44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 14, 2022 10:00AM
- 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 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 1:17:57 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 1:59:27 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary referenced Newt Gingrich, saying that mandatory minimums were not successful in the United States. In my view, the United States' experiment with mandatory minimums was completely different than the Canadian approach. In the United States, sentences are often 10 times what they are here, and it has the three-strike rules. We do not have that in Canada.
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 3:16:26 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, I have only two and a half minutes left for my speech on Bill C-5. The point I want to emphasize to the House is this: There is a middle ground.
We have talked about what the government wishes to accomplish and we have considered how the government should go about accomplishing it. What I would propose and have proposed is to add a mechanism to this law that would allow mandatory minimums to remain in place but make an exception, by way of an exceptional circumstances provision, for somebody who represents a group that is overrepresented in the justice system or has had a life-changing event. This would enable the government to maintain mandatory minimum sentences, but in exceptional circumstances they would not apply.
This would do exactly what my counterparts on the other side of the House have advocated. It would allow for judicial discretion where necessary, but would still communicate to the public that gun offences will be taken seriously and that things like robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm and reckless discharge, as in a drive-by shooting, would still result in a substantial sentence, absent very significant circumstances.
Such a provision would be constitutional, and it is my belief that it would strike an appropriate middle ground. I wish the government had done the same in this circumstance; it did not, and I exhort the government to do so in the future.
243 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 3:48:48 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, I know how hard the member works and how much she loves this country, but I would reject the notion that mandatory minimums are racist. By definition, regardless of the colour of one's skin or ethnicity, one gets a mandatory minimum.
Because there is no rehabilitation and there is such a high rate of recidivism, would it not be better to address the root causes of this overrepresentation, such as poverty, abuse, mental health and addictions? Would the member not agree?
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 3:53:37 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, we are all doing what we are doing with the best of intentions, and in 2007, when mandatory minimums were introduced, many people thought they would really help to reduce crime and improve public safety. What we have seen is that they have done far more damage than good.
51 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 4:23:08 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear the member's comments. We know that time and time again the courts have struck down mandatory minimum penalties as unconstitutional. The Conservatives were in full-throated support of charter rights during the truckers' convoy, yet that seems to be expendable during this debate.
The question I have relates to judicial discretion. Mandatory minimums take away judicial discretion. The Conservatives and the Liberals have both appointed some excellent judges. Why do the Conservatives not trust them?
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 4:23:52 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his observation. My answer will be to the point, as was his question.
It is up to Parliament to decide what the minimum and maximum sentences for an offence should be and it is a judge's duty to decide how he or she will apply those maximums and minimums based on the circumstances in each case.
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 4:24:28 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, I am by no means an expert in this field. It is true that, at first glance, I feel a little worried.
However, I have done some reading and learned that we have known for some time that mandatory minimum sentences do not deter certain crimes. For example, the United States has the toughest mandatory minimum sentences for drug use, but they have had no effect on people.
If mandatory minimums have no effect, what could the member suggest to ensure that our society is better off?
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 4:25:15 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member if she supports mandatory minimum sentences that remain for crimes such as murder, high treason and other violent crimes. If she does not, then we should do away with those mandatory minimums as well. Victims of crime deserve better from the government and this Parliament, and I would encourage all members to reject this bill.
62 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 4:26:03 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, literally dozens of mandatory minimum sentences were added to the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act under the Harper government. Now, even when jurisdictions in the U.S., like Texas, have declared mandatory minimums as expensive failures and the Canadian courts have been striking them down as unconstitutional, have Conservative members changed their minds and recognized both the ineffectiveness and injustice of mandatory minimum penalties?
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 4:38:01 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. colleague for her speech, but I was left a bit concerned, because every piece of research out there shows that mandatory minimums do not work. Every piece of research in Canada, the United States and around the world shows that the only people who are disproportionately affected by mandatory minimums are people of colour. What I would love to understand from the member opposite is how—
73 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 4:38:39 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's speech, but I really fail to understand it. There is no data that shows mandatory minimums work. In fact, every piece of data says mandatory minimums do not work, whether from Canada or the United States. The only thing it does prove is that people of colour, indigenous people and Black people are the ones who are disproportionately affected by mandatory minimums.
Can the member opposite share any data she has that proves mandatory minimums work and that they do not disproportionately affect people of colour and indigenous people?
97 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 5:02:16 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, I will end with the Bloc's position on this. I will stop picking on the Conservatives and I will turn to the Bloc. I see this wicked and very dramatically evolving change of heart with the Bloc in terms of its position on this bill. Bloc members seem to now be sitting on the fence. The member for Shefford said earlier that this just might not be the right time for this bill, as if in a couple of months it might be or maybe a few months ago it could have been. They are on the fence. I think they just need a bit of a push at this point to come over.
The member for Shefford, if I remember correctly, also talked about exceptional circumstances. She said she thinks that under certain exceptional circumstances, mandatory minimums might be appropriate, but under other circumstances, more regular circumstances perhaps, they would not be. I would suggest it is very clear, based on what we have seen in our own data as to what has happened over the past few decades, that mandatory minimums do not work and that it is time we actually start to develop strategies that help to rehabilitate individuals so that they can indeed become productive members of society again. At the end of the day, that is what we want. That is what we should want.
I get a kick out of it. The Conservatives are clapping right now in a very facetious manner, as if to suggest that should not be our overall objective and goal, and I think it should be. We have a role. We call it “corrections” because we are looking to help people get better and to change their lives so that they can become productive and contributing members of society once again. Unfortunately, time after time, we see Conservatives go down the exact same road with respect to their approach on this. I certainly disagree with them, and I most certainly will be voting in favour of this bill.
344 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
