Bill C-22 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act

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.

Criminal Code

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I sit on the agriculture committee with the member for Kings—Hants and we enjoy our debates.

The member talked about the independence of the judiciary and how much we need to respect that. Well, I would ask him to answer a question about his leader, the Prime Minister, who really did not have that respect during the SNC-Lavalin case. In fact, he actually kicked out the first indigenous woman from being the attorney general. So, if the member wants us to have respect for the judiciary, which we all do on the Conservative side, why would he not start with his own side and have a conversation with his Prime Minister so that they respect the independence of the judiciary?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is always great to see my colleague across the way, and we do enjoy a great relationship on the agriculture committee.

The member opposite is bringing up issues from far in the past as opposed to focusing on the issue at hand around the servicing of Canadians who could benefit from this type of aspect.

For the record, I will say that I think the bright public policy aspect around SNC-Lavalin was the deferred prosecution agreement. The member opposite, for someone who certainly talks about protecting jobs and Canadian interests, does not seem to really want to support that right now.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his intervention today. It was very interesting.

While I enjoy listening to members of the Liberal government talk about necessary, progressive steps to decriminalize drug possession, I am always dismayed by the lack of bravery and commitment to go far enough. These half-measures are, of course, not sufficient.

Earlier today, we did hear from the member for Beaches—East York who said that he believed that full decriminalization was best but that he was prevented by politics.

I would like to ask the member: When will this government listen to the calls from provincial governments, mayors, health care providers, frontline service providers, police and public health officials and take action to fully decriminalize personal possession?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I think that this type of legislation is taking a progressive step in terms of recognizing petty drug possession as a health issue as opposed to a justice issue. However, I cannot speak to the member that she quoted in terms of his comments around politics. I can say that, ideologically, I do not know myself, as a parliamentarian, if I am completely on the basis that decriminalization of all drugs is the best public policy approach despite the fact that there have been some experts suggesting that is the way forward. That is my own perspective as a parliamentarian. I cannot really speak to the other member's comments that she had mentioned, but I do think that this type of legislation is taking the right direction in how we need to move forward.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, any debate around criminalization and decriminalization must include a conversation about homelessness. Quebec, like many other places, is currently grappling with a serious housing crisis. The homeless population in Montreal is estimated to have doubled during the pandemic.

Does my colleague not think that investing heavily in measures to end homelessness, especially in large cities, would be one way to deal with these criminalization issues?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I would agree with my hon. colleague opposite that housing is a key issue right now. That is why we put in place the rapid housing initiative, $1 billion to help support individuals and marginalized communities across the country. I do not have a crystal ball on what our Minister of Finance will have on Monday, but I suspect there will be additional supports that focus on ensuring we have affordable housing to have basic shelter in place. I would agree that the socio-economic determinants of health and reducing potential criminal activity is all tied and it is a really progressive approach to try to get us there.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, as a government, we are taking steps to try to address systemic racism that is pervasive in our institutions and Bill C-22 is a step forward in the right direction, especially for my riding of Humber River—Black Creek. With this legislation, we are advancing a policy that is truly about keeping communities safe.

We have seen throughout history how certain criminal justice policies have unfairly targeted indigenous peoples, people of colour and marginalized Canadians. Too often these policies were poorly handled and only reinforced the systemic racism, which our government has committed to eliminating in Canada. Let me clear: A justice system that jails too many indigenous peoples, Black people and marginalized Canadians is not effective, does not keep us safe and therefore must be changed.

In my riding of Humber River—Black Creek, I have seen far too many lives derailed by policies that target racialized communities. Too many careers have been destroyed because of a singular bad decision. We are a country that believes in rehabilitation and second chances, but our criminal justice policies have not followed this lofty ideal. That is why I am very proud to speak in the House today in support of Bill C-22 and the fact that the government has brought it forward.

With Bill C-22, we are turning the page on the failed policies of the Harper Conservatives, policies that did not protect Canadians, but, rather, targeted them. The measures in the bill, in conjunction with our numerous other reforms across government, are a critical step forward as we work to eliminate the plague of systemic racism and ensure that our justice system is as effective as it can be, one that is equal and fair to all Canadians. This means removing mandatory minimum penalties that unfairly target low-risk and first-time offenders, which evidence shows us only leads to the over-incarceration of racialized and marginalized groups and does nothing to decrease recidivism.

We want to expand the availability of conditional sentencing orders for those who do not pose a risk to public safety. The availability of conditional sentences means that judges will have the flexibility to determine whether offenders pose a risk to the public and, if so, will allow the offenders to serve their sentences in their communities under strict conditions. Rather than punishing these people for a bad decision, we would instead give them access to treatment programs and other supportive services. The evidence has shown us that our current system only serves to derail the lives of low-risk offenders and the dissolution of the family unit, which is so important, and negatively impacts the families they leave behind.

If we want to promote the rehabilitative nature of our justice system, we must practice what we preach. Giving low-risk offenders access to treatment and support, keeping their families together and keeping them integrated in their communities are proven methods of reducing recidivism. To answer the concerns of the opposition, these opportunities will not be available to everyone.

Serious and dangerous criminals must be punished severely as appropriate to their crimes. For serious and dangerous criminals, Bill C-21 would raise maximum penalties so judges would have the ability to punish the worst offenders. Those who commit serious offences would continue to receive sentences that would match the seriousness of their offences. However, this bill is about getting rid of the failed policies that saw our prisons filled with people who needed help, not incarceration.

Bill C-22 is specifically for low-risk and first-time offenders whose incarceration has proven to do little to protect communities in the long run, but has had a negative impact on the lives of these first-time and low-risk offenders. The evidence is clear that the policies of the past are not working. It is because of the harmful policies of the past that we see indigenous and racialized Canadians overrepresented in our prison populations by orders of magnitude. The policies of the past did not prevent nor deter crime and they did not keep us any safer. What they did was target the vulnerable, racialized and indigenous Canadians. Bill C-22 seeks to address some of these systemic issues, and I am proud to support the legislation.

We also want to provide police and prosecutors with the tools and guidance they need to treat addiction and simple drug possession, not as a criminal justice issue but as a health issue. With this in mind, Bill C-22 takes measures to divert away from the criminal justice system default for police and prosecutors when dealing with drug possession.

In my riding of Humber River—Black Creek, I wonder how many lives could have been altered in a positive way had these already been in place. How many individuals were required to reoffend because they could not secure employment after going through the justice system? How many families were destroyed as a result of the systemic racism pervasive within our justice system?

Bill C-22 would allow us to step away from these questions, because we know that those who are low-risk or first-time offenders will not be put through the gauntlet of the justice system. Instead, young people who have made mistakes or perhaps have turned to drugs as a result of a prior trauma will be able to get the help and support they need rather than just becoming another statistic.

Bill C-22 represents a vital step forward for our country. The changes that would come from this legislation would ensure that our criminal justice system would be fair, effective and would keep all Canadians from all communities safe.

I encourage all my colleagues in the House to support the legislation. Let us demonstrate to all Canadians that we will never stop working to create a justice system that embodies our values. Let us step forward together to end the scourge of systemic racism in our justice system and in all areas of Canadian society.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member outlined the bill and very much made it sound like the crimes that were addressed in the legislation, Bill C-22, simply had to do with public health concerns.

That being the case, I am wondering if the hon. member could comment on kidnapping. Kidnapping is one of the things in the bill, and the sentence is being lessened for engaging in this. Could the member please help me understand how this is a public health concern?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is leaving the flexibility in the hands of judges to bring down a sentence that reflects the seriousness of the crime. That flexibility is there regardless of whether it is a kidnapping issue or whatever.

Our justice system needs additional tools. Bill C-22 would provide it with the means to move forward to help the very people we are talking about, to give options in our justice system.

I have seen far too many families in Humber River—Black Creek whose family members got themselves into trouble for whatever reason and ended up with a minimum sentence applied. That has sent the family and that young person in a direction that probably will seriously impact their lives forever.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I share my colleague's point that we should have a justice system that reflects Canadian values.

In 2011, legislation was brought in about mandatory reporting of child pornography online, yet yesterday, we learned that the Attorney General had no intention of applying those laws in Canada. The Liberal government believes in voluntary compliance. It comes down to the issue of Pornhub, MindGeek, which is in the city of the Attorney General, yet he does not know if it is a Canadian company.

A massive court case is going on in California right now for survivors of rape and non-consensual sexual assault because of Pornhub. When we look at the filings in the court, they identify that Pornhub, MindGeek is based in Montreal, just down the road from the Attorney General.

I hear the Liberals talking about Canadian values, but they are not willing to stand up for the survivors, telling them to go find it someplace else, that they are on their own. That is not acceptable in our country.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague and I have worked together for many years.

I am sure that all of us in the House share the same feelings when it comes to the issues of pornography. We do not want to see it in our country or anywhere else. Whatever steps are necessary to clamp down on anyone who engages in it are steps that I believe all of us as parliamentarians want to see happen.

I know the Liberal government, no different from the NDP, or the Conservatives or the Bloc, does not want to see that kind of negative information portrayed anywhere. The Liberals are just as tough on pornography as anyone else. In fact, maybe in the future they will see that the Liberals are even harder on the issues of pornography.

The Liberals are about trying to open up a justice system that will better protect the very people about whom we are talking.

[Derek Sloan, Independent, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, there has been some concern about the use of mandatory minimum penalties.

There are still, and will remain, if this bill passes, mandatory minimums for various crimes. My concern is, why would some of these serious crimes, these types of offences, like the use of a firearm in commission of an offence, possession of a firearm or prohibited weapon, robbery committed with a firearm, and I could go on, have mandatory minimums removed when some mandatory minimums still remain? This is an issue, particularly in relation to the other laws, such as Bill C-21, which is being implemented to put more restrictions on legal firearms owners.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, doing everything we can to protect society and protect our communities, I believe, is extremely important for all of us. The minimum penalties we are referring to here, in many cases, are designed to make communities safer, but also to provide flexibility to our judges, our prosecutors and so on. They can use that flexibility to not destroy a young person's life. At the same time we are doing everything possible to ensure the safety of our communities. The changes in our firearms legislation talk about just doing that, and how we can make our communities safer overall.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

It is a privilege to rise and represent the constituents of Red Deer—Lacombe in this debate, who would be mortified, I believe, to know what the legislation is actually proposing to do to our criminal justice system, notwithstanding the words coming from government MPs.

Let me start with a little bit of context. I am the chair of the Conservative rural crime caucus and had the pleasure of helping to create a document in 2018 that we published as MPs from rural Alberta. Virtually every one of my colleagues from rural Alberta participated in this. We consulted and talked to a wide variety of people in our province. We talked to victims. We talked to rural crime watch people. We talked to anti-crime organizations. We talked to victims-of-crime services and to law enforcement experts, and we produced a comprehensive, thorough and multifaceted report, which we then tabled at the public safety committee in the last Parliament. My colleague from Lakeland had a motion in that Parliament talking about rural crime.

I want to remind all colleagues in the House that crime in rural areas, and specifically here in western Canada, is significantly on the rise. It has been shown statistically. One does not have to go very far to look. A document from the Angus Reid Institute published January 10, 2020, shows that crime rates in Canada dropped precipitously from 1991 to 2014, falling more than 50% during that period. However, crime rates have ticked upward over each of the past four years for which data is available, and that trend is continuing. It shows that confidence is waning significantly in our law enforcement agencies, courts and provincial jurisdictions. It notes that it is more significantly happening in western Canada, and in the Prairie provinces in particular.

Colleagues can imagine that the proposed changes to this legislation would be somewhat horrific to my constituents who ask me about it. If anybody wants to read the report, “Towards a Safer Alberta: Addressing Rural Crime”, it addresses a lot of crime in general by addressing rural crime. I would encourage them to do so. It can be found on my website, www.blainecalkinsmp.ca. I would encourage people to have a look at it and see what good work MPs in western Canada have done to bring forward the concerns of our constituents.

I want to talk a little bit about the overall Government of Canada's approach since it became the government in the fall of 2015. I am not going to get into too much discussion about specific firearms legislation in Bill C-71 or Bill C-21, but I will talk about Bill C-75 and now Bill C-22, and the soft-on-crime approach that the government seems to have. The rationale that it is presenting seems to basically undermine the needs of victims in this country, especially when some of these crimes are certainly crimes against people. They are not just property crimes.

What are some of the things that the government has done? In Bill C-75, which could be called the prequel to Bill C-22, the government basically hybridized well over 100 offences in the Criminal Code. To those who wonder what that means, there are basically two ways in which a Crown prosecutor can proceed with charges before a justice. One of them is through an indictable offence. Until this bill came along, it usually carried with it a set of penalties for which there was a requirement to spend some time in jail or in custody. Then there is something called a summary conviction offence, which is the equivalent, I guess, of a U.S. misdemeanour. It usually carries with it a very small sentence or time served in jail, in lieu of being unable to pay a fine of some kind.

Here are some of the things for which the current government, in the previous Parliament, changed the sentences from mandatory indictable offences to hybrids. This allows the Crown to plea bargain away serious offences such as impaired driving, punishment for theft, both under $5,000 and over $5,000, possession of instruments for breaking and entering, selling automobile master keys and other items, enabling theft, possession of property, stolen property obtained by crime and, of course, importing or exporting property.

That just names a few offences. As I said, there were over 110 offences that the government essentially reduced the penalties for. In fact, it would now be possible for someone to get a summary conviction offence for abduction of a person under the age of 16 or abduction of a person under the age of 14. Those were also included in Bill C-75. It would now be possible to pay a fine less than someone would pay for failing to stop at a stop sign. That is the legacy of Bill C-75 in the first Parliament.

Now let us fast forward to Bill C-22 and take a look at what Liberals are removing mandatory minimum penalties or just basic minimum penalties for in the Criminal Code. First, there is using a firearm or an imitation firearm in the commission of an offence. Interestingly the government is removing Airsoft and paintball guns from possession completely for law-abiding citizens, but if a criminal is using a firearm or an imitation firearm in the commission of an offence, they will now get the pleasure of going home and sitting there, thinking about what they have done. Possession of a firearm, knowing that its possession is unauthorized, is the whole point. Rather than reducing penalties for people who knowingly use or are in possession of unauthorized firearms, the government is instead taking firearms away from law-abiding citizens who are co-operating with the government. It does not make any sense.

More items include possession of a weapon obtained by the commission of an offence. One of the biggest problems we have with rural crime is people going onto properties to steal vehicles, tools and other items that are easily saleable and marketable on the black market. People also, from time to time, go to these properties purposely looking for firearms to steal. Why on earth would the government want to make it less punishable for these types of thieves who are purposefully targeting establishments, casing rural farms and casing our communities?

Why would we reduce the penalties for individuals who are purposefully trying to steal firearms? These firearms end up on the streets of our cities and our communities and end up being used in the commission of offences. This makes no sense, but the government seems to think that this is a good idea.

Here is something we can categorize in the realm of the bizarre. Why on earth would the government remove any semblance of a minimum penalty for someone who was trafficking weapons and firearms? If we listen to police chiefs or victims' services people anywhere in major urban centres, crime is proliferating especially with the use of handguns and firearms in those communities. We know that most of those firearms are obtained illegally through theft or are smuggled across our border. I would think that the government would say it was going to crack down on smugglers, but it would seem that the government is encouraging smuggling while discouraging lawful ownership. Importing or exporting a weapon knowing it is unauthorized is called smuggling. The bill would reduce minimum penalties for that.

The next item is discharging a firearm with intent. Why would we reduce a penalty for somebody purposely discharging a firearm with intent? This makes absolutely no sense. The Liberal MPs are simply misleading the House and Canadians with what their true intent is with Bill C-22, and it is incumbent upon all of us with a conscience in the House of Commons, and with an eye to doing what is right for the law-abiding citizens that we represent, to defeat this irremediable piece of legislation.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is misleading when a member rises in the House and suggests that any member here is trying to encourage the smuggling of firearms by changing legislation that has to do with the punishment associated with that.

At the end of the day, what it really comes down to is determining who is best to cast judgment on individuals in terms of what their sentence should be. I am not an expert in this field. I do not feel as though parliamentarians are in a position to cast a single brush stroke over all criminal activity. Rather, the position from this side is that we charge those who are responsible to hear a case to hear the prosecution, to hear the defence and then determine what the best sentence is based on that information. They are the ones who are there to receive the evidence, hear the facts and make their determinations based on that.

How can the member suggest that members of Parliament are better suited to make those decisions than those who are actually charged with the responsibility of upholding justice?