Evidence of meeting #28 for Justice and Human Rights in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
I shall definitely take the opportunity. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CPC-21 reflects on the ongoing, growing issue of extortion, which is spreading, literally, like wildfire across this country. We know we have pockets of extreme activity in this country. Ontario is certainly not immune. Quebec is not immune. However, ground zero, in my view, is the province of British Columbia.
I know that most, if not all, members of this committee—at least from the government, and some from the Conservative perspective—have actually toured various cities in British Columbia and heard directly from law enforcement as well as from provincial leaders and municipal leaders, including the mayor of Vancouver, the mayor of Surrey and the mayor of Abbotsford. I have taken the liberty of talking to victims of extortion. It's absolutely heartbreaking to see the lawlessness that has been demonstrated by these nefarious actors in extorting, quite often with violence, various sums of money.
Also, it's rather disappointing that the Liberal government, a few years back, in the 44th Parliament, chose collectively to vote down our deputy leader Tim Uppal's private member's bill, which would have mandated mandatory minimum penalties for extortion. That was a few years ago. The rising rates of extortion were not so extreme back then, but the crime itself is having devastating impacts for many residents across this country.
That was, in our view, the first Conservative attempt to undo the complete short-sightedness of this disastrous Liberal government, in the 44th Parliament, choosing to put forward Bill C-5, which completely eliminated 14 serious mandatory minimum penalties in the Criminal Code. For the likes of me, I have yet to hear any cogent, rational explanation from any member of the Liberal government, including attorneys general and prime ministers, as to why they saw fit to eliminate all mandatory minimum penalties for all of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
They did this at a time when we have an opiate crisis in this country. Fentanyl is taking the lives of our loved ones, friends and neighbours every single day of the year, and the RCMP are investigating massive fentanyl superlabs in this country. One such superlab in the province of British Columbia had enough precursor to produce enough fentanyl to kill every single Canadian twice over, yet this short-sighted Liberal government chose to eliminate mandatory minimum penalties for all drug offences.
Let's think about it. The rationale was—and this has not aged well in terms of history—that we have to take active steps to address the overincarceration rate of certain marginalized individuals in this country. We have to reflect the fact that this was, given Bill C-16, an absolute failure by this Liberal government to acknowledge the elephant in the room—that there is a place in Canadian society for mandatory minimum penalties.
David Lametti, the former justice minister and attorney general of Canada, proudly got on his soapbox and said that mandatory minimum penalties were ineffective, that study after study shows they do not have a deterrent impact on offenders and that there is growing sentiment around the world, in many democratic nations, to remove them. That was the position of the Liberal government. Now, with Bill C-16, we have the ability to bring back mandatory minimum penalties.
For all those reasons, I am very grateful that the Liberal Party of Canada and my Liberal colleagues here at this committee appreciate that there is a place in our Canadian justice system for mandatory minimum penalties. Those who would seek to do harm by extorting the precious assets that, largely, our immigrant population built up in this country, and to take from those individuals, need a strong response from parliamentarians. Thank you to my Liberal colleagues, who, after I criticized them appropriately in my interventions, saw the light and recognized that there is a place for mandatory minimum penalties. A four-year mandatory minimum penalty for using a firearm in an extortion is highly appropriate, and it's time to reflect that as soon as possible.
Thank you.
Conservative
Amarjeet Gill Conservative Brampton West, ON
Mr. Chair, I want to speak to Mr. Brock's motion because it is relevant to my riding.
I know he mentioned that the extortion crisis is on the rise across the country. We all know extortion is up 330% in Canada, and it is a crisis in my hometown of Brampton. It is a crisis because of catch-and-release bail policies and the illegal firearms the Liberals have allowed across the border. We have seen drive-by shootings at businesses and homes in broad daylight. The criminals send the victims videos of them shooting at the victims' homes. Extortion is causing an exodus of business owners scared for their safety. We know and are talking about how important it is to control this crime in our neighbourhoods and on our streets.
It does not capture cases where the firearm is illegally held because the person does not have a licence or the firearm was smuggled across the border. These are the majority of extortion cases in my community and my town. This would simply add a four-year MMP—mandatory minimum penalty—if a non-restricted firearm is used.
I encourage everyone to vote for Mr. Brock's amendment to clearly denounce extortion with any firearm. I am supporting it. I encourage all of you to support it.
Thank you.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask the officials a few questions.
First, would this be charter-compliant, and what would it do in terms of delay? Would it risk increasing the delays?
Matthew Taylor Senior General Counsel and Director General, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Thanks for the question.
It's difficult to say, in the abstract, whether it would be charter-compliant. I would point the committee to the Hilbach decision, which was discussed last week. There, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld two mandatory minimum penalties of imprisonment for robbery with a firearm. That would be, I think, instructive regarding any charter challenge in this space, given that the offences are similar in terms of their seriousness and that they would have some similar penalties.
Certainly, on the delays issue—to the second part of your question—that was one of the objectives that animated Bill C-5 at the time, in addition to some of the objectives Mr. Brock spoke about already. There was a significant concern about justice system delays. There had been a fairly significant number of charter challenges. There was a disincentive for individuals to plead guilty, and therefore their trials would continue. One expects those kinds of considerations to continue to be relevant in any offence where there are mandatory minimum penalties of imprisonment.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Mr. Chair, can I ask that we suspend for a couple of minutes?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
I'd like to call this meeting back to order.
Ms. Lattanzio, you still have the floor.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We have discussed it amongst ourselves, and I think we have an agreement to defer the vote on this one until the very end of the meeting, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
Am I able to make some...?
Does that bump the speaking list, then?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
No. This would carry over to the end. That's all. At the end, we'll pick up on this where we left off.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
Can I speak to it now? Am I able to complete my submissions?
Liberal
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
That's it. I just had that request.
Thank you.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
Mr. Brock is moving an amendment to mandate a four-year mandatory minimum sentence when a firearm is used in the commission of an extortion offence. We are witnessing horrible videos—on the news and social media—of people in the greater Toronto area shooting at residential houses and of mobs shooting at homes in the middle of the night repeatedly to demonstrate their strength, to flex and to threaten people to get them to do something that they otherwise wouldn't do, and that is typically to pay money. It is unthinkable that we have a crisis of extortion in Canada right now.
Unfortunately, this is something that my family has witnessed, but not in Canada. My aunt owned a flower store in Haifa, and she was compelled to pay protection money. When she didn't, her flower store was burned down to the ground. Then she didn't again, and her flower store was again burned down to the ground.
This is not arson. This contemplates a firearm. I think that extortion.... When mobs—and in this case we often deal with foreign mobs—intervene in our small business climate and start extorting people for money, that's where the rule of law breaks down. This is not an offence against the administration of justice. It undermines the rule of law so fundamentally that justice in itself is now in doubt.
This bill gives us an opportunity to address this crisis, which I've heard the justice minister discuss in the House multiple times. I'm very pleased that the chair has ruled this amendment in order. I point out that the chair ruled out of order a previous amendment, which prescribed a minimum mandatory sentence where a firearm is used in a robbery. Now this one is ruled in order. The Liberals have an opportunity to do something very important.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you, Mr. Baber.
We're going to defer that until the end, which also includes voting on clause 37.
(Clause 37 allowed to stand)
This takes us to new clause 37.1, which includes CPC-21.1, which I am ruling out of scope.