Debates of Dec. 15th, 2021

Criminal Code

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, following up on my friend's latter comments, does he think that those convicted of sexual assault, criminal harassment, trafficking of minors or abduction of minors deserve to be punished by way of a denunciatory sentence, which could include jail?

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

Madam Speaker, as I said in my remarks, the person who is best qualified to mete out that kind of a sentence is the judge who has heard all the facts of the case and the individual circumstances. I am quite confident that should a person deserve a lengthy sentence and a long jail term, they will get it.

Again, I am asking for Conservatives to publicly declare that they support our judges to look at the facts of the case and mete out the appropriate punishment.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, at 8:30 this morning, a resident of my riding who was a victim of violent sexual assault 11 years ago, was going to testify before the Parole Board of Canada to prevent her attacker, a multiple offender, from being released. Every time this man has been released since the early 2000s, he has re-offended.

In cases like this, or in sexual assault cases like those raised earlier by my Conservative colleague, is there no way to better to provide a better framework within which judges can operate and use their discretion in sentencing sex offenders, even first-time offenders?

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

Madam Speaker, yes, I think the discretion part is very important. In answering my colleague's question, our justice system has struggled from underfunding right across this country, which has led to a lot of people being released without having their appropriate day in court.

We covered this at the justice committee two Parliaments ago, and I believe we need a significant increase in funding and an agreement between the federal government and the provincial governments, which are responsible for the administration of justice, because this hurts victims of crime, but it would makes sure that the people before a judge are getting their full day in court.

Yes, the financial problems of our justice system are well understood, and they do need to have this funding to give them the seriousness they deserve.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Madam Speaker, because this is my first time rising in this Parliament to give a substantial speech, if my colleagues allow me I would like to thank my riding of Pickering—Uxbridge and all of the residents for once again putting their faith in me.

I would also like to thank my team of volunteers, my riding association, my family and my mom, who is probably at the door. If anyone thinks I am tough, they have not met my mother.

I would also like to thank my parliamentary family who are here, too: the member for Kingston and the Islands and the Minister of Seniors. My grandfather was not here for this due to COVID. He is in Newfoundland but his MP, the MP for Avalon, is behind me here. My thanks to all for that.

I am proud to rise today to speak on Bill C-5. I have listened to this debate through the course of the week. The Conservative arguments have been incredibly disappointing and frankly disconnected from reality. I want to speak on this because I think it is incredibly important that we speak in facts about the reality in this country and what is going to keep Canadians safe. Conservatives love the idea of mandatory minimum sentences because they feel safe, but they do not actually keep Canadians safe.

I enjoyed listening to the speech of the hon. member before me. I enjoy hearing where we could improve things further, but we must stop continuing the failed, so-called tough-on-crime policies that we know do not work. They do not keep Canadians safe. They do not reduce crime, and they certainly do not help those individuals who could be rehabilitated.

I think it is really important to talk about some of the things I have heard over the course of this debate this last week. Something that Conservatives talked about was a rise in crime. They tried to blame that on Liberal policies, but in fact their Conservative so-called tough-on-crime policies were in effect when they quoted previous years of high crime rates. They do not understand that criminals are not wondering who is sitting in power on this side of the House and whether they should commit a crime. They do not realize that the actual laws of the land were the Conservative policies that were not based in the reality of reducing crime. In jurisdictions such as the Netherlands, for example, they have seen that by implementing rehabilitation there have been significant decreases in crime rates. They have seen people be rehabilitated and, in some cases, jails standing empty because they are able to deal with the social issues that in a lot of cases undermine this.

Let us not be naive. Of course there are criminals who commit egregious crimes and absolutely need to be held accountable for them. Anyone who commits a crime needs to be held to account for it. What I have heard over the course of this debate from my colleagues, as well as from those in the NDP, is that there are judges to determine extenuating circumstances and the nature of a crime. Sitting here in this chamber, this place of extreme privilege, we cannot paint everyone with the same brush. It would be fundamentally wrong. We are not here to make a determination on each granular situation of each crime that has been committed in this country. We have in place a legal system that allows the prosecution to present its case and the defence to present its case, as well as a judge and a jury in many cases to determine the facts of a case, rather than a group of parliamentarians who do not have all the details. We are to set a framework of what we think is fair and reasonable for the criminal justice system.

It has been proven time and again in multiple jurisdictions that mandatory minimum sentences do nothing to discourage crime. All they do is overpopulate the criminal justice system with marginalized, racialized and indigenous communities.

On that point, for example, in 2020, even though indigenous people represented only 5% of the overall Canadian adult population, they represented about 30% of incarcerated inmates. That is the fact. It is shocking to me because Conservatives behave as if justice is blind and anyone who is in jail has committed a crime.

Once again, I recommend that those who think that way ought to think about their own privilege. We do not think about the fact that there are many individuals in this country who come from a place of privilege, who may have committed or been charged with crimes and who could afford the best legal defence team that money could offer. Maybe they are not faced with historical trauma or systemic racism as they go into the judicial system and may never find themselves facing the harshest penalties, because of that privilege.

Not all Canadians have that privilege. In our justice system, this is why we see an overrepresentation of people who have mental health issues, who are from racialized communities or indigenous populations. Anyone who suggests that there are not systemic barriers or systemic racism in our justice system probably does not have a very good grasp on the reality of how a lot of people live in this country. I fully recognize my own privilege in making these statements.

However, I believe, fundamentally, as the previous speaker said, that as a parliamentarian, our job is to move forward on legislation to help Canadians, even if it means lending my privilege to speak up for those who do not sit in this place, who do not have that opportunity to share their experience of how the justice system is not fair and equitable for all people across this country, and to share how mandatory minimums further create those barriers and the inability for some people to have that chance to be rehabilitated and get out of the cycle of crime and poverty.

I would also like to speak about the examples the Conservatives keep raising of heinous crimes I know Canadians would be quite upset about. They are suggesting that this bill would somehow mean that those crimes would go unpunished. That could not be further from the truth. In fact, crimes could still come with harsh penalties and consequences for individuals' actions. However, the point of this legislation is to fix past wrongs, as I just spoke about, and the systemic barriers and racism in the criminal justice system, while still allowing judges to hear from victims, to hear the facts of a case, to hear if offenders are repeat offenders, and to govern themselves accordingly to make the most appropriate determination in sentencing.

I know I am running out of time, and will just conclude with the following. This would allow for the ability to actually rehabilitate people, in particularly younger adults or those who have lived a life of poverty, and would actually provide them with the opportunity to turn their life around, instead of what Conservatives would like, which is for us to turn our backs on them.

We owe it to Canadians across this country to start breaking down systemic barriers and the systemic racism in our criminal justice system while keeping Canadians safe, and actually doing so in ways that give us positive results.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member opposite's speech. She talked about the Conservatives somehow being out of touch on this issue.

I would retort quite simply that she should come speak to many of my constituents who have told me unequivocally that the Liberal government is incredibly out of touch with the challenges faced by the people I represent, including many who have been affected by rural crime. In fact, I spoke to a constituent just the other day who shared with me the terrifying ordeal of how she and her husband were held up, in their home, by somebody with a firearm, somebody who had gone on a crime spree. There were challenges with the revolving door of the justice system. They do not even feel that our legal system does justice at all. In fact, many of my constituents are losing faith in that system.

Could the hon. member justify the justice system to my constituents, who are facing significant challenges regarding the level of trust they have in it, and reassure them that the criminals committing serious crimes are actually put behind bars? It has literally put the lives of my constituents on the line when the system is not working—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I have to give the hon. parliamentary secretary an opportunity to answer.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, first let me acknowledge how terribly sorry I am that my hon. colleague's constituent went through that, but that is precisely the point. The Conservatives' idea of tough on crime has not worked. As he just said, his own constituent does not even have faith in the criminal justice system because of their failed policies. I recognize that the member opposite would love to blame all of the problems on the Liberals, but we are in fact living under failed Conservative criminal justice policies, so if his constituent does not feel he has good representation, that is precisely why Canadians entrusted the Liberals to fix the Conservative wrongs.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, we could talk and we are talking about minimum sentences. We are talking about firearms, but we cannot—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I would ask that member to respectfully allow the hon. member to ask her question, as was the case when he had his turn.

The hon. member for Shefford.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, thank you for reiterating the importance of showing respect in the House.

I would like my colleague to quickly say a few words about two things.

The message this bill is sending by eliminating mandatory minimum sentences for gun-related crimes is that the government will not intervene and form a joint task force to better control firearms at the borders, as per the key request of the mayor of Montreal and the Premier of Quebec and the suggestion of the Bloc Québécois.

My colleague also addressed the issue of public health. How can she hope to help the organizations when her government is refusing to increase health transfers to 35% of total costs, as requested?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, what we are discussing here specifically is mandatory minimums, but that does not mean there are not other pieces of legislation we are working on. When I was a young member of the finance committee, I remember one of the very first things we did was restore the funding to the CBSA that the Conservatives cut from the budget to ensure we could stop gun smuggling.

The point I would make for my colleague is this. Yes, there is always going to be more that we need to do. Those are just a couple of examples I have raised in this short time. We are going to continue to deal with serious crimes in this House that will show results for Canadians.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, British Columbia has seen its worst year ever in opioid-related deaths. As a result of Liberal inaction, non-profits in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith have been working tirelessly to fill the gaps.

For example, the Risebridge project in Nanaimo—Ladysmith posted the following, which I will share, “We do not have enough services to support our most vulnerable of populations. Our overdose rates continue to sky rocket, nobody can find or afford housing in this market, and mental health concerns are at a all time high. Our community is in crisis....”

Can the member clarify when the government will take this crisis seriously and decriminalize the personal possession of substances?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I can say, as the former parliamentary secretary for health, that this government and the Minister of Health are working diligently with the provinces, territories and municipalities to deal with the opioid crisis. It is a crisis. It is something we need to all work on together. I am fully committed to working with the member opposite on that as well.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have not given a lot of speeches as I have been here only two years, but as some of my colleagues will know, I try to be as non-partisan as possible. I find it to be getting more and more difficult, the longer I am here.

One of the things I like to do with every piece of legislation that is put forward is to try to find what I can support or what I think is good in that bill or piece of legislation, and what I think needs to be improved upon. Unfortunately, when I look at Bill C-5, I cannot find a single thing in it that I think is worth supporting.

I came to this Parliament, that is, I ran for elected office and I got elected, to solve problems, not to create new ones. I find it somewhat hypocritical of the government. It said we needed this urgent election, to come here, dissolve Parliament and have an election, because we needed to deal with things concerning COVID and deal with this pandemic. However, one of the first bills the Liberals have introduced is one that would basically make it easier for criminals to stay out of jail and on the streets. This is not for first-time offenders. This is not for simple crimes. This is for serious crimes, and I will get into that later.

This should be about public safety and victims, and dealing with the root causes of the problems we have with gun violence and the increase in violence across this country. We should be addressing poverty, drugs, gangs and criminals, not focusing on making it easier for criminals. This bill eliminates mandatory prison time for drug traffickers and those who commit acts of violence, and makes it possible to put criminals under house arrest versus doing time in prison. Ultimately, it is going to put victims at risk.

I want to read into the record, and I know it has been done before, exactly what Bill C-5 is going to eliminate from the mandatory minimum perspective related to gun crimes: robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking excluding firearms and ammunition, importing or exporting knowing that it is unauthorized, discharging a firearm with intent, using a firearm in the commission of an offence, possession of a firearm knowing its possession is unauthorized, possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition, possession of a weapon obtained by commission of an offence, possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking, and discharging a firearm recklessly.

The issue is we have seen the government in the previous Parliament bring in an order in council that targeted the most law-abiding citizens in the country, our legal firearms owners, and made it more difficult for our hunters, farmers and sport shooters. However, at the same time, the government introduced, in the last Parliament, Bill C-22. This bill is identical to that previous bill, which makes it easier for criminals to get off those charges.

The previous speaker indicated that these are policies that were failing that were brought in by previous Conservative governments. No, these 14 mandatory minimums that would be repealed via this bill, of the 67 that exist, are ones that were brought in by prime ministers Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Jean Chrétien. These are not bills that were brought in under former prime minister Stephen Harper. These bills were brought in by previous Liberal prime ministers.

My question, in a rhetorical sense to the previous speaker, is why they did not get rid of all mandatory minimums, the other 53 mandatory minimums, if that is the case. They are keeping the ones the previous Conservative government strengthened under Stephen Harper and eliminating the ones that have been around for decades.

I just want to make that clear. They are eliminating those mandatory prison times for criminals who commit robbery with a firearm, weapons trafficking and drive-by shootings, and they are basically doing this because they view the laws as unfair. They are more interested in standing up for the criminals versus the victims and keeping our communities safe.

The next aspect of the bill is eliminating that mandatory prison time for drug dealers. There are six mandatory minimums that they are eliminating that target drug dealers: trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking, importing and exporting or possession for the purposes of exporting, and the production of a substance schedule I or schedule II drug; i.e. heroin, cocaine, fentanyl or crystal meth.

Again, we have talked about this, and I fully acknowledge that it happens in my community. We have heard from communities right across this great nation about the opioid crisis and the need to help Canadians who are struggling with addiction. I have family members who have struggled with addiction issues, and I full appreciate that. However, they are not producing drugs, they are not running these meth labs, they are not trafficking drugs and they are not enabling the crisis in this country. There are other people we should be locking up, and we should make sure they serve the appropriate time without letting them off easy.

The next part of the bill talks about conditional sentencing. I am going to read the offences out, because it is beyond me why we would not want these criminals punished. These are not first-time offenders who have committed a theft because they are struggling to get by or do not have food. These are people who are doing serious things. We are talking about prison breach, criminal harassment, sexual assault, kidnapping, trafficking in persons, abduction of a person under 14, motor theft, theft over $5,000, arson for fraudulent purposes, etc.

I have an eight-year-old daughter. The last thing I want to see is for some hardened criminal who kidnaps my daughter, or the daughter or son of any Canadian for that matter, to be let off and not get the appropriate punishment because of this potential change in legislation.

I want to address the issue of simple possession. This is not what we are dealing with. Police officers already have a load of tools at their disposal to make a determination as to when charges should be laid. My colleague from Brantford—Brant spoke earlier and he is a former Crown attorney. There are some people here with a lot of knowledge who understand the justice system better than me, and I will trust them on how to address this stuff. However, my point, from a simple Canadian perspective, is that this bill would not do anything to make our communities safer and address support for victims.

I want to expand on the conditional sentencing orders, which allow judges to use their judgment when sentencing. I personally do not think there should be a reduction in penalties and a soft-on-crime approach when it comes to gun crime or repeat offenders. It is important that we do not forget the component of public safety when we consider our aim of reducing the overrepresentation of visible minorities in our prisons. We should be considering how to provide the right help and treatment for those suffering with addiction and mental health issues.

As long as I am a member of Parliament, I will continue to advocate for common-sense policies that keep criminals off our streets and respect law-abiding Canadians. I am committed to fighting for policies that keep our communities safe while ensuring that those who are suffering are getting the best help possible. I will not sacrifice public safety, and I will continue to fight for justice and proper resourcing to help those who most need it.

In conclusion, like many of my colleagues and I think the majority of Canadians, I believe serious violent offences committed with firearms deserve mandatory prison times. It is shameful that a bill is being brought here that would weaken the firearms laws in this country. I have serious concerns with this legislation, and I really think we can do better. I hope the government will do better.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I heard this member say, as well as a number of members from the Conservative Party, that police officers have a load of tools at their disposal. Police officers have the option to charge or not to charge. They do not have a load of tools at their disposal. The individuals who have the tools at their disposal are the judges.

I do not understand this messaging. Even if he was right and they did have a load of tools at their disposal, why do the Conservatives believe that police officers should have discretion but judges should not? What is it about judges that leads the Conservatives to have a massive lack of trust that judges can properly execute the option of using those tools and be discretionary in their judgment?

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, police have the option of what charges to lay. I do not disagree that the prosecution and judges have lots of discretion as well. Ultimately, I do not think we should interfere with the independence of any of those systems, especially our judiciary and the prosecution system, unlike the current Prime Minister who seems to think it is okay to interfere with the independence of the judiciary, the Attorney General and the director of public prosecutions.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to hear from my Conservative colleague on something he did not touch on in his speech. The Conservatives love to keep public spending under control.

Of course, the more mandatory minimum sentences there are, the more people there will be in prison; the more people we keep in prison, the more it will cost the government. I would like to hear what he has to say about the fact that there is a cost to putting more people in prison.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is absolutely right.

There is a cost to putting people in jail. Ultimately, though, if people have committed serious crimes like the ones that have been listed, on which the government is proposing to reduce the mandatory minimums, the cost should not matter. We are not going to let people out of jail because we cannot afford it. There are lots of ways we can find the additional funding needed to ensure that we keep these hardened, violent criminals in our prisons.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's well-researched speech. What I find really interesting is that there is what the Liberals say this bill is about and then there is what is actually in the bill, for people like my colleague who read it.

The Liberals talk about simple possession, but the bill proposes elimination of mandatory prison time for trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking, importing and exporting or possession for the purpose of exporting and production of a schedule 1 or schedule II substance, which is heroin, cocaine, fentanyl, crystal meth, etc. Is it simple possession that is being talked about in this bill?

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I fully respect my hon. colleague. He is much more researched on this topic than I am and I appreciate his advice to our caucus.

The member is absolutely correct. This is not about simple possession. I talked about this in my speech. This is about the hardened criminals, the drug traffickers, the people who are producing these drugs, especially the drugs nowadays. This is not simple marijuana. This is crystal meth and fentanyl. These are the drugs actually killing Canadians on a daily basis and we need to do something about that, not letting criminals off.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned his support for the independence of the judiciary at a time when we know that mandatory minimums contribute to systemic racism and that the TRC has called for departing from them. Why is he not more supportive of trusting in the judiciary in cases like this?

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have all the trust in our judiciary. I just do not think that taking this tool away or taking mandatory minimums away is the best way to address any concerns there.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are here on the eve of the holiday season to discuss, at second reading, Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which was sponsored by the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, our justice minister.

Bill C-5 takes action on two legislative fronts. First, it seeks to scrap around 20 mandatory minimum penalties, or MMPs, that apply to firearm and drug offences. Second, it introduces the principle of diversion for simple drug possession.

I will focus more on the MMPs, and my esteemed colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques will address the diversion aspect later and in greater detail.

I am particularly interested in this bill because I have a background in criminology as well. My first university degree was in criminology in the mid-80s, which more or less gives away my age. I therefore rise today in this House to speak to this bill partly from the perspective of a humble criminology graduate from the Université de Montréal.

Incidentally, what do criminologists do? They analyze crimes, penalties and risk thresholds, being as objective as possible in their analysis. Prevention, rehabilitation, support, assistance and, obviously, intervention are all in a criminologist's wheelhouse.

I believe in rehabilitation, unlike some Conservative colleagues. I believe that we can reduce crime and so does the Bloc Québécois. That is why we will support Bill C‑5.

Black Canadians represent 3% of the total population, but 7% of the prison population. Indigenous people represent 5% of Canada's total population but 30% of the prison population. That number jumps to 45% for indigenous women, who represent around 2.5% of the total population, if I am not mistaken. That is appalling. It is like a bad social novel, and it is shocking and unacceptable.

Fortunately, repealing some mandatory minimum penalties can do a lot to correct this unacceptable imbalance without, in my view, compromising the safety of Quebecers and Canadians in any way.

Mandatory minimum penalties carry few benefits and introduce a number of problems, such as the overrepresentation of indigenous and Black communities in prisons. They also cost the system a lot of extra money, and yet they do not have the slightest impact or deterrent effect on crime. The Bloc Québécois therefore supports the principle of repealing some of these MMPs, once again. We agree on the substance of the bill.

However, I would like to express some reservations about the timing of the announcement of this bill to repeal mandatory minimum penalties, especially in relation to firearms. Is it not a bit inappropriate for the government to introduce this bill when we are seeing one tragedy after another in Montreal?

We must remember that the weapons used to kill our young people in the streets of Montreal and other cities come from somewhere. They are mostly weapons that enter the country illegally through our porous borders. Scrapping MMPs without firm measures from the federal government to counter the illegal importation of firearms sends the wrong message to the public.

To be clear, we are in favour of eliminating mandatory minimum sentences for a first offence, but not for a second or third offence. Generally speaking, I am a big believer in second chances, but when people reoffend, that calls for a different approach. It is called accountability. Maintaining mandatory minimum sentences in such cases is important to Quebeckers. We do not want people to lose faith in our justice system.

We think it makes sense to abolish mandatory minimum sentences for firearms possession, but we have concerns about doing so for discharging a firearm with intent and robbery and extortion with a firearm. We do not support eliminating mandatory minimums in situations like that.

To sum up, there are benefits to eliminating some mandatory minimum sentences. Obviously, it would reduce the financial and administrative burden on the prison system. It would promote alternatives that support reintegration of offenders from Black and indigenous communities, who, as we know, are overrepresented in the prison system. Last but not least, these sentences do not tend to work. There is no empirical evidence to show that they influence a person's decision as to whether or not to commit a crime with a firearm.

When it comes to drugs, we saw the abject failure of the so-called “war on drugs” in the United States during the Nixon era. It was a failure. They filled the prisons, but accomplished nothing. Harsh sentences have not made so much as a dent in the brisk drug trafficking business, but they have added an enormous financial burden to our system and have had a tragic impact on the lives of many low-level offenders. Former Prime Minister Harper probably admired this tough-on-crime approach, the same way many Conservatives here do. However, the Bloc Québécois is against it. We believe in rehabilitation, prevention, and alternative, adapted sentences. Fines, therapy and community work are examples of other options that would adequately replace MMPs in many cases.

Before I wrap up, I just want to mention again that my esteemed colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques will elaborate further by focusing more on the issue of diversion programs.

For all these reasons, the Bloc will obviously support Bill C‑5. I also want skeptics to know that this support does not mean that we are minimizing gun crimes. Quebeckers are more aware than anyone of the threat that guns currently pose to social peace.

For months, the Prime Minister and his Minister of Public Safety have sat on their hands instead of tightening the border. They have to get going and act on the Bloc's recommendations. Until then, Bill C‑5 is a step in the right direction, and we will support it.

Mr. Speaker, I wish you happy holidays.