44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 14, 2022 10:00AM
- Jun/14/22 11:17:24 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, we have heard a lot about Portugal's successful experience with diversion programs. We have not heard much about what happened in Switzerland.
The Swiss tried a tough-on-drugs approach in the 1990s and it was a disaster. AIDS cases skyrocketed and drug houses appeared everywhere, among other issues. They implemented four measures that made all the difference: prevention, treatment, harm reduction and law enforcement.
I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on these successful approaches to diversion.
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 11:53:55 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I think my colleague is conflating Bill C-21 and Bill C-5. I think we need to come back to Bill C‑5, the bill we are discussing today.
As I said, we have stated our position. We agree with the introduction of diversion measures, but since this is an omnibus bill, it contains two confusing and intertwined items. We certainly have the right to ask questions about minimum sentences.
However, one thing is certain: For these reasons, especially since diversion is so important and has such positive effects, as we have seen in various countries around the world, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the bill. That said, as my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord so aptly put it, we will do it while holding our noses.
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 1:03:50 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, my colleague and I do agree on one thing, which is that the government needs to go back to the drawing board with this bill.
We would like to split the bill and separate the diversion measures, which are most important, from the provisions regarding mandatory minimum penalties. It is awkward timing to be debating those mandatory minimums, given all of the gun incidents we have been seeing in Montreal.
The member said that mandatory minimums should be sustained, but studies show that they do not work and do not have much of an impact. Would the member tell the organizations in Quebec that are working hard on rehabilitation and alternative justice that the work they are doing is pointless and ineffective?
I would like to hear his thoughts on that, because there are some organizations in Quebec that are working very hard on this and proving that these methods do actually work.
155 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 1:33:32 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, as a number of Bloc Québécois members have indicated, we tend to agree on the substance of Bill C‑5 in relation to diversion and eliminating mandatary minimum penalties. We are just wondering about the timing. Violent gun crime is on the rise these days in Montreal, Toronto and across Canada. This has been stressed repeatedly. We have been asking the government about this during question period.
Is my colleague not a little concerned about the message that we are sending by passing Bill C‑5 at this particular time?
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 1:48:10 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. I have had the chance to talk with her at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, and even at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security when I have had to replace my colleague at times.
We agree. As far as mandatory minimum sentences are concerned, we know and see that there are more indigenous women in prison, as I mentioned in my speech earlier.
Politics is all about perception. Does my colleague think it would have been a good idea to split Bill C‑5 in two?
Let me explain. I agree that diversion measures are crucial and that opioids are a public health issue. However, we are debating mandatory minimum sentences at a time when crime is on the rise. My colleague knows that from the work at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, including on the issue of firearms.
In the current context, given the perception and the sense of public safety, it might have been a good idea to split Bill C‑5 in two so that we could work on diversion and look at mandatory minimum sentences later. That would have given us more time to debate.
207 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
