfortunately, we do not have nearly enough treatment beds in this country to help the thousands of Canadians who are addicted to dangerous and deadly drugs. I will stand by our position on eliminating mandatory prison time for drug pushers and drug smugglers. Those individuals are responsible for killing thousands of Canadians and should absolutely be behind bars.

120 words

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC)

Jun/14/22 11:18:51 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, earlier today, we heard one of the Liberal members talk about the high rate of reoffending. I fail to see how Bill C-5, if it lets people out of jail early, is going to do anything to protect the public safety when people are reoffending, which is what the Liberals said.

54 words

Ms. Raquel Dancho

Jun/14/22 11:19:14 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I just got some information today that there were 378 repeat offenders recently arrested for committing other crimes, who were also charged with 853 counts of breaching firearms prohibition orders. Often in these communities, it is a small group of people who are consistently caught and released who are terrorizing these communities over and over again. These individuals are responsible for the deaths of people in vulnerable communities. They are responsible for firing firearms with the intent to injure individuals or robbing them at gun point, over and over again. The rap sheets of these criminals are getting longer and longer, yet they are allowed to continue walking the streets terrorizing vulnerable communities and Canadians at large. This is deeply concerning. It needs to end, but the only way that is going to happen is if we can get the Liberal government out of power.

147 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

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

Ms. Raquel Dancho

Jun/14/22 11:20:51 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I will ask the member opposite this: Does he believes the Supreme Court was correct in saying that intoxication for violent crime can be a defence for rape and homicide?

32 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Jun/14/22 11:21:05 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about crimes committed against women. That issue certainly was discussed at length at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. In the case of call to action 32, the Liberal government proposed allowing judges to depart from mandatory minimum sentences in some circumstances of crimes against indigenous women. In this case, it gave judges the choice to impose such sentences or not, depending on the circumstances. To send the right message in order to counter crimes against women, is this a solution the Conservative member might consider?

90 words

All Topics

Ms. Raquel Dancho

Jun/14/22 11:21:43 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for her question. We have worked together on committee and I thank her for her hard work. Winnipeg is the epicentre of murdered and missing indigenous women. It is an extremely serious issue that is wreaking havoc on Winnipeg's north end, in particular, and in our northern reserve communities. It is very serious. I know this issue very well, having worked for the provincial government at the time. We can go back to Bill C-5. It allows house arrest for sexual assault and for kidnapping. It allows no prison time for firing a gun with the intent to injure, for robbery with a firearm and for extortion with a firearm. These are very serious offences faced most of all by the most vulnerable in our society. We see this time and again: There is story after story of indigenous women and girls suffering at the hands of criminals doing these exact crimes who will no longer have mandatory prison time as a result of the Liberals' Bill C-5. It is unacceptable.

181 words

All Topics

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Jun/14/22 11:22:49 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for bringing up the genocide of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls. I want to point to the national inquiry in which specific calls for justice called, in fact, for the end of mandatory minimum sentences because of the over-incarceration of indigenous women. This includes the 98% of women in prisons in Saskatchewan who are indigenous. They call for a complete end to mandatory minimum sentences. Does my colleague stand in solidarity with indigenous women, and will she support this call for justice?

94 words

All Topics

Ms. Raquel Dancho

Jun/14/22 11:23:34 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for her question and I applaud the work that she has done on this file. She is very knowledgeable. I would not claim to know as much as she does about this important issue. I deeply respect her. I would say that we will disagree on mandatory minimums, particularly when it comes to violence against indigenous women with firearms. There are firearms offences that are extraordinarily dangerous in this bill and the individuals who are terrorizing vulnerable communities, including indigenous women, may no longer face prison time. In fact, they may be serving house arrest in the communities of the women they terrorized. I could not in good conscience vote for a bill that would do that.

124 words

All Topics

Mr. Rhéal Fortin (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ)

Jun/14/22 11:24:17 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I would like to mention that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Shefford. Bill C‑5 is another bill containing a mix of good and bad measures, and it puts us in a position where we have to hold our noses and accept the measures we would otherwise oppose. The legislative summary reads as follows: “This enactment amends the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to, among other things, repeal certain mandatory minimum penalties, allow—

90 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/14/22 11:24:52 a.m.
Watch

Order. The hon. member said he would be sharing his time, but he needs to seek the unanimous consent of the House. Mr. Rhéal Fortin: Madam Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to share my time. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay. Agreed. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay. Seeing no opposition, I grant the request.

89 words

Mr. Rhéal Fortin

Jun/14/22 11:25:25 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I will start where I left off. The bill summary reads as follows: This enactment amends the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to, among other things, repeal certain mandatory minimum penalties, allow for a greater use of conditional sentences and establish diversion measures for simple drug possession offences. For the Bloc Québécois, which has consistently advocated for diversion, rehabilitation and giving judges the discretion to determine appropriate sentences, this looks like motherhood and apple pie at first glance. However, as is often the case in the House, that pie was made with rotten apples that no one wants to eat. I am very pleased with the diversion measures. Too many people who need health care more than anything are unnecessarily crowding our courthouses and prisons. As unfortunate as addictions are, they need to be treated, not punished. This flawed and harmful paradigm needs to be set aside. The same is true for conditional sentence orders. They are not a magic bullet, far from it. If they are used appropriately, and I have no reason to believe that our courts would be incapable of making sound decisions, they too will lead to better rehabilitation. Most of the minimum sentences slated for repeal should be, and I applaud this expression of confidence in our courts. Judges who preside over trials hear very detailed adjudicative fact evidence, so they are in a better position than anyone else to determine the appropriate sentence for any given situation. I have faith in them. That said, Bill C‑5 is overly broad. Quebec and Canada are experiencing a widespread gun crime crisis, but the government's only solution is to abolish minimum penalties for some of these offences. I will go through some of them. Section 244(1) of the Criminal Code states the following with respect to discharging a firearm with intent: Every person commits an offence who discharges a firearm at a person with intent to wound, maim or disfigure, to endanger the life of or to prevent the arrest or detention of any person — whether or not that person is the one at whom the firearm is discharged. That is pretty serious. The Criminal Code currently provides for a minimum penalty of five to seven years for these crimes if they are committed in association with or at the direction of a criminal organization. Armed robbery is liable to a minimum penalty of four years pursuant to section 344 of the Criminal Code. Subsection 346(1) of the Criminal Code defines extortion with a firearm as follows: Every one commits extortion who, without reasonable justification or excuse and with intent to obtain anything, by threats, accusations, menaces or violence induces or attempts to induce any person, whether or not he is the person threatened, accused or menaced or to whom violence is shown, to do anything or cause anything to be done. If a firearm is used in those offences, the minimum sentence is four years. There are others, including robbery with a firearm, discharging a firearm with intent to wound, maim or disfigure and extortion with a firearm, but for those three examples, the Criminal Code currently sets out minimum sentences. Are judges capable of applying the appropriate penalties for these offences? Honestly, I think so. I think our courts are quite capable of hearing the evidence and determining what is appropriate in these and other cases. However, at a time when gun violence is on the rise, especially in the Montreal area, but also elsewhere in Quebec and Canada, I think this sends the wrong message. That is certainly not what I would call wise use of the power to legislate. The government could have proposed diversion and rehabilitation measures, as well as the repeal of certain minimum sentences, with the exclusion of crimes as serious as those committed with firearms. It could have done that. At the start of the study of Bill C‑5, the Bloc Québécois asked that the bill be split in two so we could study diversion in one bill and then the minimum penalties issue in another bill. We could have passed one bill quickly and worked on the other, perhaps crafting it to reflect what Quebeckers and Canadians would want it to include. Unfortunately, the government is being obstinate, which I do not quite understand. In fact, I would say I do not understand it at all. It seems that we will unfortunately also have to accept the rotten apples if we want to have the remedies of diversion and conditional sentencing and the elimination of certain minimum mandatory sentences for very specific offences. It is very disappointing to see the democratic process being taken hostage, and one day it is going to backfire. In the meantime, let us hope that the government will become a little wiser. Whether the government is Liberal or Conservative, let us hope that it will happen, and that one day it will accept the opposition's arguments. Even when the opposition parties disagree and their position may seem unfounded, it is often well-founded and represents the opinion of a large part of the population. Let us hope that the government will one day accept the opposition's arguments and split this type of bill so we can discuss each provision objectively and effectively in the best interests of the people of Quebec and Canada. For now, given the circumstances, the Bloc Québécois will have to vote in favour of Bill C-5. We will support it because, once again, we believe that diversion is essential for the entire justice system. We need it. We will vote in favour of Bill C-5 because we believe that conditional sentences are judicious and essential to the proper functioning of our courts, to the proper functioning of the entire justice system and to the rehabilitation of many offenders. We will vote in favour of Bill C-5 because eliminating some of these minimum penalties is also essential to the justice system and to rehabilitation. While we will vote in favour of Bill C-5, we will be holding our noses over this denial of democracy that the government is perpetuating by refusing to remove from Bill C-5 the provisions that will undermine the fight against organized crime, the fight against the daily and rampant shootings on our streets.

1088 words

All Topics

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

Jun/14/22 11:33:53 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his stated support of Bill C-5. I realize and acknowledge the issues around gun violence. I want to point the member to Bill C-21, which is now before the House. It does, in fact, increase the penalties for firearm-related offences. This is the type of smart criminal justice policy that we are talking about. We are, in fact, increasing the level of penalties available to judges for those who commit a crime with firearms. At the same time, we are ensuring that increased judicial discretion happens at the lower end of the spectrum where there are other alternatives for those who may be first-time offenders and those who may not pose a risk. I want to thank my friend for the support, but I also want to reassure him that Bill C-21 will address many of the issues he has mentioned in his speech today.

159 words

Mr. Rhéal Fortin

Jun/14/22 11:35:01 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, if the topic were not so serious, this kind of argument would make me smirk. For weeks, or even months, the Minister of Justice has been trying to convince us that minimum sentences have no effect on the criminals who commit these offences. Now they want to convince us that increasing the maximum sentences will impress them. I do not think so. I think that what offenders do not want is to get caught. They do not want to go to prison, period. If a minimum sentence for the crime they are committing does not make them think twice, I do not think that a maximum sentence of 12, 14 or 20 years is going to change anything. That said, Bill C-21 primarily addresses the issue of legal guns by restricting certain provisions, but it does not in any way address illegal arms trafficking, which the government is being asked to contain.

157 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

Jun/14/22 11:36:11 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, personally, I know of very few criminals who are aware that mandatory minimums exist and I know of even fewer actual empirical studies that show any kind of connection between mandatory minimums and a decrease in crime. Unfortunately, there are still some people in the House who are advocating a demagogic, cavalier and repressive “get tough” approach, when what we really need is prevention and rehabilitation. My question for my colleague is this: Does getting tough on crime really have to be this tough?

88 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 88