SoVote

Jun/14/22 3:15:39 p.m.
Watch

I wish to draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of Her Excellency Elzbieta Witek, Marshal of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland, accompanied by a delegation including the Deputy Marshal of the Senate. Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

45 words

The Speaker

Jun/14/22 3:15:54 p.m.
Watch

I believe the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo has two minutes and 30 seconds left of further debate. The hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

30 words

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

Jun/14/22 3:16:26 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I have only two and a half minutes left for my speech on Bill C-5. The point I want to emphasize to the House is this: There is a middle ground. We have talked about what the government wishes to accomplish and we have considered how the government should go about accomplishing it. What I would propose and have proposed is to add a mechanism to this law that would allow mandatory minimums to remain in place but make an exception, by way of an exceptional circumstances provision, for somebody who represents a group that is overrepresented in the justice system or has had a life-changing event. This would enable the government to maintain mandatory minimum sentences, but in exceptional circumstances they would not apply. This would do exactly what my counterparts on the other side of the House have advocated. It would allow for judicial discretion where necessary, but would still communicate to the public that gun offences will be taken seriously and that things like robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm and reckless discharge, as in a drive-by shooting, would still result in a substantial sentence, absent very significant circumstances. Such a provision would be constitutional, and it is my belief that it would strike an appropriate middle ground. I wish the government had done the same in this circumstance; it did not, and I exhort the government to do so in the future.

243 words

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC)

Jun/14/22 3:18:58 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his excellent speech. His experience in the past has really made him knowledgeable on this issue. I am very concerned about this bill and the fact that drug traffickers and drug producers could end up with house arrest. I think this would exacerbate the drug addiction crisis that is happening in Canada. Does the member agree?

65 words

All Topics

Mr. Frank Caputo

Jun/14/22 3:19:24 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, we are experiencing an opioid epidemic, and at times I have seen the impacts of that first-hand. There should be serious consequences, particularly when it comes to the trafficking of certain opiates, like fentanyl. I believe we should be denouncing and deterring such behaviour with substantial jail sentences, and in my view a minimum sentence for trafficking in things like fentanyl would be appropriate.

67 words

All Topics

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Jun/14/22 3:20:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, in our region we have seen an unprecedented level of civil problems because of the opioid epidemic in downtown areas, particularly in communities like Timmins, North Bay and Sudbury, where people are afraid to go downtown. When we have community meetings, the police have been really clear in saying that they cannot police their way out of what has become a massive medical crisis. People's lives are falling through the cracks here. Would my hon. colleague agree with me that we need to take a medical treatment approach to the people who are on the streets and find a way to start to address this crisis that is not only killing people by the thousands but is making our streets increasingly unsafe?

125 words

Mr. Frank Caputo

Jun/14/22 3:20:50 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I know he cares a great deal about this issue and his constituents. When we look at penalties, they are just one part of a bigger puzzle. When we look at Bill C-5, we are asking what the appropriate penalty is. If the member were to consult our recent election platform from 2021, he would see that we have been advocating treating substance abuse disorder as the health problem it is.

81 words

Mr. John Barlow (Foothills, CPC)

Jun/14/22 3:21:31 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his intervention. I certainly have a lot of respect for his experience. From his experience as a prosecutor, what kind of message does he think it sends to criminals, as well as to the victims and their families, when we have bills like Bill C-21, which attacks law-abiding firearms owners, and Bill C-5, which would lessen mandatory sentencing? What kind of message is this sending to Canadians, to victims and their families, and also to criminals?

86 words

All Topics

Mr. Frank Caputo

Jun/14/22 3:22:01 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague brings up a great point. Section 718 of the Criminal Code deals with sentencing, and it talks about the principles of denunciation and deterrence. When we think about these things, we are asking, “What message are we sending to the public?” I would answer the question with a question: What message do we send when a reckless discharge of a firearm can result in a community-based sentence? In my view, the message that we are sending is that we are not serious enough on this issue. I am sure that everybody in the House has their heart ache when they hear about anybody being shot, particularly an innocent civilian, and I am worried about our messaging when we do not go hard on these very serious offences.

135 words

All Topics

Ms. Marilyn Gladu

Jun/14/22 3:23:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask another question, because I have a lot of concerns about Bill C-5 when it comes to victims of sexual assault. I have spent a great portion of my career here in Parliament defending the status of women in Canada, and to think that someone could be sexually assaulted and their attacker could actually get house arrest in the same community is very worrisome to me. Does the member have a comment on the perspective of the courts?

86 words

All Topics

Mr. Frank Caputo

Jun/14/22 3:23:40 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, this question allows me to raise a vital point. The sentence for robbery is a maximum of life in prison. Breaking and entering has a maximum sentence of life in prison. These are offences that we often see. Robbery is taking property by force from somebody. Sexual assault is taking a person's dignity by force, a person's sexual inviolability, yet sexual assault has a maximum of a 10-year sentence, while robbery has a maximum of life imprisonment. Why the discrepancy? Parliament needs to act on this.

91 words

All Topics

Mr. Ted Falk (Provencher, CPC)

Jun/14/22 3:24:24 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise in the House and to speak to legislation. I will start by making the point that I find the intent behind this bill, at least expressed by the Prime Minister, to be troubling. I will admit it is rare that I find merit in any legislation put forward by the Liberal government. However, in this case, as we get into the conversation about drugs, rather than exclusively treating simple drug possession as a criminal issue, we need to also recognize it as a health issue. There is some merit in that. That is where we are as a party, and I think that is where we are as a country, so that is the conversation we should be having. The problem is that, as usual, the Liberal government has taken a nugget of common sense and buried it so deeply into a larger piece of legislation that is so rife with contradictions and virtue signalling that, unfortunately, that semblance of a good idea gets lost. We saw this just last week when Conservatives asked the government to break Bill C-21, which I also look forward to speaking to, into two bills. We asked that the government do this because we agreed with parts of the bill as they appeared to have merit and we thought they were a good idea. It is always a good idea to protect women and children and that is something everyone in this House can get behind. We asked, in good faith, if the government would be willing to split the bill so we could vote in favour of the good part that we agreed on and expedite the passage of that bill, while continuing to debate the ideas that we did not agree with. The government refused. It is the all-or-nothing approach that the Liberals keep taking that is behind their inability to present coherent legislation that we can all agree on. We have a Prime Minister who is so convinced that he knows better than anyone else, better than this House and better than Canadians, that he takes these big legislative swings and misses. Because he did not bring this House along with him, he did not bring the country along with him. From what I have been reading in the news of late, it sounds like he has lost any interest in bringing his own party along with him. It is just the Prime Minister out there on his own, doing his own thing and not particularly concerned about the consequences because he knows best. He is not concerned about the consequences because, if we are honest, when has the Prime Minister ever been accountable for his actions? He would not know a consequence if it jumped up and bit him somewhere unparliamentary. In fact, the only time the Prime Minister expresses any concern for outcomes is when his own political fate may be jeopardized. Then he cares. High inflation does not affect him. When was the last time the PM set foot in a grocery store, other than, of course, for a quick photo op? Regarding house prices, let us just say he has options. He is in Rideau Cottage while the family is at the lake. There are a mere 38 rooms between them all, but I hear they are getting by, unlike many Canadians. Regarding gas prices, he is still jetting around the globe to take pictures and lecture people about emissions, so obviously, the price of gas does not affect him. With respect to rising crime rates and gang violence, he has never had to live in downtown Winnipeg or Thompson or Thunder Bay. Let him live in a rooming house on Magnus Avenue or Regent Park and see what he says then, but he does not and he will not. He would not even visit those neighbourhoods. It should not come as any surprise to anyone that we keep getting this out-of-touch legislation. It was the Prime Minister's father who stated that the government has no business in the bedrooms of Canadians. I find it quite ironic that the government wants to be not just in the bedroom, but in every room, every device and every thought. There is no aspect of Canadian life that the Liberals do not feel they need to control. Despite that, they are still so out of touch with the reality of everyday Canadians. It is actually very sad. I wonder if the government spent a little less time pushing narratives and virtue signalling and a little more time actually listening to Canadians, it would not be better off. Perhaps then we could get legislation that deals with the root causes of these problems, rather than just the symptoms. Let us take a look at this bill, because this bill is a great example of what I am talking about. It gives great insight into the Liberal mentality, at least that of the PM and his cabinet and the inconsistency of their government's reasoning. Why put this bill forward? The Prime Minister was clear when he spoke in the House last week. He said our previous Conservative government's tough-on-crime agenda was racist. The PM claims our attempts to crack down on serious crime and put victims first was really just a cover to discriminate and put Black and indigenous Canadians in jail. That assertion is as false as it is insulting as it is ridiculous. Here is our position. If someone commits a crime in Canada and is convicted of that crime, that person should be held accountable for that crime, period. Race does not come into play. The law is colour blind. I wish the government would be intellectually honest enough to try to stop bringing race into every equation, and that it would stop with the identity politics and stop dividing Canadians. People who are convicted by a court of law and sent to jail are not in that position because they are victims. They are in that position because they are criminals. They have victimized another person. That is not to say that they themselves were not victimized somewhere along the road. They probably were, and that needs to be part of this discussion. However, being the victim of a crime does not entitle someone to commit crimes. However, we know that hurt people hurt people, and that is the bigger conversation. Do we need to have discussions surrounding the extenuating circumstances that might have contributed to that choice? Absolutely, we do. We need to address poverty. We need to address housing, the cost of living, education and opportunities. We need to discuss the role of the entertainment industry and media. We need to discuss the role of parents, or in too many cases, the lack of parental involvement that leads to young people being out on the streets. There is a lot we need to talk about, but at the end of the day, those external circumstances aside, that person standing before the judge made a choice. They did not make that choice because of the colour of their skin, and to insinuate they did is the very definition of racism. The ability to make choices between right and wrong has nothing to do with skin colour. The government can throw around all the talking points about intersectionality it wants, but it does not change the fact that somewhere in that situation somebody made a choice, and choices have consequences. I know Black Canadians, white Canadians, Asian Canadians and indigenous Canadians, many of whom have been through difficult times and circumstances, had terrible things happen to them and had their backs up against the wall, and they did not resort to crime. In fact, too often, what we are seeing happen is that in those same racialized communities that a disproportionate number of offenders come from, we also see a disproportionate number of victims. I look at this legislation, and on the face of it I can only see one message the government is trying to send: that it has actually come to believe that racialized Canadians somehow lack the ability to choose between right and wrong. It is ridiculous and it is insulting. I am not about to speak for those racialized communities, but if it were me, I would find this legislation incredibly insulting, because rather than empower racialized Canadians and fight racism, this bill enshrines a racism of lowered expectations, one that will harm the very communities the Liberals actually genuinely want to help. That is the first big inconsistency, and here is the second: At the same time the government is lowering penalties for serious offenders, as it has done before, it is once again targeting law-abiding Canadians. The government will not address illegal guns flooding across our border, but it will go after farmers. It will not deal with illegal border crossers flooding into Canada, but try to cross the border without completing the ArriveCAN app. People can burn down churches, and the Prime Minister says that he understands their anger, but try parking a truck in downtown Ottawa. That is how backwards the Liberal mentality is. If someone commits a serious crime, they are a victim, but if they obey the law, they are clearly a danger to society. It is backwards. It is not progressive. It is regressive. There is one more thing. We started by talking about drugs. I would like to end there as well. The government touts the fact that 75% of mandatory minimum prosecutions were for drug offences. What it does not and will not tell us is that 89% of those cases were for drug trafficking. It was not for personal use or simple possession. It was for dealing. I am fine if we want to shift to diversion programs and treatment for simple possession for those who are addicted, as addiction is a medical issue, but I am not okay with diversion programs for those who peddle this poison to our kids. All we need to do is look at downtown Winnipeg or Vancouver to see the deadly consequences of drug use. I believe that those who are instrumental in causing the chemical carnage should not have the option of house arrest, that they should go to jail, yet still there are those in the government and in this House who would say to take away penalties, legalize drugs and remove the stigma. For those who do that here, we have another inconsistency and another illogical gap, because saying that eliminating penalties and legalizing drugs will help fix drug addiction is like trying to extinguish a fire with gasoline. It would not be laughable if it were not so true. Once again, we have an example of legislation that addresses the symptoms, but fails to address the root causes of the problem. It is a backward approach that would harm the very people it claims to want to help. This is typical of the government's failed approach. That is why I will be voting against Bill C-5.

1864 words

All Topics

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

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

Mr. Ted Falk

Jun/14/22 3:35:17 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I wish the parliamentary secretary had listened a little more carefully. He is usually a great listener and I am surprised he was not this time. I was clearly saying that the racism that comes through this bill is actually perpetuating the thought that people of colour, people from the indigenous community cannot make a decision between right and wrong. As I also clearly said, while this bill attacks the symptoms, it does not address the root causes. I would agree with him to the extent that he says there are systemic problems that need to be addressed. That is what this bill should be talking about and it certainly does not.

114 words

All Topics

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP)

Jun/14/22 3:36:05 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I guess what I am struggling with is there seems to be a relatively straightforward connection and a couple of principles that underpin this bill. One of them is that we have a very high percentage of people locked up in our country who are suffering from mental health or addiction problems. In fact, when I was the public safety critic for the official opposition and toured Canada's correctional institutions, that number was 70%. The second thing is that mandatory minimums operate on the principle that if we just lock people up for a longer time, the problem will be solved. I would like my hon. colleague to comment on that. Does he believe that locking up people who are suffering from addiction or mental health issues will actually help integrate them into society or reduce recidivism, or does he agree with me that we need a better approach to actually help these people deal with their fundamental problems so that when they come out, they do not reoffend?

172 words

All Topics

Mr. Ted Falk

Jun/14/22 3:37:03 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, yes, I said during my speech that I absolutely agree that people with addictions should be treated more from a health concern perspective than from a criminal justice perspective. I also made it very clear that of the folks who are being incarcerated right now under various drug charges, 89% of them are in there for trafficking. They are the ones providing this poison to individuals who are addicted. Absolutely, if people need help, I think we need to turn the conversation to how we can provide help and initiate actions in this House that will give people the help they need to be freed from those various addictions.

111 words

All Topics

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

Jun/14/22 3:37:53 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, during the debate on Bill C-5, I often heard colleagues from all parties state that they were in favour of diversion and preventing addicts from being criminalized. However, the problem with this bill is that it combines two completely different issues. Can my colleague tell me why he thinks the government combined these two issues into one bill?

62 words

Mr. Ted Falk

Jun/14/22 3:38:33 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. I think that is a question we ask ourselves over and over again: Why do they always mix the good in with the bad? It was something that I talked about in my speech earlier. It is just like with Bill C-21. There are aspects of that bill that we as Conservatives strongly believe are good and we would like to have further discussion on. I think we can see ourselves supporting those ideas. Then again, the Liberals put aspects in there that are absolutely not palatable which we will need to debate further and come to a better resolution. It is disappointing that two separate ideas and concepts are put into the same bill, because it makes it unsupportable.

128 words

Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)

Jun/14/22 3:39:19 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the wonderful member for Lac-Saint-Louis. I am pleased to speak to Bill C-5. I have to reference the previous speaker's speech. All of us come to the House to make life better. We have different opinions on how we achieve that goal, but after listening to the previous speaker, so much of what is on this side of the House is on all sides of the House. We all care very much about trying to make a difference in the lives of so many people. In some areas we agree, and in other areas we do not agree, but clearly we all feel that some changes need to be made, and we are moving in a direction we hope will improve public safety and make life easier for people. As parliamentarians, we have specific causes that we all want to champion, and one of the most important for me, of course, is public safety and how we can not only better protect Canadians but also prevent young people in our society from getting themselves into a complete downward spiral, going in the wrong direction. When mandatory minimum sentences of incarceration were initially introduced, I was here, and I thought they would help us and that they would deter crime. People would know that, if they were to commit a certain crime, they would end up with a minimum of two years, four years or 10 years. They knew that we would throw the book at them. That was very much how I thought, but seeing how mandatory minimum sentences have played out since 2007, especially in ridings like mine, I see that it did not help. They proved to be unjust at the end of the day in the eyes of many, contributing to systemic racism, the overcrowding of correctional facilities, delays in the justice process and people reoffending. It is very different from what everybody thought it would be when they were initially brought in. Since the introduction, the Supreme Court of Canada has seen an influx of charter challenges due to these mandatory minimum sentences. In fact, as of December 3, 2021, the Department of Justice indicated that 217 charter challenges exist due to mandatory minimums and account for 34% of all constitutional challenges to the Criminal Code. Of those challenges, 69% related to drug offences were successful and 48% of firearm-related challenges were successful. As far as I am concerned, anybody who uses a firearm in the process of any kind of unlawful activity, should have the book thrown at them. When they use firearms, it is a very different thing than some of the other issues we are talking about today, so why are these challenges successful? It comes down to an inequality of justice. They subject those facing charges to a punishment that may not fit their crimes and take nothing into account for the situations that led to the committing of those crimes. Removing mandatory minimums would allow judges to do their job. Going before a judge is not just about facing consequences; it is about allowing judges to use their judgment in a case. Mandatory minimums do not allow for this and, therefore, hinder judges from fulfilling the role they have been assigned. Mandatory minimums also contribute to the overrepresentation of indigenous and Black Canadians, and other groups of colour. Of federal offenders, 23% are indigenous, even though only 4.3% of our population is indigenous, and 9% are Black or another group of colour, while they only represent 2.9% and 16.2% of the population. There is something clearly wrong with those numbers. Mandatory minimums mean mandatory time in a correctional facility. We know that, and we have seen from past practices, as much I sometimes support the theory of locking them up and throwing away the key so they can never get out, this does not deter crime. Much to my disappointment, it actually increases the likelihood of someone reoffending. A person going through the Canadian justice system, including correctional facilities, is at particular risk of reoffending, and we have seen it time and time again. It is very disappointing, but that is the reality of what happens. Once they are incarcerated, they do not come out better for it, they come out worse for it. The prevalence of recontact with the police is even higher with youth. A 2019 Statistics Canada study found that “62%...of individuals who went through the full justice system into correctional...had re-contact with the police”, and this rate was 77% for youths. In my riding of Humber River—Black Creek, it is the youth numbers that are particularly troubling. They made me stop and question the whole issue of mandatory minimums, which I indicated earlier that I was very supportive of at the time, but I have seen that it is just does not work, much to my dismay and the dismay of others. Many youth in my riding are considered part of the at-risk community and subject to guns, gangs and pressures that many youth outside of condensed urban settings do not necessarily face. Mandatory minimums put them at risk of having their future completely destroyed, and this is not just at-risk youth, those who would be charged as juveniles. I mean those age 12-25, half of whom would be considered adults in being charged. Mandatory minimums can cause a mistake to ruin the rest of their lives and statistically send them on a completely different path. We still believe in serious consequences for serious crime, which is why some mandatory minimum sentences will remain in place, such as the ones for murder, high treason, sexual offences, impaired driving and serious firearm offences, as I indicated earlier. However, we do believe that cases with a sentence of two years or less, and certain other offences, would be better suited to move from mandatory minimums to conditional sentencing orders, except for instances of advocating genocide, torture, attempted murder, terrorism and serious criminal organization offences. Again, we are talking about continuing with the mandatory minimums for the very serious crimes and anything involving a firearm. These orders will allow judges to look at all aspects and assign a sentence that fits the crime, the person and the circumstances. These allow for those sentenced to remain in their communities, contributing via work, and to still be around their support systems. For some groups, such as indigenous people, remaining within that community is essential. Conditional sentencing orders allow for the consideration of other measures for simple possession of drugs, such as diversion to an addiction treatment program. This means that, instead of facing prison, those suffering with addition can receive help, not punishment. We have seen how the opioid crisis is impacting Canadians. People of all demographics are struggling with it. In what way does putting them behind bars help them or society? The only way to help them is through addressing the trauma and addictions through treatment. Conditional sentence orders would allow courts to focus on real rehabilitation and can ensure someone struggling with an addiction does not have their future destroyed by a criminal record. This is also vital for youth, as I have stated before. As mandatory minimums were introduced, our court systems became further backlogged. We saw fewer people taking plea deals and a forced an overreliance on correctional facilities. Prisons were designed not as the only means of punishment for a crime, but as a way to keep communities safe. This is why we need to see reforms to our entire justice system, allowing for a more holistic and restorative approach. A 2018 report by the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General says, “The criminal justice system in Ontario is struggling to address the high needs of vulnerable...individuals”. I am thankful to say a few words on an issue that I know we all care about very much in the House. We are all trying to do the best that we can do.

1356 words

All Topics

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC)

Jun/14/22 3:48:48 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I know how hard the member works and how much she loves this country, but I would reject the notion that mandatory minimums are racist. By definition, regardless of the colour of one's skin or ethnicity, one gets a mandatory minimum. Because there is no rehabilitation and there is such a high rate of recidivism, would it not be better to address the root causes of this overrepresentation, such as poverty, abuse, mental health and addictions? Would the member not agree?

84 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 88