Bill C-5

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act

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.

Government Business No. 25—Proceedings on Bill C-21

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be resuming, in the remaining time that the Liberals and the NDP have permitted me. Of course, they are silencing me in this debate in the House and they are going to be further silencing us in committee on Bill C-21, despite the millions of people whom this bill impacts.

I want to acknowledge that it has been a terrible year for police, to say the least. This comes during a violent crime wave across the country. We have seen a 32% increase in violent crime since the Liberals formed government about eight years ago. We are seeing the result of their soft-on-crime, catch-and-release policies that they work very closely on with the NDP. Those are coming home to roost, and people are being violently assaulted and murdered on public transit.

Our police officers, of course, are on the front lines, fighting these violent criminals. Often it is the same criminals every single weekend whom our brave, dedicated men and women in uniform are putting their lives at risk to deal with. They actually sometimes know these violent repeat offenders on a first-name basis.

I think it is important that we acknowledge, in the House, the failures of the policies of the current government, working with the NDP, and the consequences of that in real life.

Of course, there are multiple factors that contribute to violent crime, but we know, from police, that Bill C-75, which was a Liberal bill from a number of years ago, exacerbated the catch-and-release policies. This was evident on a Victoria police department news release that was talking about a vile rapist who committed 10 counts of sexual assault with a weapon, rapes with a weapon. On the bottom of the press release, because the police wanted to ensure that the public knew that it was not their fault that this horrible, vile man was being released, they said that this person was being released because of Bill C-75, the Liberal bill from a number of years ago.

The Liberals just passed Bill C-5, which I alluded to yesterday, and I talked about the series of violent crimes that no longer will have mandatory prison time as a result of Bill C-5. Talking about rapists, one result of Bill C-5 is that a man in Quebec who violently raped a woman will get zero days in prison, and gets to serve his sentence, a conditional sentence for 20 months, from the comforts of his home.

These are real consequences. As I mentioned, I know that there are a multitude of factors in violent crime, but we are hearing directly from police that the Liberal bills have impacted these things.

It has been a very tough year for police, and Bill C-21 would do nothing to solve the violent crime problem in Canada, because, when it talks about firearms, it goes after law-abiding citizens, who, of course, by definition, are law-abiding. That is why they have the ability to own firearms, because they have been proven and vetted to be law-abiding. They are the only people who would be impacted by the firearm measures in this bill.

Meanwhile, while this is happening, with all of these resources and all of this time and all of these announcements from the Liberals, who are targeting law-abiding citizens, we have had many police officers, just in the past few months, who have been murdered.

I would like to name them today: Constable Andrew Hong, September 12, 2022, murdered by gunshot on the job; Constable Morgan Russell, October 12, 2022, gunshot; Constable Devon Northrup, October 12, 2022, gunshot; Constable Shaelyn Yang, October 18, 2022, stabbing; and Constable Greg Pierzchala, whom I talked about yesterday. He was murdered on December 27, 2022, by gunshot, by a man who was out on bail and had a lifetime prohibition against owning firearms and a very long rap sheet of violent crimes, yet was out on bail.

This is the state of public safety and crime under the Liberal government. Greg Pierzchala is dead because of our weak bail system. This is what we have heard from Toronto police, who deal with this on the front lines more than anybody else. There are more: Constable Travis Jordan, March 16, 2023; Constable Brett Ryan, March 16, 2023; Sergeant Maureen Breau, March 27, 2023; and Constable Harvinder Singh Dhami, April 10, 2023.

It has been a rough couple of years for police. The morale is very low. Recruitment numbers are very low, and, at the same time, Canada is dealing with 124,000 more violent crime incidents in 2021 than in 2015.

That is the record of this Liberal government. It does not like to acknowledge it. It does not like to talk about it. It likes to brush off responsibility and blame everybody else.

The fact is that, compared to 2015, there are 124,000 more violent crime incidents per year in Canada. Meanwhile, police morale is in crisis, recruitment and retention are in crisis, and police officers are being murdered every other week. However, we hear more announcements from the Minister of Public Safety about going after law-abiding citizens than about going after anybody else. I do not know how many times we have to say this. The Liberals are going after, and spending resources and precious time on, the wrong people, the most vetted people in the country, who, statistically, are one-third as likely to cause crimes as anybody else, than non-firearm owners. It is insane, if someone just looks at the raw data. These are heavily vetted, tested and trained Canadian citizens.

The Conservative Party firmly supports responsible gun ownership laws. We are talking about licensing, vetting and safe storage. These things are very important. Only responsible Canadians should ever come near a firearm. If there are any gaps in that, we are happy to have that discussion, but we have a very robust system in Canada.

We are seeing 124,000 additional violent crimes and hundreds of thousands of other violent crimes every year. They are going up every year as a result of the Liberal government's policies, as pointed out by many police forces. Of the hundreds of thousands of violent crimes that happen every year, do members want to know how many are as a result of long guns, for example, which have been the primary target of the Liberal government in recent months? I am referring to long guns belonging to law-abiding citizens, not criminals, because, of course, they do not listen to the laws. Do people know how many are a factor in those hundreds of thousands of violent crimes? It is less than 0.5%.

We also know that, of those who do commit violent crimes with firearms, the vast majority are not legally allowed to own firearms. Therefore, any law and all this time wasted would have no impact on them whatsoever. We are talking about a fraction of a fraction of people whom the Liberals are spending all this time and resources on.

I will remind the House that the Liberals are bringing forward phase two of their regime of confiscation of private property from law-abiding citizens. They call it a “buyback” program. They never owned the firearms in the first place, so I am not sure how they are buying them back. They are going to be spending billions of dollars on it.

There is an estimate from the Fraser Institute. Before the latest round of long gun bans coming forward with this so-called new definition and the hidden list that is being passed over sneakily to the firearms advisory committee, which would add hundreds of firearms to the ban list, the Fraser Institute estimated that the original May 2020 order in council, in essence, would be $6 billion.

Do people know how much good could be done in fighting violent crime and gun crime by criminals and gangsters with $6 billion? We could equip every port of entry with scanning technology. We could hire so many more police officers. We could heavily invest in youth diversion programs. We have seen that, in addition to the responsible gun ownership measures I have mentioned that have been in Canada for a number of years, which Conservatives firmly support, other measures that are important are getting youth when they are just getting led down the path of crime.

If we can get a 12-year-old when he is romanced by the gang to steal his first car, if we could just catch him then, extend a hand and show him a better way, speak to him in a way that is relatable, and have members of his community have the resources to support him, that young man could have a real life. He could have a family and a job, and be a responsible contributing member to his community. That is when we have to catch them.

If we could just take all the money the Liberals would be wasting, which would do nothing, as it says right in the data, to prevent violent crime and gun violence, we could do a lot of good. However, the Liberals are not open to that conversation. They do not want to talk about that. They are too busy fearmongering.

I mentioned this earlier, and I got a bit emotional about it, but the turn that the Minister of Public Safety has taken with his rhetoric against me and members of my party is very concerning. We can have a professional debate. We can have this factual discussion. We can have our viewpoints. They do not want anyone to own firearms, no matter how vetted they are. We believe in protecting the culture and heritage of Canadians. We can have that robust debate; we have been having it for decades. For him to have taken the turn he has taken, to go so dirty on this when I have done my best, as have members of our party, to ensure that this is a professional conversation and that we are leading and protecting people who are being kicked by the government and used as a political wedge on a daily basis, particularly in rural Canada, is very upsetting. I mean that very honestly.

I called him out on it today, and he did not apologize for his disgusting remarks. I found it very disappointing. Why can we not have a civilized conversation based on facts when it comes to this? I do not know. Maybe it is because they are not doing so well in the polls and we are doing pretty well. Maybe they want an election soon and this is a real winner for them, or has been in the past.

Now that we are building on the work of all the Conservative members and we are talking about the people this really impacts, it is resonating with people. Nobody believes it in the suburbs. Nobody believes it in Winnipeg. I represent an urban riding, and no one believes that Grandpa Joe and his hunting rifle are responsible for the gangsters in Toronto who are 3D-printing guns, smuggling guns, wreaking havoc and murdering innocent people and police officers. No one believes that going after hunters is going to solve that, yet we are seeing billions of dollars, countless resources, misinformation, disinformation and disgusting rhetoric from the public safety minister and others on the Liberal benches. It does not make any sense. There is no science or data to back it up whatsoever.

I could go on for quite some time, but of course I have been silenced by the Liberal-NDP coalition. In my remaining moments, I will move an amendment to the motion.

I move, seconded by the member for Peterborough—Kawartha:

In paragraph (a) by deleting all the words after the words “expand its scope” and substituting the following: “to (i) address illegal guns used by criminals and street gangs, (ii) modify provisions relating to bail rules in offences involving firearms to ensure serious, repeat, violent offenders remain behind bars as they await trial, (iii) bring in measures to crack down on border smuggling and stop the flow of illegal guns to criminals and gangs in Canada”;

In paragraph (b) by deleting all the words after the words “by the committee” and substituting the following: “the Prime Minister, the Minister of Public Safety, other ministers of the Crown and senior officials be invited to appear as witnesses from time to time as the committee sees fit,”;

In paragraph (c) by deleting all the words and substituting the following: “Standing Orders 57 and 78 shall not apply to the consideration at the report stage and the third reading stage of the bill”; and

by deleting paragraphs (d) and (e).

Motion that debate be not further adjourned

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will not predict what a court will do, because each case is taken on its merits. I suppose that is the biggest difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals. When it comes to the judiciary, we have faith in that institution.

My colleague knows that Bill C-5 was a response to the Supreme Court of Canada repeatedly striking down the failed Conservative approach to sentencing. This disproportionately impacted racialized Canadians and indigenous peoples.

Yes, we do need to make sure that we are putting in place the appropriate sentencing for hardened gun traffickers. I believe that by raising maximum sentences, we are sending a clear signal to the courts. This is an expectation that if people terrorize anyone with a gun, they will face stiffer jail sentences. However, we also need to take action at the border. We did that with the Americans. We also need to include prevention. The Conservatives have never supported that, but they should. That is what a comprehensive plan looks like.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, there is just so much wrong with this presentation. Under the Liberals, violent crime has gone up 32%; gang crime has gone up almost 100%. The minister just spoke about registered firearms, yet the experts who appeared at the justice committee, the police chiefs, said that illegal firearms coming in from the United States are the cause of this problem.

Would the minister acknowledge that his bill, Bill C-5, eliminated mandatory penalties for trafficking in illegal firearms, drive-by shootings and using a firearm in the commission of an offence? While he is talking about increasing sentences for certain crimes, would he also acknowledge that the maximum sentence has never been used for any of these crimes, and it will not be under these changes?

Government Business No. 25—Proceedings on Bill C-21

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will remind the Liberal member that, if he is looking to throw me off, he is severely underestimating me, just like many a man before him. I have a lot to say, and I will be here for quite some time, so hopefully he is hydrated and fed because he is going to be waiting a long time.

I have more to say on the announcement last week, which was impacted by Bill C-21. The minister at the same time announced the firearms advisory committee, the so-called new definition, but with the old definition, but sneakier.

He also announced that there is going to be something about a permanent alteration to magazines, which we have already, but the way he worded it would signify to me that there is going to be a change in what that means. When we tried to ask about it at committee, we did not get any answers because apparently it was not technically within Bill C-21, but he announced it at the same time he was talking about the bill. The Liberals and officials would not answer our question, but what was taken from that in the firearms community is that the permanent alteration of magazines would go a step further than what is being done now and would impact many a firearm that really is Grandpa Joe's hunting rifle.

For example, the Lee Enfield, is a very popular firearm. It was the British firearm until about the 1950s. It is well made and has been passed down through generations. It is made completely from wood stock and is exactly what we would think of and picture when we think about Grandpa Joe going out to hunt deer. However, one cannot permanently alter the magazine capabilities of that firearm without destroying it. There is no way. Therefore, is the minister now saying that he is going to destroy the Lee Enfield? He will not answer. I have urged people to write to the minister to ask him about that because he will not answer our questions, nor will the Liberals on the public safety committee.

I will also note that the tubular magazine hunting rifle, where the bullet goes right into the tube because there is no magazine, as in the image the Liberals are trying to bring forward, is an old school, 1800s-level technology. For example, the Winchester 1873, I think it is called, is a tubular magazine firearm that holds seven to 14 cartridges or bullets. It cannot be altered in any way, as that would destroy the firearm.

These are heirloom firearms. I am pretty sure my grandfather had one in the closet for when coyotes would try to get into the chicken coop. That is how old school these firearms are. There are hundreds of versions of these in rural Canada. It is owned by collectors, and certainly by hunters and indigenous Canadians. If the SKS is popular in indigenous communities, so too is the Lee Enfield, so why would the Liberals not be clear on what they are talking about with respect to these permanent alterations to magazines? Why are they being so cagey about that? Is it because they do not know? Is it ignorance, or are they hiding something? I do not know.

I have given them the benefit of the doubt before. However, here we are, and they are forcing an end to the democratic discussion and scrutiny that is needed on this bill at committee today, so I really do not trust anything they are about to say on that, if they say anything at all, because they have refused to answer my questions and our questions at the public safety committee about the Lee Enfield and tubular magazine long guns.

While this has been going on, and we have heard so much about this, the Liberals are attacking us, particularly me. I suppose it is because I have been the lead on firearms. They talk about the Conservatives more in their announcements than they talk about the crime that is wreaking havoc in our communities, which they are not doing a lot about.

I want to say that I know this debate is very heated and very personal to people on all sides. I have always done my best to lead this discussion from our perspective, from a professional and authentic standpoint, and what really shocked me was last week, or it might have been the week before, when the minister was announcing phase one of his so-called buyback, which I will get to. He said, in essence, that Conservatives were at fault and bear some of the responsibility for the abuse the Liberals are getting from what they say are gun owners. I have no idea, as I have not seen that.

It is interesting that they talk about it as if we have not received any abuse from people who do not agree with our position. I can tell members that I have certainly received very threatening abuse for the position we have taken. I am the lead on this file. I have received many threats and have been concerned for my safety in this debate, so I was very offended when I heard them trying to blame Conservatives, particularly me because I am the lead in this regard, when I have not been spared or kept from any of that abuse myself.

I am undeterred. I will continue on. I will not be bullied into silence on this. However, just to be clear, the rhetoric from the Liberals is trumping up a lot of hate toward me and others on this side of the House as well. I do not like talking about it. We do not want copycats. We do not want any heroes from these evil, sadistic people, but when I heard something like that, I thought that I had to say something.

I have kept quiet, but I will not stand idly by while the Minister of Public Safety blames me for the abuse he has gotten for his underhanded policies, when I too have suffered abuse because of his rhetoric. I just wanted to put that on the record. I hope to speak to the minister personally about that.

We are talking a lot about firearms. Of course, exclusively, Bill C-21 only impacts, with the so-called handgun freeze or ban, which is really not any of that, people who follow the law. They are the trained, tested and vetted Canadian citizens who are approved by the RCMP to own firearms. Those are really the only people who are impacted by all of these measures since the May 2020 OIC and Bill C-71 before it. It only impacts regular, everyday Canadians who are legally allowed to own firearms. They are heavily vetted Canadians, who are legally allowed to own firearms.

However, the government continues to bring forward measure after measure to attack this group of people. Meanwhile, criminals are running rampant on our streets. I have talked at length about the crime issues. Canadians know full well what has been going on, on public transit and on the streets of Toronto. Everywhere we go in Canada there seems to be horrific headlines of innocent people being attacked by complete strangers who are deranged.

We are facing very serious issues, yet the Liberal budget 2023 really failed to address those violent crime issues. In fact, violent crime was not mentioned once, zero times, in that budget.

Do members know what else was not mentioned once in that budget? Bail reform was not mentioned once in the budget and has not been mentioned in the priorities of that budget from the Minister of Public Safety, despite the fact that every premier of every province and territory in Canada has written two letters to the Prime Minister demanding bail reform because of what is happening in their provinces and territories with crime and repeat violent offenders continuing to get bail and getting back on our streets, hurting Canadians.

When have we ever heard every premier in the country agreeing on a letter? It is very rare. Maybe when they are asking for health care funding, but aside from that, it is a very rare occurrence. There have now been two letters sent to the Prime Minister.

There are also municipal police forces. I just spoke at the big ten police conference, which included every major police association, municipal police forces across the country. I just flew to Calgary last week to speak to them. They are demanding bail reform. Every big city mayor in Ontario is demanding bail reform. While everyone seems to agree on bail reform, there has been no meaningful action or change taken by the Minister of Public Safety on bail reform. I will remind those watching of violent crime in this country, which is up 32% from 2015 to 2021.

When we get to 2022 stats, it will be deeply concerning, I am going to guess that they are going to be way up, just based on the headlines, but they are up 32% between 2015 and 2021. It equates to 124,000 more violent crime incidents per year, which is an insane amount of additional crime that the police are having to deal with, despite police numbers really suffering, which I will talk more about in a minute. We are seeing that crime wave steadily increase, year by year, under the Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety's watch. That is all happening.

On that, bail reform is a huge issue. If we look at Vancouver, there were 6,000 crime incidents, interactions with police, for crime. Of these, 40 people were responsible for 6,000 interactions with police. Those 40 people are sure keeping police busy in Vancouver. These are violent repeat offenders causing havoc on transit, when we walk down the street with one's family and when we are trying to enjoy the parks. There are 40 people causing 6,000 interactions with police in one year, yet there are crickets about bail reform. They say, “Oh, we are meeting and talking about it”, but that is all we hear. It has been months.

In fact, the Victoria police recently put out a news release about a vile rapist who committed 10 sexual assaults with a weapon. Why was he released? The police wanted to make sure the public knew why it was not their fault he was released. At the bottom of the news release, there is a question that asks, “Why was this person released?” I think this is consistent on their news releases, when it is relevant. It was because of Bill C-75. That is a Liberal bill from a few years ago that made bail, in essence, the default for violent repeat offenders. They got bail by default.

Now the chickens are coming home to roost. We are seeing a massive crime surge, and this is one of the reasons police are underlining this and making this heard by MPs over and over again. That is all going on. We are hearing through Toronto police statistics that of the 44 murders, I think it was either last year or in 2021, in over half, 24 or 26 of the 44 murders, the murderers were out on bail at the time. Over half of 44 murders could have been prevented if the Liberals had not brought in such a weak bail regime. They are getting up at the mike and talking about how this so-called new definition, old definition, no list, sneaky list given to the firearms advisory council is going to solve crime, or is one of the things that are going to solve crime.

It is not going to do anything about the people in Toronto who are getting out on bail and murdering people. Toronto police will remind us that about nine out of 10 firearms used in crime in Toronto, mostly handguns, are smuggled in from the U.S. We could outlaw, and I am sure the Liberals are working on it, every single handgun legally owned in this country, and the situation will get worse in cities. The statistics will continue to go up because these criminals are not legally owning the guns. Most of them are prohibited from ever going near a firearm.

Most repeat violent offenders should be in jail, because they smuggle the firearms in quite easily through the Prime Minister's very porous border, through which he has allowed all these drugs and guns to come into the country. That includes human trafficking and all kinds of other things he has allowed under his watch. They are flowing into Toronto and other big cities, such as Montreal and Winnipeg. I have seen the firearms myself, as the Winnipeg police have shown me smuggled ones. There are 3-D-printed guns as well. People are using 3-D printers and printing plastic handguns that are going for $7,000 a pop on the streets of Winnipeg. Bill C-21 would really not do a lot about that.

We worked together on an amendment to perhaps give police a teeny extra tool, which I supported, but going after lawful firearms owners is not going to do anything about the problems in Toronto. Nothing in Bill C-21 would really have stopped the murders of those 20-odd people who were murdered by those on bail who smuggled guns in or printed them. The Liberals say they are increasing maximum sentencing on gun smugglers. That is technically true, but in reality it is baloney. One of my Conservative colleagues, who did great work, made an information request to the government asking how many people have received the maximum sentence, up to right now, for gun smuggling. Do members know, for the eight years that the Prime Minister has ruled the country, how many people got the maximum 10-year sentence for gun smuggling activities? Zero people have gotten the maximum, so to increase it to 14 years is really not going to do a whole heck of a lot.

Perhaps what they should have done is to bring in mandatory minimums for gun smuggling. That would have taken criminals off the street. That would have actually done something, maybe. Conservatives were looking at maybe doing that with an amendment, but we were told it was out of scope so we could not bring forward mandatory maximums. Maybe that is something the member for Carleton, as prime minister of the country, will look at, because that would make a real, actual difference in cracking down on gun smuggling.

I will remind the House that, at the same time as the Liberals were going after lawful firearms owners to such a degree, with so many taxpayer dollars and so much effort by the Minister of Public Safety, in the fall, the Minister of Justice brought forward a bill, which he apparently celebrated quite excitedly when it was passed, to remove mandatory minimum sentences for serious gun crimes and violent crimes. Does everyone want to know what the list of those crimes is? On the list is robbery with a gun. Someone can rob a store with a gun, and it is no longer guaranteed that they will go to jail. That is the Liberal Prime Minister's vision of what we should do about crime: People can rob someone at gunpoint, and there is no longer a mandatory minimum for them.

The list continues with extortion with a firearm; weapons trafficking; importing or exporting, knowing the firearm is unauthorized; and discharging a firearm with intent, including things like drive-by shootings. There is no longer mandatory prison time for the people who commit these offences. Also on the list, there is using a firearm in the commission of an offence, or breaking the law with a gun; there is no longer a mandatory prison time for this. For possession of a firearm, knowing its possession is unauthorized, or illegally possessing a firearm, there is no longer mandatory prison time. For all those criminals in Toronto, it was a good day when Bill C-5 passed.

There is also possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition. A person could have a prohibited gun with a whole bunch of ammunition, and there is no longer mandatory prison time for them. Again, gangs are celebrating every time the Liberal Prime Minister is elected. For possession of a weapon obtained by commission of an offence, stealing one, in essence, there is no longer mandatory prison time. For possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking, excluding firearms ammunition, there is no mandatory prison time.

For discharging a firearm recklessly, there is no longer mandatory prison time. People die in cities because there are gangsters discharging firearms recklessly all the time, firearms they have smuggled in or 3D-printed. There is no longer mandatory prison time for them. In fact, in that same bill, Bill C-5, the Liberals brought forward a supposedly improved option for people who commit sexual assault. Now the law ensures that people who commit sexual assault, rape, do not have to go to prison. They can actually serve house arrest in the comfort of their homes. Rapists can serve their sentence playing video games, with their feet up, in their own homes. It is unreal. I should not be laughing about it, but it is so outrageous and ridiculous that it is hard for me, as a woman, to wrap my head around a so-called feminist government saying that rapists can serve house arrest for their sentence. This just happened in Quebec, where a vile rapist violently raped a woman and got zero days in prison and only 20 months under house arrest.

This is all in the scope of what the Liberals view as their crime priorities. They are getting up at the mike every other day, announcing new gun control measures to go after folks who are lawfully allowed to own firearms, and saying that that is going to make a difference. What would make a difference is repealing Bill C-5 and making sure violent criminals and rapists go to jail. That would make a difference in public safety.

It is not just about firearms. In fact, a lot of the crime we are seeing involves knives. Where is the conversation about knives? We just had what I believe was the third-largest mass killing in Canadian history, and we barely heard a peep about that, certainly not from the Liberals. We tried to study it at committee, and they would not let us. It was in the fall, the third-largest mass killing in Canadian history. A man who got out on parole despite—

Red Dress Day

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Chair, I represent nine indigenous communities, first nations and Métis settlements across the 35,000 square kilometres of Lakeland, among 52 municipalities of different sizes, mostly small communities in rural areas.

Near St. Paul, Canada's first indigenous-owned and directed Blue Quills University, once a residential school, stands as a reminder of successive government policies that interfered in families, broke the bonds between children and parents, extended relatives and communities, involved barbaric abuse and led to children becoming adults cut off from their cultural identity and belonging. My own family background is one with a social services-caused family gap from Ojibway relatives. That, among other government policies and laws that prevented indigenous people from being in control of their own lives, caused trauma that has impacted generations and the reality of disproportionate socio-economic, domestic violence and crime-related challenges experienced by indigenous people in Canada.

Local indigenous people turned more than four decades of hurt into hope, and Blue Quills now offers jobs training and degrees in first nations languages, focuses on restoring indigenous languages and cultures to contribute to intergenerational healing, and offers all Canadians information about residential schools.

Today, Blue Quills, like on the grounds of so many other former residential schools across the country, is also identifying the remains of children who died there and were never returned to their families.

Indigenous women and girls are still being taken. They are going missing from their families and communities in Canada.

The facts are brutal. Indigenous women and girls are disproportionately affected by all forms of violence. At a parliamentary committee, experts testified that 52% of human trafficking victims are indigenous. Horrifyingly, the average age of exploitation of an indigenous girl is just 12 years old.

Many reports show that indigenous women are more likely to experience intimate partner violence and more severe harm than non-indigenous women. Indigenous youth under the age of 14 comprise fewer than 8% of all Canadian children but represent 52% of children in foster and adoptive care. Having a child in the welfare system is also the most common feature among women and girls trapped in prostitution.

In 2019, the final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls made 231 recommendations. Two years went by and we waited for the Liberal government's action plan. This is the same government that claims to prioritize the relationship with indigenous people above all else. It is a lengthy process that has not yet delivered better outcomes and has resulted in many participants calling it toxic, flawed and unsafe.

The government failed to address one of the core elements that any plan has, which is an obligation to the victims and survivors, their families and all indigenous women and girls to ensure their voices are reflected so that indigenous women and girls today and future generations can live safely and freely.

Communities in and around Lakeland mark Red Dress Day in many ways. Last year in Cold Lake at Joe Hefner Park, Fawn Wood and the Kehewin Native Dance Theatre performed a tribute while family members of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls shared their tragedy and grief.

The Mannawanis Native Friendship Centre in St. Paul helped amplify voices of victims and their loved ones through a red dress runway, along with a traditional pipe ceremony, feast and round dance.

The Bonnyville Friendship Centre created a window display that embraces those who are still missing and victims of murder. For two weeks, the red sand project in front of Bonnyville's town hall raises awareness of human trafficking victims through grains of red sand that fill sidewalk cracks and symbolize people who have fallen through them.

People of all backgrounds in Lakeland want to see transformative change to paternalistic government policies that hold indigenous people back and cost a lot of tax dollars in a lot of bloated bureaucracies and lobby groups. However, they often do not actually get to local communities and do not seem to make actual differences in the outcomes, well-being and self-sufficiency of indigenous communities so indigenous people everywhere can live safely and peacefully with opportunities and hope for their future.

Indigenous people in Canada have higher unemployment and poverty rates, lower levels of education, disproportionately more inadequate housing and poorer health outcomes. These at-risk factors, by-products of generations of government policies and barriers, are directly related to the disproportionate vulnerability of indigenous people in Canada and involvement with the criminal justice system.

Since Lakeland first elected me in 2015, I have consistently called on the government to implement real measures to protect victims and stop the revolving door of repeat offenders that impacts everyone.

Three of the five communities in Alberta with the highest crime rates are in Lakeland, and like violent crime across Canada, rural crime has spiked under the Liberals. More than half of rural crime victims are indigenous. In Alberta, with the second highest number of cases of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls of all the provinces, the homicide rate of indigenous women is more than seven times that of non-indigenous women and higher than the national average.

The highest percentage of indigenous women who go missing in Alberta are over the age of 31, and a vast majority are mothers. Indigenous women 18 and under are 23% of missing women and 10% of murder victims, and 40% of indigenous people experience sexual or physical violence by an adult before the age of 15. More than half of them aged 55 and older have experienced the same, twice as high as those who are 15 to 34. More than a quarter of indigenous women experience sexual violence by an adult during their childhood, compared with 9% of non-indigenous women, 6% of indigenous men and 3% of non-indigenous men.

From 2015 to 2020, the average homicide rate of indigenous victims was six times higher than the homicide rate of non-indigenous victims, and the homicide rates for indigenous people are particularly high in the Prairies and the territories.

This is obviously a crisis, involving many complex factors, that requires action from government, so with a broken heart and a little bit of a sense of rage, I want to talk about what the Liberals have done.

The vast majority of violent crime in Canada is committed by repeat offenders, and indigenous people are disproportionately victims of violent crime, but after eight years, violent crime is up 32% across Canada and gang-related homicides are up a shocking 92%. A top concern indigenous leaders raise with me every time we meet in Lakeland is about more police presence and frontline support to combat growing gang activities in their communities.

These days, the justice minister claims to want to fix the very broken system he created, but despite all of these tragic facts, I want to read, verbatim, the law the Liberals passed. It says, “In making a decision under this Part, a peace officer, justice or judge shall give primary consideration to the release of the accused at the earliest reasonable opportunity and on the least onerous conditions”. That is explicit that the top priority at a bail hearing is to release as quickly and easily as possible, even for the most violent accused. How does that protect indigenous victims and innocent indigenous people in Canada?

Even more appalling are the Liberals' changes through Bill C-5, which now make many serious offences eligible for conditional sentencing, house arrest and community service. I will list those crimes for which convicted offenders can now get house arrest: human trafficking, sexual assault, kidnapping, abduction of kids under 14, criminal harassment, prison breach, motor vehicle theft, theft over $5,000, being in someone else's house unlawfully, breaking and entering, and arson.

Again, this includes sexual assault, kidnapping, human trafficking, abduction of kids under 14. These are the very crimes that indigenous women and girls are disproportionately victims of. How does this honour indigenous victims of these crimes? How does it possibly do anything to stop it? It is no wonder that deterrence does not seem to be a factor.

Obviously, improvements must also be made in supporting and preventing at-risk youth from taking dangerous paths in the first place, and in corrections around mental health and addictions treatment, skills training and reducing recidivism.

Certainly indigenous communities take their own diverse cultural approaches to punishment, accountability and making amends, but these Liberal changes on bail and serious crimes also create an obvious perpetual catch-and-release system that does not protect the most vulnerable populations and victims. It does not protect indigenous women and girls, or anyone else for that matter.

The Liberals have taken years and have announced hundreds of millions of dollars to set up projects, plans, roundtables, frameworks and photo ops, but indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians alike are right to ask what it is achieving. They ask how it makes sense in the context of a government that simultaneously reduces penalties for the severe crimes of which indigenous women and girls are disproportionately victims and survivors of, while enabling serious criminals to serve sentences in their living rooms while their victims and peaceful neighbours live in fear?

On Red Dress Day, let indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians together demand better, more than performative words and empty promises, but real action and real change.

[Matthew Taylor]

Sure. Thank you for the question.

I could start by reminding the committee—and I think you know—that Bill C-5 did repeal a number of MMPs, including those for firearms offences, but it did not repeal MMPs for firearms offences involving prohibited or restricted firearms or where those firearms offences were connected to organized crime.

I think on the Justice Canada website there is fairly extensive evidence and information related to the purpose of Bill C-5, which was to address the disproportionate impact that MMPs for some offences had on certain individuals, certain populations overrepresented in the criminal justice system. The bill did not alter the purposes and principles of sentencing, which are that sentences must reflect the seriousness of the offence and the responsibility of the offender. As MInister Lametti has stated countless times, and as Minister Mendicino has said in response to another question, they have confidence that the justice system will impose appropriate penalties based on the facts before them.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

That's great. Thank you.

My next question is probably for Mr. Taylor. I want to touch on Bill C-5, because the minister touched on Bill C-5 in his opening testimony. Bill C-5 removed mandatory minimum penalties for groups that are historically disadvantaged—indigenous Canadians and Black Canadians, groups that are actually overrepresented in our present prison populations.

If you believe Conservative rhetoric on Bill C-5, you would think that these measures would increase recidivism. Do you want to comment a little bit about Bill C-5 and the effect on recidivism and the intent behind Bill C-5?

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to the reckless budget brought down by the Liberals and supported unreservedly and unsurprisingly by the NDP.

In fact, the budget is truly a product of the office of the Leader of the NDP. I think it is fair to say that people underestimate him. Canadians now know that he is the one truly responsible for the government's budgetary decisions. We might even call him the right hon. member for Burnaby South.

It has to be a bit embarrassing for the Liberal members to sit in the House day after day and see their party being completely controlled by the NDP leader. They should not be surprised because since 2015, the Prime Minister and his ministers have demonstrated through their behaviour that their level of incompetence should have served as a warning.

For example, in 2013, the Prime Minister told anyone who would listen that he was not worried about budgets because, as he explained, budgets balance themselves. We know how that turned out.

After such a comment, we might have expected that many Liberal candidates would be reluctant to run under his leadership. No, on the contrary, they all took the same stance and eagerly repeated whatever he said.

That was certainly not the first time that the Prime Minister made odd and dangerous comments, but, for Canadians, that was certainly the most memorable one.

Some believed that although the Prime Minister was incompetent and did not have the experience required to steer the ship, at least he was surrounded by ministers and wise advisers who could tell him how to be sensible and would control his impulses. This hope quickly evaporated when his Minister of Finance increased our country's national debt to unprecedented levels. Yes, the Minister of Finance defended the federal government's record deficit of more than $381 billion arguing it was affordable, given the low interest rates.

I would like to say more about that, but I want to speak about what would be important to address in a budget, and that is my Bill C-325, which I recently introduced.

Bill C-325 would strengthen the conditional release system by creating a new offence for the breach of conditions, requiring parole officers to report breaches of conditions and restoring the former version of section 742.1 of the Criminal Code, which was repealed in 2022 by the Prime Minister's Bill C‑5.

The government's Bill C-5, which has passed, allows criminals convicted of aggravated sexual assault, for example, to serve their sentences in the community. I hope that this monumental error will be corrected, and that the Bloc Québécois and NDP members will support my bill.

These violent criminals should not be serving their sentences at home watching Netflix. They should be behind bars. The Bloc Québécois did support Bill C-5. They voted in favour of it, but after seeing what happened next, they realized that there were problems. Consider the case of Jonathan Gravel, a 42-year-old man who managed to avoid prison after committing a violent sexual assault. The Bloc Québécois now realizes that this needs to be reversed, because it just does not work.

Even a Crown prosecutor in Quebec, Alexis Dinelle, slammed the government for reopening the door to sentences served in the community for this type of crime. He said, and I quote, “Right now, [the Prime Minister] and [the Minister of Justice] probably have some explaining to do to victims of sexual assault. I cannot stay silent in the face of this regressive situation”.

What this federal law does is give men who have been convicted of aggravated sexual assault the possibility of serving their sentences at home. For example, according to La Presse, Sobhi Akra wants to be able to serve his sentence from home after pleading guilty to sexually assaulting eight women. That is outrageous.

My bill also proposes to create an offence for breach of conditions of conditional release by criminals who have been convicted of crimes such as sexual assault, murder or assaulting children, for example, and who fail to meet their parole conditions when they are on parole. Right now, it is not an offence for such criminals to violate the conditions of their parole.

For example, I am sure everyone remembers Eustachio Gallese, who murdered Marylène Levesque three years ago. One of his parole conditions involved being treated by a psychologist. However, he was not reincarcerated when the Parole Board learned that he was seeing prostitutes and violating the conditions of his parole. His release was not revoked and nowhere in his record does it indicate that he was failing to meet his parole conditions.

With my bill, people like Eustachio Gallese, who are out on parole, will no longer be able to make a mockery of our justice system and will have to take the conditions of their parole seriously. It will help save the lives of people like Marylène Levesque.

As we know, the main role of parliamentarians is to ensure the highest level of public safety for Canadians. We must correct the monumental error in the law stemming from Bill C‑5 and strengthen management of the parole system.

Let us get back to the budget.

Canada's finances and public funds are not toys for the Prime Minister and his rich friends to play with. Canadians have worked too hard and sacrificed too much to allow these people to destroy the quality of life of our future generations.

We know that the Minister of Finance studied at Harvard. We also know that this university does not teach these kinds of financial strategies to its students. Like the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance clearly missed a lot of classes at university.

When the budget was tabled by the government, we heard different reactions. One came from Mario Dumont, a well-known commentator and former Quebec politician who hosts several shows in Quebec, on TVA. This was his initial reaction upon seeing the budget:

What is most shocking is that, during those months when the Canadian public service was growing by leaps and bounds, service delivery was the least efficient it had ever been. Need I remind anyone of the passport crisis? ...When you read the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report and compare it to what is happening on the ground, one conclusion is obvious. Canada is bloody badly managed. A private company that is so poorly managed would be sent to the slaughterhouse.

From what we can see, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have no idea what sound financial practices are, and, with the support of the NDP leader, they are dragging this country into financial chaos. While the Prime Minister is destroying the country's finances, Liberal members on the other side of the House are sitting back and watching our children's future slip away. That is the Liberal legacy under this Prime Minister: a total failure to manage our country's finances that puts Canada's future in a very precarious position.

Our legacy will be to clean up this mess and restore sound fiscal policies for the good of our citizens, because when we talk about the future, we are talking about our children and grandchildren. We may tell ourselves that everything is fine right now, but when we look at the interest on the current debt, when we do the projections and calculations, we can see that we are talking about $21 billion in additional interest payments. It is not hard to see that this will become unsustainable over the next few years and the funds available for government operations will be subject to that interest. That means there will be less money and we cannot just keep borrowing, which will only make things worse.

That is why we on this side of the House will always seek to work in a reasonable way in order to maximize the public purse and strike a balance to ensure we do not end up in a situation where our grandchildren will pay the price later on.

Human Trafficking

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

Madam Speaker, the second petition calls upon the government to do more to combat human trafficking.

Petitioners are particularly displeased about the egregious action the Government of Canada took in Bill C-5, which reduced sentencing and allows for house arrest for the crime of human trafficking. They want to see that aspect of Bill C-5 repealed.

Justice

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what the Minister of Justice just said was preposterous. Before the holidays, as soon as Bill C‑5 passed, Jonathan Gravel, a man who had violently sexually assaulted a woman, was given a 20-month sentence that he could serve at home, while watching Netflix, rather than going to prison. If not for Bill C-5, that guy would be behind bars.

I just introduced Bill C-325, which would correct those kinds of appalling situations. These cases are really shocking. Will the Minister of Justice try to understand that and agree to support my bill?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Tuesday, in Calgary, a teenage girl was shot while sitting in a car. No one knows why. The night before in Louiseville, Sergeant Maureen Breau was killed in the line of duty. Violence in on the rise everywhere in Canada. In order to deal with this issue, the Prime Minister passed Bill C‑5, which allows violent criminals to serve their sentence from the comfort of their own home and in the communities where they committed their crimes.

I introduced Bill C‑325 to correct the monumental error that is Bill C‑5. Will the Prime Minister and his caucus support it?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To begin, I would like to thank the witnesses for being here. As my colleague Ms. Diab said, we are very grateful. We are studying a very important matter and this could be our last meeting to hear from witnesses, so your testimony is important.

There are two ways of looking at things, as you may know, since you are important players in the judicial system. According to the basic doctrine, release is the rule and detention the exception. Some people maintain that detention is necessary in certain cases because releasing the individuals would be dangerous.

I believe it was Mr. Arnet-Zagarian who said earlier that use of a firearm in the commission of an offence is an important factor. Similarly, it is difficult to justify the release of repeat offenders because of their risk to reoffend.

In my opinion, detention is necessary in some cases, while in others, individuals should be released. Those are my thoughts so far. I heard earlier that it is really a case-by-case approach and that the court has to decide in light of the evidence submitted. I think that is wise.

That is a long preamble to my question, which pertains to the fact that the court's decision may vary over time based on a number of elements and the legislation adopted.

For example, the Parliament of Canada recently enacted Bill C‑5, which abolishes minimum mandatory sentences for certain offences, specifically those involving a firearm. The minimum mandatory sentence imposed for the deliberate discharge of a firearm has therefore been abolished. There is of course still a maximum sentence, and a stricter sentence can still be imposed, but as legislators we decided that the minimum sentence would no longer apply to this type of crime.

Mr. Arnet-Zagarian, in your opinion, will that impact how the court rules on releasing an individual or not?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Dakalbab, Ms. Efford and Mr. Taylor, for being with us.

My question is for you, Mr. Dakalbab, and it has to do with a subject I raised with the minister earlier. With the passage of former Bill C‑5, mandatory minimum sentences were eliminated in certain cases. I won't go on about the need for minimum sentences. I believe in judicial discretion, but in some cases, the fact remains: doing away with minimum sentences sends a message. Lawmakers don't talk for the sake of talking. In certain cases, when handing down sentences, the courts were influenced by the fact that mandatory minimum sentences had been eliminated.

How do we avoid giving the impression that the parameters for assessing the seriousness of those crimes are less stringent? We don't want the courts to think that when deciding whether to grant an accused conditional release.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

I have just a few seconds left, so I'll simply ask you whether former Bill C‑5 impacts interim release decisions or not.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to begin by thanking my fellow member for standing in for me on Monday and at the beginning of today's meeting. I'm sure that the committee members were none the worse as a result of the switch.

Good evening, Minister. I'm really glad you're here.

The bail rules for accused go back quite a few years. Those rules are assessed on a case-by-case basis. The courts consider each accused's case and make decisions based on those rules. However, you'll probably agree with me that the assessment of those rules has changed over time, according to the circumstances. A case in which an accused would have been remanded 20 years ago may no longer warrant remand today, and vice versa.

That said, as you will recall, it wasn't that long ago when Parliament adopted provisions, through former Bill C‑5, to do away with mandatory minimum sentences in certain circumstances, including for some firearms-related offences. One offence that no longer carries a mandatory minimum sentence always comes to mind, discharging a firearm with intent. Furthermore, conditional sentences now apply to some sexual assault offences, meaning offenders can serve their sentence in the community.

In your view, Minister, does that influence the courts' decisions about whether to hold someone in remand when they are accused of discharging a firearm with intent, for example?

Five years ago, the offence carried a mandatory minimum sentence, which attested to the fact that the crime was fairly serious. Today, the mandatory minimum sentence no longer exists. It's akin to telling the courts that lawmakers consider the offence to be less serious than they did five years ago.

Do you agree with that? What impact do you think that has on interim release?