SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 301 - Apr/17/24

The Speaker

Apr/17/24 5:42:59 p.m.
Watch

Yes, you do.

3 words

Yes

Mr. Kristian Firth

Apr/17/24 5:43:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am not ashamed.

6 words

Ashamed

The Speaker

Apr/17/24 5:43:05 p.m.
Watch

It is my duty to inform the House that Mr. Firth's presence at the bar is no longer required and that the order is discharged. Mr. Firth, you are now excused from the bar and will be escorted out by the Sergeant-at-Arms.

45 words

The Speaker

Apr/17/24 5:44:03 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-209

It being 5:44 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill S-209 under Private Members' Business. Call in the members.

38 words

The Deputy Speaker

Apr/17/24 6:14:00 p.m.
Watch

I declare the motion carried.

5 words

Hon. Bardish Chagger

Apr/17/24 6:14:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to submit a membership report for some membership changes that all parties have agreed to.

25 words

The Deputy Speaker

Apr/17/24 6:14:03 p.m.
Watch

Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

Hon. Bardish Chagger (Waterloo, Lib.)

Apr/17/24 6:15:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 104 and 114, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 64th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of committees of the House. I ask that the House give its consent so that I may move concurrence in the 64th report now.

58 words

The Deputy Speaker

Apr/17/24 6:15:30 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

37 words

Mr. Peter Julian

Apr/17/24 6:16:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would hope we would have unanimous consent for a motion to have a brief period for the presentation of petitions before going to Private Members' Business.

29 words

The Deputy Speaker

Apr/17/24 6:16:23 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. Some hon. members: Nay.

19 words

Nay
Opposed

Hon. Tim Uppal (Edmonton Mill Woods, CPC)

Apr/17/24 6:17:19 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5 Bill C-381

moved that Bill C-381, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (extortion), be read the second time and referred to a committee. He said: Mr. Speaker, crime is wreaking havoc in our neighbourhoods and communities right across this country. We see extraordinary crime statistics in almost every single category. We continue hearing about incidents that are committed by the same repeat offenders. They get arrested, get released and commit more crimes, and the cycle repeats. This is a result of the last nine years of the Liberals' soft-on-crime policies. After nine years under the Prime Minister, our nation faces a full-blown crisis that demands urgent action. Each day, Canadians wake up to the news of more gun violence, gang shootings, extortion, auto thefts, robberies and arson. That was not the case nine years ago. What happened nine years ago? Canadians got a new Prime Minister, a Prime Minister whose soft-on-crime policies unleashed chaos in our once peaceful towns and suburbs, a Prime Minister who made Canada a safe haven for organized crime and gangs, a Prime Minister who makes life easier for criminals, not Canadians, with his broken catch-and-release bail system. According to the Liberal government's own news release, auto theft in Toronto has skyrocketed by an alarming 300% since 2015. In just nine years, there has been a terrifying increase in extortion across the country. In fact, the rate of extortion was five times higher in 2022 than a decade prior. In 2022, the rate of police-reported extortion increased for the third consecutive year. Extortion has skyrocketed in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia, where it has risen 263%, 284% and 386%, respectively, since 2015. These numbers are extremely alarming. In the GTA alone, extortion has increased by 155% since 2015 and, in Vancouver, by 228%. I would like to remind my colleagues in the House that, behind every number and every statistic, there is a real family, a business owner who fears for their safety and their family's well-being. Canadian's lives and their livelihoods are at stake. There are examples of terrified families right across the country. I met one such family in the GTA, who ran a very successful business. They worked hard to get where they are today, but earlier this year they started receiving extortion threats. Soon after that, their house was shot at. The family had to stay separately in different hotels. They wore bullet-proof vests to go outside, and they had to purchase a bullet-proof vehicle as part of a long list of security measures. That was all because they ran a successful business. I also want to tell colleagues about Mr. Buta Singh Gill. He moved to Edmonton from Punjab, where he was a trained lawyer. Like many new Canadians, he worked in a meat processing plant when he got to Edmonton, and then he went on to drive a bus for the Edmonton transit system. Then he followed up on his dream to become an entrepreneur. He started building homes, first with single-family homes and then multi-family homes. Eventually, he started building apartments for Canadians to live in. He also gave back to the community. In fact, he and his family were heavily involved in revitalizing one of the gurdwaras in Edmonton. His family also received extortion threats. His family home was shot at. Houses that he had under construction were burned down. He and his family also had to take extraordinary security measures, which would obviously be extremely expensive for any family or business to undertake, but Buta would not let thugs slow him down. Last week, Mr. Buta Singh Gill, a prominent Edmonton businessman, a family man who had just welcomed his first grandkids, twins, and a community leader, was murdered in broad daylight at one of his construction sites. It seems the murder had nothing to do with the extortion letters. Regardless, he is another tragic victim of violent crime in our country. I went to his home and met with his family. His sister-in-law and brother said they cannot believe that this is happening in Canada and that they moved to Canada for a better life for their family, a safer life for their family. They are right that this is not the Canada they moved to. Things have been very different in the last nine years. Mayors in British Columbia and Ontario have written to the Prime Minister's top government officials asking them to take concrete action to combat extortion in their once-peaceful communities. Despite this, we continue to see the government's complete inaction. Extortion is a federal problem. The Criminal Code that allows these criminals to openly operate freely is federal. The RCMP, which is responsible for catching these criminals, is also federal, yet our neighbourhoods are grappling with the reality of the Prime Minister's indifference to their suffering. Law enforcement continues to catch and release the same individuals, who terrorize our communities and continue to commit crimes, because of soft-on-crime Liberal policies. Of course, it is not just extortion. Auto theft continues to rise across Canada. Statistics Canada paints a grim picture, with auto theft up by 190% in Moncton, 122% in the Ottawa-Gatineau area, over 100% in Montreal and 62% in Winnipeg. These staggering statistics underscore the urgent need for action to address this growing threat to our communities. In 2022, the insurance industry spent over $1 billion on car theft. Where does that extra $1 billion come from? It comes from the pockets of hard-working Canadians. They pay the cost of auto theft crime. With insurance premiums skyrocketing, some Canadian drivers are facing a staggering 25% increase in premiums this year alone. Again, the responsibility to combat auto theft lies squarely with the federal government. In fact, all primary prevention tools, such as the Criminal Code, the RCMP, the CBSA and our port systems, are at the Prime Minister's disposal. Liberal catch-and-release, soft-on-crime policies, Bill C-75 and Bill C-5, have allowed crime to thrive in our country. Liberal Bill C-5 eliminated mandatory prison time for drug traffickers and those who commit acts of violence. It allows criminals who commit violent acts to serve their sentences at home, in the same communities they have terrorized. According to a recent report published by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, violent crime is only getting worse and Canada's violent crime severity index is at its highest level since 2007. This means that the overall severity of crime has risen significantly in Canada. To put things in perspective, under the previous Conservative government, the violent crime severity index decreased by almost 25%. Under the Liberal government, it has increased by 30%. According to Statistics Canada, the rate of firearms-related violent crime in 2022 was at the highest level ever recorded. This is a 9% increase from 2021 alone. Because of Liberal catch-and-release policies, criminals who get caught are able to walk away and are back on our streets terrorizing our neighbourhoods, sometimes within hours. Just talk to local police officers and they will say that. In addition, an increasing number of criminal cases are being stayed or withdrawn thanks to the Liberal justice minister, who has simply failed to appoint enough judges. What does the government have to say to the victims of these crimes or to our hard-working police officers, who are sick and tired of catching the same criminals over and over again? Not surprisingly, Canadians are losing faith in our justice system. After eight years of Liberal catch-and-release policies letting crime and chaos run rampant on our streets, only 46% of Canadians still have confidence in our justice system. For Conservatives, combatting crime is a top priority. What we want to tell Canadians today is that they do not have to live like this. Conservatives have a common-sense plan to protect our businesses and neighbourhoods, with common-sense legislation that would prioritize the safety of Canadians. My private member's bill, the protection against extortion act, Bill C-381, is a common-sense bill that addresses extortion and those who terrorize our communities with demands for protection. First and foremost, this bill would undo the serious damage caused by the government's reckless crime policies, such as Bill C-5. Bill C-5 eliminated mandatory jail time for committing extortion with a firearm. On top of this, the government also brought in catch-and-release bail policies in Bill C-75, which make it easier for extortionists to get back onto our streets. Bill C-381 would establish a mandatory prison sentence of three years for a criminal conviction of extortion. In addition, we would bring in a mandatory five-year prison sentence for any criminal convicted of extortion who is acting on behalf of a gang or organized crime. This mean that not only would the criminals who carry out these crimes go to prison, but also that prosecutors and police would have another tool to go after the ringleaders of these organized crimes. We would restore mandatory four-year prison sentences for the offence of extortion with a firearm. We would make arson an aggravating factor. Finally, we would reverse the damage done by Bill C-75 and restore jail, not bail, for repeat offenders. Conservative Bill C-381 would ensure that extortion crime means mandatory jail time. It would go after the criminals, their gang leaders and anyone who participates in threatening our community members with arson or violence. With Bill C-381, common-sense Conservatives would send a clear message to criminals and their organized criminal bosses that, if they do the crime, they will do the time. My colleagues and I will not tolerate the exploitation of our citizens for financial gain, and we will not allow organized crime rings to terrorize our communities. Canadians deserve safe streets and secure communities. They deserve a government that will listen to them and take their safety concerns seriously. It is our duty to deliver on this fundamental promise. Common-sense Conservatives would fix the damage and the chaos that the government's nine years in power has created. We would ensure that the extortionists who scare and intimidate our neighbours will stay longer in jail. We would go after the leaders of these organized crime rings to make sure they get shut down once and for all. Extortion has no place in Canada. Conservatives would bring home safe streets for all Canadians. Let us bring it home.

1777 words

Mr. Sukh Dhaliwal (Surrey—Newton, Lib.)

Apr/17/24 6:30:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. member for Edmonton Mill Woods for bringing this bill forward. When it comes to extortion, B.C. is one of the provinces he mentioned. In fact, all orders of government, irrespective of their political stripe, and all police forces in Canada have to come together to find a smart and tough solution to deal with these situations. I wonder if the hon. member would agree that we, as one party irrespective of political stripe, all orders of government and all police forces have to come together to find a smart and tough solution to deal with this situation.

107 words

Hon. Tim Uppal

Apr/17/24 6:31:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to say that we all need to come together to find a solution, but the fact is that the member is part of the government that brought in Bill C-75 and Bill C-5, which make it easier for violent criminals to get back out onto the streets and terrorize the same communities they come from. If we talked to police officers right across the country, they would tell us they are arresting criminals in the morning who are being released later that day. The member and the government had the power to keep criminals in jail. They chose their ideological ways and soft-on-crime policies and are allowing these criminals back onto the streets. Only Conservatives would put criminals behind bars with jail, not bail.

133 words

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP)

Apr/17/24 6:32:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, once again we have Conservatives bringing forward a bill that calls for imposing mandatory minimum penalties. I am wondering what evidence they have, in describing this as a tool, that mandatory minimums actually works as a deterrent because, as a former criminal justice instructor, I can cite stacks of information that show that mandatory minimums have absolutely no deterrent effect.

62 words

Hon. Tim Uppal

Apr/17/24 6:33:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that, since the government has been in power, over the last nine years, and the NDP member and the NDP-Liberal government have brought in these soft-on-crime policies, crime has gone up. Every statistic across the country on violent crime has gone up. We have made a commitment to Canadians that we would put these criminals behind bars. A repeat, violent offender who is behind bars cannot commit crimes again because they are in jail.

85 words

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Apr/17/24 6:33:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank and commend my colleague, a deputy leader of the Conservative Party, for his leadership on prioritizing victims, not offenders, but victims. I am wondering if the member can share how the scales need to be tipped back to ensure that it is victims and their rights that are protected at a time when we see crime running rampant on the streets of this country.

71 words

Hon. Tim Uppal

Apr/17/24 6:34:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right, we have to take the side of victims right across the country. I continue to meet with so many victims who are just lost for words. What can they do to protect their families? Many of them are new Canadians who came to this country expecting a better future, and they feel that they cannot do anything. Many are having their vehicles stolen, and there is nothing they can do. There are those who have been involved in violence, and there is nothing they can do. They actually see the same person who committed those crimes back out on the streets. Canadians feel helpless. Canadians need help. Canadians need a government that will stand up for them and protect them, and Conservatives would do that.

131 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)

Apr/17/24 6:35:08 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-381

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today to Bill C-381, the protection against extortion act. As we all know, extortion is increasingly impacting Canadian communities. We recognize and acknowledge that extortion is a very serious crime that can impact multiple facets of a person's life. Bill C-381 proposes amendments to the Criminal Code that the sponsor believes will combat extortion by reinstating a mandatory minimum penalty. I will focus my remarks today on the proposed amendments related to the penalty regime and sentencing. As it currently stands, we have a robust criminal law framework to address the crime of extortion. The offence of extortion is covered under section 346 of the Criminal Code, and it is a straight indictable offence that carries significant penalties. These penalties are intended to reflect the seriousness of the offence and the responsibility of the offender. If an individual is convicted of extortion, they will be subject to the maximum penalty of imprisonment for life. I want to emphasize this: The maximum penalty for extortion is life imprisonment. Bill C-381 also proposes to direct courts to consider, as an aggravating factor, if that offender, in committing the offence of extortion, also committed arson. We recognize that arson is a serious crime that poses a danger to a community and the public, and there is unquestionable intent to cause damage to property. While there is no doubt that the combination of extortion and arson is damaging and dangerous, I question whether this change would have any meaningful effect. It seems to me that, if there is evidence that someone committed arson and extortion, then a prosecutor would seek convictions for both. If they do, then the proposed aggravating factor becomes meaningless. Moreover, treating an element of an offence for which an offender was convicted as aggravating at sentencing was found to be an error in principle in the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Lacasse in 2015. Arson can have devastating impacts to individuals and businesses. As with cases of extortion, the seriousness of the offence of arson is reflected in the current criminal framework to address crimes of this nature. Individuals convicted of arson are subject to maximum terms of imprisonment ranging from five years to life, depending on the circumstances. Along with the offences contained in the Criminal Code, the sentencing regime addresses the seriousness of extortion and arson as it relates to organized crime. Section 718.2 of the Criminal Code sets out aggravating factors that a sentencing judge must take into consideration when crafting an appropriate sentence. One of the codified aggravating factors is evidence that the offence was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization. Given that extortion crimes often imply a level of sophistication that suggest the workings of criminal enterprise, this factor gives sentencing judges the ability to impose penalties that fall on the higher end of the spectrum in cases where organized crime is involved. A court must also consider the victim's extortion when crafting an appropriate sentence. The sentencing regime sets out that it would be particularly aggravating if an offence has a significant impact on the victim, considering their age and other personal circumstances, such as their financial situation. I would also note that Bill C-381 proposes enacting more mandatory minimum penalties. We have had ample evidence over the years that MMPs do not work. I do not want members to take my word for it, either. They can listen to Ben Perrin, legal adviser to former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper. He has stated that “[mandatory minimum penalties] are a grave policy failure and cheap politics.” Mr. Perrin goes on to say, “If history is any judge, [the Leader of the Opposition's mandatory minimum penalties] may not be worth the paper they're printed on. What's worse, even if they do pass constitutional muster, they will only exacerbate the existential challenges facing the criminal justice system.” Mr. Perrin also said that the Leader of the Opposition's “idea may actually backfire, leading to more crime in the long term.” Again, these are not my words. Those are the words of the former legal adviser to Stephen Harper. This is the man who advised Stephen Harper on justice policy, who has now seen the problems caused by reckless Conservative Party criminal justice policy. Our government believes in evidence-based policy, and we know this is simply not that. The Leader of the Opposition likes to throw around such phrases as “stop the crime”, but he has no real plan to do that. As we often see from him, it is just a series of slogans. On this side, we actually believe in policies that will reduce crime. We also know that mandatory minimum penalties have a disproportionate effect on Black and indigenous people in the justice system. Data from Correctional Service of Canada shows that the disproportionate impact of MMPs on indigenous peoples and Black Canadians has also been reported in admissions to federal correctional institutions. Specifically, of all admissions to federal custody between 2007-08 and 2016-17, 39% of Black offenders and 20% of indigenous offenders were admitted for an offence punishable by a mandatory minimum penalty. Here, the proportion for indigenous offenders increased from 14% in the same year, 2007-08, to 26% in 2016-17. The proposal brought forward by the hon. member is unlikely to result in higher sentences being imposed, given the serious penalties already associated with arson and extortion and the corresponding aggravating factors I referenced earlier. Our existing legal framework provides judges with the tools and discretion needed to tailor sentences that reflect the gravity of the offence by the offender. While there is no doubt that extortion is a serious crime, our current legal framework is such that extortion is being addressed in a way that reflects its severity and harmful effects. We need to focus on serious policies rather than empty slogans and policies we know will not work. I encourage all hon. members to work together on policy that will combat crime rather than failed policies and slogans.

1043 words

Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ)

Apr/17/24 6:42:33 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-381

Mr. Speaker, this feels a bit like Groundhog Day. I have sat in the House since 2015, and there is a recurring debate between the Liberal and NDP vision of opposing mandatory minimum sentences and the Conservative vision of applying this policy to as many offences as possible. I think we need to reflect on the issue, which is no small matter, but we also need to find ways to be effective, to adopt legal rules, legislation and regulations that are in line with the values of the society in which we live. The Bloc Québécois is opposed, in principle, to systematically adding minimum sentences to the Criminal Code. Prison time is often essential, and our courts do not hesitate to use it to punish numerous offences. However, there are other penalties, other solutions besides prison, that exist and that deserve to be considered. It is certainly not a question of being more tolerant when an offence is committed. On the contrary, we believe that the values we hold must be reflected in the laws we adopt and that these laws must be enforced and complied with by all. When our rules are broken, a fair and consistent consequence must follow. However, we must never forget to be imaginative when we think about how our justice system should be structured. Might I suggest that we be daring? We are here to legislate. The Bloc Québécois believes that our justice system must help build a functional society that effectively brings together a safe, equitable and fair system for everyone. It is our responsibility as legislators to put in place laws and regulations that ensure that all people can walk the streets freely and safely. What a great success it will be if we manage to stamp out crime one day. I am too old to believe in unicorns, flying horses and other magical creatures, but I will never stop working to make our society better. That is why we believe that when people break our laws and must be sentenced, we must always strive to rehabilitate them wherever possible. Rehabilitation is not a magic pill; it is an objective. Our job as members of this legislature is to find ways to punish those who should be punished, prevent them from doing harm and, if possible, get them back on the right track. Last year on January 13, the 13 provincial and territorial premiers wrote a letter to the Prime Minister to remind him of his duties in this regard. They called for a reverse onus on bail for the offence of possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm. Obviously, we need to take that into account and be vigilant. The question remains: How do we take effective action? The Supreme Court of Canada struck down many of the mandatory minimum sentences passed by a previous Parliament. The situation had to be fixed. Many minimum sentences were abolished. However, our Conservative Party colleagues keep demanding at every opportunity that we reinstate these minimum sentences in the Criminal Code. I could let this behaviour bother me, given that, as I said at the outset, the Bloc Québécois is not a big fan of mandatory minimum sentences. Instead, I choose to take it as a call to work, an invitation to examine the issue of how to enforce our laws and impose the most appropriate penalties on offenders. In committee, I proposed an alternative to minimum sentences, something that would reconcile the neo-liberal or “liberal-democrat” vision, that is, the vision of the Liberal Party and the NDP, with the position at the other extreme, in other words, the position of our colleagues in the Conservative Party. Why not include a provision that would allow courts to depart from the mandatory minimum sentences when exceptional circumstances allow? We would then have the minimum sentences some people want so badly, but we would also have a safety measure, a safety valve, that would allow a judge hearing a case to determine, in certain circumstances, that the mandatory minimum sentence is inappropriate. By justifying the exceptional circumstances, courts could waive the mandatory minimum sentences. Is this the best solution? Probably not. There could be others. However, it is one solution, and I think it deserves to be considered. There is another possibility. Why not consider adjusting the sentences to include a transitional period during which the inmate could be released, but required to wear an electronic tracking device? For example, for a one-year sentence, the person could spend a year, a year and a half or two years behind bars. The period could be discussed. Then the inmate could be released, go to work, carry on with their social and family activities, resume a “normal” life, or as normal a life as possible, but under constant surveillance. How could this individual get away with resuming their criminal activities under that sort of surveillance? What criminal organization would want to use the services of such a compromised individual? According to the statistics, when a member of any criminal organization is sentenced to three, four, five or 10 years of prison, that person is almost automatically taken back as soon as they are released. They are told that they have served their time and can come back to work. For example, they may be asked to go get three Mercedes from Westmount and two Ladas from another neighbourhood. However, if the individual were wearing an electronic monitoring device when they were released, I am not convinced that the most powerful criminal organizations would want to use that individual's services. That is another option, a second alternative. Once again, is it the best option? Maybe it is or maybe it is not, but it is worth considering. As I was saying, I am going to consider our Conservative colleagues' invitation to address the issue of minimum sentencing as an invitation and opportunity to think about and work on improving the Criminal Code. The Bloc Québécois is therefore willing to send Bill C-381 to committee and work on bringing it into line with the values of safety and security, justice and appropriate consequences for wrongdoing, while seeking to create a better society in the short or medium term, in other words, a society made up of law-abiding people and, when necessary, people who have been rehabilitated.

1083 words