44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 14, 2022 10:00AM
- Jun/14/22 10:44:58 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I think my colleague got some things mixed up in his speech.
I believe that we must work to stop profiling by police. However, I do not think that eliminating mandatory minimums with Bill C‑5 for people who discharge a firearm with intent will help eliminate racial profiling.
I think that this sends a mixed message in Quebec, which is seeing a surge in gun crimes.
Could my colleague explain how removing mandatory minimums on people who discharge a firearm can help eliminate racial profiling?
90 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 10:47:07 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for the good work that we managed to do together at committee to improve the bill.
We have just seen a couple of examples from the Conservatives and the Bloc of the attempt to somehow say that Bill C-5 threatens public safety. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could talk about the actual evidence we heard at committee on the impact of mandatory minimum sentences and how their impact, if anything, actually improves public safety by eliminating them.
88 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 11:22:49 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for bringing up the genocide of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls. I want to point to the national inquiry in which specific calls for justice called, in fact, for the end of mandatory minimum sentences because of the over-incarceration of indigenous women. This includes the 98% of women in prisons in Saskatchewan who are indigenous. They call for a complete end to mandatory minimum sentences.
Does my colleague stand in solidarity with indigenous women, and will she support this call for justice?
94 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 11:23:34 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for her question and I applaud the work that she has done on this file. She is very knowledgeable. I would not claim to know as much as she does about this important issue. I deeply respect her.
I would say that we will disagree on mandatory minimums, particularly when it comes to violence against indigenous women with firearms. There are firearms offences that are extraordinarily dangerous in this bill and the individuals who are terrorizing vulnerable communities, including indigenous women, may no longer face prison time. In fact, they may be serving house arrest in the communities of the women they terrorized. I could not in good conscience vote for a bill that would do that.
124 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 11:36:11 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, personally, I know of very few criminals who are aware that mandatory minimums exist and I know of even fewer actual empirical studies that show any kind of connection between mandatory minimums and a decrease in crime.
Unfortunately, there are still some people in the House who are advocating a demagogic, cavalier and repressive “get tough” approach, when what we really need is prevention and rehabilitation. My question for my colleague is this: Does getting tough on crime really have to be this tough?
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 11:49:24 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I heard the member say something earlier in her speech that gave me pause for reflection, and I apologize if it was lost in translation. Perhaps she could explain it.
I thought I heard her say that perhaps this is not a good time to remove mandatory minimums because of the fact that there is an increase in crime rates right now. That just seems an awkward statement to me, because I would think that one would believe that a policy is the right policy based on its implementation in other jurisdictions and based on data, not based on what happens to be the context in which that policy would apply at any given time.
Could the member expand on that and provide some clarity around that?
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 11:51:34 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.
I would also like some clarification as to the Bloc Québécois's position on mandatory minimum penalties. It is a little confusing because, on the whole, Quebeckers agree that they do not work and provide a false sense of security. The Barreau du Québec is against mandatory minimum penalties. Studies show that they do not work. Now the Bloc Québécois is telling us it is against mandatory minimum penalties, but not all of them and not at this time.
If they do not work, why keep them?
106 words
- 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 12:14:23 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member of the justice committee's remarks. I think there is a misconception out there, and I know he knows the bill well, so I would like his comment on it. The government has talked repeatedly about simple possession of drugs, and I would like his perspective. Conservatives believe that trafficking, production and importing are the offences for which mandatory minimums are being removed for schedule I and schedule II drugs, which include fentanyl, cocaine and heroin, which are some of the drugs that are plaguing our streets.
I would like his comments on the removal of the mandatory minimum penalty for those specific offences, which are clearly not simple possession.
118 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 12:15:19 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I am going to take a moment here to do what the Conservatives like to do and use an anecdote.
What about the case of a woman who is travelling with her boyfriend and he is involved with drug trafficking and he puts the drugs in her bag? When they come across the border, she is caught. Does she deserve a mandatory minimum sentence for importing drugs, or can the judge take into account the circumstances here that she may have been financially dependent on her boyfriend, or she may or may not have known he was trafficking drugs? As the law currently stands, she is going to end up in serious custody and do serious time in detention.
Just like the Conservatives like to give those extreme examples, there are many examples of where the law right now catches people and sentences them to mandatory prison time, when it is obviously not in the interest of the public to do so.
164 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 12:21:03 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, while I might not use quite as broad a brush in condemning my Conservative colleagues as the hon. member did, I think he draws attention to an important ancillary benefit of these changes in Bill C-5.
We certainly heard that one of the problems that comes from the existence of mandatory minimums is that they prevent the ability to plea bargain and keep cases out of court that take up valuable space in our courts that could be used for tackling, without delay, the more serious crimes. They increase court delays. They increase court costs.
Of course, when we keep someone in custody, as I talked about in my speech, for only a short period time, it is very expensive to do so and, at the same time, guarantees that they will not get the rehabilitation and training they need to successfully rehabilitate into society. It is not a good economic deal, as well as being not a good justice deal, as well as being not a good public safety deal.
Eliminating mandatory minimums will help us make progress on all of those fronts.
187 words
- 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 1:17:57 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, for the parliamentary secretary to have such little knowledge of the justice system makes sense given this bill. That question displays a stunning amount of ignorance. By eliminating mandatory minimums, the judge has discretion to go lower. The judge always had discretion to go higher. A mandatory minimum is not a maximum. The member should look that up.
When we say that this would lead to lower sentences, it is because the floor is gone. Judges would have the discretion to say, if the minimum was five years, that they do not have to give five years and can give three years. That is a lowered sentence, and that is what will happen for weapons traffickers, human traffickers and a whole of host of other offenders. I do not know how the Liberals do not see it.
139 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 1:20:12 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, there were dozens of mandatory minimum sentences added to the Criminal Code under the Harper government, and now there are even jurisdictions in the U.S., such as Texas, that have declared mandatory minimums expensive failures. Canadian courts have been striking them down as unconstitutional, yet we see the Conservative Party digging in further and further.
The hon. member said that the parliamentary secretary did not know what she was talking about, yet the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the National Police Federation appeared at committee and supported Bill C-5. I assume they know what they are talking about. Could the member explain why he does not believe they know what they are talking about?
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 1:20:58 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, the first problem with that question is that it compares the mandatory minimums in the United States with the ones here. The ones in Canada are significantly lower. Yes, some may have been struck down by the Supreme Court, but that does not mean we should strike all of them down. Does the member actually believe we should strike down—
63 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 1:21:38 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, the problem with the question is that it compares American justice with Canadian justice and compares American mandatory minimums, which are extraordinarily high, with Canadian mandatory minimums, which are quite low in most cases. That is a false narrative and a false comparator.
Mandatory minimums can serve a whole bunch of purposes, including showing society's denunciation of what is happening. When we look at the context of the gun crime going on in this country, the fact is that almost all of the guns are coming from the United States. Does the member agree that we should be reducing mandatory minimum penalties for gun traffickers? These are the people who are bringing the weapons in that are used to commit all these terrible crimes. That is just one example of why I believe this should not happen.
140 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 1:32:27 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, it is important to clarify that what the bill before us would actually do is allow judges to evaluate the circumstances before them. Removing mandatory minimum sentences means empowering our judges. It means that if someone poses a threat to society—for example, as the member cited, a drug trafficker—certainly a judge is capable of evaluating the person before him or her and imposing a sanction or sentence that fits the crime. Therefore, we absolutely support judges in exercising that discretion, and where they are warranted, we would insist on high sentences.
97 words
All Topics
- 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 1:49:15 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the work we have been able to do together in this place.
When it comes to mandatory minimum penalties, I do not agree, first of all, that the bill should be split. This is an important aspect of ensuring that women are not being sent to prison when they should not be sent to prison. The intent of this bill has been misconstrued in the debate today. I heard debate earlier from the Conservative Party that is giving Canadians the impression that public safety would be at risk, and it would not be.
Public safety would actually be enhanced if we are not sending people to prison. In my speech, I talked about how prisons are used to recruit people into gangs. If a young man, and it is predominantly young men, goes to prison and is not a gang member when he goes in, in all likelihood he will be a gang member when he is released. If we can find alternatives for those individuals, our public safety is greatly enhanced.
180 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
