David Lametti Liberal
This bill has received Royal Assent and is, or will soon become, law.
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.
This enactment amends the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to, among other things, repeal certain mandatory minimum penalties, allow for a greater use of conditional sentences and establish diversion measures for simple drug possession offences.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Mike Morrice Green Kitchener Centre, ON
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton Manning.
I begin my comments regarding Bill S-4 by acknowledging the hard-working and law-abiding citizens of my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.
During these challenging economic times and the troubling revelations Canadians are hearing every day in testimony from the Emergencies Act trial, Canadians in my riding and across the country know that I will always defend whomever the target is for this week's two minutes of hate from a Prime Minister who likes to make fun of other cultures by mocking them in their native attire and wearing blackface.
Why is it that whenever the Liberal Party brings forth legislation to change criminal laws or the administration of justice, it is always about protecting criminals, never about the victims or their families? The system is failing everyone. It is failing victims, it is failing the accused and it is failing everyone working in it.
We have a situation where the public lacks faith in the justice system, and that is what we are beginning to see happen. There is even a call for the Liberal-appointed head of the RCMP to resign. People have lost trust in our public institutions. Everything the government touches breaks. Everything is broken.
Bill S-4 is about technology. Knowing how the government thinks, could Judge Dredd be far behind? The fact is that technology is not a quick fix for what ails the criminal justice system in Canada. The government has all the wrong priorities. For once, the government needs to think about the victims of criminal justice. Someone has to speak for the victims.
Earlier this year, a coroner's inquest was concluded in one of the worst cases of multiple-partner violence in Canadian history. Basil Borutski murdered Anastasia Kuzyk, Nathalie Warmerdam and Carol Culleton in separate incidents on the morning of September 22, 2015, in Renfrew County. Borutski was well known to all of his victims and to police for a long history of violence. He was a dangerous serial offender with a history of beating women. The three grieving families and our entire community relived the horror of that event through the inquest. Borutski went on a violent rampage in the Ottawa Valley on that day and murdered three women: Carol Culleton, Nathalie Warmerdam and Anastasia Kuzyk.
In their verdict, the jurors determined that Culleton, Warmerdam and Kuzyk all died by homicide. Carol Culleton's cause of death was upper airway obstruction, which is a polite way of saying she was choked to death, while Anastasia Kuzyk and Nathalie Warmerdam both died of shotgun wounds to the chest and neck. The violence did not happen without warning. All the women were former intimate partners of Borutski, and the murders were a culmination of abusive behaviour that had been happening for over 40 years.
He was sentenced to life in prison with no eligibility of parole for 70 years. Multiple sentences were to be served concurrently for the multiple murders he committed.
Prior to the law passed by the Conservative government, the maximum sentence for first-degree murder, even when multiple victims were killed, was a life term with no chance of parole for 25 years. The Conservative government law that I was pleased to vote in favour of allowed for parole terms to be stacked on top of one another in cases involving multiple victims. The sentence of serial mass murderer Basil Borutski is an example of a sentence that takes into consideration the severity of the crime. The Supreme Court has since ruled that there can be no more multiple sentences.
Alexandre Bissonnette, the Quebec City mosque shooter who was initially sentenced to 40 years for the murder of six people, had his sentence struck down on appeal. The Supreme Court upheld the appeal and ruled that sentences of that length are cruel and unusual and violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Unless the Liberal government brings in new legislation, the court's ruling will mean the maximum sentence a person can receive for first-degree murder, even in cases of multiple murders, is life with no chance of parole for 25 years. When women are killed because they are women, that is different than first-degree murder, second-degree murder, manslaughter or the general term “homicide”. It sends the wrong message to the courts.
In the case of serial killer Basil Borutski, a violent offender who openly ignored court orders that were part of his probation, he was released anyhow. Bill C-5 is a slap in the face to every woman in Canada by a Prime Minister who is consumed by his own toxic masculinity.
By reducing or eliminating mandatory minimum sentences, a downward pressure on all sentences is exerted, especially in circumstances in which supposedly determinate periods of imprisonment are routinely reduced, halved or more by early release. If a man such as Borutski is released early after a triple murder, what sentence will a mere murder receive?
What does all this mean to the people of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke? In the case of Bill C-5, which was brought to the House instead of the Senate like Bill S-4, Bill C-5 is a radical, left-wing bill that would eliminate mandatory minimum penalties. It sends the wrong message to the community and the families of Carol Culleton, Nathalie Warmerdam and Anastasia Kuzyk, and women who live in fear of domestic violence.
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for a very informed question on Jordan's principle, with regard to our justice system.
I am not a lawyer, but I will try to answer this question to the best of my ability. What I will say is that the Minister of Justice and Attorney General is obviously working very closely with indigenous communities and consulting with indigenous stakeholders to ensure that we have a nation-to-nation relationship when it comes to reforms within our justice system and to move forward with reforms in our justice system. Much like we did on Bill C-5, where there are negative impacts on indigenous individuals, for example, the overrepresentation of indigenous individuals in Canadian jails, measures will be taken to correct that and to ensure that there are not systemic barriers within our criminal justice system that impact indigenous communities.
JusticeOral Questions
November 24th, 2022 / 3:05 p.m.
LaSalle—Émard—Verdun Québec
Liberal
David Lametti LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, my neighbour, for her important question and the work she does for our community.
With Bill C-5, for the first time in the history of Canada, we have done away with some mandatory minimum sentences, giving judges the flexibility to impose sentences that fit the crime. That means that prosecutors and police officers can spend more time and resources fighting serious crime. We did away with the mandatory minimums that contribute the most to the over-incarceration of indigenous, Black and racialized Canadians. We took action for a justice system—
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
Mr. Speaker, I mentioned a bit about restorative justice circles. This is something we are seeing used a lot in community, and I would love to see this applied more broadly, for more Canadians to access this indigenous lens, this approach. Again, it is to go toward healing, which is something that really needs to be added into this conversation.
The use of elders as well in the courtroom is really important. We see the use of the Gladue principles that have been put in place in court systems to allow judges to use that discretion and take into consideration someone's background and the trauma they might have experienced that led them to interact with the justice system. These are all really concrete pieces.
I would also like to highlight Bill C-5. I know it is a bit controversial for some members on the opposite side, but we need to address the discrimination our justice system has perpetrated upon indigenous Canadians and members of racialized communities. Reducing those mandatory minimums and using a judge's discretion is critically important, and it is going to ensure justice for all.
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to join in the important debates and discussions that take place in the House and to be able to discuss the wide variety of issues, both directly and indirectly, addressed through Bill S-4.
I will be streaming this speech live on Facebook, where I will endeavour to not only address some of the very important aspects of Bill S-4 but also endeavour to take feedback and comments from those who are watching on Facebook. My Facebook handle is “@dckurek”. I look forward to addressing some of the comments and concerns that constituents bring forward.
Bill S-4 would codify some of the dynamics that existed during the course of COVID. These are things like video appearances and certain technical and administrative challenges associated with the circumstances around offices being closed, for example, the fact that the fingerprinting could be a delayed process and a whole host of administrative concerns.
I would highlight and encourage those watching live on Facebook to share their stories as well about some of the dynamics associated with rural crime. Access to justice is something that is not unique to rural Canadians. This did not start in 2020 with COVID, and it certainly has not repaired itself as we have seen life get back normal.
My constituency, for example, as many who are watching from there will know, is about five hours from corner to corner, and it is hours to the nearest courthouse. In many cases, the response time of law enforcement to very serious crimes is measured in hours or even sometimes in days. It is an important context in which we see this soft-on-crime approach.
I happen to agree with a statement that was made the other day by one of my Conservative colleagues that this is a hug-a-thug approach. It is really unfortunate, because we are seeing that my constituents are facing the consequences of that soft-on-crime approach by not seeing our justice system as a system that serves justice. In fact, the most common statements that I receive from constituents are that we do not have a justice system, and that it is simply a poor excuse for a legal system.
I certainly see the Liberal record over the past seven years as being one that piles on failure after failure, whether it be Bill C-5, which would eliminate a whole host of sentences for very serious crimes, or the justice minister, with an astounding level of ignorance and arrogance, who simply says that we will leave it up to the judges. I have more examples than I could fit in days of debate about where the justice system does not actually bring about the punishments that should certainly fit the crime, and we are seeing a massive erosion of trust in the system.
I see, specifically, a member from the government who seems to be participating in my Facebook live. I thank him for his viewership and amplification of the sound, common-sense Conservative message that certainly resonates with Canadians.
I would note something that I think is especially relevant. There is an astounding level of ignorance displayed by the Liberals, and this was highlighted just the other day. The rule of law, to them, seems to be this plaything. I would like to read a text message sent from the Minister of Public Safety that was revealed at the Emergencies Act inquiry commission. The parliamentary secretary who just commented on my feed should maybe pay attention to this. It says:
...you need to get the police to move....
And the CAF if necessary....
Too many people are being seriously adversely impacted by what is an occupation. I am getting out as soon as I can. People are looking to us/you for leadership. And not stupid people. People like Carney, Cath, my team.
The reply goes on to say, “How many tanks are you asking for...I just wanna ask [the Minister of National Defence] how many we've got on hand.”
The response from Canada's Minister of Public Safety was, “I reckon one will do.”
That is astounding, and I would suggest disgusting, that the Liberals would suggest that pulling out tanks to bring to the streets of our capital city would, in any universe, be an acceptable practice. We see how—
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Thank you for the clarification.
We're having a debate about the fact that hunters have hunting rifles that have hurt people. What concerns me is that the Liberals are able to use that argument for every firearm. I believe they're introducing this argument so they can have the ability to carry it forward for banning every single firearm model in this country.
One that's on the long list they just now formally introduced and that we can now talk about is a model of .22 rifle. A .22 rifle is used for hunting birds or small rodents. This is possibly one of the most common styles of firearms. Anyone who has any knowledge whatsoever about hunting rifles, whether they're a hunter or not, knows that to put a .22 on the banned list and call it a military weapon is very deeply misinformed.
We're reviewing this list in detail, because there are so many firearms on here that are very commonplace. Ms. Damoff mentions the SKS. That is one of the most commonplace hunting rifles and is particularly popular in the indigenous community. She likened it to a weapon of war, like a fully automatic AK-47. The SKS is not that. It's disinformation to insinuate that it is. Fully automatic weapons, which are weapons of war, have been fully banned in this country since the 1970s.
I feel there is significant disinformation being spread. Equating hunting rifles, which have been used for over a century in this country, with weapons of war is straight-up lying. It's very insulting to insinuate that hunters in this country have weapons of war when they're perfectly legitimate tools that hunters have been using for well over a century—and much longer, in fact, particularly if you're talking about indigenous hunters, who have been hunting on this land for quite some time.
I'm not a firearms expert, though I would say that I know significantly more than Ms. Damoff about hunting. I have a lot of respect for hunters, coming from a hunting family. For her to say which rifles are good for hunting when she has no knowledge of hunting whatsoever, or respect for hunters, is something I find particularly offensive.
We have been fielding hundreds of calls in the last number of days. The definition provided in this amendment casts a very wide and significant net. It's the most significant hunting rifle ban in the history of Canada. That's what's being done here, in the most underhanded way. If the Liberals had any integrity, they would have brought this forward in the original bill. Then it could have been debated in the House. However, of course they did not do that. There could have been expert testimony brought forward during the witness testimony phase, but they did not do that. Why did they not do that? Did they not want to face proper public scrutiny? That's what this seems to be about. This isn't about safety.
This is coming in light of new statistics that showing under the Liberal government, there's been a 92% increase in gang-related homicides in this country. There's been a 92% increase since Prime Minister Trudeau took office. There's been a 32% increase in violent crime, which equates to 124,000 more violent crimes last year than in 2015—crimes such as rape, assault, stabbing and shooting.
We know that with the firearm problem in this country, the vast majority of the issue, which is growing and of the utmost concern, is about the handguns that are being smuggled in illegally from the United States and being used by gangsters, gangs and criminals to hurt Canadians, particularly in our big major cities like Toronto and Montreal. Winnipeg is also experiencing this. We have a real and legitimate issue on our hands. We also know that there are 3-D-printed guns. We can't talk about it, but we know that in the debate in the days to come, various amendments may address that. We can have that debate when it happens. Unfortunately, we couldn't have that debate in the House.
I think the problem is that we are seeing a government that brings in successive soft on crime policies. We can talk about the bail reform from 2017 that contributed to the revolving door of criminals going in and out of jail. That's coming home to roost now, five years in. We can talk about Bill C-5, which was recently passed. The Liberals talk about gun crime, but they removed mandatory jail time for serious gun crimes. Firing a gun with the intent to hit someone with a bullet no longer means mandatory prison time.
They have no integrity when they come here and talk about wanting to keep Canadians safe from gun violence, because under Bill C-5, they are now allowing people who try to shoot other people.... They may not have to go to jail. They can serve house arrest from the comfort of their home.
It's very frustrating for me to hear Liberals attacking hunters, as I'm from a hunting community and have a hunting background and I care legitimately about solving the issue of violent crime involving illegally possessed firearms in this country. Again, for seven years we heard this Liberal government—the Prime Minister, the Minister of Public Safety, members of this committee—talk about how this isn't about hunters. We heard it today. However, on this list there are so many models of commonplace hunting rifles.
Take anything made by Remington, for example. Remington, Browning, Winchester and Benelli are firearm companies that specifically design hunting rifles. They cater to hunters. They don't cater to what Ms. Damoff called weapons of war. A Winchester gun is a hunting rifle. Many of those are being banned. Also, the back door permits all variants of them, so variants that aren't semi-automatic could be easily added. Many hunters own semi-automatic rifles—again, that's a very common, legitimate hunting rifle model—and many of them also own non-semi-automatic ones that are from Winchester or Remington. This allows a back door, but as she said, the Liberals are just coming for semi-automatics.
There is no buyback, by the way. There is no opportunity for anyone to be compensated for these very expensive hunting tools and farming tools. The Liberals are saying they're just coming for some of them right now, but the back door means they could come for all the variants as well.
I think the problem here is that the Liberal Party has lost all ability to be trusted by hunters. First it was the OIC. They said they were not coming for hunters. Then it was the handgun freeze. “Who needs a handgun?” That was their argument. Now it's legitimate hunting rifles. Again, if you get a group of hunters together, you'll see probably about half of them have some form of semi-automatic hunting rifle. It's very, very common. This is commonplace, to speak nothing of the heritage of many of these models.
I'll share an example with you. My grandfather recently died. He had a very difficult last few months in palliative care at home during the pandemic. In his dying months, he came to us with one of his firearms, for which he had saved up for a very long time when he was a young man. It would have been in the fifties. This firearm was probably his most prized possession, and it looked to be in mint condition despite being 70 years old. He bestowed it to my father.
So many Canadian families have the very same special cultural experience with passing down an heirloom firearm, whether it is semi-automatic or not. Again, these are so commonplace. Millions of Canadian families will have had this experience with their grandfathers, their uncles or their fathers. These are family heirlooms as much as they are tools.
What this government is saying right now, given what they're doing so underhandedly and with no integrity, is that you can't have that anymore, and they're not even going to pay you for it. There's no democratic debate, and there's a sneaky amendment here at the end stage of the committee process with no regard for what this does to Canadian culture. Hunting has been a part of it since long before the Europeans got here. Then firearms were introduced, and since then, firearms have been a thriving part of the hunting community in this country among both indigenous and non-indigenous people. As I mentioned, the SKS is a very popular hunting rifle in the indigenous community. I'm very interested to see what they think about this.
We have this experience that I feel is being completely spat on: Well, too bad for you; we don't care that this is part of your cultural identity as Canadians. We don't care that this is part of the freedoms you enjoy. We're taking them from you and you don't get a say in it. In fact, we're building the legislation in a way that's so broad we can take all your hunting rifles.
As I've said, based on the commentary and arguments the Liberals are making, you could apply this to any firearm. They are now establishing an argument to ban every single lawfully owned firearm in this country. I'd love to hear them actually deny that, because they have yet to do so. It's very clear. They said they would never come for hunters, and now they have. There is no more trust between anyone who has any sort of hunting background and this Liberal government given what it has done here.
I was actually personally shocked. I was naive enough to believe they wouldn't come for hunting rifles, but they are now. It's incredibly significant. There are even shotguns on here. Shotguns for hunting birds are being prohibited.
There's something that has been missing in this conversation, which really just started a couple of days ago. We haven't had a lot of time to talk about it. This bill has been on the floor for six months, and we're just now learning what the real intentions are here.
Something that hasn't been talked about is the raw utility of certain models of hunting rifles. I'm going to take Churchill, Manitoba, as an example, the polar bear capital of the world. We know polar bears actively hunt human beings. Polar bears are extremely dangerous wildlife in Canada. We are very proud of them, but they're very dangerous. The fact is that if you come across a polar bear, a cougar, an angry grizzly bear or a pack of wolves, for example, you'd better hope that you have a semi-automatic hunting rifle. It is your best defence against Canadian wildlife, which hunters come across often.
Thankfully, they have tools to protect themselves and their families, who they're hunting with. Thankfully, indigenous communities have tools to protect themselves. Thankfully, northern indigenous communities have tools to protect themselves. To say these are weapons of war, when they've been used as tools for hunting and protection against wild animals and to protect livestock, is disinformation. It is straight up lies. It is discounting the utility of firearms in this country that have been around for centuries.
We can also talk about wild boars, the very invasive and dangerous species that's spreading into southern Saskatchewan and Alberta. They breed very quicky and they're very sneaky. They can sneak up on you. Their tusks are deadly and they're very fast. If you are charged by a pack of wild boars, you'd better hope you have a semi-automatic hunting rifle with you. You'd better hope that you're able to defend your livestock, your farm dogs and your kids who are with you. Again, there is a utility factor in this that's being completely discounted.
The argument could be made that banning these versions of hunting rifles also puts hunters, farmers and those who live in rural and northern communities at risk. That should have been included. We could have had that robust debate in the House, with expert testimony, had we been given the opportunity, but now we have to do this in some filibuster because the Liberals are introducing this in an underhanded way.
I feel that if they were able to stand on their arguments, they would have welcomed this through the House and through witnesses, but they know what they're doing. This is hunting rifles now, hundreds of models of hunting rifles.
When we have a Liberal government in power, it seems to, as I've said before, look down its nose at rural Canadians, eastern rural Canadians and northern Canadians, shaming them for the way they live, shaming them for generations of hunting heritage that we in the Conservative Party are proud of.
Part of our Canadian identity is hunting, but now we have a government that is looking to ban hundreds of models of perfectly legitimate hunting rifles. They're calling them weapons of war. These are not AK-47s—fully automatic guns. Again, I am not a gun expert, but various Remingtons, Winchesters and, I believe, some models of .22s are in here, and those are wild chicken hunting guns. To call those weapons of war is a complete lie.
Again, we are fielding a lot of calls from people—from men, from women, from families who build their entire recreational life and all of their culture around hunting. Now they're just going to lose, what, half of their firearms?
I think what Ms. Damoff said is they can use other ones. Who is she to say that? She doesn't know anything about hunting. She doesn't respect us. I feel deeply disrespected by those comments. This is someone who does not respect hunters or the deep hunting culture we have in this country telling us what we need for hunting, for protecting our livestock and for protecting our families when we go for a walk in the Canadian wilderness. How could she possibly know what we need? It's very superior, condescending and paternalistic. Part of the reason that people get so fired up and don't trust this government is comments like that. How would they know what we need when they know nothing about how we live?
We have a lot of different perspectives that would like to come forward. We have technical questions. I appreciate that we're now able to talk about the list. There are a lot of technical issues with that list.
I will soon turn it over to my colleagues on the speaking list, but I will just underline that this attack on hunters and the hunting community is completely unprecedented in Canadian history. If you want to talk about war, this is a declaration of war on Canadian hunters by the Liberal government. They're laughing, but that's how it feels. We feel that this is an all-out assault on how we live our lives. They are taking something from us with no democratic debate and barely any oversight. We have to filibuster just to get a word in edgewise about how this is going to impact people, because we were not allowed that opportunity in the House of Commons. We were not allowed that opportunity with expert witnesses.
They are attacking centuries-old heritage in this country, and they're scoffing and laughing as if it means nothing to them. It means something to us. It means something to me. It means something to me on a very personal and deep level, and to be very honest, this feels like a personal attack. I'm not an avid sportsman, but I did grow up in a hunting family. All the people I grew up with had firearms; it was very common. To see this kind of disrespect when we have done nothing wrong and when we have a 92% increase in gang-related homicides, and to see them coming for people like me and people like my family, speaks to misplaced priorities.
As I mentioned, there is no buyback in here. Unlike the OIC—and we have debated that issue at length—the Liberals are not providing even a penny to these folks. It's just “They're banned. You can't use them anymore. Too bad for you.” That's what we're looking at right now. If they do come back and change their minds and decide to have a buyback, right now some of the estimates are showing the OIC and the weapons ban will cost $5 billion. That will easily double given the hundreds of perfectly legitimate hunting rifles that would be banned. We're talking about probably at least $10 billion.
Do you know how much good $10 billion could do if we actually targeted the problem, the 92% increase in gang-related homicides since Prime Minister Trudeau became the Prime Minister? The 32% increase in violent crime is notably focused in our urban cities and on our porous border, which is letting gangsters and criminal elements smuggle handguns and already prohibited weapons from the U.S. into our cities so they can use them in their drug rings to hurt Canadians. Do you know how much $10 billion could do to stop that issue and their terrorizing of our urban cities? I think quite a bit. Ten billion dollars spent on hunters and people in rural Canada is not going to do a darned thing for that.
Given the gang activity, the criminals who are smuggling in those prohibited weapons from the U.S. are laughing at this. They're laughing right along with the Liberals because it's not going to make one modicum of difference to their lives. It will do nothing to impact them, but it will do everything to impact rural Canada and the culture that we hold very dear. This is just the beginning.
Again, we're just learning about this. We're trying to wrap our heads around the significance of it, but it is a fact that this bill comes after hundreds of thousands of hunters who are trained, tested and vetted and who are just as legitimate as any Liberal member here and just as patriotic. They love this country and they love the freedoms that it has provided them.
This is just the beginning of what we're doing. We will stand up for our hunting community. I will stand up for my family, for where I grew up. This is an all-out assault by the Liberals on the hunters in this country, and I look forward to the discussion we will have today and in the coming days. I look forward to hearing the thoughts of the millions of hunters in this community, because as I'm hearing right now, the anxiety is extremely high, the upset is extremely high and the devastation of families is extremely high, and we're only a few days into this.
Thank you.
Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
Madam Speaker, I will repeat a question that seemed important to the Quebec bar association, which made a few recommendations concerning Bill S-4. Some of them were accepted, which is good.
In the House, we studied Bill C-75 to amend the Criminal Code and the Youth Criminal Justice Act. We also studied Bill C-5 to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Now we are studying Bill S-4, and the Quebec bar association made what we think is a very wise recommendation about this bill. Rather than make changes piecemeal, would it not be time for an overall reform that includes all of these changes? It is a question of consistency.
Does my colleague agree?
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to be able to rise today to join in the debate on Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other acts.
As has been mentioned during the course of this debate, we have heard the government speak about the urgency of the passage of this legislation, but some of the measures in here, certainly, were required long before the COVID pandemic. There are others that raise some concerns about justice, particularly when it comes to respect for victims of crime. I will include victims and their families in that.
In Bill S-4 the consent of the offender is mentioned 10 times. Let us contrast that. How many times does Bill S-4 mention the consent of a victim, the consent of a victim's family in proceeding by way other than an in-person meeting? The answer, not surprisingly, is zero. Not once does this bill mention the consent of the victim or their family, all the while speaking about the consent of an offender.
I would love to say I am surprised, or that maybe there is something we are missing here, but the fact is that this is in line with the overall agenda of the government when it comes to our criminal justice system.
We only have to look at the bills that have come before the House. We only have to look at the selective response to certain Supreme Court of Canada decisions to realize that this is a government that does not put the rights of victims first.
To use an example, we saw yesterday, in the public safety committee, a grand expansion of the law when it comes to going after law-abiding citizens, duck hunters, hunters, our constituents, all of our collective constituents who are law-abiding firearms owners. They do this in the name of combatting crime. We are targeting non-criminals in an effort to combat crime.
If we speak to the experts, if we speak to police, if we speak to big-city mayors, they will tell us that the source of illegal firearms, the source of firearms being used by gangs, is our border, our porous border, and the illegal importation of firearms.
Knowing that the illegal trafficking and importation of firearms is the cause of the firearms being on the street, that law-abiding citizens are not the cause, it would lead us to a logical conclusion that we should target that illegal importation, in direct contrast to what the government is doing in Bill C-22, which is targeting duck hunters, farmers and sports shooters, people who are not criminals and people who are not a threat.
What are we doing about the real threat? What are we doing about the importers, the traffickers?
There is another bill that was just passed through the Senate, Bill C-5. What that bill does is say that if someone has trafficked in a firearm, has used a firearm in the commission of an offence or in extortion, or if someone has fired a firearm with intent, they no longer, as the case has been for years, have to serve time in jail. They can go back onto the street. They can go back into the community where they committed the offence.
Where did this law come from that said a person has to serve time in jail if they commit these offences? Did it come from the previous Conservative government?
The government would love us to believe that this tough-on-crime measure came from the previous Conservative government, but if we bother to look at the facts and the evidence, the evidence says all of those mandatory penalties were in place since the 1970s, since the time of the Prime Minister's father being prime minister. Some of them were introduced when the Prime Minister's father was both prime minister and justice minister.
The Liberals love to say these are unconstitutional mandatory penalties.
What does the Supreme Court have to say about this? There was a recent case from just a couple of weeks ago involving a mandatory penalty for drug trafficking, and the Supreme Court considered that and considered the seriousness in our communities of the crisis, whether it is fentanyl, cocaine or heroin.
The government of the day was a Conservative government, and I am proud to say, in an effort to combat those crimes, we said that if someone were going to traffic, produce or import these serious drugs, they were going to have to serve actual time in jail. The current government has said, in Bill C-5, that it does not believe that, and it believes those people should be able to be back on the street.
What did the Supreme Court of Canada say? The Supreme Court of Canada upheld those provisions. It said they are constitutional and that the seriousness of these offences, when weighed with Parliament's legislative prerogative, means that Parliament was entitled, and that it was indeed constitutional, to have brought in that measure that says if someone imports, traffics or produces cocaine, fentanyl or heroin, they are going to go to jail and be taken off the street.
Does being soft on crime work? We have heard it called “hug a thug”, “soft on crime” or “a revolving door justice system”, in which, if someone commits a crime, there are no consequences and they go back on the street. Does that approach work? Why do we not look at the evidence? The evidence was just released this week, not by the Conservative Party but by Statistics Canada. The evidence says that the homicide rate in Canada has increased for three consecutive years.
The homicide rate in Canada is at the highest rate it has been since 2005. Why is 2005 significant? That was the last year of the previous Liberal government. The Conservative government came to power in 2006, and we had an agenda to straighten out our justice system, to respect victims, to put victims at the forefront and to say to serious offenders, “recidivist”.
What is a recidivist? A recidivist is someone who commits a crime; gets caught; gets tried in a court of law; gets sentenced, whether to jail time or house arrest; goes back on the street and does the same thing again and again. That is recidivism. The courts have said, and we have said, that we have to focus on criminals, and we did that.
Over the last seven years we have seen a Liberal government. The percentage I am about to say should shock all of us in the room and should shock all Canadians. The violent crime rate in Canada, since 2015, has increased 32%. That is not acceptable. That is in our rural communities—
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound raises a point that really should be prominent and is salient in this discussion.
The efficiency of the justice system should be sacrosanct, because, in my view, we should have been making the mandatory minimums that have been struck down constitutionally compliant. On the one hand, we may have people who say that we need a lot more mandatory minimums. On the other hand, we will have people, generally across the aisle, who would say that we do not need any mandatory minimums.
My view is that we should have a middle ground where we have mandatory minimums that have room for exceptional circumstances so that they do not apply, because it is the outlier cases that result in mandatory minimums getting struck down. Why do we not address that in legislation?
I do not think anybody in the House would say we do not want to go after gangsters, so why are we having Bill C-5 at the beginning of this Parliament, as my colleague pointed out, and Bill S-4 at this point? In fact, we should be changing it and flipping the script to bring back legislation that focuses on these mandatory minimums when gun crimes have consistently gone up.
Community-based sentences for discharging a firearm with intent, I believe, was a constitutionally upheld mandatory minimum in a case called Oud from the B.C. Court of Appeal. I believe in that case it was five years. That mandatory minimum was upheld by the B.C. Court of Appeal, and now a person can get a conditional sentence order for it. I do not understand how that is possible.
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for a great speech.
He talked about the backlog in the justice system, especially when considering the massive rise, a 32% increase, in violent crime in Canada since the Liberals formed the government.
First, how important is this legislation to addressing that backlog? Second, can he comment on the hypocrisy of the government waiting so long to bring this bill forward compared to its bringing Bill C-5 forward to eliminate the mandatory minimums for violent crime in Canada?
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is a very relevant observation, because what we are trying to do is modernize our court system and our justice system. With Bill C-5, it is the first time in Canadian history. The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada is the first attorney general to repeal many mandatory minimum penalties that were seen to be harmful to indigenous, Black and other racialized communities. It was not based on a focus of keeping people safe, but putting away people who ought to have off-ramps in the criminal justice system.
Bill C-5 is very similar to Bill S-4 in the sense that we are modernizing. We are looking at the 21st century, the science and the technology available and moving forward on very important reforms that will help make sure our justice and court systems are modernized.
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
November 23rd, 2022 / 4:35 p.m.
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, Bill S-4 is yet another piece of legislation that the Department of Justice is looking at. I know the member has been a very strong advocate for Bill C-5 and has a few thoughts on it that would be of benefit in terms of reinforcement. We recognize that when it comes to Bill S-4, the modernization is an absolute. It is relatively non-controversial and should pass. There has been time on it in the Senate already.
I know the member has some very strong thoughts on Bill C-5, and I would ask him to maybe provide a different perspective on another piece of legislation that he is bringing through.
Justin Trudeau LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge for the hard work he does for his constituents.
I am proud that Bill C-5 has now received royal assent. It is a long-overdue and essential step for our criminal justice system. It will give judges the flexibility to impose sentences that fit the crime and contribute to addressing the overincarceration of indigenous, Black and racialized people. We believe in a justice system that is tough when it needs to be tough, but is always fair.
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government's record speaks for itself. It is failing to keep Canadians safe.
Violent crime does not just happen; it is from failed Liberal policies. It is things like the Liberals' Bill C-5, which would end mandatory prison time for serious gun offences: things like robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm and firing a gun with the intent to hit someone with a bullet. No longer does a criminal have to do mandatory prison time under this Prime Minister. Now he can serve house arrest in the comfort of his home.
That is the Liberals' approach to solving violent crime in this country. It is ridiculous, and it is endangering Canadian lives. When are they going to smarten up, get tough on crime and clean up our streets?