44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 14, 2022 10:00AM
- Jun/14/22 10:45:48 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I have spoken extensively on systemic racism within the criminal justice system and why it is important to ensure that those who do not pose a risk do not end up in jail.
With respect to gun violence, it is a very important and real issue. My community of Scarborough—Rouge Park has dealt with this. I dealt with this when I ran a youth organization. I have buried my share of young people disproportionately in my community and it is an awfully painful process. It is one that I am still traumatized by.
What is important is that Bill C-21 addresses the issues that my friend opposite is talking about. It increases penalties for those firearm offences. It gives discretion to the judge to impose a sentence of up to 14 years, which is higher than we have right now.
What we are impressing in Bill C-5 is to make sure that those who do not pose a risk and maybe are first-time offenders are given an opportunity to get out of the criminal justice process and continue their lives.
187 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 10:52:18 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, Bill C-21 addresses the issues that my friend opposite has brought forward. Gun violence is a problem in our society. Bill C-21 addresses it in a holistic way. It imposes higher sentences when appropriate and allows judges the discretion to ensure that those who commit serious offences get serious sentences.
58 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 11:21:43 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for her question. We have worked together on committee and I thank her for her hard work.
Winnipeg is the epicentre of murdered and missing indigenous women. It is an extremely serious issue that is wreaking havoc on Winnipeg's north end, in particular, and in our northern reserve communities. It is very serious. I know this issue very well, having worked for the provincial government at the time.
We can go back to Bill C-5. It allows house arrest for sexual assault and for kidnapping. It allows no prison time for firing a gun with the intent to injure, for robbery with a firearm and for extortion with a firearm. These are very serious offences faced most of all by the most vulnerable in our society. We see this time and again: There is story after story of indigenous women and girls suffering at the hands of criminals doing these exact crimes who will no longer have mandatory prison time as a result of the Liberals' Bill C-5. It is unacceptable.
181 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 11:35:01 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, if the topic were not so serious, this kind of argument would make me smirk.
For weeks, or even months, the Minister of Justice has been trying to convince us that minimum sentences have no effect on the criminals who commit these offences.
Now they want to convince us that increasing the maximum sentences will impress them. I do not think so.
I think that what offenders do not want is to get caught. They do not want to go to prison, period. If a minimum sentence for the crime they are committing does not make them think twice, I do not think that a maximum sentence of 12, 14 or 20 years is going to change anything.
That said, Bill C-21 primarily addresses the issue of legal guns by restricting certain provisions, but it does not in any way address illegal arms trafficking, which the government is being asked to contain.
157 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 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 12:16:18 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, the hon. member's speech was thoughtful. He is quite knowledgeable on the bill, but I do not agree with him on balance on the bill, and I am not going to support it.
The part that I would like him to comment on is the section that opens up community sentencing for serious sexual offences. We know that victims of sexual assault are severely disincentivized to report the crime because of the continued victimization that occurs. The prospect of the perpetrator of a sex crime being able to serve a sentence in the community is one that troubles me.
I wonder if the member could comment on that portion of the bill.
115 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 12:22:09 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Halifax West.
I am pleased to speak to Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Today I would like to address necessary amendments proposed in Bill C-5.
Our criminal justice system continues to perpetuate a cycle of systemic racism, a system which is disproportionately overrepresented by indigenous peoples, Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities both as offenders and as victims. Sentencing laws within the Canadian criminal justice system have historically focused on punishment through imprisonment rather than ensuring that the responses to criminal conduct are fair, effective and prioritize public safety.
Adopting the proposed amendments to Bill C-5 are imperative to stop the cycle of systemic racism and overrepresentation in the criminal justice system, while taking steps towards addressing the disparities experienced by vulnerable groups. The proposed amendments maintain the courts’ ability to impose serious penalties in appropriate cases for firearms offences, ensuring that sentencing is proportionate to the crime.
I have the privilege of serving as the chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Our committee recently completed a study on this bill. We heard from experts, law enforcement, legal representatives, and those who are marginalized and who have interacted with the criminal justice system. The testimony encompassed the diverse experiences of those who have encountered the consequences of Bill C-5 from across the country. The testimony recounted racialized and marginalized individuals’ intergenerational experiences with racism in policing and sentencing, arguing that a colonial system of incarceration is not encompassing of the needs of Canadians.
Bill C-5 would address the concerns raised by the witness testimony we heard around racism and overrepresentation in the justice system by promoting judicial discretion and prioritizing individualized sentencing. This process ensures that an individual who is found guilty is sentenced appropriately to the degree of responsibility of the offender and the seriousness of the offence. A sentencing court must look at all mitigating and aggravating factors specific to the case, including the offender’s risk to public safety, circumstances specific to the offender and instances of systemic racism experienced by the offender.
When it comes to crimes, specifically gun crimes and youth violence, I have been working hard with groups for over decades. I can tell colleagues that minimum mandatory penalties have not deterred or reduced gun crime. Prevention, intervention or tough enforcement at borders have been effective. Most of these young folks need help and jail is not the answer.
A criminal justice system which utilizes a mandatory minimum penalty as a model of reform is not reflective of Canadian values or the needs of racialized and marginalized communities within Canada. We can see from the statistics that the Canadian criminal justice system has historically been ill-equipped when considering individuals who are vulnerable, struggle with mental health and substance use, are experiencing homelessness, live in poverty or lack access to essential and social services. We must ensure that Canada does not use the criminal justice system to address social issues. Rather, we must ensure public safety, accountability and justice.
Research shows that in Canada indigenous people, Black Canadians and other racialized persons are more likely to come in contact with the criminal justice system, often due to systemic racism as well as other social and economic factors. These statistics are further exacerbated by the fact that members of these communities are overrepresented in correctional facilities.
Between 2007-08 and 2016-17, indigenous and Black offenders were more likely to be remanded to federal custody for an offence punishable by a mandatory minimum in the last 10 years. The number of indigenous adults admitted to federal custody for a firearm-related offence punishable by a mandatory minimum penalty increased by 23%.
Despite representing only 5% of the Canadian adult population in 2020, indigenous adults accounted for 30% of federally incarcerated inmates. In 2018-19, Black inmates represented 7% of the federal offender population, but only 3% of the Canadian population. If we continue to support a system which perpetuates systemic racism, the cycle of incarceration will continue to be the path for many marginalized communities.
There are 13 mandatory minimum penalties related to firearms offences that would be removed, empowering the courts’ ability to impose proportionate and individualized sentencing to offenders.
Bill C-5 would repeal the firearms-related mandatory minimum penalties for possession of a loaded firearm, prohibited or restricted firearm, possession of a weapon obtained by crime, possession of an unauthorized firearm, and importing a firearm knowing that it is not authorized.
Repealing mandatory minimums for these offences would allow for greater use of conditional sentence orders in cases where an offender faces a term of less than two years' imprisonment and does not pose a threat to public safety. It would also require police and prosecutors to consider measures aside from incarceration.
The reality is that the restricted availability of conditional sentencing has contributed to the disparities experienced by racialized and marginalized communities in Canada. Consistent with the government’s commitments, mandatory minimum penalties would remain in place for offences related to robbery, extortion, discharging a firearm with intention to cause bodily harm, firearm trafficking and importing, and making automatic weapons.
A justice system that unfairly targets indigenous peoples, Black and marginalized communities is not effective. It does not keep us safe and must be changed. For those who say that Bill C-5 is not tough enough on crime, those who commit serious offences will continue to receive serious sentences.
Our bill is about getting rid of the failed policies that filled our prisons with low-risk, first-time offenders. They do not need to be put in jail; they need support. These failed policies did not deter crime in the past. They did not keep us safe and they did not make our justice system more efficient. They target vulnerable and racialized Canadians.
Canadians see the devastating effects that come from firearms on a daily basis. I am no exception. However, I recognize that a one-size-fits-all system, where mandatory minimum penalties are considered just and fair, is not representative of those who are disproportionately impacted by the Canadian criminal justice system.
For those who are a danger to the public, or are serious or repeat offenders, a judge would be able to award stiff and harsh penalties in some cases higher than the minimum sentences. This is not a soft-on-crime approach. This is an approach that separates social issues from judicial issues, and allows the judiciary to make the appropriate sentence.
To end the cycle of overrepresentation, we require a tailored approach that encourages rehabilitation and acknowledges the historical and ongoing injustices faced by Canadians across the country. Repealing select mandatory minimum penalties does not mean that firearms offences are considered serious offences; rather, it provides the courts with the ability to impose appropriate and proportionate sentences.
The changes we make today to our criminal justice system will have an impact on current and future Canadians. It will change the way we engage with racialized and marginal communities. This includes providing meaningful support for victims, accused persons, offenders, their families and their communities.
Our government is committed to maintaining public safety, and has taken urgent and significant action to make Canada safer.
1235 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 12:36:12 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I am rising virtually this afternoon to speak to Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
This bill is an important step forward in our ongoing work to acknowledge and address systemic racism in Canada's justice system. Our response to systemic racism must be comprehensive, and I acknowledge there will be more to do after Bill C-5 to reform our criminal justice system and ensure that Canadians from all backgrounds and indigenous people are treated fairly when they become involved with the court system.
As a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, I heard the testimony of many witnesses and on-the-ground experts calling for reforms. Canadians want responses to criminal conduct to be fair and effective while ensuring that public safety is maintained.
The bill proposes three reforms.
The first part is to repeal the mandatory minimum penalties of imprisonment for 14 of the 67 offences in the Criminal Code, and all six offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, to address the disproportionate impact on indigenous and Black offenders as well as those struggling with substance use and addiction. The actual empirical evidence on mandatory minimum penalties is clear on their failure as deterrents, the strain they add to our justice system and their harm in adding to the over-incarceration of Black and indigenous people who already face marginalization.They are failed policies that did not keep Canadians safe or make our justice system more efficient.
260 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 12:38:49 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, they are failed policies that did not keep Canadians safe or make our justice system more efficient. What they did was fill our prisons with low-risk first-time offenders who needed help.
Bill C-5 removes mandatory minimum penalties that target lower-risk and first-time offenders and have been shown to increase the over-incarceration of racialized and marginalized groups. Removing these mandatory minimum penalties does nothing to prevent serious penalties from being imposed on those who commit serious crimes. We are not preventing police from charging people with gun offences or prosecutors from pursuing convictions.
We are restoring judicial discretion so that sentencing judges can impose just sentences that are proportionate to the degree of responsibility of the offender, and the seriousness of the offence, and take into account all aggravating and mitigating factors, including the risk to public safety, the individual in front of them and their experience with systemic racism.
These could include terms of imprisonment that are lower or higher than the mandatory minimum penalties, which would be repealed. Mandatory minimum penalties would continue to exist for offences including murder, high treason, sexual offences, impaired driving offences and serious firearms offences.
Second, the bill would allow for greater use of conditional sentence orders in cases where an offender faces a term of less than two years’ imprisonment and does not pose a threat to public safety. Bill C-5 would restore greater availability of conditional sentences, so that judges would have the flexibility needed to allow offenders who do not pose any risk to the public to serve their sentences in their communities with strict conditions. These conditions would include a curfew, house arrest, abstaining from the consumption of drugs and alcohol, abstaining from owning, possessing or carrying a weapon, abstaining from communicating with victims, and attending a treatment program approved by the province.
As witness Michael Spratt pointed out:
Offenders can be required to take counselling, seek employment, perform community service and make reparations to the victims of their offences.
That is because, unlike other sanctions, CSOs allow courts to focus on rehabilitation. Less serious offenders who receive CSOs would have access to treatment programs and other supportive services while keeping their families together, having the benefit of community supports, and costing the system dramatically less money. This would help to promote the rehabilitation and reintegration of those who do not pose a risk to society, and by extension would deter crime and ensure our communities are safe. We know that locking up less serious offenders is a poor tool for supporting rehabilitation. I certainly saw that during my time as Attorney General in Nova Scotia.
I would like to quote Brandon Rolle of the African Nova Scotian Justice Institute, who testified in front of us at committee. He said:
...we know that when you go to jail as a Black person, you're not going to have culturally informed programming. You're going to be deemed a troublemaker more often. You're going to be classified at a higher risk. You're not going to come out of that situation in a place to successfully reintegrate into the community.
If there is an opportunity, then, to have less serious offenders serve their sentences in the community alongside their support systems, when there is no risk to public safety it behooves us to provide that option if we are truly interested in rehabilitating those who have been convicted of a crime. The way to do that is to restore judicial discretion to allow the flexibility. I have confidence in our judges and our witnesses, including Mme. Guerin Skalusat, from the Musqueam Indian Band and Manager of Indigenous Relations with British Columbia Infrastructure Benefits, who said exactly that. She said:
I would say that, yes, I have confidence in the judges. I think the implementation of Gladue went pretty well. I think it's something that our community members and those who are facing the criminal justice system are very familiar with. We have lots of resources to support that process. Yes, with that same level of support, I think it would be good.
I want to add that Bill C-5 would not make CSOs available for the offences of advocating genocide, torture, attempted murder, terrorism, serious criminal organization offences or any offence carrying a mandatory minimum penalty.
Third, this bill would require police and prosecutors to consider other measures for simple possession of a drug, such as diversion to addiction treatment programs, rather than laying charges or prosecuting individuals for simple possession of an illegal drug. The proposed amendment reinforces our government’s commitments to address the opioid crisis and to treat problematic substance use as a health issue rather than a criminal issue. This would prioritize getting people the help they need rather than further stigmatizing and punishing them. This is the additional benefit of avoiding the costs associated with an individual’s defence. If an individual is charged, they can still be diverted by the Crown prosecutor.
We understand that police and prosecutors will need tools and guidance to make this work, and we will be there as a government to provide that. As the exemption recently granted to British Columbia clearly demonstrates, we believe the opioid crisis is a public health crisis, and diversion is the better option for those struggling with addictions rather than locking them up. That is how, ultimately, we are going to make a difference in crime reduction.
Finally, for Canadians watching and seeing that the debate here has grown more polarized, I want to say to Halifax West residents, Nova Scotians and Canadians that we worked collaboratively on this bill in committee and have adopted a number of amendments. In conclusion, I cannot stress enough the significance of Bill C-5. We have a serious over-incarceration problem in Canada.
As a final note, literally, in the middle of our committee’s study on the bill, we all read a troubling headline in the paper: “Indigenous women make up almost half the female prison population”. Indigenous women make up only 4.9% of Canada’s female population. If this does not call out for reform, I do not know what would. The trend and the trajectory cannot continue. We have to get serious about restorative justice and supporting communities impacted by poverty and intergenerational trauma. I call on all parliamentarians to join us in passing this bill and committing to work together to develop smart-on-crime policy solutions.
1094 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 12:48:53 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to explain why Bill C‑5 combines two fundamentally different elements: the repeal of minimum sentences for offences involving the use of a firearm, and diversion measures for simple possession.
38 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 3:22:01 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague brings up a great point.
Section 718 of the Criminal Code deals with sentencing, and it talks about the principles of denunciation and deterrence. When we think about these things, we are asking, “What message are we sending to the public?”
I would answer the question with a question: What message do we send when a reckless discharge of a firearm can result in a community-based sentence?
In my view, the message that we are sending is that we are not serious enough on this issue. I am sure that everybody in the House has their heart ache when they hear about anybody being shot, particularly an innocent civilian, and I am worried about our messaging when we do not go hard on these very serious offences.
135 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 3:23:40 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, this question allows me to raise a vital point.
The sentence for robbery is a maximum of life in prison. Breaking and entering has a maximum sentence of life in prison. These are offences that we often see. Robbery is taking property by force from somebody. Sexual assault is taking a person's dignity by force, a person's sexual inviolability, yet sexual assault has a maximum of a 10-year sentence, while robbery has a maximum of life imprisonment. Why the discrepancy?
Parliament needs to act on this.
91 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 4:08:46 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech.
When I spoke with the member for Rivière-du-Nord, who is the Bloc Québécois critic on this issue, he began reading me the list of offences for which mandatory minimum sentences would be repealed, including using a firearm in the commission of an offence, possession of a firearm or weapon knowing that its possession is unauthorized, possession of a prohibited firearm, possession of a firearm obtained by the commission of an offence, and weapons trafficking. When he read all this to me, I must admit that I felt worried.
Will the bill we are discussing this afternoon make the public feel safer, or will it make them feel worried?
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 4:10:48 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member for Lac-Saint-Louis sharing how mandatory minimum penalties contribute to systemic racism. He made many important points in his speech. However, Bill C-5 only repeals mandatory minimums from 14 of the 67 offences in the Criminal Code that currently carry them.
The Black Legal Action Centre is the only legal clinic in Ontario that focuses specifically on anti-Black racism. I wonder if the member is aware that the Black Legal Action Centre, among many other organizations, has been calling for the removal of all mandatory minimum penalties to more fully realize the government's stated commitments to racial justice and indigenous reconciliation.
111 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 5:06:52 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, I hope to provide a bit of wisdom to the House. I may not have a lot of experience, but I am the right age for the job. In response to the member's speech, I want to make something clear right away. The Bloc Québécois has been saying since this morning that it will be voting in favour of the bill. It is time to stop asking questions and interpreting our colleagues' comments.
We can see the glass as half full or half empty. We have decided to see it as half full because several measures, including the diversion measures for some offences and the abolition of certain mandatory minimum sentences seem justified. However, we must not think that keeping people out of prison is going to save us a pile of money. It will take money and support to help those individuals and there is no mention of that in the bill.
Why is the Liberal Party, who accuses the opposition of all sorts of things, unable to do some nuanced thinking itself? Why is it rejecting the amendments proposed by the Bloc Québécois, which included removing the offence of discharging a firearm from the list of offences requiring a mandatory minimum sentence? That is the type of example that called for nuance, but the Liberals do not understand the meaning of that.
235 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
