SoVote

Jun/14/22 10:50:53 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, again, I come back to the same answer. We can come up with a whole bunch of scenarios where, in fact, conditional sentencing orders may not be appropriate. What is important is that we give judicial discretion that allows a judge to look at the facts of the case to weigh the risk that an individual would pose to society and, when there is no risk, a conditional sentencing order may be appropriate. That is exactly what is happening here. I do want to highlight for my friend opposite the over-incarceration of indigenous women. In terms of penitentiaries for women, over 50% of the people in penitentiaries for women are indigenous women. What does my friend have to say about that?

124 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 88 - Jun/14/22

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

Context: House Hansard - 88 - Jun/14/22

Mr. Alain Rayes (Richmond—Arthabaska, CPC)

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

Context: House Hansard - 88 - Jun/14/22

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

Jun/14/22 1:02:02 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, when the member for Scarborough—Rouge Park was asking a question of the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, he spoke of manufactured outrage. I cannot think of an example that would better demonstrate manufactured outrage than that speech we just heard. I realize that the member was probably just reading a speech that was given to him by the Conservative propaganda machine, but nonetheless, he should seriously reflect on the words that he delivered in this House over the last 10 minutes. He actually said that if somebody is convicted of human trafficking, they will probably just be locked up in their house. That is absolutely ridiculous. For starters, the whole part about conditional sentencing would only apply at a judge's discretion if the sentence was less than two years. I am not following this bill that closely and even I know that. Can the member please explain how he justifies that comment about human trafficking?

161 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 88 - Jun/14/22

Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Lib.)

Jun/14/22 1:16:56 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member, and he spoke at length repeating the same lines we continue to hear from the Conservative Party of Canada. He said we are reducing sentences. We are not reducing sentences. What we are doing is removing the mandatory minimum penalties that are attached to them. We are giving discretion to judges, so to say that we are reducing sentences is simply wrong. Judges continue to have that discretion. Has the hon. member actually read the bill? Does he know the impact these mandatory minimum penalties have on indigenous people, Black Canadians and marginalized people, whose populations in our prisons continue to grow as a direct result of the mandatory minimum penalties brought in by the previous government?

125 words

All Topics