44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 14, 2022 10:00AM
- Jun/14/22 11:13:56 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I cannot believe that, just before moving the amendment, the member actually said that police might choose not to do their jobs because of a policy that the government made. I thank God that the police forces throughout Canada do not operate in the same way that Conservative politicians do: picking and choosing when they think it is important enough to actually listen to the policies that have been created by this place.
Nonetheless, one would think, by listening to the intervention there, that individuals would not have to face any jail time whatsoever. We do not even have to read between the lines. The member said, and I quote, that this bill would let criminals “off the hook”. That is absolutely untrue.
What this bill would do is actually put the decision-making into the hands of the judges. They are the people who hear the cases, the people who deliberate over them and the people who render judgment at the end of the day. I am certain that those judges will continue to render strict decisions when necessary.
184 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 11:15:26 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I can tell that the member opposite is quite fired up about my speech, and that is good. He should be. He should be angry about his government bringing forward a bill that would allow house arrest for those who rape other people. Sexual assault now could have house arrest.
The member puts a lot of trust in judges. I respect our judges as well, but I do not always agree with them. For example, the Supreme Court recently said that if a person was intoxicated, that could be a defence for rape. Judges do not always get it right, and the member opposite should remember that.
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 11:20:10 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, in response to my question, I could not believe what I heard. The member said, “I respect judges, but they do not always get it right.” That is just an example of the fundamental misunderstanding of the justice system and how it is supposed to be implemented.
The member should also be respecting the decisions that the judges make because that shows that someone generally understands, appreciates and respects the judicial system in Canada. Instead, what the Conservatives are trying to say through that comment is that we are going to try to put a fail-safe in place for when, in their opinion, the judges do not get it right.
115 words
- 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 11:52:11 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I repeat that studies show that mandatory minimum penalties do not work in every case. My colleague is correct. However, in the case of certain serious crimes, such as discharging a firearm and crimes against women, it might be better if we allowed judges to depart from MMPs, like we did in response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call to action, so that they can take into account any exceptional circumstances surrounding a crime and determine whether it does indeed call for the minimum penalty. As I said earlier, this only applies in some cases, and the Bloc Québécois has based its position on what was proposed in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call to action.
125 words
- 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 12:12:14 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 12:51:57 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, that is why we are doing what we are doing. We need to restore greater availability of conditional sentences. We need to give judges more flexibility to ensure fairer sentences. Criminals will still get harsh sentences, but we need to take into consideration people's personal circumstances, and that is exactly what we are trying to do with this bill.
62 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 1:05:32 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, but if there is anyone sensationalizing this issue, it is the Conservative Party.
It has taken the position of being tough on crime with mandatory minimums even though every study has proven that they do not work. They are not a deterrent and have many unwanted side effects.
Just because we want to repeal mandatory minimum sentences does not mean that there will be no sentence at all. The person will go to jail, but the judge will decide for how long. Why do the Conservatives not want to let judges do their job and judge the criminals?
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 1:06:10 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, the point of all this is that we are trying to deal with systemic racism and we are doing it in a judicial system. That is exactly what we have been saying. The judges should have the ability to make that determination, but at the same time, we want to make sure that criminals are getting their drug addiction treatment and rehabilitation properly.
We are not asking to change the whole world instantly. We have to make sure we get a handle on their mental state. Usually their mental state derives from the fact that they have a drug addiction or some other type of addiction. They need to have proper adherence and proper treatment, more so than just getting a slap on the wrist and house arrest.
130 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
- Jun/14/22 5:05:41 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not know the details of that case, so I do not think it would be appropriate for me to speculate on it. I will say that I have faith in our justice system. I have faith that individuals will be tried properly, including by, I am sure, very fine prosecutors, such as the member used to be, and perhaps he would like to go back to that profession, I do not know. Maybe there is a good Liberal in his riding who would like to replace him. I say that in a joking way. I have a lot of respect for the member.
I think we need to put faith in the institutions. I have no problem when individuals get up to say that they are not happy with an outcome, but we heard the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, earlier today, get up to say that they respect judges, but judges do not always get it right. Well, one should also, as I am sure this member, as a former prosecutor, would agree, respect the decision. If one respects the institution, one respects the decision.
192 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
