44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 14, 2022 10:00AM
- Jun/14/22 12:52:29 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the member for Dufferin—Caledon.
I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-5, an act that would amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. It is a bill being spun by the NDP-Liberal government as beneficial to Canadians, but it is far from it. This bill focuses on eliminating mandatory minimum sentencing for heinous offences. Thus, in a true NDP-Liberal fashion, it is prioritizing petty politics and the interests of offenders over the safety and security of the vulnerable and innocent in our communities.
Even after repackaging what was once Bill C-22 from the last Parliament, the government claims that Bill C-5 focuses on the fair treatment of offenders and some demographics' overrepresentation in our correctional facilities.
Upon closer inspection, the bill proves not only that the government will do anything to remain in power but also that it will also completely disregard the safety and security of Canadians in the meantime. The approach proposed by Bill C-5 is critically faulty and appalling. Quite frankly, it is a slap in the face for Canadians who have placed their trust and faith in the government to do what is right and advocate for common sense solutions to protect vulnerable Canadians’ sovereignty and security.
This bill suggests some highly concerning amendments to both the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Criminal Code of Canada by removing mandatory minimum sentencing not only for offences relating to the consumption and distribution of illicit drugs and substances but also for offences involving firearms.
It does not stop there. Apart from pushing to loosen gun restrictions in Canada, the government is also advocating for the availability of conditional sentences such as house arrest on heinous crimes, which would substantially put lives at risk. These crimes include but are not limited to attempted murder, torture as inflicted on another person, advocating for genocide, sexual assault, kidnapping and abduction of a person under the age of 14, human trafficking for material benefit, and firearms smuggling.
What I just listed are just some of several offences that could qualify for conditional sentencing, such as house arrest, if mandatory minimum sentencing is lifted under Bill C-5. The government seems to heavily rely on the theme of protecting the offenders and punishing Canadians, thus providing more opportunities for criminals to be emboldened to terrorize. They are now abetted by the government.
The NDP-Liberal government is turning a blind eye to illegally procured firearms by not cracking down on gang operations and activity. It is also sparing these criminals from incarceration at correctional facilities by removing mandatory minimum sentencing for serious offences, such as those involving firearms.
Furthermore, Bill C-5 would add to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act by highlighting a series of principles peace officers and prosecutors should use when determining whether or not to lay charges for drug possession. Again, the government is failing to address its alleged aim to lessen overrepresentation of under-represented communities in our penitentiaries, because peace officers, law enforcement and prosecutors already have the authority and flexibility to decide whether or not to lay charges for simple possession of drugs or illicit substances.
A directive from the Public Prosecution Service of Canada was also previously issued to direct prosecutors to limit their involvement in the prosecution of simple drug possession unless there were proven and immediate public safety concerns. Conservatives argue that offenders involved in serious, violent crimes committed with firearms, including substantially horrific offences, deserve prison time and most definitely not to be tucked away in their individual homes with a slap on the wrist.
Furthermore, drug offenders should be presented with mandatory participation in Canadian drug treatment courts to end the cycle of crime and drugs, and to provide them with rehabilitative, therapeutic opportunities in lieu of premature reintegration into communities or being subjected to correctional facilities and the criminal justice system.
To date, this rehabilitation program is critically limited through strict eligibility criteria and non-mandatory participation. The government’s proposal to lift mandatory minimums is a performative stunt that does nothing to address the root of the drug and crime crisis in our country. I also find it questionable how the government insists on conditional sentencing for alleged low-risk offenders, as if our police officers have the time and resources to continually monitor these people serving their conditional sentences in their respective communities and ensure their compliance.
Contrary to what the NDP-Liberal government claims that this bill suggests, the elimination of offenders’ mandatory time in correctional facilities will not alleviate the overrepresentation of Black and indigenous communities in our penitentiaries, but will only offer more opportunities for criminals to infiltrate and prey on the vulnerable and innocent.
In addition, the government claims to state that it will be removing mandatory minimum penalties for simple possession, but how can the Liberals do that when mandatory minimums for simple possession do not exist? Instead of pushing Bill C-5, we Conservatives believe in establishing mandatory participation in support and rehabilitation centres for those struggling with addictions, reinforcing our borders to prevent firearms smuggling and abolishing conditional sentencing opportunities for crimes that threaten the safety and security of Canadians.
Why is the government weakening our gun laws, standing up for criminals, blatantly disregarding the grief and trauma experienced by victims and being lenient with the deterrence and punishment of offenders, instead of defending our communities? These actions only show that the NDP-Liberal government prioritizes the interests of offenders and is not serious about protecting the safety and security of Canadians.
With regard to drugs and illicit substances circulating in neighbourhoods, Conservatives believe that all mandatory minimum sentences should be sustained, not only as punitive damages for committing crimes outlined under the Criminal Code, but also to serve protection and justice for the vulnerable, the innocent and the victims of these abhorrent transgressions. How can the Liberals claim that they are doing what is best for Canadians when they are proposing to keep offenders under house arrest as opposed to having them placed in rehabilitation centres if their crimes were fuelled by substance abuse, or behind bars for serious transgressions?
The government claims that it would rescind mandatory minimum sentencing for simple possession, but it must be highlighted that our officers already have that discretion in place, offering offenders treatment programs or other support services as opposed to prison time.
Regardless, mandatory minimums for simple possession do not exist. It is simply time the government gave up the act of performative activism and actually invested in the rehabilitation of offenders and put the security of victims and the vulnerable first.
Considering the questionable tactics that the government has advocated for in the past, this is simply a missed opportunity to prove that the Liberals are here for Canadians, for survivors and the appropriate rehabilitation of offenders while protecting the security of our communities. It is time for the government to go back to the drawing board with Bill C-5 and sustain mandatory minimum penalties for the offences aforementioned and all others outlined under the bill.
In conclusion, I recommend that the government closely reconsider its advocacy for Bill C-5 and prioritize the safety and security of all Canadians through the close reconsideration of lifting mandatory minimum sentencing, the consumption and distribution of drugs and illegal substances, and mandatory minimum penalties for serious offences.
I now welcome questions from my colleagues.
1265 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 2:23:38 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. Law enforcement should never be able to grant itself extraordinary powers. That is up to government to choose to do, as we did with the Emergencies Act.
Once in place, the Emergencies Act allowed police to, according to the commissioner of the RCMP, refuse entry of individuals travelling to the illegal protest with the intent of participating. It gave police “the power to arrest individuals who continue to supply fuel, food and other materials and to compel individuals to provide essential towing services”. Canadians remember how—
96 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 2:40:22 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, talk about disinformation. Talk about a distortion of the record. We heard from the commissioner of the RCMP, who went before committee and said that she needed to use the Emergencies Act to get the job done as quickly as possible. She spoke about the consultation between government and police forces to ensure that we use their advice to make that decision in an informed way.
It is the Conservatives who continue to bury their heads in the sand. In what was an unprecedented moment of civil disobedience, we worked with law enforcement to protect public safety. It was the Conservatives who undermined it.
106 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 2:57:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is incredible that the member has never listened to what the head of law enforcement said about the situation and the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act.
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police said that the Emergencies Act was needed to ensure public safety. It advised us when making our decision in this process. The Conservatives should apologize for the troubling role they played during the illegal blockades.
72 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 2:58:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is always someone else's fault. Being a minister comes with great responsibility.
The minister stated several times, “It was on the advice of law enforcement that we invoked the Emergencies Act.” However, law enforcement never asked for draconian measures.
Rex Murphy wrote in the National Post that, for the sake of his integrity, the minister should resign.
What is he waiting for—
69 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
