So V ote

Hon. Marco Mendicino (Minister of Public Safety, Lib.)

Jun/6/22 2:46:54 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5 Bill C-21

Mr. Speaker, it is the height of irony to hear an hon. colleague representing the Conservative Party of Canada talk about law and order when Conservatives put forward an agenda that has been repeatedly struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada in failed MMPs, when they cut nearly $1 billion from front-line RCMP officers and CBSA, which we had to put back, and we did, to protect our communities. I hope that colleague will look at Bill C-21 and vote for it. That is how we will protect communities.

92 words

All Topics

Mr. Dane Lloyd (Sturgeon River—Parkland, CPC)

Jun/6/22 2:46:15 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5 Bill C-21

Mr. Speaker, the minister knows full well that Bill C-21 does nothing to tackle gangs and organized crime. It is no surprise, because the Liberal government always fails to get tough on hardened criminals. Under Bill C-5, they are removing mandatory minimum sentences for violent crimes committed with firearms. In a recent access to information response, it was revealed that the Liberal government cut funding to combat gun and gang violence by more than half, failing to spend over $150 million targeted to fight crime. Why is the government reducing sentences for violent criminals and slashing funding for fighting crime?

102 words

All Topics

Hon. Marco Mendicino (Minister of Public Safety, Lib.)

Jun/6/22 2:45:36 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5 Bill C-21

Mr. Speaker, I genuinely hope that my hon. colleague and all Conservatives will read very carefully Bill C-21, which takes organized crime head-on by raising maximum sentences against organized criminals who are trafficking guns across our borders, and by giving police additional wiretap authorities to prevent gun crime from occurring in the first place. I would encourage my hon. colleague to vote for Bill C-21. By the way, he should also vote for fighting against Islamophobia the next time there is a motion on the floor of the House of Commons. That is the kind of solidarity we need to show for the Muslim community, especially today.

110 words

Mr. Larry Brock (Brantford—Brant, CPC)

Jun/6/22 2:44:52 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5 Bill C-21

Mr. Speaker, those are more words and no action. Contrary to the government's claim, Bill C-21 is not about getting tough on crime and it is not targeted at the gang members who are shooting up our streets. On the one hand, the Liberals try to increase the maximum penalty, yet they push eliminating mandatory minimum sentences for a number of serious gun crimes under Bill C-5. Also, let us not forget that last year they voted down the Conservatives' bill that proposed making the punishment harder for criminals using smuggled guns. It is shameful. When will the Prime Minister put the rights of victims first and commit to ending his soft-on-crime agenda?

118 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/3/22 1:27:40 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-21

Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that the role and importance of the Auditor General cannot be underestimated. We have consistently, whether when in government or in opposition, encouraged the Auditor General to provide these much-needed reports. Whether we have a Conservative government or a Liberal government, these things all help society as a whole, and there is a response to the report. Having said that, I think it is really important to note here that we see the behaviour of the Conservative Party once again surface. Canadians expect a sense of co-operation and a sense that the House of Commons will respond to the electoral mandate we were all given to focus attention on Canadians and on the important issues facing Canadians today. We were supposed to be debating Bill C-21. The minister made a point of being here to listen to what opposition members had to say when he introduced this legislation at second reading. The legislation would make it illegal to transfer, sell or buy handguns, and the Conservative Party, true to form, is again playing a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons. Here, the Conservatives have an opportunity to deal with an issue that is important to Canadians. Maybe they should talk to some of the people in Quebec, Ontario and other jurisdictions to get a better understanding of what the real issues are, as opposed to continuing to play the types of games we see day in and day out from a party that has no rudder. Its members are all over the map on a wide variety of issues. At the end of the day, Canadians deserve a more effective opposition. I sat in opposition for many years, and the types of issues that are before us today as a nation deserve more attention from the official opposition. The games—

314 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/3/22 1:22:46 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-21

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts. After question period, we were supposed to actually be debating Bill C-21, and now we have a few minutes left of the government legislation. That legislation was important. It would make it illegal to transfer, sell or purchase handguns. That is something really important to Canadians. At a time when Canadians want this legislature to work in a co-operative fashion, why is the Conservative Party trying to filibuster legislation of such importance that the minister was here today to present it and to have that debate take place. Why wait until the last few minutes? I would be interested in hearing why the Conservative Party does not feel this is an important issue.

127 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/3/22 12:21:08 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-21

Mr. Speaker, I am really quite pleased with the member's endorsement of the fact that, during the Standing Orders debate, I made the suggestion that Friday be a debate day, so I am going to take that as an endorsement of that particular recommendation I was making. I will go back to the point about the government's legislative agenda, because that is really what we are talking about today, when the opposition moves yet another concurrence motion. Does the Conservative Party have any sense in terms of a commitment to pass Bill C-21, or could we anticipate that there are going to be many speakers on that particular bill? Are the Conservatives prepared to see that bill ultimately pass?

122 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/3/22 12:18:11 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-21

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the Conservatives, once again, want to use their political gamesmanship to prevent good legislation from being passed. Bill C-21 is what we are supposed to be talking about today, but they have reached into their not-so-tricky tricky book and they are saying they want to debate this particular issue. Why does the member feel that the Conservative Party wants to continue to play games inside the House and prevent the important debate that Canadians want? Bill C-21 is about guns and so forth. Why are the Conservatives trying to avoid that debate?

102 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 79 - Jun/1/22

Mr. Rhéal Fortin

Jun/1/22 6:00:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5 Bill C-21

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. I am happy to address this aspect, which I did not have time to talk about in my initial presentation. First, with respect to Bill C-21, let us forget that. We need to fix this quickly, since there is not a single street gang that buys their guns at Canadian Tire. That does not happen. With respect to systemic racism, what kind of twisted idea is it to claim that if there are indigenous or racialized people in our prisons, it is because the penalties are too harsh? What kind of an argument is that? This population needs help, that is what we heard in committee. Yes, there are more people in prison; those are the statistics, and I will not change them. It is true that there are more indigenous and Black people in prison, but we need money, we need to work with these people and help their communities. It takes more than social workers, health care, education and all that to help them not commit crimes. To argue that society will lower its standards, that people from the Black or indigenous communities commit crimes and therefore we will reduce penalties so they do not go to prison, is just mind-blowing. I could not believe it when I read that. When I saw my colleagues defend that in committee, I was happy I was not in their shoes. I imagine that the caucus forces them to defend these views, but if I were in their shoes I think I would have left the caucus.

270 words

Context: House Hansard - 79 - Jun/1/22

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)

Jun/1/22 5:59:05 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5 Bill C-21

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy working with my colleague opposite, and I believe he comes from a really good space when he talks about this bill, but I want to highlight a couple of things. First and foremost is Bill C-21. A lot of the challenges the member addressed in his speech are addressed in Bill C-21. We have heard from him about them a number of times and we have delivered. It was tabled on Monday. The issue that I want to probe with the member is the notion of systemic racism, because it is an area where we have had some conversations and I do not believe he is quite there yet in acknowledging that systemic racism exists. After the report from the Office of the Correctional Investigator yesterday and after the testimony of people like the president of the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers and many others, does my friend opposite acknowledge that systemic racism exists and that we need to ensure our system of justice is fair and equitable to all who are part of it?

181 words

Context: House Hansard - 79 - Jun/1/22

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

Jun/1/22 5:49:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5 Bill C-216 Bill C-21

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-5. I find this bill important but disheartening at the same time. The way in which the bill was presented is deplorable, and that is very sad. Bill C‑5 is really two bills in one. The first decriminalizes certain offences, and the second establishes diversion measures while also abolishing minimum sentences. These are two very different issues. We are comfortable with the elimination of certain minimum sentences. Generally speaking, the Bloc Québécois believes that minimum sentences are not a cure-all. We think that they can actually be harmful in many cases and that we should trust the judges overseeing criminal trials. However, we believe that minimum sentences can be useful in some circumstances. It would be especially unfortunate to eliminate them at the wrong time. Right now, gun violence is on the rise in Montreal and many other Canadian cities, and people want the government to do something. The government proposed Bill C-21 in an effort to control the circulation of legal weapons. However, the bill does nothing about the illegal weapons being used by street gangs to commit crimes and shoot people in the streets. The Bloc says that this problem needs to be addressed, and we have some suggestions. For months now, we have been standing up in the House and talking about the need to identify organized criminal gangs and include targeted measures against members of criminal gangs in the Criminal Code. We have proposed a joint task force to stem the trafficking of illegal guns through indigenous reserves. People on the reserves have agreed to work with us on this plan. We have proposed more funding for border controls, to no avail. All of these measures would help curtail shootings, but the government has done nothing in this respect. Now we have Bill C-5, which not only does nothing to fight gun violence committed with illegal weapons, but which also eliminates mandatory minimum sentences for crimes that I believe are pretty serious. I hardly consider armed robbery to be a trivial matter. Armed extortion is not a trivial matter either, nor is discharging a firearm with intent to wound, maim or disfigure. The government wants to eliminate the minimum sentences for these crimes just as the public is expressing concern. People want the government to do something to reassure them. Not only is the government responding by doing nothing, but it is eliminating the minimum sentences for these crimes. I am appalled. At the same time, the government is establishing diversion measures for certain offences involving illicit substances. It is offering diversion for possession of substances for personal use. Rather than sending a person with drug addiction to prison, we will provide treatment. We will help the person regain control of their life and become a useful member of society again. That is a good thing. However, these are two completely different subjects. The government is taking Parliament hostage by saying this is a package deal. Members are being forced to decide whether they are totally for it or totally against it. I find that appalling. In my opinion, that is a way of muzzling democracy. I would have liked to hear my colleague from the governing party speak to this aspect of the issue. Why did his party refuse to split the bill from the beginning, as we requested? That would have made it a lot easier to work on. In any case, we have to live with it now. It is what it is. Getting back to what I was saying about minimum sentences, there is a major problem with some of the offences. We tried to find solutions. The Bloc Québécois is against many things, but we are also in favour of certain things. Above all, we try to improve the bills that come through the House. Whenever we can make them acceptable and make sure they reflect the values and interests of the people we represent, we are happy to do so. In this spirit, we made a suggestion. Now is not the time to abolish minimum sentences, because this would send the wrong message. Not only would it not reassure the public, but it would worry them even more. We therefore suggested maintaining the minimum sentences and adding clauses stating that the court could override them under exceptional circumstances. That is the system used in other jurisdictions, and it works, as an expert told the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We proposed adding a clause requiring judges to state, if applicable, that the case they are trying is an exceptional case and that, under the circumstances, they will override the mandatory minimum sentence for such and such a reason. The clause would provide guidelines and ensure that justice is taken seriously. Our proposal was so good that the Liberals changed two or three words and proposed it themselves. I was very happy about that, since I feel no need to take credit for the amendments to Bill C-5. However, when the time came to put the Liberals' amendment to a vote, none of them rose to present it, so I did it for them. I am dismayed by these sorts of games, because I think they are anti-democratic. They do not serve the interest of voters, either in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada. I am appalled by these tactics, and I would like to hear what my colleague across the aisle has to say about this. That being said, there is also the whole diversion component, which is important to us, as I mentioned earlier. That is why I feel torn today. I do not know what to do. We will have to live with our decision, and it feels a bit like choosing between the plague and cholera. Whichever way we vote, we will be partly disappointed and partly happy. However, we could have been completely happy if everyone here could have come to an agreement, because we basically want the same thing. I do not think that the members across the aisle, or my Conservative and NDP colleagues, are acting in bad faith. I simply think that we have different ways of looking at things and that, if we work together, we can find solutions that will satisfy our interests, our prerogatives and our respective voters. Unfortunately, we were unable to find common ground. The opioid crisis is affecting Rivière‑du‑Nord, and it is a major problem. We have a great many other problems that we would like to solve using rehabilitation. The Quebec government has already adopted diversion measures for criminal offences. It tries to rehabilitate people rather than make them stand trial and send them to prison. We try to help them reintegrate into society and become active contributors again, as most of them used to be. For whatever reason, these people had experiences that set them on a path they would not otherwise have chosen, any more than we would have. In Quebec, we believe that we can help them and rehabilitate them. I applaud diversion efforts, and so does the Bloc. I think that it is the right solution, for the same reason that we previously voted in favour of the NDP's Bill C-216 along the same lines. We need to work with these people and help them. They do not need jail time, they need help. Drug addiction is a health issue, not a criminal justice issue. We therefore applaud this measure. However, we are torn over the idea of abolishing minimum sentences. This would send a message that I dare not describe in the House. I will say just that it is completely out of touch with reality because, day after day, people are shooting up day cares and apartment buildings. Just this morning, I read in the news that a stray bullet found its way into a senior's apartment. Fortunately, she was not hit. Members will recall that someone shot up a day care last week. That is not even organized crime. It is just delinquency. I am not a criminologist, and I cannot say any more on this subject, but we need to address this problem. Gun control falls under the federal Criminal Code, but the federal government is not doing anything. On top of that inaction, it wants to abolish the minimum sentences for these offences. I think that is just terrible. We will see how we vote on the bill, but I will admit that we are torn. This is not a good day for democracy.

1451 words

All Topics

Hon. Marco Mendicino (Minister of Public Safety, Lib.)

May/31/22 2:48:19 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-21

Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with my colleague that shootings are unacceptable tragedies. That is exactly why we introduced Bill C‑21, to target the criminals who cause tragedy and create chaos in our communities. This bill sets out tough new penalties for criminals and increases resources for police. We will work with the Bloc and all members of the House.

63 words

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

May/31/22 2:47:39 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-21

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister said that it was the shots fired last week at a Montreal day care that convinced him to introduce Bill C‑21. However, would this bill have prevented that shooting? That is hard to believe. Criminal gangs are simply not targeted in this bill, yet it is these gangs that are front and centre in the illegal gun trade that fuels the shootings. Will the minister finally agree to create an organized crime registry in order to help police catch known gang members?

91 words

Hon. Marco Mendicino (Minister of Public Safety, Lib.)

May/31/22 2:47:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-21

Mr. Speaker, once my colleague has a chance to read and study Bill C‑21, she will see that it includes provisions to increase sentences and penalties for organized criminals looking to smuggle guns across the border. That is precisely why we have provided the Canada Border Services Agency and the RCMP with additional resources to stop gun trafficking. We have actually made good progress, but we have further to go, and that is exactly what we are going to do.

83 words

Ms. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ)

May/31/22 2:46:28 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-21

Mr. Speaker, let us not lose sight of the fact that Bill C‑21 does not adequately address the crux of the problem that we have in Quebec right now, which is illegal guns. Illegal guns are coming across the border, getting into the hands of organized crime and evading oversight. There will not be any freeze or buyback of these guns. It is looking like 2022 will end up being the most violent year in Montreal's recent history. Can the minister really guarantee that the measures in Bill C‑21 will be enough to stop this trend?

103 words

Hon. Marco Mendicino (Minister of Public Safety, Lib.)

May/31/22 2:45:49 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-21

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank my colleague for her offer to work together on Bill C‑21. It represents a significant step forward in our work to address gun violence. With respect to the issues that my colleague pointed out regarding the mandatory buyback, we will begin taking meaningful next steps immediately to ensure that we get these assault weapons out of communities. It is the right thing to do.

77 words

Ms. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ)

May/31/22 2:45:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-21

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑21 on gun control is a step forward, and the Bloc Québécois will work with the minister to improve it, but nothing has been resolved today. Assault weapons have not been banned. To this day, the mandatory buyback program remains nothing but a promise. It is not in the bill. To this day, there is no clear definition of what an assault weapon is, so new models can circumvent the rules. If Bill C‑21 were passed today, assault weapons would remain in circulation. Does the minister agree that these gaps absolutely must be addressed?

108 words