David Lametti

[Justice, June 2nd, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, we have introduced Bill C-5 to attack the systemic overrepresentation of Black and indigenous people in our criminal justice system. It would attack mandatory minimum penalties and allow conditional sentence orders where public safety is not in danger and where incarceration is not best for the community, the victim or the perpetrator.

With respect to violent crime, we have increased penalties with respect to gun trafficking and guns. As has been pointed out, we have also introduced bold legislation capping handguns in this country.

[Justice, June 2nd, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, am a Quebecker, and I am among those who have doubts about Bill 21. We stand with Quebeckers who are angry and disappointed that a young teacher can no longer exercise her profession because of how she chooses to observe her religion.

Our government is deeply committed to defending the rights and freedoms protected by the Canadian and Quebec charters of rights and freedoms, and that includes freedom of religion and the right to equality.

[Justice, June 2nd, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member full well knows that serious offences will always be punished with serious sentences. The kinds of crimes that he is referring to will never be the subject of a minimum mandatory penalty, because they are serious in terms of their context.

Minimum mandatory penalties in the provisions that we are addressing, as well as conditional sentence orders, are only to be used by judges when there is no danger to public security.

[Justice, June 2nd, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, we introduced Bill C‑5 precisely to address the overrepresentation of Black and indigenous people in the justice system.

Minimum sentences and conditional sentences are imposed by judges when public order and public safety are not at risk and incarceration is not the answer.

We will therefore move forward with public safety reforms to improve our criminal justice system.

[Justice, May 30th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, that was a 9-0 decision. It was a unanimous decision. It was clear and unequivocal.

Our hearts go out to victims. We make the justice system better by enacting and applying laws and seeing them applied. I remind everyone in this House, and I remind everyone across Canada, that eligibility for parole does not mean one will get parole. It is extremely rare that people convicted of mass murder achieve parole. That is the fact. We will respect the ruling of the Supreme Court.

[Justice, May 30th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I thank the hon. member for her question.

We are committed to keeping communities safe, to protecting victims and to ensuring that their rights are protected. We are looking carefully at the decision. I will work with the hon. member and members on all sides of the House in order to reach a solution. We are troubled by the decision as well.

I would remind everyone in the House, and I would remind everyone across Canada, that as the hon. member has pointed out, this ruling only applies in a small minority of extreme cases. We will act, but we need to keep that in perspective.

[Justice, May 30th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question, and we acknowledge the pain that families and victims go through in these kinds of cases.

Nothing in the Supreme Court's decision changes the fact that all people convicted of murder receive mandatory life sentences. What happens here is that they are now eligible for parole after 25 years, but that does not mean that they will get parole. It is extremely rare for people who have been convicted of multiple murders to receive parole.

It was a clear and unanimous decision by the Supreme Court of Canada. It stated that the lack of parole was cruel and unusual, and we will respect that.

[Official Languages, May 30th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, am a Quebecker and I, too, have the right to share my opinion in this regard, as do other Quebeckers from various sectors and fields.

Legal scholars, health care professionals and other experts have all spoken out against Bill 96. We all want to protect French, and we all should protect French. That is exactly what our Bill C-13 would do for Quebec and all of Canada.

As I said, we will be following the implementation of Bill 96 to ensure that it does not exceed Quebec's jurisdiction.

[Justice, May 30th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I am a Quebecker. Quebeckers from various sectors, including anglophones, francophones, legal experts, doctors and other players in the health sector, have all expressed concerns about Bill 96. As we have said, we will be following the legislation's implementation to see whether it violates the constitutional rights of Canadians. That is not an insult. We are simply carrying out our duty.

[Justice, May 30th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, from the start, we have made it clear that we have concerns about the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause in the Constitution. We have made that clear from the start.

I said so clearly the other day when I announced our intention to go to the Supreme Court of Canada if the Court of Appeal's decision were appealed. It is very important to ensure respect for democracy and look at legal jurisdiction and the Constitution. We have concerns relating to section 33 of the Constitution, and we will defend Canadians' rights.