SoVote

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

Mr. Rhéal Fortin

Jun/14/22 11:36:45 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, my colleague may be right. That said, I do not want to repeat what I already said about the advantages of diversion and conditional sentences, but, once again, I think the bill is poorly timed. Members know that Parliament has existed since Canada was founded. If we look back to a time well before that, before Christ, the Greeks were practising democracy and were likely doing a better job of it than us. I think that parliaments legislate based on specific problems that are of concern to the population. Right now, we are hearing talk about gun crime and guns being recklessly discharged in our streets. I do not see how repealing minimum sentences for gun crime responds to the population's concerns. That is our problem with the government. It is not listening to what the population is saying.

142 words

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

Jun/14/22 11:37:46 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to hear that the member for Rivière-du-Nord has changed his position on Bill C-5 since he did vote against the bill at committee. I want to ask him about another vote at committee. He voted against my amendment that would add a provision to Bill C-5 to remove criminal records for personal possession for about 250,000 Canadians. Does the Bloc still oppose removing criminal records for personal possession of drugs?

83 words

All Topics

Mr. Rhéal Fortin

Jun/14/22 11:38:14 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, that is a whole other question. I voted against it because it had nothing to do with Bill C-5. I do think the issue of criminal records should be discussed. It is very interesting and important. However, to circle back to the amendments to Bill C‑5, members will know that we proposed maintaining minimum sentences for these crimes, but adding a new provision to allow the courts to override them in exceptional circumstances. That recommendation came from an expert witness. It was discussed and, although I would not go so far as to say that everyone agreed, it was welcomed by government officials. Unfortunately, when we brought these amendments forward, the government members on the committee voted them down, which was very disappointing. My NDP colleague also voted against them. Again, I think the issue here is not criminal records, but shootings.

148 words

All Topics

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Jun/14/22 11:39:14 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, as I rise today to speak at third reading of Bill C-5, my mind is once again filled with questions and confusion. As critic for status of women and gender equality, I have observed an uptick in the number of femicides and incidents involving gender-based violence. Like my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord, whom I commend for his speech and for sharing his time with me, I wonder about the odd message the government is sending with this bill. I will therefore address the delicate question of mandatory minimum penalties by starting with my experience in the community sector. Next, I will address the bill's shortcomings. I will end with a few suggestions for countering violence and sending a strong message to end the acrimony currently surrounding the bill and, in particular, the disinformation we have been hearing, as my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot mentioned. I have a background in community work, more specifically with an alternative justice and mediation organization. I sincerely believe in restorative justice. I am entirely in agreement with the Bloc's traditional position, which mirrors Quebec's position on mandatory minimum penalties. When it comes to justice, the Bloc Québécois advocates for an approach that promotes rehabilitation and crime reduction. We believe that mandatory minimum penalties, or MMPs, have few benefits, that they do not deter crime and that they introduce many problems, including the overrepresentation of indigenous and Black communities in prisons, as well as additional costs to the system. The Bloc Québécois is therefore more favourable to the principle of repealing certain MMPs. However, the Bloc also believes in timing, since life is all about timing. Now is not the right time to repeal MMPs for firearms offences, seeing as a number of cities in Quebec and Canada are plagued by a rash of gun violence, mainly because of the Liberal government's inaction when it comes to border controls. Many women's groups are particularly concerned about this and would like to see better gun control measures to help reduce the number of femicides. Repealing MMPs without doing anything to stop the illegal flow of firearms across the border sends a mixed message. Conversely, Bill C-21 would strengthen certain maximum penalties, but we must be careful not to mix up these two bills. Although we believe that repealing MMPs for firearms possession is defensible, the proposed repeal of MMPs for certain gun crimes, including discharging a firearm with intent and armed robbery or extortion, appears to contradict the government's claim that it will maintain MMPs for certain categories of serious crime. We need to monitor this aspect of the bill closely, as well as the possibility of maintaining MMPs for second or third offences. As the Bloc Québécois suggested, the courts could be given the power to depart from the MMPs in cases of serious crime where justified by exceptional circumstances. I would like to clarify that the Bloc Québécois expressed support for the introduction of the principle of diversion for simple drug possession during the last election campaign and the debates on Bill C-236. Let me remind my colleagues that some of the MMPs that are to be repealed involve drug production, at a time when the opioid crisis is claiming more and more lives in Quebec and Canada. During the last election campaign, I was approached about this topic by community groups that work with the homeless and whose street outreach workers are doing an excellent job, like those in Granby. However, the Bloc Québécois would like to point out that such a measure will be effective only if investments are made in health care, to support health care systems and community organizations. These institutions need resources so they can help people struggling with addiction and mental health issues, another subject that voters broached with me during the last election campaign. The Bloc Québécois would like to note that we have still not gotten a response from the Liberal government on the issue of increasing health care funding to cover 35% of system costs, despite unanimous calls from Quebec and the provinces. Obviously, without that level of investment, it is hard for community organizations to meet the growing needs created by increased homelessness in municipalities like Granby. The pandemic only exacerbated the problem. Also, as critic for status of women, I see that homeless women are especially vulnerable. Once again, the Bloc Québécois speaks for Quebec, where diversion is a well-recognized principle that has been integrated into several areas of the justice system. For example, in children's law, extrajudicial alternatives have been offered to young offenders since the 1970s thanks to Claude Castonguay's reform of the Youth Protection Act. There is also the alternative measures program for adults in indigenous communities, which allows individuals to opt for measures other than judicial proceedings. There is the justice and mental health support program, which allows individuals who have committed a crime and are fit to stand trial to obtain a reduced sentence or, in some cases, benefit from diversion. There is also the general alternative measures program for adults, which is currently being implemented and which gives adults accused of certain crimes the opportunity to take responsibility for their actions and resolve their conflict with the law in ways other than the usual judicial proceedings provided for in the Criminal Code. For all of these reasons, I would like to salute the organization Justice alternative et médiation, for which I used to work. I would like to apologize for missing the general meeting, but I know that the organization's work on all the issues I mentioned is crucial. Lastly, with regard to drugs, there is the Court of Quebec's addiction treatment program, which makes it possible to postpone sentencing to allow the offender to undergo court-supervised treatment for addiction. It also provides for close collaboration between the court and drug addiction resources to establish treatment methods, including therapy, rehabilitation and social integration. Unfortunately, this program is offered only in Montreal and Puvirnituq. It would be good if it could be expanded. In short, as the previous examples show, the principle of diversion is not new in Quebec's judicial ecosystem. Quebec's Bill 32 was studied and also involved diversion. The CAQ government concentrated on securing the passage of this bill, which aims to promote the efficiency of penal justice. The bill introduced the concept of an adaptation program, which will give municipalities another option for administering statements of offence to vulnerable individuals, such as those experiencing homelessness or mental health or addiction issues. As critic for status of women, I am always rather appalled to observe the overrepresentation of indigenous individuals in prisons and to note that the problem is more pronounced among women than men. Some 38% of women incarcerated in provincial and territorial prisons after sentencing are indigenous, while the corresponding rate of incarceration among men identifying as indigenous is 26%, so this affects far more women than men. In federal prisons, indigenous women account for 31% of offenders sentenced to prison, while indigenous men account for only 2%. These are huge numbers. Given these figures, could MMPs be contributing to increasing the overrepresentation of Black and indigenous people in the prison system? Certain signs point to yes. Diversion is also beneficial for individuals. It reduces the stigma associated with drug use, as well as the negative consequences of a criminal record, which are disproportionate to the crime of simple possession. One last thing I should mention is that MMPs are expensive, because they generate long-term correctional service costs and court costs. MMPs have a major social cost because the money invested in putting people in prison is not devoted to social reintegration. In conclusion, because of my background in community work, I am sensitive to many considerations associated with this bill. One thing is certain: It should not relieve us of our responsibility as members of Parliament, especially since gun crime is an important issue, given recent events where many innocent victims were killed by guns. Although we agree with the repeal of MMPs, we should not minimize gun crime or the importance of making the public feel safe and considering better gun control measures. That will be debated in another bill. Let us focus on the bill at hand. I can say one thing. On the one side, we have the NDP saying that this bill does not go far enough. On the other, we have the Conservatives clinging to their “tough on crime” approach. Is that the way to go? I do not know. Then there are the Liberals, who, as I mentioned, are playing both sides of the fence, especially in the case of crimes against women. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action 32 sought to allow judges to depart from MMPs under certain circumstances, by which I mean serious crimes against women. The idea is to allow judges to decide whether getting rid of the MMP is a good idea. This is meant to send a strong message, especially in the case of serious crimes against women. The Liberals managed to do this in response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's recommendation. Once again, this bill reflects the Liberals' penchant for catch-all bills. Minimum penalties, maximum penalties, diversion: Everything is lumped together. In short, once again, the Bloc Québécois is acting like the adult in the room, trying to adopt the most well-reasoned and reasonable approach.

1635 words

All Topics

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

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

Ms. Andréanne Larouche

Jun/14/22 11:50:22 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for giving me a chance to reiterate our position, although our position has been clear. On the one hand, this bill deals with diversion for certain drug offences. This is essential, because it is a public health issue. We need to get this done. This approach has had very a positive impact in Portugal, for example. For this to work, however, the government needs to invest in health care. On the other hand, on the issue of mandatory minimum penalties, or MMPs, of course we are in favour of some form of rehabilitation. However, the context of this bill is indeed strange, and it makes one wonder whether MMPs should not be maintained for certain serious crimes. In response to the recommendations from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, it was actually the Liberals who granted judges an exemption to allow them to exercise discretion, which includes determining that this might not be the best idea, especially in the case of certain serious crimes, such as discharging a firearm and crimes against women, including indigenous women.

182 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Jun/14/22 11:51:34 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I would also like some clarification as to the Bloc Québécois's position on mandatory minimum penalties. It is a little confusing because, on the whole, Quebeckers agree that they do not work and provide a false sense of security. The Barreau du Québec is against mandatory minimum penalties. Studies show that they do not work. Now the Bloc Québécois is telling us it is against mandatory minimum penalties, but not all of them and not at this time. If they do not work, why keep them?

106 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche

Jun/14/22 11:52:11 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I repeat that studies show that mandatory minimum penalties do not work in every case. My colleague is correct. However, in the case of certain serious crimes, such as discharging a firearm and crimes against women, it might be better if we allowed judges to depart from MMPs, like we did in response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call to action, so that they can take into account any exceptional circumstances surrounding a crime and determine whether it does indeed call for the minimum penalty. As I said earlier, this only applies in some cases, and the Bloc Québécois has based its position on what was proposed in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call to action.

125 words

Mr. Alain Rayes (Richmond—Arthabaska, CPC)

Jun/14/22 11:52:54 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very enlightening speech on the Bloc Québécois's position. The Bloc seems to have a number of concerns but is nevertheless planning to vote in favour of this deeply flawed bill. I have a simple question for my colleague. This bill recognizes judges' ability to render judgements, but now they are saying they want to get rid of minimum penalties for serious crimes like the ones my colleague mentioned, while at the same time saying there should be maximum penalties in certain situations. How can they say we need maximum penalties because there has to be a limit, but we do not need minimum penalties for serious crimes whose perpetrators need to be in custody?

127 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 88