Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 91 - 105 of 128
View Rob Moore Profile
CPC (NB)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Where I'm getting the information, Minister, is directly from Bill C-5. Offences for which a conditional sentence would be available include sexual assault with a weapon, threats or causing harm, trafficking or exporting, fraud over $5,000, robbery, breaking and entering, and robbery to steal a firearm. These are offences that are taking place in all of our communities. Under your bill, the perpetrators will now be able to receive a conditional sentence, otherwise known as “house arrest”, rather than jail time.
Minister, I'd like an acknowledgement on the source of many of these mandatory minimums that you say are for not serious offences. Do you know the origins in the Criminal Code of the mandatory minimum for using a firearm in the commission of an offence, for example, and for weapons trafficking? On those mandatory minimums, do you know when they were introduced?
View Rob Moore Profile
CPC (NB)
One of them was introduced under Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau in 1976, and the other under Prime Minister Jean Chrétien in 1995, the point being, Minister, that these are serious offences.
View Rob Moore Profile
CPC (NB)
I have a point of order. I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, but all this discussion about how we ask questions and how we answer questions is taking up a lot of question time. We get the minister here only so often, so I'm hopeful the minister can stay for maybe an extra 15 minutes to make up for some of the delays we're experiencing by debating how questions are answered and asked.
View Rob Moore Profile
CPC (NB)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to our witnesses for appearing today on what I think is an important bill.
There's a myth that's being perpetuated out there, and I want you to quickly confirm something. We've heard many of these mandatory minimums referred to as “Harper-era mandatory minimums”. While it's true that under the Safe Streets and Communities Act the Conservative government removed the application of conditional sentences for such crimes as arson, trafficking in persons for material benefit, sexual assault and criminal harassment, I want to speak specifically on the mandatory minimum penalties for gun crime. I'm going to list some of them: using a firearm in the commission of an offence, possession of a prohibited or a restricted firearm with ammunition, possession of a weapon by a commission of offence, possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking, weapons trafficking, robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm and discharging a firearm with intent.
I know you're all familiar with those provisions, but could you confirm for the committee that all of those mandatory minimums that were put in place predated the previous Conservative government and were, in fact, brought in by Liberal governments?
View Rob Moore Profile
CPC (NB)
Could you do that, and provide it to the committee? I've taken the liberty of checking on all those. I can confirm that they were all brought in by previous Liberal governments. However, if you could confirm that and get back to the committee, I would appreciate it. I don't expect the other members to take my word for it, but they'll take your word for it.
I'm a little alarmed to hear that there was no specific consultation. I heard about polling on mandatory minimum penalties, but specific consultation with specific groups who are more likely than others to be victims of criminals, and their feelings about a response to what's being proposed in Bill C-5....
Just quickly, Statistics Canada reports that those who identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual are at greater risk of being violently victimized. Now, this legislation—and I asked the minister about its impact on women—provides for conditional sentences for some serious crimes, as well as the removal of mandatory minimums. Were there specific consultations with various communities on how they would be impacted, from the perspective of a victim, if this legislation were to pass?
View Rob Moore Profile
CPC (NB)
Mr. Taylor, thank you for that. I guess that concerns me because we're talking about different identified groups. We're talking about first nations and indigenous people. We're talking about the Black community. We're talking about lesbian, gay and bisexual people. What we've found out is that these communities were not consulted even though they are more likely to be the victims of the very crimes that the government is going soft on in this legislation. That's obviously concerning, and we'll be bringing forward witnesses at committee to further explore that. I—
View Rob Moore Profile
CPC (NB)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
View Rob Moore Profile
CPC (NB)
Mr. Chair, I have a concern. We have a panel here, a full panel, and we have one-hour sessions. I heard you mention 35 minutes, which would cut short what we're able to hear from these panellists.
People are taking the time to be on this panel. The expectation we had, when the notice went out, was that we would have one hour with this panel. Thirty-five minutes aren't going to cut it when you look at the discussion we just had on the last panel. I would like to hear from these witnesses in a fulsome way.
I don't mean to cut into anyone's time, but I just heard you say 35 minutes when we're scheduled for an hour.
View Rob Moore Profile
CPC (NB)
Mr. Chair, we don't have any committee business scheduled, and housekeeping usually takes maybe five minutes.
We're here today to hear from witnesses. We didn't have any housekeeping scheduled. I'd like to hear from witnesses. If you can minimize, hopefully, whatever housekeeping there is so it wouldn't take more than three or four minutes, we can maximize our witness time.
View Rob Moore Profile
CPC (NB)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As usual, Mr. Garrison took the words right out of my mouth. We're so often on the same page.
I am inclined to agree with Mr. Garrison and what's been said about the number of meetings. I think five is going to be a little low when we're dealing with something involving very sweeping changes, but I think generally what you've outlined is sound for our work on Tuesday, and then with the minister appearing on Friday. I think we should defer on the total number of meetings until a future meeting.
View Rob Moore Profile
CPC (NB)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to all of our witnesses today as we finish up a very important study.
We know that this legislation came about after the Bedford decision. It's an attempt to strike the right balance, but there are always improvements that can be made.
I note that just in the last few days we've seen the Court of Appeal for Ontario uphold several provisions of PCEPA, or Bill C-36. That brings us to this study. We're studying ways we can improve the law and how the laws work. We've certainly heard from a wide variety of witnesses, some who are very supportive of PCEPA.
I have a question for the Peers Victoria Resources Society. There are two witnesses here. I guess you can decide between yourselves who would like to answer.
It was mentioned that you provide harm reduction support services, education and employment training for current and former sex workers. Could either of you elaborate on what those support services look like, education and employment training as well? Perhaps share with the committee what that looks like typically, the services you are providing for your region.
View Rob Moore Profile
CPC (NB)
That covers a lot of it.
View Rob Moore Profile
CPC (NB)
I couldn't hear the last few things you said. I don't know if you can hear me. Do you want to finish that last thought?
View Rob Moore Profile
CPC (NB)
You were just finishing a thought, but it cut out with about 10 seconds left.
Results: 91 - 105 of 128 | Page: 7 of 9

|<
<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data