Bill C-381

Protection against Extortion Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (extortion)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to:
(a) amend mandatory minimum penalties in relation to the offence of extortion, including when the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization; and
(b) add arson as an aggravating factor for the purposes of sentencing when a person is convicted of extortion.

The House resumed from April 17 consideration of the motion that Bill C‑381, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (extortion), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Protection against Extortion Act

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C‑381.

This is a private member's bill introduced by a member of the Conservative Party. It fulfills a promise made earlier this year by the leader of the Conservative Party. He said that if his party came to power, he would establish mandatory minimum prison sentences for individuals convicted of extortion.

We have already heard my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord explain the Bloc Québécois position on this matter. We support the bill in principle. It is quite a simple bill. It would change the text of the Criminal Code to “amend mandatory minimum penalties in relation to the offence of extortion, including when the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization”. It proposes a mandatory minimum penalty of three years for extortion and the reinstatement of a four-year mandatory minimum sentence for extortion with a non-prohibited firearm. The mandatory minimum sentence was repealed by Bill C-5. The Conservative Party wants it to be reinstated. The bill also speaks of a five-year mandatory minimum sentence for extortion “for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization”.

Moreover, the bill proposes to “add arson as an aggravating factor for the purposes of sentencing when a person is convicted of extortion”. It is quite simple.

As I said the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of this bill. We would like it to be referred to committee so we can study it in more detail. Given the rise in crime, I believe this bill is important. In Canada, extortion is often committed during auto thefts, which are also increasing nationwide. Recently, we have seen newspaper reports of armed robberies and physical assaults when offenders tried to steal cars from ordinary citizens. I think this bill is very relevant.

At the same time, it gives us the opportunity to set the record straight about the Bloc Québécois's position on Bill C-5. During study of this bill, the member for Rivière-du-Nord proposed an amendment to reinstate the mandatory minimum sentence for extortion with a firearm. This position became somewhat lost in the debate. We often heard the Conservative Party, with its slogans, say that the Bloc Québécois was helping the government in its efforts to let criminals serve their sentence at home. This has confused people a bit. It is important to clarify what happened.

I would like to remind members that Bill C-5 dealt with the repeal of certain mandatory minimum penalties. The Bloc Québécois is in favour of repealing minimum penalties, except for crimes against people. We believe that if mandatory minimums are to be maintained, at the very least judges have to have the necessary latitude to occasionally depart from them with justification. This proposal was made by the Bloc Québécois, but it was rejected. That is why we voted in favour of Bill C-5 in the end. This proposal was rejected, but let me point out that the bill dealt with something else. It was proposed that Bill C‑5 be split in two, because it dealt with two completely different topics. There was also the part on diversion measures for simple drug possession offences. We were in favour of those diversion measures. That put us in a rather difficult position. We even tried to amend Bill C-to make it more reasonable, but our amendment was rejected.

We support abolishing mandatory minimum penalties for less serious crimes, as we recognize that these types of penalties are not necessarily effective in dissuading criminals from committing a crime. They can also needlessly increase the size of prison populations. Police officers who were recently invited to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to speak about the rise in auto theft in the country said as much. I asked them if the offenders or youths who were associated with street gangs were aware of the sentences connected to crimes they were preparing to commit. We often hear, in political circles, certain parties say that increasing sentences will solve all the problems. I thought that maybe criminals were aware of the sentences associated with the crimes they wanted to commit, or maybe not at all. I asked if that made any difference to them.

The police officers explained that criminals were well aware of the sentences associated with the crimes they were going to commit, but decided to commit those crimes anyway.

Nevertheless, we believe that maintaining mandatory minimum sentences for violent crimes is justified because legislators have the legitimate authority to rank crimes in order of severity, and mandatory minimum sentences ensure that the penalties reflect that ranking.

Obviously, mandatory minimum sentences are not perfect. Because they apply to everyone convicted of a particular crime, they sometimes lead to unjust sentences. That is why the Bloc Québécois wanted the Criminal Code to include a notwithstanding clause to allow judges to depart from minimum sentences in exceptional circumstances. That is what lawyer Julie Desrosiers reminded us when we were studying Bill C-5:

One thing for certain is that if you decide to keep minimum sentences in certain cases, you should also provide a possibility of making an exception to them in exceptional circumstances. In fact, that is what my colleague, Mr. Henry, suggests. In other words, you prescribe a minimum sentence, but you give discretion back to judges not to apply it in exceptional circumstances. Exceptional circumstances do exist. The reality is complex, and it isn't just hardened criminals who sell guns to children. The courts have to manage all sorts of situations, and sometimes it is not appropriate to apply a minimum sentence.

That is what this lawyer told the committee.

Let us not forget that gun crime has surged in recent years. Canada's rate of firearm-related violent crime was 36.7 incidents per 100,000 population in 2022, and the increase is mainly attributable to increases in Ontario, New Brunswick and British Columbia. In this context, I believe that we, as legislators, must send the public a message that violent crime is unacceptable and, above all, that it is punishable by law.

Lastly, while we note and condemn the fact that certain communities are overrepresented in Canadian prisons, we reject the Liberal-NDP suggestion that mandatory minimum sentences must be abolished to reduce their sentences. We do not see it that way. When an individual commits a crime, that individual must be held accountable for their actions, pure and simple. If the government is sincere about wanting to reduce Canada's prison population, I think it needs to invest in giving people the resources they need and, above all, in providing genuinely equal opportunities for all communities in Canada.

Let us return to gun crime. Despite what it is saying today, during our study of Bill C-5, the government chose to maintain its position on abolishing mandatory minimum sentences for serious crimes. It is important to say that the Bloc Québécois opposed these amendments. For example, the government deleted the mandatory minimum sentences from subsection 244(1) of the Criminal Code, concerning discharging a firearm “with intent to wound, maim or disfigure, to endanger the life of or to prevent the arrest or detention of any person”, and from subsection 346(1), regarding extortion with a firearm. These are serious crimes. It is essential that such crimes be punished according to the degree of violence involved and the consequences for the victims. This was our position during the study of Bill C‑5, and our stance has not changed. It is unreasonable for someone convicted on such charges to get off with a paltry sentence or a conditional discharge.

The public judges the justice system harshly, and with good reason, when the courts are too lenient with criminals who are prepared to use firearms to terrorize their victims. On this matter in particular, we will always stand firm. I would like to return briefly to organized crime. Although the provisions of the bill are legitimate and relevant, I believe the Conservatives seem to be unaware of the burden of proof required under the Criminal Code to establish ties with organized crime. In recent years, we have seen growing numbers of young people, sometimes minors, commit violent crimes without necessarily being affiliated with a criminal organization. This is especially true for auto theft.

Madam Speaker, you are signalling that my time is up. I did not get the message. We will be voting in favour of Bill C‑381.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-381, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (extortion), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

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.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, after listening to my colleague's remarks, there is no doubt in my mind or in Canadians' minds why crime is absolutely out of control after nine years of the Liberal-NDP government. Liberals simply do not get it.

They talk about resources for police; I will share one story we heard recently. Police in Victoria arrested the same man three times in three days for stealing vehicles and committing other offences. This is not a matter of the police's ability to arrest, catch or find an individual. They were able to do that, but I will tell everyone what happened. First, the man was arrested for trying to steal an occupied car and released on bail. The next day, he pushed a woman out of her car and caused several crashes before trying to take a second vehicle. The police caught him; he was arrested and then released on conditions again. Incredibly, on the third day, police were called to a home invasion in progress. The suspect left and attempted to enter an occupied vehicle before he was finally arrested. Following this out-of-control crime spree, a statement from Victoria police leads with the question: Why was this person originally released?

That is the question Canadians have been asking of the government over and over again. The results are in, the evidence is in, and the evidence is staggering. Since 2015, violent crime in this country is up 39%. Why do I mention 2015? That happens to be the year that the Liberal-NDP government took power. It began the Liberal governance and the running of our justice system. Since 2015, homicides are up 43%, the highest rate in 30 years. Since 2015, gang-related homicides are up 108%. As I mention these statistics, we should remember that they represent victims from across the country, victims from urban and rural areas, individuals whose families will never see them again. Therefore, these are not just statistics. They represent Canadian victims.

Violent gun crimes are up 101%, and they have gone up every year since the Liberals took office in 2015. Assault with a weapon is up 61%, sexual assault has increased 71% since 2015, and sex crimes against children are up 126%. We all know that auto theft is out of control. Incredibly, since the Prime Minister took office, Toronto alone has seen a 300% increase in the number of vehicles stolen. Therefore, members will forgive me if I find it absolutely incredible to be lectured by the NDP or the Liberals on what works and what does not work. Canadians know and are ready to pass judgment on the government and its weak crime legislation.

It is incredibly weak in that there were deliberate efforts in Bill C-75 to create catch-and-release bail reform. Bill C-5 removed mandatory jail time for an individual who commits extortion with a firearm. I will get to this issue of extortion. The deliberate actions of the NDP-Liberal government have led us to the travesty that is our justice system. I use the words “justice system” very reluctantly; at the justice committee, a victim of crime appeared as a witness and said that Canada does not have a justice system anymore. It has a legal system. There is no justice for victims. When we look at these statistics, we see that the witness was absolutely right.

I am speaking today on the excellent legislation by my colleague from Edmonton Mill Woods, Bill C-381, the protection against extortion act.

We know that, over the last nine years, the rate of violent crime, as I just mentioned, has gone up in Canada; the rate of extortion is no exception. Extortion is the act of obtaining something, typically money, through force or threats. Since 2015, the rate of extortion in Canada has increased 218%; again, this should be no surprise for anyone who listened to the general stats around crime. In 2022, the rate of police-reported extortion increased 39% in a single year. Bill C-381 is part of our common-sense plan to crack down on extortionists and to protect Canadians.

I would like to mention some of the concrete measures that are in the bill. The bill would establish a mandatory jail sentence of three years for criminals convicted of extortion. This is Parliament's way of saying that the current sentencing on extortion is too soft and that the criminal justice system is too lenient. The revolving door that allows someone to commit serious crimes and then be released into the community has to be shut for individuals who commit such crimes, and this is an entirely appropriate mandatory jail sentence for the serious crime of extortion.

The bill would also restore the mandatory jail sentence of four years for the offence of extortion with a firearm. Now, who in their right mind would think that we should have removed a mandatory four-year sentence for the offence of extortion with a firearm? Nobody would, except that the Liberals did exactly that with Bill C-5. They removed a penalty for extortion with a firearm, allowing individuals to serve their sentence from the comfort of their own home and requiring no mandatory jail time for using a firearm in the offence of extortion. However, this is the same bunch that are happy to go after law-abiding Canadians: If a person is a hunter or a sport shooter, the Liberals want to take their guns and want to make sure that they harass them to the maximum. They are going to spend millions, if not billions, of taxpayers' dollars to buy back legally owned firearms to go after the good guys. What do they do to the bad guys, the individuals who are committing extortion with a firearm? They say, “You know, there's probably no need for you to even serve any time in jail.”

What I heard the previous speaker say, which is that criminals are somehow not aware of the penalties in our justice system, is incredibly naive. Of course criminals know that we have a lax justice system. Canada is a target for many of these criminal offences because of our lax regime. Of course criminal organizations know that minors are subject to a different legal system than adults, which is why minors are often used in the commission of some of these offences.

The private member's bill would also extend the five-year mandatory jail sentence for the offence of extortion when “committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization”. We are seeing criminal organizations targeting, for example, business people, saying that if they do not pay up, there will be consequences. It may be done using a firearm, or as has been the case throughout our country, with individuals using arson and burning down a project that is under construction if a person does not pay up. This is why the bill establishes arson as an aggravating factor for the charge of extortion.

For too long, the Liberal government has ignored the rising rate of extortion while communities are targeted by gangs and business owners face threats, such as having their property torched by arsonists. We know that these are not empty threats, and gun violence and arson are often associated with these extortion schemes.

Since 2015, the rate of extortion has skyrocketed under the Liberal-NDP government; it is up 263% in Ontario, 284% in Alberta and 386% in British Columbia. This is why, in January, the mayors of Brampton, Ontario, and Surrey, B.C., wrote a letter to the Minister of Public Safety asking him to take urgent action. The Liberals have not taken action. The NDP are certainly not going to take action. The Conservatives will stand up for Canadians and fight against extortion.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak about Bill C-381, an act to amend the Criminal Code on the important issue of extortion, which is something that I and, I expect, all parliamentarians are deeply concerned about.

Bill C-381 proposes amendments to the Criminal Code to address the rise in extortion offences. I will focus my remarks today on the proposed amendments relating to mandatory minimum penalties, or MMPs. I want to say at the outset that we know MMPs do not actually deter crime. Our government knows this, and frankly, the Leader of the Opposition knows this. However, he will continue to pretend for political purposes that they do deter crime. Our government is committed to evidence-based policy, not empty sloganeering, to combat crime.

The proposed amendments in the bill would reverse reforms introduced by our government in Bill C-5, which reflected the government's commitment to the introduce legislation that takes action to address systemic racism and discrimination in the criminal justice system, while ensuring strong penalties remained in place to target serious crime.

Bill C-5 helps address the disproportionate negative impact that MMPs have on indigenous people, Black persons and members of other marginalized communities by repealing all MMPs in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act as well as a number of MMPs in the Criminal Code for which there was evidence to demonstrate that they contributed to the overincarceration of these populations.

MMPs remain for extortion in cases where a restricted or prohibited firearm is used, or where the offence involves a firearm and was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization. Such conduct continues to carry an MMP of five years for the first offence and seven years for second and subsequent offences.

I know that some will argue that Bill C-5 has weakened the ability of our courts to impose fit sentences, which is completely false. In fact, it is nonsense in my opinion. I think it is important to note here that the maximum sentence for extortion is life in prison. Judges have the option to give the full range of sentences for extortion, depending on the severity of the crime.

Courts have repeatedly highlighted the importance of proportionality in sentencing. Giving judges greater flexibility in their ability to impose sentences does not mean that offenders will receive a slap on the wrist or otherwise receive a penalty that does not reflect the seriousness of the crime. Giving judges flexibility ensures that our system works fairly in all cases, and I applaud the effort made by our government to ensure that our criminal justice system is effective, efficient and fair for everyone.

Bill C-5 was a significant step forward in addressing the overrepresentation of indigenous people, Black persons and other marginalized communities. To reinstate penalties that could contribute to overincarceration would be contrary to the government's ongoing commitment to tackling systemic racism in the criminal justice system.

What is more, research shows that increased use of MMPs has also had significant impacts on the criminal justice system. The Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Jordan has brought heightened attention to the issue of trial delays. The imposition of MMPs can exacerbate delays in the trial process, as accused persons may be more inclined to exercise their right to trial rather than accept a guilty plea and face a minimum mandatory provision.

Evidence also shows that MMPs do not support deterrence from crime. Rather, they increase costs for all levels of government, diverting finite resources from evidence-based crime prevention programs. This is the position taken now by former Stephen Harper legal adviser Ben Perrin. I want to note some of his statements on MMPs. He said, “If history is any judge, [the Leader of the Opposition]’s MMPs 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...challenges facing the criminal justice system.”

Here is another one: “MMPs are ineffective at reducing crime, may actually increase recidivism, are highly vulnerable to being struck down by the courts as unconstitutional, can increase delays in an overburdened system, and perpetuate systemic racism.” Finally, he states, “[the leader of the Conservative Party]’s idea may actually backfire, leading to more crime in the long term.”

While it is true that MMPs can be a tool to denounce criminality, there are more effective ways to denounce criminal offending while avoiding the negative impacts that MMPs have on our criminal justice system. For instance, the Supreme Court of Canada has indicated that increasing maximum penalties is one way that Parliament can denounce and has effectively denounced offending. Again, here I want to note the maximum penalty of life imprisonment for extortion. Other ways that Parliament has effectively denounced certain types of offences include enacting aggravating factors and directing sentencing courts to prioritize denunciation and deterrence in certain cases.

Our existing legal framework provides judges with the tools and discretion needed to tailor sentences that reflect the gravity of the offence and the culpability of the offender. While it is important for all parliamentarians to recognize the serious threats posed by the rise in cases involving extortion, sentencing measures in the Criminal Code allow judges to impose stiff penalties in cases where circumstances warrant it, without being constrained by rigid MMPs that may not adequately account for the nuances of each case. This is why we will be opposing the flawed proposal.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will try to give a nuanced speech, without too much partisanship, because partisanship too often hinders debate.

Bill C‑381 fulfills a promise made by the leader of the Conservative Party. The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C‑381 in principle. This bill aims to reinstate mandatory minimum sentences for extortion crimes, particularly crimes involving weapons. My colleagues have gone into a lot of the details. I will avoid repeating the same things they said.

In this speech, I will briefly go over the position that the Bloc Québécois took during the study of Bill C‑5. I will reiterate our position on minimum sentences for crimes. Lastly, I will suggest a few avenues for tackling the sources of the problem.

When Parliament was studying Bill C‑5, which is now law, the Bloc Québécois was in favour of abolishing mandatory minimum sentences, except in cases involving crimes against the person. It is very important to mention that. We were in favour of abolishing minimum sentences, but not for the same reasons as other colleagues in the House. We were in favour of this because mandatory minimum sentences do not take into account the context in which the crime was committed. For some people, mandatory minimum sentences can take away their hope of improving themselves, of repenting, of getting their lives together. It also removes the potential discretion judges should have.

One of the reasons mandatory minimum sentences were removed is that certain populations are overrepresented in prison. The Bloc Québécois acknowledges that as well. However, is the problem really mandatory minimum sentences, or does it go deeper than that? For example, is it tied to socio-economic issues? Would removing mandatory minimum sentences really solve the underlying problem? We have to ask ourselves those questions. It is important to do so.

I am going to fumble my way through some of Thomas More's thoughts in Utopia. He basically says that punishing a crime without tackling its root cause simply ensures it will happen again. The more modern way of putting it is that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. If the same punishments are continually handed down in a broad, indiscriminate way and we fail to see any results in terms of helping people get their lives together and improving their socio-economic situation, then it should come as no surprise if repeating the same actions fails to achieve the desired results.

It is important to understand what is causing a particular problem. Several years ago, a father was sentenced to six months in prison because he was caught stealing medicine for his children, who had colds. It was an unarmed robbery, but he was caught stealing, and stealing is a crime. No consideration was given to the context of his crime. Nevertheless, he was sent to prison, which made his family's situation even worse. That is why it is important in some cases to contextualize and understand what happened. In other cases, the crime might be serious enough to warrant a mandatory minimum sentence.

It is a well-known fact that overcrowding is a problem in our prisons right now. We all know the impact that overcrowding has on people. The impact can be significant, particularly on mental health, but also on the physical health of inmates. These effects have been linked to an increase in violence and they undermine inmates' ability to integrate into the community and engage in good behaviour.

When prisons are overcrowded, inmates are always on high alert. When people's thoughts are focused mainly on their safety, they spend a lot less time thinking about empowerment or getting their lives back on track, even in prison.

Yes, we support minimum sentences for crimes against the person, but with some allowance made to depart from them in exceptional circumstances. The word “exceptional” is important because it refers to an exception, something that very rarely happens. If used indiscriminately and without regard for the circumstances of the offence or the situation of individuals, minimum sentences can create injustice. It seems quite a paradox that the justice system could ultimately create injustice.

We must ensure that our justice system does not cause injustice. Nevertheless, we believe that maintaining mandatory minimum sentences for violent crimes is justified, because we believe that legislators have the legitimate authority to rank crimes in order of severity and that mandatory minimum sentences ensure that the penalties reflect that ranking. It should be noted that the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased over the past few years, especially firearm-related violent crime. In Ontario, there were 1,016 more cases, or a 24% increase; in New Brunswick, there were 64 more cases, or a 24% increase; in British Columbia, there were 194 more cases, or a 12% increase. This is serious, and we must take action. I will come back to how we might do that.

During our study of Bill C‑5, lawyer Julie Desrosiers told us that if we decided to keep minimum sentences in some cases, we should also provide a possibility of making an exception to them in exceptional circumstances. What I suggested just now has the support of Julie Desrosiers. Her colleague Mr. Henry also mentioned it. If a minimum sentence is prescribed and the judge is not given the discretion to depart from it in exceptional circumstances, the sentence will not reflect the complexity of reality. Let us also focus on the sources of the problem, namely protecting our borders, education, social integration, socio-economic support. Let us not cause injustice from birth. I invite everyone to read Thomas More's very edifying writings on this topic.

Let us think back to the Heritage Minute about the Klondike, where the RCMP officer would not let anyone with a weapon into Canada. Right now, our borders are like Swiss cheese, and weapons that should not be crossing our borders are constantly being let into the country. Violence is unacceptable in Canada and Quebec, and the mandatory minimum sentences for serious crimes against the person serve as a reminder that it is completely inappropriate and unacceptable to use violence against others. That is also in keeping with our history, or at least the prouder moments in our history.

Lastly, the Bloc Québécois invites the government to keep the promise of Quebec and Canadian society, which is that everyone can succeed and live a good life within the law. In order for that to happen, the necessary foundations must be laid, and those who did not have those foundations must be given an opportunity to get back on track. Everyone has the right to a second chance, but we need to send the message that violence is unacceptable and that, eventually, something has to give.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, last November, many people in the Fraser Valley, Abbotsford and Surrey were disturbed by stories on the front pages of our local newspapers. We recounted letters sent to local businesses, extortion letters.

The letters read:

Read carefully do not think this is a fake letter!!

We are Indian gang members, we want our share from your businesses like protection money. As you seen on news on November this month two shotting on houses....

The shooting of houses was in Abbotsford, in my riding. The letter said they were targeted because they did not give these gangs money. The letter went on to say that they wanted to “peacefully” take their money to avoid more shootings. This is the reality that many of my constituents live with in respect to extortion.

I am proud tonight to speak to the member for Edmonton Mill Woods' private member's bill, an act to amend the Criminal Code to address extortion.

Many of my constituents in the Punjabi and broader Indian community have been targeted by extortion letters. The RCMP is taking this issue so seriously that it assigned over 200 officers to this, with over 20,000 hours of investigative time put into stopping transnational crime targeting Canadians of Indian descent.

My constituents have been scared, their businesses have been targeted and their lives have been impacted. This bill is an attempt to listen, especially to those in the Punjabi community who have asked for these measures and who have asked for the Government of Canada, for the Parliament of Canada, to take action to stop violent crime, to stop threats and to stop drive-by shootings and extortion.

I am proud to represent one of the most diverse ridings in all of Canada, and one of the greatest honours of my professional life has been to immerse myself in the Sikh and Punjabi community. Down the road from my house is the Khalsa Diwan Society, a national historic site where Canadians of Sikh faith come together every week to worship. They have shared langar with me, more meals than I can count. What I know from my constituents of Punjabi descent is that they want law and order back.

Since the Liberal government came into power, crime has increased by 39%. We see more shootings. We see more deaths. We see more chaos on our streets. It is not rhetoric; it is a statistical fact.

This bill would specifically restore the mandatory minimum penalty for extortion with a firearm to four years. It would restore the mandatory minimum penalty for discharging a firearm for recklessness to four years. It would restore the mandatory minimum for using a firearm in the commission of an offence to one year in the case of a first offence and three years in the case of a second or subsequent offence. It would eliminate eligibility for bail if there are prior Criminal Code convictions within the last 10 years where the Crown proceeds by way of indictment and establish arson as an aggravating factor for the charge of extortion.

British Columbians have been very clear: They want tougher laws to stop crime. This bill is a direct response to the needs and desires of the people we represent, who feel let down by the lack of enforcement of the Criminal Code and the soft-on-crime policies of the Liberal government.

I do not want local shops that I go to receiving extortion letters. I want new immigrants to Canada and established businesses alike in places like Cedar Park, where these letters were distributed, to be able to operate their business freely and without fear of violence.

It pains me to even have to state these words in the people's House of Commons, but in reality, it has to be said, because of so much crime taking place.

My constituents want this. They want safety. They are asking us for safety, so I plead with all members of Parliament to work with the Conservatives to see this bill passed, a common-sense bill that is a direct response to what my constituents in Abbotsford, and many constituents of Liberal members in Surrey, specifically asked for.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Edmonton Mill Woods has five minutes for his right of reply.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Madam Speaker, after listening to the debate today and the first session of it as well, I am quite disappointed in hearing that the NDP and the Liberals will not be supporting tougher penalties for such serious crimes as extortion.

The fact is that after nine years, backward, soft-on-crime Liberal policies have resulted in a full-blown crisis across Canada. Canadians are suffering the consequences of the Liberal government's failed policies on crime with skyrocketing auto theft, extortion, gun violence, random assaults and arson right across the country. Crime is not only more frequent, but the severity of crime has also gone up.

In fact, we see extraordinary crime statistics in almost every possible crime category. Statistics Canada paints a very grim picture, reporting that car thefts are up over 300% in some cities across the country, and the rate of firearm-related or violent crime in 2022 was the highest ever recorded. According to a recent report, violent crime is only getting worse, and Canada's violent crime severity index is at its highest level since 2007.

Extortion, which we have been discussing today, is up across the country. In Ontario and Alberta, extortion offences are up almost 300%, and 386% in British Columbia since 2015. This is the result of the last nine years of soft-on-crime Liberal policies allowing crime, chaos and disorder to run rampant in our Canadian streets.

Instead of addressing this Liberal-made crisis, the government continues to make life easier for criminals and their organized crime organizations. In today's Canada, it is common for criminals to get released within hours of arrest, allowing them to return to the same communities that they terrorized just hours earlier.

Under the current Prime Minister, our police are sick and tired of arresting the same criminals over and over again just to see them walk away unpunished. They know that despite doing their job and catching these criminals, the criminals will be released because of the bills the government brought in: Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. It is not surprising that Canadians are losing faith in our justice system. After nine years of the Liberals' catch-and-release chaos, the majority of Canadians do not have confidence in our justice system anymore.

None of this is normal. None of this makes any sense, but most importantly, it does not have to be this way. Our Conservative plan in Bill C-381 would ensure that anyone who commits extortion will serve jail time. This common-sense bill would establish a mandatory sentence of three years for any criminal convicted of extortion. It would send a clear message to organized crime rings that if they do the crime, they will do the time under a Conservative government.

The bill would undo the serious damage caused by the government's reckless Bill C-5, which eliminated mandatory jail time for committing extortion with a firearm. Not only would Bill C-381 restore a mandatory four-year prison sentence for committing extortion with a firearm, but it would also make arson an aggravating factor. Additionally, any criminal who commits extortion on behalf of a gang, criminal organization or crime ring would get a mandatory five-year sentence. Finally, we would reverse the damage done by the government's Bill C-75 and restore jail, not bail, for repeat offenders who continue to benefit from Liberal soft-on-crime policies.

This common-sense bill would give prosecutors and the police an important tool to go after the ringleaders of criminal organizations and allow them to put away those who work on the ringleaders' behalf.

Canadians deserve safer streets and secure communities that are free from extortionists and organized crime. It is our Conservative common-sense plan that would bring home safer streets, reverse the damage of the last nine years of the Liberal government's chaos and restore peace in our neighbourhoods.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, we request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 22, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.