- Member of Parliament
- Caucus Chair
- NDP
- Cowichan—Malahat—Langford
- British Columbia
- Voting Attendance: 66%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $140,733.69
- Government Page
- May/21/24 5:42:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate being able to stand in the House today to give my comments with respect to Bill C-381 as the NDP's public safety and national security critic.
The bill is brought in by a Conservative MP. It does seek to amend the Criminal Code by adding mandatory minimum penalties in relation to the offence of extortion. This would include when the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization. The bill would also add arson as an aggravating factor for the purposes of sentencing when a person is convicted of extortion.
It is important to note that the bill before us is actually seeking to reinstate a mandatory minimum penalty that was repealed by Bill C-5 in this very same Parliament. In fact that bill passed third reading in the House of Commons by a vote of 206 to 117 on June 15, 2022. It had the New Democrats', the Bloc Québécois' and the Liberals' support, so it did pass with overwhelming support. It received royal assent later that year. Therefore, this is a Conservative attempt to try to address an issue which was already decided on by the House in the current Parliament.
It is important also to make mention of the fact that there is an important clause in Bill C-5, which was passed in 2022. Section 21 of the bill stated that a review of the provisions in the bill was to happen by the fourth anniversary of the bill's coming into force. We have not yet even met that part of the original Bill C-5. There has been no review of Bill C-5 and its provisions.
Essentially, Bill C-381, as a consequence, would be jumping the gun before any such review. We have not had the chance to look at how the provisions are acting in Canadian society. We have not had a committee call forth witnesses to find out testimony. It would also be going back on something to which the House has already given due consideration.
With all due respect to the member who introduced the legislation, I have to say that I get the sense that every time I see a Conservative private member's bill dealing with the Criminal Code, it is “Here we go again.” I have to say that it is a fairly weak effort at writing legislation, because I again am reminded of the fact that many of these bills seem to be all style with no substance. There is a lot of flavour to them and they make a big impact. They get a lot of people all riled up. However, when we look at what they would actually accomplish, there is really not much there.
When I see these kinds of bills brought forward by the Conservative Party, I am often reminded of an undergraduate student who wrote their term paper the night before it was due and then handed it in. If I were the teacher grading that paper, I would ask the person to show their sources. Unfortunately for the Conservatives, whenever it comes to these kinds of bills, especially when they are trying to talk about mandatory minimum penalties, when we ask them to show their sources, they are unable to do so.
If Conservatives actually did their homework instead of using the sloganeering that is often associated with these types of bills, they would realize a few things. Number one is that mandatory minimum penalties do not work as a deterrent. There is no evidence. I will give a case in point. When criminals are out there committing crimes, they are not thinking of the sentencing provisions in the Criminal Code as a deterrent. No, what they are actually wondering is what the chances are that they are going to get caught while committing the offence. The bigger deterrent is having increased police resources and more intelligence gathering so we can disrupt attempts and not have an after-the-fact solution.
Furthermore, on a statement of principle, as New Democrats we remain opposed to the use of mandatory minimum penalties. I do acknowledge that there are some that exist in the Criminal Code as presently written, but there is cold, hard evidence that their use has disproportionately affected indigenous, racialized and poor Canadians. One need only look at Canada's prison population and at the number of racialized Canadians who are inmates there, and then look at their percentages as a part of the general Canadian population. They will see just how disproportionate the statistics are.
I also want to say that I firmly believe in the ability of our judges to render appropriate sentencing by taking the existing Criminal Code and case law into account when making their decisions. I will refer members again, as I have with other pieces of legislation that deal with similar subject matters, to section 718.2 of the Criminal Code. This part of the Criminal Code contains sentencing principles that inform a judge on aggravating factors or mitigating circumstances that they can then use when looking at the defendant standing before them to increase or reduce a sentence based on the circumstances of the individual. A mandatory minimum sentence takes all that away.
I will point out that the sentence can be increased or reduced for a number of things, such as if there is “evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin”, and a whole host of factors that, if the crime was committed with those in mind, can lead to an increase of the sentence.
There is also a point in section 718.2 of the Criminal Code that, if there is “evidence that the offence was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization”, that is an aggravating factor.
Again, with respect to the bill we have before us, Bill C-381, not only has the House of Commons already voiced its opinion on this matter, but the bill is redundant.
One thing I learned as the NDP's justice critic back in 2017 is that the existing Criminal Code is littered with redundancies. It is one of the most inefficient pieces of federal legislation that exists, and many efforts have been made over the years to try to clean it up. There are clauses in the Criminal Code that exist for crimes that are not committed anymore, and there is a terrible amount of redundancy, often because we have bills such as this attempting to amend certain sections of it.
On another point, when focusing our efforts on the Criminal Code, it is important for us to understand that it is primarily a reactive instrument. It comes into play after the fact. As a legislator, a policy-maker and a representative of the proud people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, I am more interested in tackling the crime before it happens, putting in effective policies, and making sure that people are not enticed into joining gangs and committing crimes on their behalf. I am interested in making sure our police have the right kind of tools at their disposal and can gather important intelligence, so they can break up these criminal elements, which are often preying on the most vulnerable people in our communities.
It is also important, again speaking of the Criminal Code, to note that it already has a five-year mandatory minimum sentence for first-time extortionists who use a restricted or prohibited firearm or any type of gun on behalf of a criminal organization. Therefore, this is a completely redundant and unnecessary bill.
In conclusion, I want to underline that I understand the concerns of communities throughout Canada on the issue of extortion and the rise of organized crime. I support reversing the cuts that were made to the RCMP organized crime units, which were mandated by the previous Conservative government and have not yet been reversed by the Liberals. The lack of resources has resulted in the rise of the crimes we are witnessing today. We need to provide not only local but also national law enforcement with the resources they need to keep Canadians safe. I prefer that we bolster those resources in organized crime to make sure that crucial intelligence allows them to really confront this problem in a meaningful way.
It is very clear that our police services are facing a rise in extortion-related crimes across the country. However, new sentences and laws are not what is needed to tackle this very important issue; rather, police services need the resources to investigate and apprehend those who are committing the offences. We do not need virtue signalling in another Conservative criminal justice bill to do that.
1492 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to give some of my thoughts on Bill C-295, which was introduced by the member for Vancouver Centre. It is an act that would amend the Criminal Code on the subject of neglect of vulnerable adults.
I am very pleased to be speaking to this subject, especially on behalf of all vulnerable seniors in my riding, but also their families. Families, as we have seen over the last three years, also suffered through the subject matter we will be discussing as part of the bill.
It is a fact the chronic neglect and abuse of older adults living in long-term care facilities is a long-standing problem. This is something that slipped under the radar for many years before COVID so frighteningly put it to light and exposed what was there all along.
Bill C-295 would specifically amend the Criminal Code to create a specific offence for long-term care facilities, their owners and officers when they fail to provide necessaries of life to residents of facilities. We would finally, this Parliament, be putting into the Criminal Code a specific offence when the people who run these facilities fail to uphold their part of the bargain.
It would also allow the court to make an order prohibiting any owner or officer of such a facility from being, through employment or volunteering, in charge or in a position of trust or authority toward vulnerable adults. Again, there will be consequences for people who are in those trust positions, but it will also allow courts to consider as an aggravating factor for the purpose of sentencing the fact that an organization failed to perform the legal duty it owed to a vulnerable adult.
We could rightly question why it has taken so long to even consider putting these things into the Criminal Code, but here we are, and it is about time we moved forward with the bill.
I want to also recognize that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights did its due consideration of the bill. During its review of the bill, 15 witnesses appeared before the committee, including the research chair on the mistreatment of older adults, from the University of Sherbrooke, the Canadian Network for the Prevention of Elder Abuse, Elder Abuse Prevention Ontario and the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions. There were 15 witnesses in total over four meetings at that committee. The committee also had 26 briefs submitted to it as a part of its study.
Going to the committee report, I will direct members of the House to the fact that one of the big changes that was made was replacing the word “manager” with the word “officer” and specifically putting a new definition, so now the people who are covered by the word “officer” include the chair person of the board of directors, the president, vice-president, the secretary, the treasury, the comptroller, the general counsel and the general manager or managing director of a long-term care facility. Again, it goes after that top echelon of people who are responsible not only for the overall budget of a place but for how it directs its care levels, its staffing standards and the level of service that residents can expect at those facilities.
It is no secret that there has been a long history of neglect, and what the pandemic did was shine a very important light on that. However, it has often been called “hidden neglect” because many people who worked in the industry, worked at long-term care homes or even those who were responsible for reviewing their actions have known that unfortunately this has existed for quite some time.
It is also a fact that during the pandemic especially, there was a huge difference between the for-profit long-term care homes and the public or non-profit facilities. The for-profit facilities had a much worse patient outcome overall than not-for-profit homes in general.
In my home province of British Columbia, the Seniors Advocate recently reviewed the situation with for-profit long-term care homes. It has been noted that in British Columbia the cost of a publicly subsidized long-term care bed through a private operator has jumped 35% in the last five years. The Seniors Advocate found that not-for-profit facilities spent about 25% more per resident on direct care when compared with for-profit care.
When a review was conducted on the financial records from 2021 and 2022, it showed that long-term care facilities operated by for-profit companies delivered 500,000 fewer care hours than they were funded for by the province.
Again, it speaks to the larger theme, that when profit is introduced into the health care system, other considerations seem to make their way to the forefront rather than looking after the people for which the facility was designed.
I also want to point out that we are all very familiar with the time when the Canadian Armed Forces were deployed to some of the hardest hit long-term care homes, where they documented horrific accounts of inhumane treatment, abuse and substandard care.
According to the Canadian Armed Forces' reports, dozens of residents in two Ontario nursing homes died, not from COVID-19 but from dehydration and neglect.
I have looked at some of the short Coles Notes from those reports. I will read them out for the record: “conditions in two of the seniors homes...appeared to be nothing short of horrid and inhumane as ill-trained, burned-out and, in some cases, neglectful staff coped with the growing care needs of elderly residents”, residents faced “inadequate nutrition” because most of them were not getting three meals a day — and when they did, “underfeeding was reported.”; “Respecting the dignity of patients is not always a priority.”; Other patients were “left in beds soiled, in diapers, rather than being ambulated to the toilets.”; and “troops had to send a senior to hospital after the resident fractured a hip and was not cared for by staff.”
These are just some of the alarming things that came out from the Canadian Armed Forces that were deployed to those homes. Again, for the people who are familiar with long-term care homes in Canada, this was nothing new. All COVID-19 did was to serve to shed a light on that.
On October 23, 2020, CBC posted a story to its website. I will quote from a part of its investigation:
CBC Marketplace reviewed 10,000 inspection reports and found over 30,000 "written notices," or violations of the Long-Term Care Homes Act and Regulations (LTCHA), between 2015 and 2019 inclusive. The LTCHA sets out minimum safety standards that every care home in Ontario must meet.
Marketplace isolated 21 violation codes for some of the most serious or dangerous offences, including abuse, inadequate infection control, unsafe medication storage, inadequate hydration, and poor skin and wound care, among others. The analysis found that of the 632 homes in the Ontario database, 538 — or 85 per cent — were repeat offenders.
I also want to recognize that women represent 65% of patients in Canadian residential continuing care facilities. This is absolutely a gendered issue to which we need to pay close attention.
In addition, the vast majority of care providers in supportive care are women, with a significant portion of these individuals being newcomers or immigrants, especially among personal support workers. Women account for the majority of the workers among both immigrants, which was 86%, and non-immigrants, 87%.
My NDP caucus believes that the victims of negligence in Canada's long-term care facilities deserve justice. Part of the confidence and supply agreement that we have with the Liberal government is the tabling of a safe long-term care act to ensure that seniors are guaranteed the care they deserve, no matter where they live.
Although Bill C-295 is a step in the right direction, I do not believe it goes far enough in this regard. Rather than addressing this issue solely through a private members' bill, we expect that the government will follow through on this requirement and table legislation that puts these standards into more encompassing law, so that all Canadians, from coast to coast to coast, can not only ensure that their loved ones are getting the care that they deserve, but that our vulnerable seniors have the full force of law to ensure they are living with the dignity they deserve.
1446 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/9/22 1:29:28 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, in my speech, I referenced the statistics, which are there for everyone to see, but I will go even further.
There could be unique circumstances where charges have been levied against an individual who may have been in the wrong place at the wrong time, mixed up with the wrong crowd, and the judge would have no choice on a guilty verdict. The judge may say, “I can see that the circumstances in which you find yourself are markedly different from the people I usually see before me, but my hands are tied and because of this mandatory minimum sentencing provision in the Criminal Code, I have to give you a three-year sentence.” It completely binds the hands of the judge.
Justice is not black and white. As much as the Conservatives want to see that it is, it is not black and white. Judges need to have the ability to make sure that the sentence is appropriate to the person before them.
168 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/9/22 1:17:25 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to stand and speak to Bill C-5 at report stage. I would like to start by thanking all members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for the work they did in reviewing this bill and reporting it back to the House. As a former member of that committee, I know it is no easy task. I used to be a member, back in 2017. The bills that come before the justice committee are usually quite serious in nature. They demand a certain amount of responsibility to take up the task and make sure that the amendments we are making to the Criminal Code have in fact been vetted and that all of the implications of their passage are fully understood.
This being Bill C-5, my remarks today, of course, are going to concentrate on two themes. One is on the question of mandatory minimums and whether they still serve any kind of useful purpose in our criminal justice system. The second theme is on the incredible harm that is a result of Canada's current federal drug policy, and not only the harm that is meted out to people who are arrested and have criminal records that they have to deal with for the rest of their lives, but also the lack of action in tackling the root causes of the opioid crisis that I have heard members from every political party and every region in Canada speak so passionately about.
Bill C-5, like any piece of legislation, is not going to solve those problems by itself and I would argue that much more needs to be done. This is one small step on the path that we need to take, but it is nonetheless a step forward. That is why I will be supporting this bill and ensuring that the Senate receives it so that it can one day make its way to the Governor General's desk and be signed into law.
It is important to set up the context, especially when we are speaking about mandatory minimums. I do not need to argue about the harms that they cause our society. It has been well documented by many, including none other than the Correctional Investigator. The statistics are there, for indigenous, Black and racialized Canadians, on their share of the population in Canada and their extreme overrepresentation in our criminal justice system.
What is more is that there is simply no credible evidence that mandatory minimums work in any way to deter crime. That is a fact. I have had to sit in this place through question period after question period, listening to colleagues from the Conservative Party talk and deliberately misstate what is going on with this piece of legislation. The Conservatives are trying to weave a story for Canadians and trying to infect them with fear that with the passage of Bill C-5, somehow every person who is charged with a serious criminal offence is suddenly going to be placed on house arrest or released on the streets. Nothing could be further from the truth. What it speaks to is a distrust, among members of that party, in judges having the ability to make the right decisions for the cases that come before them. Mandatory minimums are a blunt instrument of justice. They do not allow a judge to take in the circumstances of a case and to look at the circumstances of the individual who has been charged with a crime.
Furthermore, in all of the arguments I have heard from Conservatives on this bill, the part they leave out is that even though these sections in the Criminal Code are being amended, the maximum penalties are still in force. While the mandatory minimum penalties are being taken away, many of these serious offences carry prison terms of up to 10 years and of up to 14 years. There is no doubt in my mind that if a repeat offender has committed very serious criminal acts under the sections of the Criminal Code covered by Bill C-5, that person will receive jail time.
A judge's solemn responsibility to society is public safety and ensuring there is justice for the victims of crime. Judges are always balancing society's best interests when a case comes before them. We have to trust them in that process. There is a reason that our legislative branch is separate from the judicial branch.
We have to trust in these men and women who are so very learned in law and who can appreciate all of the fine differences in each case that comes before them. We have to trust that they will always make the right decision. There are ways we can hold our judges to account. There are courts of appeal, and we can continue going up the judicial ladder until we reach the Supreme Court of Canada. I cannot accept the arguments that are being made against mandatory minimums in this place, because they are being made in bad faith.
I want to turn to the main part I really want to hammer out here, which is the important amendments that are being made to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
I was very honoured to stand in this place with my friend, colleague and neighbour, the member for Courtenay—Alberni, and vote in favour of his bill, Bill C-216. It would have essentially decriminalized personal possession. It would have set up a process of expungement. It would have set our country forward on a path of setting up a national strategy to deal with the opioids crisis.
Unfortunately, there were only a few members who were brave enough to stand up for that bold, game-changing policy and trying to put this country on a path forward. Even though we lost that battle, I think that vote and the conversation we had have been important milestones for this country's evolving laws toward drug policy. I am certain that in the years ahead we are going to see some fundamental reform in this area.
The main thing Bill C-5 would do with respect to our drug laws is set up a declaration of principles. We are at report stage now, but important work was done at committee. I have to take a moment to recognize the amazing and incredible work of my colleague and neighbour to the south, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke. His knowledge of law, his expertise in that area and the diligent and hard work he has done at committee resulted in some very substantive amendments to Bill C-5. One of them in particular, although it is not going to be called expungement, is expungement by a different name.
One of the main harms we have had to people who have have criminal records for personal possession amounts is that those records follow them throughout life. They can affect one's ability to get into certain lines of work, affect one's ability to rent a home and very severely affect one's ability to travel. The amendments that were made by the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke and accepted by a majority of the committee are essentially going to make sure that Bill C-5 would ensure that after two years those records are sequestered from the main records of that person, and no longer will anyone be able to find those records and hold them against that person.
It is important, and it is certainly not as bold of a step as we would have wanted, but I think it goes to show that this small caucus of New Democrats has been able to make monumental reform to a pretty important government justice bill. I think this is going to leave a lasting mark for people who have been negatively affected by this.
I will conclude by saying that when it comes to mandatory minimums, it is important for us to remember that the Criminal Code is a massive piece of legislation. There are already sections within the Criminal Code, specifically section 718.2, the sentencing principles, that allow a judge to increase or decrease a sentence based on aggravating factors. The sentences that are spelled out in the Criminal Code for the specific sections of Bill C-5, in fact, could be lengthened, if there were aggravating factors. If a crime was committed against a person with a disability or if racial hatred and bias were involved in a crime, judges could take that into account.
I could say much more, but 10 minutes goes by very quickly. I will end by saying that Bill C-5 is a small step. We did our job to make it better. I will be pleased to vote in favour of this bill to send it to the Senate and hopefully into law in the very near future.
1499 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
