SoVote

Jun/14/22 12:11:17 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, members' screens have to be on for them to count as being in the House.

22 words

All Topics

Jun/14/22 12:11:26 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not sure if the member for Regina—Lewvan is calling into question the ruling of the chair here, but if he would like to do that, I am sure there is a process to do that, instead of just running into this chamber yelling and screaming the way he did.

62 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/14/22 12:11:41 p.m.
Watch

I will take a moment to consult the table officers. There is certainly quorum now, so we will proceed. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.

28 words

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree

Jun/14/22 12:12:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke for his incredible efforts at the justice committee in strengthening this bill. I want to get his perspectives on conditional sentencing orders. Much has been said by the opposition, particularly the Conservatives, on a whole host of accusations that CSOs would open up a floodgate for hardened criminals having “get out of jail free” cards. I am wondering if my friend opposite could talk about the impact the conditional sentencing orders would have on the criminal justice system and at what point the judges would be able to use those orders in order to ensure our communities are, in fact, safer.

118 words

All Topics

Mr. Randall Garrison

Jun/14/22 12:13:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, that is an important point we have been trying to get across in this third reading debate. The kinds of examples the Conservatives are raising and saying they will be eligible for conditional sentences will not be eligible for conditional sentences. Both the normal decisions of judges and the sentencing guidelines in use in Canadian courts mean that for serious crimes, conditional sentences will not be allowed. For anything where the sentence is over two years, that time will be served in custody and that time will be served in a federal institution. The importance of conditional sentences is that they allow the judges to look at the circumstances of the offender and whether the offence is associated with an addiction problem or whether it is associated with a mental health problem and to come up with a sentence that actually fits the needs of the community to be safer by making the sentence fit the needs of the person who came in conflict with the law. There is an additional benefit to public safety when judges are allowed to use conditional sentences for those less serious and less violent crimes.

193 words

All Topics

Hon. Rob Moore (Fundy Royal, CPC)

Jun/14/22 12:14:23 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member of the justice committee's remarks. I think there is a misconception out there, and I know he knows the bill well, so I would like his comment on it. The government has talked repeatedly about simple possession of drugs, and I would like his perspective. Conservatives believe that trafficking, production and importing are the offences for which mandatory minimums are being removed for schedule I and schedule II drugs, which include fentanyl, cocaine and heroin, which are some of the drugs that are plaguing our streets. I would like his comments on the removal of the mandatory minimum penalty for those specific offences, which are clearly not simple possession.

118 words

All Topics

Mr. Randall Garrison

Jun/14/22 12:15:19 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I am going to take a moment here to do what the Conservatives like to do and use an anecdote. What about the case of a woman who is travelling with her boyfriend and he is involved with drug trafficking and he puts the drugs in her bag? When they come across the border, she is caught. Does she deserve a mandatory minimum sentence for importing drugs, or can the judge take into account the circumstances here that she may have been financially dependent on her boyfriend, or she may or may not have known he was trafficking drugs? As the law currently stands, she is going to end up in serious custody and do serious time in detention. Just like the Conservatives like to give those extreme examples, there are many examples of where the law right now catches people and sentences them to mandatory prison time, when it is obviously not in the interest of the public to do so.

164 words

All Topics

Mr. Pat Kelly (Calgary Rocky Ridge, CPC)

Jun/14/22 12:16:18 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, the hon. member's speech was thoughtful. He is quite knowledgeable on the bill, but I do not agree with him on balance on the bill, and I am not going to support it. The part that I would like him to comment on is the section that opens up community sentencing for serious sexual offences. We know that victims of sexual assault are severely disincentivized to report the crime because of the continued victimization that occurs. The prospect of the perpetrator of a sex crime being able to serve a sentence in the community is one that troubles me. I wonder if the member could comment on that portion of the bill.

115 words

All Topics

Mr. Randall Garrison

Jun/14/22 12:17:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I do have a great deal of respect for the hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge as a member of Parliament. Again, I think we are talking about something that is not going to happen here. The penalties for sexual assault rarely come in under two years in custody and so anything with two years in custody is not eligible for a conditional sentence. It is not eligible for house arrest. It is not eligible for serving time on weekends. I do share with him the concern about the way sexual assault is treated in our criminal justice and policing system and I do share his concern that we need to do better by victims, not just of sexual assault but of all crimes in our community. In fact, allowing judges to use conditional sentences to get a sentence that fits the crime, fits the offender and fits the community is an important piece of progress in Bill C-5.

162 words

All Topics

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP)

Jun/14/22 12:18:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his hard work on this file and on the justice file in particular. One of the things that we will see is a shift in the law but also, too, there is an opportunity to enhance the bill and adjust things later on. I would like his thoughts on how the bill, as he pointed out, has shortcomings in a few elements, but also there is the ability to adjust things and to be able to plan and go forward, whereas we have not done that to date on this file. Whether it is a three-year or five-year review or a quicker review, what is his suggestion on how we monitor and continue to move toward a health-based approach for dealing with this?

134 words

Mr. Randall Garrison

Jun/14/22 12:18:56 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Windsor West is such a good colleague in all aspects of parliamentary work. I want to take a moment to congratulate him on his work on the first urban national park in his riding. This bill now calls for a mandatory review of what is happening with these kinds of things. I have to say that we had some discussion about the number of years for that review. I believe we ended up at four, but I would have to check. We had a debate between three and five. I think it is important that we take a look at what has happened as parliamentarians with law within a period of three to five years and re-examine whether there is more that could be done, or whether there are things that need to be corrected. That is always an important part of our work as parliamentarians.

153 words

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

Jun/14/22 12:19:47 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, one of the comments that I have heard Conservatives react to today, in particular I remember the parliamentary secretary for justice making this comment, was when we suggest that the Conservatives' policies with respect to incarceration are pretty much just to lock them up and throw away the key. They are not interested in rehabilitation so that we can reintegrate individuals back into society. They are heckling me now. One would think that just from a financial policy perspective, it makes more sense to help reintegrate people back into society because, quite frankly, it costs a lot to keep people incarcerated. If not for the reason of the social good of it, one would think that the Conservatives would be interested from the perspective of the financial implications of what it costs to keep people incarcerated. I realize that the member's main drive here is toward the social impact of it, as it should be, but I am wondering if he could speak to the dilemma that the Conservatives seem to be in, in relentlessly being in favour of mandatory minimums.

184 words

Mr. Randall Garrison

Jun/14/22 12:21:03 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, while I might not use quite as broad a brush in condemning my Conservative colleagues as the hon. member did, I think he draws attention to an important ancillary benefit of these changes in Bill C-5. We certainly heard that one of the problems that comes from the existence of mandatory minimums is that they prevent the ability to plea bargain and keep cases out of court that take up valuable space in our courts that could be used for tackling, without delay, the more serious crimes. They increase court delays. They increase court costs. Of course, when we keep someone in custody, as I talked about in my speech, for only a short period time, it is very expensive to do so and, at the same time, guarantees that they will not get the rehabilitation and training they need to successfully rehabilitate into society. It is not a good economic deal, as well as being not a good justice deal, as well as being not a good public safety deal. Eliminating mandatory minimums will help us make progress on all of those fronts.

187 words

Mr. Randeep Sarai (Surrey Centre, Lib.)

Jun/14/22 12:22:09 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Halifax West. I am pleased to speak to Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Today I would like to address necessary amendments proposed in Bill C-5. Our criminal justice system continues to perpetuate a cycle of systemic racism, a system which is disproportionately overrepresented by indigenous peoples, Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities both as offenders and as victims. Sentencing laws within the Canadian criminal justice system have historically focused on punishment through imprisonment rather than ensuring that the responses to criminal conduct are fair, effective and prioritize public safety. Adopting the proposed amendments to Bill C-5 are imperative to stop the cycle of systemic racism and overrepresentation in the criminal justice system, while taking steps towards addressing the disparities experienced by vulnerable groups. The proposed amendments maintain the courts’ ability to impose serious penalties in appropriate cases for firearms offences, ensuring that sentencing is proportionate to the crime. I have the privilege of serving as the chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Our committee recently completed a study on this bill. We heard from experts, law enforcement, legal representatives, and those who are marginalized and who have interacted with the criminal justice system. The testimony encompassed the diverse experiences of those who have encountered the consequences of Bill C-5 from across the country. The testimony recounted racialized and marginalized individuals’ intergenerational experiences with racism in policing and sentencing, arguing that a colonial system of incarceration is not encompassing of the needs of Canadians. Bill C-5 would address the concerns raised by the witness testimony we heard around racism and overrepresentation in the justice system by promoting judicial discretion and prioritizing individualized sentencing. This process ensures that an individual who is found guilty is sentenced appropriately to the degree of responsibility of the offender and the seriousness of the offence. A sentencing court must look at all mitigating and aggravating factors specific to the case, including the offender’s risk to public safety, circumstances specific to the offender and instances of systemic racism experienced by the offender. When it comes to crimes, specifically gun crimes and youth violence, I have been working hard with groups for over decades. I can tell colleagues that minimum mandatory penalties have not deterred or reduced gun crime. Prevention, intervention or tough enforcement at borders have been effective. Most of these young folks need help and jail is not the answer. A criminal justice system which utilizes a mandatory minimum penalty as a model of reform is not reflective of Canadian values or the needs of racialized and marginalized communities within Canada. We can see from the statistics that the Canadian criminal justice system has historically been ill-equipped when considering individuals who are vulnerable, struggle with mental health and substance use, are experiencing homelessness, live in poverty or lack access to essential and social services. We must ensure that Canada does not use the criminal justice system to address social issues. Rather, we must ensure public safety, accountability and justice. Research shows that in Canada indigenous people, Black Canadians and other racialized persons are more likely to come in contact with the criminal justice system, often due to systemic racism as well as other social and economic factors. These statistics are further exacerbated by the fact that members of these communities are overrepresented in correctional facilities. Between 2007-08 and 2016-17, indigenous and Black offenders were more likely to be remanded to federal custody for an offence punishable by a mandatory minimum in the last 10 years. The number of indigenous adults admitted to federal custody for a firearm-related offence punishable by a mandatory minimum penalty increased by 23%. Despite representing only 5% of the Canadian adult population in 2020, indigenous adults accounted for 30% of federally incarcerated inmates. In 2018-19, Black inmates represented 7% of the federal offender population, but only 3% of the Canadian population. If we continue to support a system which perpetuates systemic racism, the cycle of incarceration will continue to be the path for many marginalized communities. There are 13 mandatory minimum penalties related to firearms offences that would be removed, empowering the courts’ ability to impose proportionate and individualized sentencing to offenders. Bill C-5 would repeal the firearms-related mandatory minimum penalties for possession of a loaded firearm, prohibited or restricted firearm, possession of a weapon obtained by crime, possession of an unauthorized firearm, and importing a firearm knowing that it is not authorized. Repealing mandatory minimums for these offences would allow for greater use of conditional sentence orders in cases where an offender faces a term of less than two years' imprisonment and does not pose a threat to public safety. It would also require police and prosecutors to consider measures aside from incarceration. The reality is that the restricted availability of conditional sentencing has contributed to the disparities experienced by racialized and marginalized communities in Canada. Consistent with the government’s commitments, mandatory minimum penalties would remain in place for offences related to robbery, extortion, discharging a firearm with intention to cause bodily harm, firearm trafficking and importing, and making automatic weapons. A justice system that unfairly targets indigenous peoples, Black and marginalized communities is not effective. It does not keep us safe and must be changed. For those who say that Bill C-5 is not tough enough on crime, those who commit serious offences will continue to receive serious sentences. Our bill is about getting rid of the failed policies that filled our prisons with low-risk, first-time offenders. They do not need to be put in jail; they need support. These failed policies did not deter crime in the past. They did not keep us safe and they did not make our justice system more efficient. They target vulnerable and racialized Canadians. Canadians see the devastating effects that come from firearms on a daily basis. I am no exception. However, I recognize that a one-size-fits-all system, where mandatory minimum penalties are considered just and fair, is not representative of those who are disproportionately impacted by the Canadian criminal justice system. For those who are a danger to the public, or are serious or repeat offenders, a judge would be able to award stiff and harsh penalties in some cases higher than the minimum sentences. This is not a soft-on-crime approach. This is an approach that separates social issues from judicial issues, and allows the judiciary to make the appropriate sentence. To end the cycle of overrepresentation, we require a tailored approach that encourages rehabilitation and acknowledges the historical and ongoing injustices faced by Canadians across the country. Repealing select mandatory minimum penalties does not mean that firearms offences are considered serious offences; rather, it provides the courts with the ability to impose appropriate and proportionate sentences. The changes we make today to our criminal justice system will have an impact on current and future Canadians. It will change the way we engage with racialized and marginal communities. This includes providing meaningful support for victims, accused persons, offenders, their families and their communities. Our government is committed to maintaining public safety, and has taken urgent and significant action to make Canada safer.

1235 words

All Topics

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Jun/14/22 12:30:58 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I would like to hear his comments on the allocation of resources. If we take people out of the prison system in the hope of rehabilitating them and turning them into useful members of society, we must have the resources to do so. I am thinking, for example, of social services, which are under provincial jurisdiction. My colleagues can no doubt see where I am going with this. Once again, I am raising the issue of health transfers. No doubt the government expects to find efficiencies in the prison system. Will this allow my colleague to pressure his government to finally provide decent funding for social services and health services?

119 words

All Topics

Mr. Randeep Sarai

Jun/14/22 12:31:56 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, that was a good question in terms of the supports needed. Obviously, when we need conditional sentencing or we need diversion programs, we will need those supports. Let me also say that they will cost a lot less than incarcerating somebody and throwing away the keys for five years. For those provincial jurisdictions that save on under two-year prison sentences where they are now incarcerating fewer people, they can afford to use those funds to help rehabilitate them, give them diversion programming and give them conditional sentences to help make them better human beings and better members of society. When it comes to health transfers, the federal government always has been there and always will be there for the provinces.

123 words

All Topics

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP)

Jun/14/22 12:32:38 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, prior to this, I worked as an employment specialist on behalf of youth at risk. One of the things that we found was that, ironically, some of them actually had drug convictions for possession of small amounts of marijuana on their criminal records. If we fast forward to today, we can buy it in several locations and it is no longer a criminal offence. There was anguish among young people from either having made a mistake at that time, in a moment, or being around other people who made a mistake. That anguish lasted as we tried to find them employment, housing and other things as they often came from broken homes or were on their own at the age of 16 or 17. I would like the hon. member to talk about how we are not going to brand young people for a potential short-term mistake that can lead to long-term problems and bring them into a poorer cycle of life versus a life of moving forward. That is really what is at the heart of many situations.

183 words

All Topics

Mr. Randeep Sarai

Jun/14/22 12:33:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, those are exactly the types of supports that are needed. I have seen dozens, if not hundreds, of young people who have made small mistakes in their lives, including mistakes that now are not even considered criminal, such as smoking marijuana or possession of marijuana. Some mistakes are even small thefts, or being in a car with somebody who had a loaded firearm or who had drugs on them, and the people are facing sentences. When they had conditional sentences, it was an opportunity to give people a second chance to reflect on their mistakes and to become good citizens. If, in that conditional sentence period, they acted appropriately, took the appropriate classes or did the volunteer hours or therapy that they needed, in most cases they became very good citizens of society. In fact, rather than getting incarcerated, they got jobs and good skills and they became good members of society.

154 words

All Topics

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

Jun/14/22 12:34:39 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend in the chair of the justice committee for his speech today. I want just to reflect on the last few weeks, when Bill C-5 was studied at the justice committee. I wonder if my friend could talk about some of the witnesses who came forward. I really want to highlight the intervention by the president of the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers. Reflecting on what systemic racism means, and as someone with some lived experience, could the member reflect on why this bill is so important for us?

97 words

Mr. Randeep Sarai

Jun/14/22 12:35:18 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has worked very hard on this issue. It really is an important issue for him, his community and his constituents. Speaking to people such as those who were from the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers and others, we saw how it affected and actually disabled people who could become great members of society, because we already have a lot of challenges. We are looking at systemic racism, where a lot of young folks who are marginalized or are from Black Canadian populations get targeted and picked up quickly. It actually reduces their ability to become good citizens and become future inhabitants. That is why it has been disproportionately represented. Along with them, the indigenous population has been even more so, and we know the challenges they face.

132 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 88