44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 14, 2022 10:00AM
- Jun/14/22 10:44:05 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I want to be clear here. A conditional sentencing order is one tool that judges have at their discretion to ensure that public safety is protected. One of the prevailing issues is that the individual who gets a CSO does not pose a risk to society.
We could come up with the worst criminal offenders, the worst types of crimes, and we could manufacture all of these scenarios, but those offenders would not get conditional sentencing orders. Let us be clear on that.
This is about smart public policy, criminal law reform that is important that would address the issues of systemic racism.
105 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 12:46:12 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her interesting speech.
I will ask her the same question I asked my Bloc Québécois colleague earlier. She mentioned that she wants to restore judicial discretion so that judges can set minimum sentences based on their judgment. If that is the objective, why have maximum sentences yet not give judges the same discretion when it is a serious crime punishable by a sentence of more than 25 years? I do not understand the double standard.
Having said that, I want to make it clear that I am not in any way against the goal of reintegrating and rehabilitating people, but it needs to happen at the appropriate time. In the case of serious crimes, like the gun crimes being committed in the greater Montreal area at the moment, it seems to me that a minimum sentence would be entirely appropriate. The fact that Bill C-5 will eliminate them is deeply troubling to me and to many citizens in Quebec and in Canada.
178 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 1:03:04 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, that is what the problem with the whole bill is. There is a lot of subjectivity of how the bill can be interpreted. That is the problem. The Liberals are trying to address a problem by not actually addressing the problem. It is a lot more sensationalism and symbolism according to our court of law. They are trying to say they know there is overrepresentation of certain minorities, but the problem is the bill is not addressing any of that. There is leeway in the bill for judges to make that discretion on whether they consider an offence serious or not, whether it is a first-time offence and potentially give house arrest for such serious crimes.
119 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 4:09:41 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, I personally believe that the bill should make Canadians feel safer, unless doubts are put into people's minds.
Unfortunately, that is what is happening in the House, as the opposition reads out a whole list of crimes and tries to lead people to believe that judges will be obliged to impose house arrest.
This is not the case. Judges have the choice, if the sentence is less than two years. It is judges who are in the best position to determine whether offenders pose a danger to society or whether they have a better chance of rehabilitating in a context of community supervision.
It will depend on the judge, and judges will know more than we do here in the House of Commons, where we can only speculate on hypothetical situations when it comes to the Criminal Code.
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 4:11:37 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, I understand that stakeholders often make requests that are quite broad and far-reaching. The role of the government is to consult, yes, but also to use the best judgment possible with access to the best experts possible, legal and otherwise. These are the crimes with minimum sentences that have come up in the bill, and I trust the Minister of Justice and others in the government on this. I believe they are doing the best they can at the moment.
83 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 4:24:28 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, I am by no means an expert in this field. It is true that, at first glance, I feel a little worried.
However, I have done some reading and learned that we have known for some time that mandatory minimum sentences do not deter certain crimes. For example, the United States has the toughest mandatory minimum sentences for drug use, but they have had no effect on people.
If mandatory minimums have no effect, what could the member suggest to ensure that our society is better off?
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 4:42:08 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, the member raises an interesting point on which to challenge the Liberals for another one of their chief premises of this bill. The Liberals could have taken the approach to have some sort of exceptional circumstances provision where judges, in certain factors or cases, would have the ability to choose something other than the mandatory minimum, while maintaining mandatory minimum penalties for serious crimes. They are not doing that in Bill C-5, either.
The brass tacks are that Conservatives believe there should be stronger, stiffer and tougher sentences for all crimes, including and especially gun crimes, which are terrorizing the streets of cities across the country, and real action against gangsters who do not follow the laws already, and who traffic and trade in illegal gun smuggling, which is a major source of gun crime in this country.
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
