Debates of June 1st, 2022

Criminal Code

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. I am happy to address this aspect, which I did not have time to talk about in my initial presentation.

First, with respect to Bill C-21, let us forget that. We need to fix this quickly, since there is not a single street gang that buys their guns at Canadian Tire. That does not happen.

With respect to systemic racism, what kind of twisted idea is it to claim that if there are indigenous or racialized people in our prisons, it is because the penalties are too harsh? What kind of an argument is that?

This population needs help, that is what we heard in committee. Yes, there are more people in prison; those are the statistics, and I will not change them. It is true that there are more indigenous and Black people in prison, but we need money, we need to work with these people and help their communities. It takes more than social workers, health care, education and all that to help them not commit crimes. To argue that society will lower its standards, that people from the Black or indigenous communities commit crimes and therefore we will reduce penalties so they do not go to prison, is just mind-blowing. I could not believe it when I read that.

When I saw my colleagues defend that in committee, I was happy I was not in their shoes. I imagine that the caucus forces them to defend these views, but if I were in their shoes I think I would have left the caucus.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, although I do not agree with absolutely everything my colleague just said, I do agree with almost all of it, especially the part about the current government's reasoning for wanting to, as the member so aptly put it, lower its standards when it comes to crime and sentencing.

I have the privilege of representing the riding of Louis-Saint-Laurent. As members know, Wendake is located in the heart of my riding. Some people who are close to me are outraged about the government's approach and desire to lower the standards. As the member said so well, we should be helping the least fortunate and the most vulnerable among us to prevent these crimes.

The government should be taking a positive and constructive approach to the challenges we face with respect to the first nations and racialized peoples who are unfortunately in our prisons. It should be helping them, but instead, it is lowering standards in a race to the bottom. What are my colleague's thoughts on the government's approach?

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

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague.

We did not hear a single person or witness in committee say that they wanted to be allowed to commit criminal acts. No one said that. These people are saying they have a problem, they need help, and we need to help them. It is our job as members of Parliament to help them.

Once again, it makes no sense to say that we are going to reduce sentences for crimes that are committed. It is unjustifiable, and it is insulting to these people.

It is true that they need help for all kinds of historical reasons. They have not been treated fairly in the past. This needs to be addressed, and we need to offer support and assistance to these communities. However, allowing them to commit crimes with a lesser penalty is not going to help them. That will not help anyone, on the contrary.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I encourage members to ask their questions quickly and answer them briefly so that everyone can participate in the discussion.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to rise to speak on Bill C-5 today.

Sometimes the debate strays away from what is actually in the bill and goes into a lot of other things. I would just like to remind everybody what the bill is doing.

It is attempting to attack systemic racism in our criminal justice system by eliminating 20 mandatory minimum penalties, all of those in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and a few relating to firearms and tobacco offences. It also expands access to conditional sentences through things like house arrest and serving time on weekends, which is important in rehabilitating people who, for whatever reason, became involved with the criminal justice system. The third thing it does is provide more discretion for police to provide warnings and diversion instead of charging people, who then end up in jail. All of these three things are key steps in reducing the impact of systemic racism.

In our corrections system, nearly 35% of those who are imprisoned are indigenous, but indigenous people make up less than 5% of our population. We know that about 7.5% of those in prison are Black Canadians, but they only represent 3.5% of the population. Something is clearly going on here in a systematic manner that produces these much worse outcomes for racialized and indigenous people.

Who is in favour of this bill? This is something nobody else has really been talking about here. I know why some people do not raise this point. Most important to me is that the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police is in favour of this legislation, because they know that mandatory minimums do nothing to make communities safer.

Two other organizations I want to mention that are very much in favour are the John Howard Society and the Elizabeth Fry Society. These are two very valuable non-profits that work with those who have served time to help re-integrate them back into the community. They gave very powerful testimony at committee about the impacts of mandatory minimums.

Who is opposed to them? The Conservatives and the Bloc are clearly opposed to this bill that would reduce mandatory minimums. They often fly off into what I would call a fantasy world, where the idea is that if we take away mandatory minimums, somehow people would not get prison sentences and somehow serious criminals would not end up in jail. That is not what would happen with mandatory minimums or their removal. Judges would still assign serious time for serious crime. That is not what we are talking about here.

The fact is that mandatory minimums—and most of those that would be removed are of less than two years—would result in people going into provincial corrections systems, which have very limited rehabilitation programs. It also means, when we take into time served for good behaviour and other facets of our criminal justice system, that people would serve only a few months. Even if there was an addiction treatment program, even if there was a skills training program, the time is too short for those to be successful.

However, the time is not too short to make sure that people lose their housing. The time is not too short to make sure that people lose their job. The time is not too short to make sure that people's families are put at risk. Often the people who go under mandatory minimums are the sole providers for their families, so their kids are at risk of apprehension while they are in prison. All of this contributes to huge social problems that are not necessary.

If we do not have a mandatory minimum, we could use conditional sentences. Someone could stay in their own home, maintain their job, serve their time on weekends, and actually become a productive member of society again, rather than having their whole life turned upside down, which would put them on a path that only leads to further addiction and further crime.

We know that is the record of mandatory minimums. The academic studies all show the same thing: Mandatory minimums, if they do anything at all, actually make recidivism worse, because people have fewer options as a result of serving those mandatory minimums. The evidence is quite clear: They do not work.

Should the government have done more? Yes; as a New Democrat, I agree it should have done more. The government should have done more earlier today when it had the chance to vote on our bill, Bill C-216, which would have decriminalized personal possession of drugs. That would have helped to address systemic racism, because we know that Black Canadians and indigenous Canadians are overcharged and charged at much higher rates for personal possession of drugs when their rates of drug use are not in fact higher. It would have helped tackle that.

I do not think it is enough to say that we are going to reduce mandatory minimums; the government should have voted for Bill C-216. We should have made better progress.

I am happy to see the government grant an exemption to British Columbia under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and I think it will lead to great success in tackling the opioid crisis, but I just do not understand why the government was not prepared to do that for the more than 70% of Canadians who live outside of British Columbia. I was glad to hear the Prime Minister say, in answer to a question, that the Liberals are prepared to consider other exemptions, and certainly New Democrats will be asking them to step up when that time comes.

What was in Bill C-5, as I said, was modest, and so I wish the Liberals had done more on Bill C-216, but I also wish they had done more on the bill, and that is why I proposed two amendments at committee, which I thank the government for accepting.

The first of those, to me, is the most important. It is an amendment that says not only do mandatory minimums cause problems in racial injustice, but the resulting criminal records make things much worse.

There are 250,000 Canadians who have a record for personal possession of drugs. What does this mean? It means that sometimes this record affects someone's hiring. Very often it affects their housing, whether it is social housing, which does not allow people with criminal records, or whether it is landlords who refuse to rent to them. It prevents people from getting bank loans and mortgages. It forces them into the hands of what I call loan sharks, otherwise called payday lenders. It prevents people from travelling.

However, the one I have heard the most in my community is that a criminal record prevents someone from volunteering with kids or seniors, even though it may have been a personal possession charge from 20 years ago and has nothing to do with the way the person has turned their life around. In fact, some of those people might be the perfect people to volunteer with youth and show them a positive way forward.

I thank the government for agreeing. What we agreed on is what it calls a sequestration of records, meaning they will be held separate and apart and will not show up in criminal records. Within two years, we will be wiping out the records of 250,000 people, and I think that is enormously important for rehabilitation and building safer communities.

The second amendment I moved had to do with the expanded discretion for police. Here, New Democrats had a worry that was shared by many in the community, because discretion by the police is often subject to that very same systemic racism. The bill originally did not require record-keeping at all for the use of discretion; my amendment suggests that the police have to keep records on who they grant diversion to and who they warn. Then we will be able to see if this discretion happens just to privileged white folks or is being used fairly among all Canadians.

The second part of that amendment says we will keep records, but those records cannot be used in future proceedings against individuals. Why say that? It may seem counterintuitive. If it is really a warning, then it is a warning, not a conviction, and so it should not be used in future criminal processes. It will make warnings much more powerful for people who get them and diversions much more powerful for people who get them.

If someone successfully stays out of trouble with a warning or they successfully complete drug and alcohol counselling as part of their diversion, then this will never come back to haunt them again. It will encourage success in those programs. I thank the government for supporting those two measures. I fail to understand why the Conservatives and Bloc oppose those two amendments, but I also fail to understand why they are opposing this bill altogether.

I know time is running short, but I want to go back to what I think is most important here.

I have to say that I know people like to put forward their records as prosecutors and as police when they are talking about these things. I taught criminal justice for 20 years and I worked very closely with the John Howard Society and the Elizabeth Fry Society on the question of rehabilitation of people, and we know what works.

We know that when people can stay with their family and when people can have a job and maintain their employment, all of those things push them out of the criminal lifestyle and into the community. This is an important initiative in making all communities safer.

Despite people saying that the bill removes mandatory minimums on serious crimes, I say no, the judges will still give out serious time for serious crime. What it does is take away the injustice of those mandatory minimums falling most heavily on indigenous people and racialized Canadians.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the work of my friend opposite in supporting and strengthening Bill C-5.

I do want to pose a question for him with respect to the issue of sequestration of simple possession. I know it is an issue that he fought very hard for.

As he knows, the Minister of Public Safety is also mandated to ensure that there are reforms to the pardon system. Could the member opposite reflect on how important it is to make sure that issues such as simple possession and the records surrounding it are addressed within this bill?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary and I worked very co-operatively during the hearings on this bill to try to find some serious improvements, and the government has certainly stepped forward to accept them.

I am going to use an example that is maybe a little counterintuitive to show why I think this is so important. The government has an existing program to expunge criminal records. In two years, of those 250,000 records, the government's program expunged 484 records. That is why I was insisting that this process has to be automatic, with no application and no fee. These records simply disappear. Both the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety met with me personally to discuss this, and I thank them for their support.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his work on the justice committee.

He and I obviously do not agree on Bill C-5, but one thing I hope he would agree with me on is the mandatory minimums being repealed in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Liberal government likes to speak about simple possession. Mandatory minimums would be eliminated for the offences of trafficking, importing or exporting controlled drugs and substances or the production of schedule I or schedule II drugs, which are cocaine, heroin, fentanyl and crystal meth. Would he categorize those offences as “simple possession”?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that may sound like a tough question, but for me, as someone who has been a public advocate of decriminalizing all drugs for more than a decade, that is an easy question. I think all drugs should be decriminalized, and that is what we put forward in Bill C-216 today.

If we actually look at the statistics on the mandatory minimums that are applied by judges, we see that most of them are for things like simple possession or trafficking to support people's own drug habit. I am sorry that I do not have the statistic in front of me, but something like 61% are for those offences. They are not for the offences that the Conservatives have combed through the code to find and fearmonger on by saying that eliminating those mandatory minimums means that those serious crimes would not be punished by jail time. They would be.

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

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague with regard to diversion measures. We really are on the same wavelength, as I was saying earlier.

That being said, I think we disagree about minimum sentences. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about doing away with the minimum sentences the government is proposing in response to the spike in shootings in Montreal.

Does he think that doing away with minimum sentences will send a reassuring message to the public? If not, what does my colleague propose? The Bloc Québécois is proposing creating a registry of criminal organizations, setting up a joint task force to combat firearms trafficking, and increasing security at the border. What does he think about those suggestions and what does he propose?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy working with the member on the justice committee.

Of course I support all those measures he is talking about. The law on mandatory minimums is not the solution to everything, but it is a solution to systemic racism and it is a partial solution to the opioid crisis.

Do we need more measures to interdict the illegal importation of guns into our communities? Absolutely, I support those kinds of things, but the reason that this does not create public confidence is that some people are putting forward the myth that somehow eliminating mandatory minimum sentences makes our communities more dangerous. It does precisely the opposite.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

We got a lot closer to getting people in, but we are now out of time again. If there are quick questions and quick answers, we will get everybody to participate in the process.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to join the debate on Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. I will spare members the suspense and say from the outset that I do not support the bill.

The bill sends exactly the wrong message from this Parliament to the judiciary. It sends the wrong message from the government to criminals. It sends the wrong message to Canada's victims of serious and violent crimes. It also represents a missed opportunity to send a message that might help address a serious and growing problem, which is fraud, a crime that the current government has taken no meaningful action to address since it was first elected nearly seven years ago, but I will not have time to talk about that today.

Thankfully, in recent decades there has been a steep reduction in most violent offences and property crimes. Experts and pundits have theories to explain this, but the most recent years show that this overall trend may now be in reverse. It is against this backdrop that the government has chosen to undo a series of minimum sentences for offences that successive Liberal and Conservative governments have passed over a very long time.

Offences for which the government wishes to reduce minimum sentences include some of the most grievous offences on the books. One is left to wonder why.

Who are the Canadians crying out for lighter sentences on, for example, firearms offences? Are there Canadians who think that the Criminal Code is too harsh on gun traffickers or those who smuggle guns illegally from the United States into Canada? Do Canadians think that the judicial system is too harsh on people convicted of robbery with a firearm? Is there really anyone in Canada who thinks that robbery with a firearm should result in anything other than a custodial sentence? Does any Canadian think that if a person uses a firearm to rob someone, they should not do so with full knowledge that if caught they will go to prison? Is there anyone in Canada who thinks extortion with a firearm or discharging a firearm with intent is not a serious criminal offence?

I listened to the justice minister's speech when this bill was first tabled and debated at second reading. He spoke of the need for greater flexibility in sentencing and he used a hypothetical example. He spoke of a 19-year-old man residing in a remote northern community who, after having too much to drink and maybe on a dare from his buddies, discharged a firearm. He fired a gun into a building.

The minister suggested in this example that the current Criminal Code would force this young man into the prison system and into the company of other criminals, destroying his potential for life-long employment and setting him on a life-long trajectory of career criminality. The justice minister's hypothetical critique of a mandatory sentence for this hypothetical crime is riddled with a series of false premises.

First, the minister falsely assumed that in this hypothetical case the police, the prosecutor and the judge would have no other choice but to charge, prosecute and convict this young man of discharging a firearm with intent and sending him to a mandatory sentence.

Second, the minister, in choosing this example, deliberately chose to characterize drunkenly shooting up a building as a minor offence. There was a certain amount of arrogance in assuming that a drunken late-night shooting was somehow more acceptable in a northern community than perhaps in his Montreal riding.

I disagree with the minister. Discharging a firearm is a serious crime with potentially life-altering consequences for victims that ought to carry life-altering consequences for the shooter, such as a custodial sentence should their actions actually meet the high bar for conviction that firing with intent would carry.

Gun crimes are not the only offence for which this bill would reduce floor sentences. Bill C-5 would reduce the penalties for kidnapping and human trafficking, and it would allow for conditional sentences of house arrest instead of prison for those who abduct vulnerable Canadians and force them into unpaid labour or into the sex trade.

I ask again, who wants lighter sentences for human trafficking? Do we live in a country where normal people, even legal experts, would say that the Criminal Code is too strong and inflexible in the way that it robs judges of the flexibility to allow human traffickers and rapists to serve their sentences in their own homes?

Allowing offenders convicted of sexual assault, kidnapping or human trafficking to serve sentences in their homes in their communities would be the ultimate insult to their victims. We all know that the majority of these crimes go unreported, and that is exactly why. Most victims of sexual assault have no confidence, as it is now, that justice will be done if they come forward. The very knowledge that the perpetrators of sexual assault could receive a community sentence is a disincentive to victims of sexual assault to report the crime.

Bill C-5 would also weaken sentencing for criminals at the very top of criminal enterprises: the deadly opioid epidemic. This bill would reduce minimum penalties for the production and trafficking of schedule 1 drugs. We are not talking about simple possession, and we are not talking about street-level addicts who are selling drugs to finance their habit. We are talking about producers and importers of fentanyl and heroin. Every day, these drugs kill Canadians, and every day these drugs create misery and deprivation that rip families apart, yet this bill would reduce the minimum penalties for criminals who illegally manufacture these drugs to be sold to the most desperate and vulnerable members of our society.

If someone manufactures the illegal opioids that are killing Canadians, they belong in prison.

As we have heard, this bill would eliminate the necessity of a custodial sentence for those convicted of crimes that include armed robbery, kidnapping, sexual assault, gun trafficking, opioid production and a bunch of others. What about the administration of justice? The minister has argued that the existence of mandatory prison sentences clogs up the system. Setting aside the question of whether mandatory penalties cause delays within the courts, let us instead ask whether this is relevant in the context of serious violent crime.

The reason for floor sentences for criminals who commit serious and violent crimes is to protect the public from dangerous offenders, to allow communities time to recover from victimization, to address issues such as witness intimidation and, most importantly, to ensure that punishment is proportionate to crime.

If the argument against floor sentences for these crimes is simply to relieve congestion in the courts and reduce the number of people in prison, then I must disagree with proponents of this bill. If our courts are congested, and delay is denying the public, the accused and the victims of justice, the minister should get serious about timely judicial appointments, instead of trying to blame those who disagree with him on the necessity of floor sentence requirements for serious, violent offences.

The member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River raised an important point when he pointed out that peace officers, prosecutors and judges already do what they can to divert non-violent offenders away from prison into other programs. I agree that prison is not the only, nor even the most suitable, option for non-violent offenders when other programs can adequately punish their crimes, contribute to public safety and increase the chances of successful reintegration. One can recognize this fact and still object to this bill.

The point of floor sentences is not to railroad the judiciary into certain decisions or to unduly diminish judges' discretion. It is to ensure that justice is done and the public is protected from violent offenders.

Finally, legislating effective sentencing would not pit the legislature against the judiciary, as the minister would frame it. It is an example of Parliament exercising its legitimate authority over defining criminal offences and setting floors and ceilings on penalties. Setting reasonable parameters for sentencing is part of Parliament's job.

In conclusion, Bill C-5 sends the wrong signals to criminals and society at large about the severity of certain crimes. It risks increasing crime rates and victimization, it continues to miss the mark on addressing gun crime and the opioid crisis, and it goes soft on sexual assault, kidnapping and modern-day slavery.

As such, I cannot support the bill.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I note that within his speech, my hon. colleague did not acknowledge or discuss the notion of systemic racism. I cited the report of the Auditor General a number of times yesterday and highlighted the issue of systemic racism within the correctional system, which is one of the reasons we need to ensure we do not put people in jail when there are alternatives, especially for those who are not deemed to be harmful.

I am wondering if my friend could highlight why he did not use the term “systemic racism”. Does he believe it exists and, if it does, what are his suggestions to address that?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that racism exists in our systems, and in our justice system. It is indeed a serious problem, but I will also point out that the victims of many of the crimes for which this bill reduces floor sentences are often the same Canadians, and members of the same communities, who face racism. I do not see that repealing these sentences will adequately address the issue of racism, and it certainly will not help the victims of these serious crimes, who are often among the most vulnerable populations in Canada.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. I thank him for it and I would like to ask him a simple question.

He mentioned the possibility of stepping in proactively to prevent certain groups of individuals from committing crimes or to better support certain communities so that fewer crimes are committed by certain people.

I would like my colleague to explain how it would be possible to act proactively and limit the crimes committed by certain individuals, rather than handing down reduced sentences.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, one can acknowledge the vast issues that contribute to offences and acknowledge that there are different ways to deal with the problems of crime and criminal justice without the prison system. The prison system is certainly the last resort in these matters. I do not really have time to get too far beyond the bill itself, which is where we are dealing with a repeal of floor sentences for grievous offences. I do not think that the Canadian public is served by that.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful to my colleagues in the NDP for not standing up in this round.

I want to make this clear again. I was in this place when, under Stephen Harper, the omnibus crime bill, Bill C-10, was passed. At that time, we already knew that there was no evidence that mandatory minimums would reduce the crime rate. We were watching in the United States as they were being removed in Texas. We saw at the time that these would probably be struck down as unconstitutional, as they are being struck down. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is being found to be violated by a number of these laws. What they do, at their essence, is not deter criminals. They do not make communities safer. There is no evidence that they make communities safer.

I would ask my hon. friend for Calgary Rocky Ridge if he is able to produce at this time, or cite for us, any study by reputable criminologists or any group that works with criminal defence, or anything from the Elizabeth Fry Society or the John Howard Society that would suggest that mandatory minimums make communities safer, because there is no evidence for that proposition.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member launches straight into an attack on the previous Conservative government while ignoring that almost all of the mandatory floor sentences being repealed in this bill were not passed under the Harper government. They came from earlier governments. Successive governments, Conservative and Liberal, with different prime ministers, have, over a very long period of time, created these minimums. Most of them predate the Harper government. It was disappointing to hear her use this as an opportunity just to make a dig at the previous government, when this is something that has been ongoing for many years.

The hon. member disagrees that there should be mandatory minimum sentences. I can agree with her. I can agree with many people who have spoken about the futility, and the blunt instrument that prison can be, but for the most serious crimes there needs to be a floor.

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this bill today. One thing I find most interesting is that when Liberal members are talking about guns, we hear they are always trying to crack down and ban guns that have already been banned for 45 years. We hear this every day. They blame every problem that happens on guns.

I want to note to the Canadian public what Bill C-5 is doing. It eliminates a number of mandatory minimums relating to gun crimes: robbery with a firearm; extortion with a firearm; weapons trafficking, including firearms and ammunition; importing or exporting knowing it is unauthorized; discharging a firearm with intent; using a firearm in the commission of offences; possession of a firearm knowing its possession is unauthorized; possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition; possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking; and discharging a firearm with recklessness.

The bill would eliminate the mandatory prison times for these firearm offences. It is very simple. There is a great hypocrisy in what is happening here in this country. We have a government fixated on guns, but now it is letting off criminals who bring illegal guns into this country, the illegal guns that are killing children and innocent people in their homes and on their properties. It is letting them off without mandatory prison time.

Now explain to me how Liberals can be bleeding hearts and against guns when they are allowing them to be trafficked into this country and are allowing people to get away with no mandatory prison sentences based on the very guns they are trying to convince the public they are banning and that were already banned 45 years ago. This is a clear example of the government firmly believing that Canadian citizens do not know anything about guns and that Canadian citizens want people who committed crimes with weapons to have lesser sentences. Imagine the hypocrisy in our country in this very bill.

A majority of the above mandatory minimums were introduced under previous Liberal governments, most notably the government of the Prime Minister's own father, contrary to the narrative from the Liberals that they are undoing Conservative legislation. This is yet another hypocrisy. To be clear, the Liberals would eliminate mandatory prison time for criminals who commit robbery with a firearm, weapons trafficking and drive-by shootings. That is shameful.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

That is all the time we have for this matter this evening. When the member comes back, he will have about seven minutes.

It being 6:37 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from March 21 consideration of the motion that Bill C-248, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act (Ojibway National Urban Park of Canada), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canada National Parks Act

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for all the fantastic work you have done in the House in the absence of our Speaker. It is certainly wonderful to see him back here this week. I am incredibly proud of you, sir, and incredibly proud of how you have helped the decorum of the House, so thank you.

Today I am lucky enough to stand for another private member's bill. It just happens to be from the member for Windsor West, who is in this chamber this evening.

Before I get started on speaking in favour of Bill C-248, I have to tell a quick story. I was elected in 2019, and shortly after the election, the member for Chatham-Kent—Leamington, the member for Windsor West and I ended up in the Pearson airport in Toronto. We were stuck in a snowstorm. Previous to that, I had never had an opportunity to meet the member for Windsor West.

We decided, because the airplanes were not flying and we could not get on a train, that we would take an Uber through one of the ugliest snowstorms that I have seen in recent history. We never know where life is going to take us, and it was a fantastic six-and-a-half-hour drive. I got to know the member for Windsor West quite well.

On top of that story, I also want to tell another story, perhaps one for the history books or the Guinness Book of World Records for Canada. I am speaking to the private member's bill by the member for Windsor West this evening and, ironically, he is speaking to my private member's bill on Friday. I do not know the last time that two neighbouring MPs had a private member's bill in the same week. If we can get the support of the House, hopefully they will both be voted on next Wednesday at committee.

With no further ado, I want to address Bill C-248. However, before I address it, I will suggest that I have done my due diligence. When I say that, I note the bill is for a green space, which is already there. It is an act to amend the Canada National Parks Act specifically to create the Ojibway national urban park of Canada.

For those who do not know the riding of Essex and the ridings of Windsor West and Windsor—Tecumseh, we are somewhat landlocked in that our only way out is across the Ambassador Bridge, which, apparently by 2025, will be the Gordie Howe International Bridge, or through the riding of my other neighbour from Chatham-Kent—Leamington. Other than that, we are surrounded by three bodies of water.

Land is expensive, to say the least. It is prime real estate, and opportunities for our constituents to get out and appreciate Mother Nature at her finest come at a very premium cost.

I am supporting the bill to send it to committee because I have done my due diligence. I have spoken to the mayor of LaSalle, Mayor Bondy. I have met him in his office. Mayor Bondy said that at the end of the day, there is really no development around this area that can happen anyway, and if it could happen, the cost of permitting and the cost of red tape would be so incredibly high that it would not happen anyway.

Ironically, I then ran into Mayor Dilkens last Thursday up in the city of Windsor. Mayor Dilkens is the mayor for the city of Windsor. I told him that I would be speaking to Bill C-248 this week. I asked him to tell me one more time whether he was in favour of it and he said, “Absolutely, I am in favour of the bill.”

Why was I so happy to speak to it tonight? It is because it goes back to the conversation on green spaces. It also goes back to the conversation on mental health.

We need to get people outdoors. We need to get families away from the television. We need to get people active. Through that activeness, we would have healthy, happy people who just might see a white-tailed deer. They might see one of the endangered eastern fox snakes, which does not necessarily excite me because I am not a snake lover, but we are certainly going to respect and protect them.

Something else the bill would do is create tourism, tourism for Essex, tourism for Windsor West and tourism for Windsor—Tecumseh, because there would be an opportunity for our friends in Michigan, Ohio, upstate New York and Wisconsin to come over for a unique, neat national park. The opportunities are endless.

I have said it before and I will say it again: Essex is truly a microcosm of Canada. It always has been. Whatever we can find throughout Canada, we can find in Essex. The only fly in that ointment is the vast beautiful land. This bill would give an opportunity specifically to the residents of LaSalle to get out and enjoy the outdoors.

The only concern with Bill C-248 that I see today is that we need to ensure we keep the arteries open. When I say “arteries”, I am referring to a map. I really hope that when the bill is studied at committee, Malden Road and Matchett Road both remain open corridors for the folks who need to get into the cities, who need to get to the Stellantis plant or who need to get to the new $5-billion battery plants that are now being built, as we speak, in Windsor. We need to make sure that we save them time and save them money so that after they have a hard day's work, they can get home to be with their family.

This information has been, quite frankly, exhaustive. I am so proud to stand here today, because a previous member for Essex, Mr. Watson, worked incredibly hard on this bill as well. I thank Mr. Watson for that and I hope he gets an opportunity to see this.

I could go on about all the paperwork. I have a letter from the City of Windsor, with the council of Windsor unanimously saying to please do this. I am not speaking on behalf of Windsor; what I am saying is that we have done our due diligence.

I have a letter from the Wildlands League, which I could read but I do not have time. It is asking us to please send this to committee. It is really neat.

I also have a letter from the Caldwell First Nation, by Chief Mary Duckworth. It is from April 11, 2022. She said, “Caldwell First Nation has been involved with the Ojibway urban national park project since 2019, and we would like to ensure these lands are protected for future generations.”

It is amazing how fast 10 minutes goes by in the House of Commons. It blows my mind.

The last thing I will say is this. I visited a home in LaSalle two and a half weeks ago. I stood in the backyard, a beautiful place, and asked the homeowner what he thought about this. He said that it cannot be developed anyway. He said it is a great opportunity for the residents of LaSalle, and a great opportunity for folks to get out, get active, maybe smile once again and get away from the negativity.

I will leave the House with one final thought. Usually, but not always, all we hear in the House is the negative side of things, but here is a Conservative incredibly excited to help out a member of the New Democratic Party because it is the right thing to do. It is the right thing for our region. I would ask that this bill get sent to committee to be studied.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to speak to Bill C-248. I would ask my colleagues to bear with me a little, since they often hear me talk about Quebec, but I am much less familiar with Ontario and the Windsor community. However, I have read a bit about the bill introduced by my colleague from Windsor West and I will gladly support it.

I want to give a little background on the subject and explain why the Bloc Québécois would have taken a different approach if this bill were to apply in Quebec. However, after speaking with my colleague, I understand why he took this approach.

I also want to commend our colleague for his tenacity in championing this project. If I understand correctly, it all began in 2013 when he attended a public meeting organized by local residents. That is when he learned of the importance of preserving Ojibway Shores.

It is not hard to understand why the member for Windsor West is fighting to preserve this 33-acre site, which is home to some very rare plant and wildlife species, including species at risk.

I would say that if there were a parcel of land in need of protection like that in my riding, it is highly likely that I would fight for its preservation. As I was saying, I might not go about it in the same way, but I will come back to that.

For now, let us talk a bit about the Windsor community and its fight over the past few years to protect the Ojibway Shores site. We cannot forget it and we must tell it like it is: The Windsor port authority never really had any intention of protecting and preserving the site. Its goal from the start was to turn it into an industrial development site. For that to happen, the entire natural forest along the banks had to be clear-cut.

Such a project is antithetical to the environmental concerns of the people of Windsor, who even organized a petition to have the development that was planned for 2015 suspended. Our colleague will certainly remember that, having lobbied local, provincial and national environmental advocacy organizations to call on the Department of Transport to take this issue seriously and proceed with the transfer of lands.

In October 2017, a few months later, the Windsor Essex County Environment Committee passed a resolution inviting the municipality of Windsor to ask the federal government to conserve the natural condition, biodiversity and biological function of the Ojibway Shores property as a protected area. The federal government's involvement in this issue is now clearer.

The member for Windsor West even organized a public meeting the following month to call for the transfer of the Ojibway Shores area and to talk about its benefits to the community, as well as the protection of Sandwich Towne.

I can understand why the member was rather disappointed in December 2017 when the minister of transport at the time, our colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, wrote to inform him that the port authority was in discussions with the municipality of Windsor on this matter, and that he would not intervene at that point in time.

My colleague did not give up. He made it an election issue in 2019. The votes he received in his riding sent a clear message. He had the support of his constituents on this issue. A few months after the election campaign, my colleague reminded the House that Canada was a signatory to the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, under which Canada, the United States and Mexico committed to protect wetlands and waterfowl. To fund this plan, the United States passed the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, which makes it possible to invest in the protection of wetlands and their wildlife in the three countries.

In September 2020, in the throne speech, the Government of Canada allocated funding to create urban parks across the country. Residents of Windsor felt renewed hope. However, they would have to wait until June 2021, when Windsor's city council voted unanimously in favour of the member for Windsor West's proposal to ask the federal government for help in making the Ojibway Shores area a national urban park.

That part was done, and now we are gathered here to talk about this initiative. This is one more step toward the creation of this urban park and I am really starting to see how important it is. I wanted to give a little bit of background, even though there is a lot more to tell. We would be here for a long time if we had to go over everything. I just wanted us to take the time, as parliamentarians, to consider how long, hard and unnecessarily drawn out it can be to take action to protect the environment. This shows that we will have to continue fighting for a long time to protect the natural areas we care about.

Also, the obstacles faced in these fights are often surprising. As I understand it, the Windsor Port Authority tried to extract $12 million from the Sandwich Towne community benefit fund, which is meant to offset border impacts in challenged neighbourhoods, in exchange for a 30-year lease for the Ojibway Shores site. This proposal was soundly rejected. This simple obstacle is preventing Windsor residents from enjoying an urban park that would protect local ecosystems, and it is a good example of what environmental advocates face in Canada.

My colleagues will have gathered that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill C-248 in principle. According to our information, there is no question about the ecological value of the site or even the importance of creating such a park. In fact, the government has already committed to working with cities to expand urban parks. That should advance the objective of protecting 25% of Canada's land and, in our opinion, this type of project is perfectly aligned with that commitment.

That said, I mentioned earlier that I would have taken a different approach to protecting Ojibway Shores and that I would come back to that later, so that is what I want to talk about now. Some questions come to mind in that regard. Why has the fight to protect this site gone on for so long? Why should Canada, the federal government, own this park? Why should the federal government own as many urban parks as it can?

Why not give the provinces adequate funding to support their urban conservation efforts? That could be one approach. The federal government's role is to provide unconditional funding to the provinces so that they can protect fragile lands.

I am not saying we have anything against the federal government creating this park and taking care of it. That is fine, but I think that if this had been done in Quebec, we might have done things differently. Here is an example. The Lachine Canal in Montreal is an integral part of the city's history, especially for neighbourhoods such as Saint‑Henri, Griffintown and Pointe‑Saint‑Charles, so it would be appropriate, from our perspective, for the City of Montreal and the boroughs involved to manage the Lachine Canal park. They could figure out how to run it, develop it and integrate it with neighbouring urban developments. The vision would be informed by the people who live there, the people in and of that place, the ones who understand why this particular location holds such significance for the area from a cultural and environmental point of view.

I think there is one thing my colleagues will agree with me on. People do not see the federal government as being all that close to them. The federal government deals with major issues, such as monetary policy, borders, international relations and defence, but is it really its role to make sure that the plants in an urban park represent the flora of that neighbourhood? Is it really up to us as parliamentarians and federal public servants to be responsible for managing an urban park?

That is an important question. Still, I think my colleague from Windsor West did a fine job of explaining why this is the way it is being done in this case. Even so, this is an issue worth talking about because, as I said, there may have been other ways to handle this.

I want to reiterate that the Bloc Québécois generally supports this bill. I commend my colleague's tenacity. Having introduced my first bill in the House, I remember how overwhelming it can be. There is something exciting about seeing a project through to the end and being the one to lead it. As I said, my colleague has been championing this project for several years now, so it is nice to hear the different opinions from each party and see people come together for the Windsor community.

I will conclude by saying that I wish my colleague the best of luck in getting his bill passed. He can count on the support of the Bloc Québécois.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise to speak to Bill C-248, a bill that would create Ojibway national urban park near Windsor, Ontario, put forward by the member for Windsor West. This initiative would combine lands owned by the federal government, the provincial government and the City of Windsor to form a priceless package that would protect an endangered ecosystem unique to Canada.

To answer the question put forward by the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia as to why the federal government should be involved, it is because it is a national treasure. This is an area that is unique in Canada, not just in Windsor, not just in Ontario, but in Canada.

I would like to thank the member for Windsor West for the tireless work he has put in on this file. The previous speaker mentioned that the work he has done has been going on for almost 10 years to get to this point. I have to thank him also for inviting me to Windsor a few years ago to visit the site. He gave me the full tour.

It was a beautiful weekend in September, so we walked the trails of several properties, through fields of big bluestem grass, which is also called turkey-foot because of the way seed pods grow. We also walked through groves of oak trees, late summer flowers and, of course, a diverse array of birds and other wildlife.

The member for Essex mentioned how valuable this would also be for the local residents and visitors. Since the pandemic, I have a seen a huge increase, as I am sure every other member here has, in people going into the outdoors in their ridings and visiting parks. We need these spaces for people to get out and go to.

Some might ask why a relatively small collection of properties deserve the status of a national park, when they are only about 900 acres in all, adjacent to the urban industrial areas of Windsor and just across the river from the urban industrial sprawl of Detroit. Ojibway national urban park would preserve some of the last and best remnants of once much larger ecosystems: the tall grass prairie, oak savannas and the Carolinian forest.

In my previous life, I was a biologist. Much of the work I did in that career was centred around endangered ecosystems and species at risk. There are four ecosystems in this country that are consistently listed as the most endangered ecosystems in Canada. They are the Garry oak savannas of southeastern Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands in British Columbia; the desert grasslands of the southern interior of British Columbia, which is my home habitat; the Carolinian forest of southern Ontario; and the tall grass prairie of southeastern Manitoba and southwestern Ontario.

An Ojibway national urban park would protect two of these critically endangered ecosystems. We do not often think of Ontario as a prairie province, but it once had extensive tall grass prairies throughout southern Ontario. Over the past three centuries, those prairies have almost been completely wiped out by agriculture and development. Only 1% of those habitats now remain in scattered remnants from Essex county north to the Rice Lake plains. There are only three relatively large protected prairie remnants in Ontario, and when I say “large”, I am talking about more than just a few acres. There is the Alderville Black Oak Savanna near Rice Lake, Bronte Creek Provincial Park and the Ojibway Prairie Complex. The Ojibway Prairie is a significant part of the national park this bill would create.

Endangered ecosystems are almost, by definition, home to long lists of species at risk, and I would like to talk about some of them now. There are 160 provincially rare species in the Ojibway Prairie area. No other area in Ontario has such a concentration of rare species, and only one or two areas in Canada can match this concentration of rarity. One of those areas, I have to add, is the desert grasslands in my riding.

One hundred and nineteen of these rare species are plants at Ojibway Prairie and 19 of those species are federally listed. They are listed in the Species at Risk Act. That includes the American chestnut and the Kentucky coffee tree. Another endangered plant is the scarlet ammannia, which I have to point out is only found in two places in Canada. One is in Ojibway Prairie and the other is at Osoyoos, British Columbia, in my riding.

These rare plant communities are obviously home to thousands of species of insects, many of which we know little about. For many, we do not even have good, basic survey information, let alone know how important they are to broader ecosystem function.

Since we do not talk very often in this place about beautiful insects, I have to take a moment to talk about at least one species found in the area in question, and that is the giant spreadwing.

As I am sure everyone knows, dragonflies come in two groups: the big dragonflies that rest with their wings open and the smaller damselflies that rest with their wings closed. There is another group in the middle, the spreadwings, that rest with their wings open as well. The biggest of that group is the giant spreadwing. The only place in Canada it is found is Ojibway Prairie.

There are endangered reptiles. The member for Essex mentioned the eastern foxsnake. There are also Blanding's turtle, Butler's gartersnake and the massasauga rattlesnake. I am not sure what he would think if he came across one of those, but it is a rattlesnake population that is isolated from other Canadian populations by over 300 kilometres, and it is on the brink of local extinction.

Some endangered species, such as the northern bobwhite and the five-lined skink, have disappeared from the Ojibway Prairie area. That is what happens when we let endangered ecosystems become too fractured and too small for populations to maintain themselves.

The bobwhite is an iconic quail species that was once common throughout much of eastern North America. It became rarer in Canada during the 20th century as prairie and savanna habitats were developed for intensive agriculture and housing and altered by afforestation. Its Canadian population collapsed in the 1990s and it is no longer found even on the Ojibway Prairie. The only existing population in Canada is on Walpole Island, northwest of Windsor.

A natural area need not be as large, as spectacular or as pristine as Banff, Jasper or Kluane to deserve protection as a national park. Ojibway Shores and surrounding areas are clearly deserving of this protection. The biodiversity and rare ecosystems there are a national treasure. The fact that the remaining areas of intact habitat are small, dissected by roads and surrounded by farmland, industrial sites and suburban neighbourhoods is no reason to abandon them to further development.

That is almost what happened to Ojibway Shores. In 2013, the Windsor Port Authority planned to clear-cut the forest and fill the Ojibway Shores property for development. The member for Windsor West fought to stop this action, and over the course of several years led a successful battle to convince the federal government to preserve the property.

I would like to stress one other thing that makes this such an important proposal. This national urban park would bring together properties that would provide connectivity from the Detroit River and its shoreline habitats through woodlands and savannas, to upland woodlands and prairies.

Connectivity is a critical part of maintaining the integrity of rare habitats, especially as they become fragmented into smaller pieces. If any one of the parcels that is a part of this proposal is lost to development, it would negatively impact the rest of the parcels. It is critical that they be protected together.

I would be remiss if I did not mention that there is a national park proposal in my riding: in the South Okanagan area of British Columbia. Like Ojibway, this is an ecosystem unique in Canada in a fragmented landscape. It is a mosaic of Crown land, first nations land, municipalities and private land.

This initiative has been debated in my riding for over 20 years, and is now in the negotiation stage among first nations and federal and provincial governments. Because of the diversity of the land ownership in this landscape, those negotiations represent a delicate balance between the need for strong protection of nationally significant ecosystems and respecting the concerns of the broader community and the livelihoods of those who depend on the grasslands, such as ranchers.

Like Ojibway, this would not be a park like Jasper or Banff, but a park designed for the unique circumstances of the South Okanagan. The Ojibway national urban park proposal has the full backing of the Caldwell First Nation and the City of Windsor, as the member for Essex mentioned. It would be a jewel in the crown of our national park system and I fully support this bill.

In closing, I would simply like to thank the member for Windsor West once again, and thank all of those who have worked so hard, often against all odds, to make this happen.