The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton.
An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
This bill was last introduced in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session, which ended in August 2021.
This bill was last introduced in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session, which ended in August 2021.
David Lametti Liberal
Second reading (House), as of April 13, 2021
(This bill did not become law.)
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.
This enactment amends the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to, among other things, repeal certain mandatory minimum penalties, allow for a greater use of conditional sentences and establish diversion measures for simple drug possession offences.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton.
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Madam Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member unreservedly for my error with respect to his vote, but it is unfortunate that his colleagues did not take his lead.
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Madam Speaker, my colleague will not be surprised that I view the issue of mandatory minimums quite differently than he does. I believe that most people would agree that serious offences and serious offenders should receive commensurate sentences. However, I do not see anything in this legislation that prevents a judge from sentencing according to the unique circumstances of each crime.
Why does the member feel that parliamentarians are better positioned to assess what the sentence should be for a particular crime than a judge who is specifically trained in making those assessments and determinations?
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Madam Speaker, as I said in my previous answer, mandatory jail times have always been part of our criminal justice system. It appears that the Liberal government would not agree with the statement of the hon. member because the government is not rolling back all mandatory jail times. However, I would submit it is rolling back mandatory jails times quite inappropriately for a number of serious offences. On that basis, I cannot support the bill.
I would note that among the sections being revoked, in terms of mandatory jail times, is section 244(3)(b), which was upheld by the Alberta Court of Appeal about a year ago with respect to the reckless discharge of a firearm, so some of these—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
A very brief question from the hon. member for Shefford.
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, and I would like to share some facts with him.
Studies show that minimum sentences have actually contributed to the criminalization of certain people and have created problems within some of the more marginalized communities, such as indigenous people. They are more in need of public health supports than incarceration. Minimum sentences result in the disproportionate incarceration of indigenous people and members of other marginalized communities. These observations are based on facts. I would like to hear my colleague's views on that.
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Madam Speaker, in response to the hon. member, I do not accept that eliminating mandatory jail times in any way helps persons in marginalized communities when we are talking about offences as serious as the ones provided for in this bill regarding mandatory jail times.
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-22. In our opinion, this is an important bill that deserves to be carefully examined in committee and then debated in the House.
The Bloc Québécois believes in the principle of honest and impartial deliberations before an impartial court. We think it is important that judges have the necessary discretion to render appropriate decisions. They must first decide whether a crime has been committed and then they must determine the sentence for that crime, if applicable.
Some rather tragic situations have occurred in the current context, where Parliament decided a few years ago to tie the hands of judges with minimum sentences. I am thinking of a relatively recent case. Two or three years ago, a young man who was about 22 or 23 years old had a girlfriend who was about 15. He was in a relationship with her. The parents of both young people were okay with it and consented to it. The young people were open about the fact that they were dating. There were no secrets. At one point, the young man was sentenced, and the Court of Appeal had to reduce that sentence. The Court of Appeal indicated in its decision that it was rather absurd to impose minimum sentences in situations like this one, where the judge clearly needed to be able to exercise some discretion and use judgment in enforcing the appropriate standards.
We think judges should have that discretion, so we are in favour of getting rid of mandatory minimums wherever possible.
That said, eliminating mandatory minimums does not mean a free-for-all. It means that judges we trust, who have a modicum of intelligence, experience and knowledge of the justice system, will be able to adjust a sentence, instead of simply imposing sentences over which they have no discretion whatsoever, just because lawmakers decided at some point that it should be that way. That is one thing.
I would say that our confidence in the justice system shows in the objections we have repeatedly raised, as all my parliamentary colleagues have witnessed, with regard to the Liberal government's partisan appointment process. I can still hardly believe that we were told they were using the infamous “Liberalist” to check whether candidates for the bench had any relationship with the Liberal Party. That really bothered me because a system like that undermines public confidence in those judges. That was just an aside, but we have been consistent about that.
Let me just say that we think that the justice system should work and we should be able to have confidence in it. Our job as legislators is to pass legislation and ensure that judges are unhindered, that they are completely free to apply the law objectively and judiciously.
I would add that we must never forget that the job of the legislator is to decide what constitutes an offence. Our work on a criminal offence is to determine whether drug possession is an offence or not, whether murder is an offence or not. I hope it will continue to be, but theoretically it is up to the legislator to make those types of decisions. As part of the executive branch, police officers have to apply or enforce the laws voted in by us, and the judiciary has to decide whether the Crown is right, whether an offence has been committed. We have to be consistent and eliminate minimum penalties. I completely agree with that.
I also think that diversion measures are rather important. In Quebec, we have a rather unique system with young offenders and youth law. There were fierce debates several years ago before I was elected when the previous government wanted to impose minimum sentences on young offenders. In Quebec, we believe we must try to rehabilitate young offenders. In Quebec we have expertise on diversion programs. We are pleased to see that the current government wants to move the legislation in that direction.
Getting back to the topic of drugs, in recent years, drug addiction problems have been dealt with as Criminal Code offences. We believe that this is a public health issue rather than a judicial one.
I am not talking about drug traffickers. When someone brings 100 kilograms of cocaine into Canada, we agree that it has nothing to do with the person having a drug addiction. That individual does not need to spend time in a rehabilitation centre, but rather to be tried and duly punished.
On the other hand, when we are talking about simple possession or a young person with a drug addiction, we need to look after that person. That young person needs to be loved, treated fairly and supported in their recovery. That is what we believe, and we therefore plan to support Bill C-22.
I do not know how much time I have left, but I could go on and on about why I believe in the principles of diversion and judicial discretion. I also want to mention that I have been listening to my Conservative colleagues and, although I do not agree with everything they have said, I also do not disagree with everything they have said. They are right about a few things. I think the bill is far from perfect and therefore needs some fine tuning. We need to hear from experts in various fields at committee, propose amendments and improve the bill, because there is considerable room for improvement.
I have serious concerns about clause 20 of the bill, which would add a section 10.2 to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, giving peace officers, or police officers, the power to either lay an information for certain offences, to give a warning or to send the offender to a program, such as a rehabilitation program, an agency or another service provider. I think that rehabilitation programs are good, but I am hesitant to give police officers the authority to make this decision without any legal framework.
Personally, I like the system we have in Quebec. If a police officer wants to lay an information, they first go to the Crown prosecutor, who will choose whether to authorize the charge and may decide to send the offender to a program instead of proceeding to trial. The Crown prosecutor is given some leeway, while Bill C-22 would give that leeway to police officers.
I have a lot of friends who are police officers, and I have a lot of respect for what they do. I am not saying that they are unable to show discretion, diligence or good judgment, but I still believe that Crown prosecutors or the director of criminal and penal prosecutions should have some oversight over this specific issue.
New clause 10.4, which the bill would add to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, states that the police force in question may keep a record or registry of any warnings or referrals. Should the “may” not be a “must”? That would ensure that there is a record of all of the warnings and referrals made by the police. What is more, should a provision not be added to enable the director of criminal and penal prosecutions to check that record from time to time or to ensure diligent follow-up? I do not think that leaving all the discretionary power in the hands of the police without any follow-up or oversight is the right solution.
I am not willing to give carte blanche with regard to Bill C-22. I think we need to examine it. I would like to hear what police officers think of the bill. I would also like to hear from people working in detox facilities or in offender rehabilitation. I would like to hear from all of those people and from Crown prosecutors, but I do not know how comfortable they would feel testifying before a parliamentary committee.
I would like to examine every aspect of these provisions because this is so important. I have to say that I am a little disappointed to see this happening at the end of the legislative process.
There has been talk of an election. Mr. Trudeau seems to be hinting at a spring or fall election.
Will we have time to pass Bill C-22 before Parliament is dissolved? I—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
I would remind the hon. member not to name his House colleagues.
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Madam Speaker, I apologize.
I was saying that the Prime Minister has been hinting at an election call. My fear is that the writ will be dropped and Parliament dissolved before we pass Bill C-22. That would be a real shame because society needs us to improve the existing judicial process with respect to some of the sentences in Bill C-22.
I would like to add one thing. I listened to my Conservative colleague go over some of the sentences covered in Bill C-22. He said that some sentences should not be in it. I think there are others that are maybe not included but that should be. Once again, this should all be looked at in committee. Personally, I am open to collaborating with my colleagues from the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party and any other party so we can make sure our judicial process reflects voters' concerns.
That sums up my thoughts on the subject.
In closing, let me reiterate that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C-22 so that the committee can study and improve it. I think this bill has plenty of room for improvement.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's remarks. He seemed to suggest that he believes that the legislature has no role in sentencing—that it is up to the legislature to determine what is a crime, but that it is up to judges alone to determine sentencing. I think there is a strong case to be made, though, that legislatures in a democracy have a responsibility to at least establish something like sentencing starting points. We can debate whether mandatory minimum sentencing starting points and other mechanisms are appropriate.
The reason for the legislature to have a voice in sentencing is twofold.
Number one, in a democracy, it is the job of a legislature to establish the relative seriousness of a crime and to say, through sentencing starting points or mandatory minimums or other mechanisms, that we view something as a very serious crime and that we therefore have set a higher sentencing starting point, and that we view something else as a less serious crime and have therefore set a lower starting point.
Another important reason for the legislature to be engaged is a matter of equality. Different judges likely have different opinions about the sentences that are appropriate for certain crimes, so to have a standard sense of what the sentencing starting point is for a particular crime ensures equality for people who go before different judges for the same crime.
Does the member agree in principle that legislators in democracies should have some role in establishing, at the very least, starting points for sentencing so that there is equality and so that there is some social voice speaking to the court about the relative seriousness of certain kinds of crimes?
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Madam Speaker, I am glad that my colleague asked me that question. It may surprise him to learn that I agree with him, at least in part.
I agree that it is obvious that legislators have a role to play. There needs to be some room to manoeuvre. In some cases, we have to use minimum sentences. Often we have to use maximum sentences. We must establish the criteria for determining whether a de facto situation is a crime. That is the role of legislators. That is what we have always done and must continue to do.
Where my colleague and I disagree is that I think we must give judges more discretion. My colleague is right to say that different judges have different opinions, but I think that is precisely what makes our justice system successful.
Personally, if I am charged with a crime, I would not want to be evaluated and judged by a machine or a computer. I like the idea of standing in front of a human being who will listen to my explanations and decide whether I am right or wrong. I agree with having minimum sentences and maximum sentences, but we have to give judges room to manoeuvre so that they can dispense justice effectively and judiciously.
Paul Manly Green Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Madam Speaker, I agree. I think that judges should have the ability to make decisions on sentencing.
One of the disappointments to me, after hearing calls from the British Columbia government and the Canadian Chiefs of Police Association to decriminalize drugs, is that this bill does not go far enough. We know that the war on drugs is a colossal failure. It means that the people who get targeted do not have the means to protect themselves, such as indigenous people and people of colour. They get targeted much more than white males do. We know this is a failure.
Does my colleague think that we should be going further and look at European models for dealing with the war on drugs and decriminalize this completely to take it out of the hands of organized crime?
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
I think the complete decriminalization of drugs is also an important issue, one that we are going to have to debate one of these days. It is inevitable.
Bill C-22 does not steer us towards completely decriminalizing the use and possession of drugs. Like my colleague, I think we also need to examine that possibility. However, I do not believe we will be doing that with Bill C-22.
Let us start by supporting this bill and trying to improve it as much as possible to address our constituents' concerns. This would be a step in the right direction.
I would be very open to the possibility of studying this matter. The Bloc Québécois has already indicated where we stand. We are in favour of studying this important issue.
As I said earlier, I see drug addiction as a health problem, not a criminal problem.
Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord for his heartfelt speech, which was articulate and very persuasive.
For the benefit of our colleagues, I would like him to elaborate on the negative repercussions of the minimum sentences that are currently in effect for certain circumstances, in particular with respect to the potential rehabilitation of offenders.