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

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice]

moved that Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to speak to Bill C-22, which proposes much needed reforms to the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, or CDSA.

These proposed reforms are first and foremost about addressing the systemic discrimination and unfairness in our criminal justice system, which includes the overrepresentation of indigenous peoples, Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities in Canada's prisons.

The policies that we are targeting in this legislation have not accomplished their goal of deterring crime or keeping our communities safe. What they have done, rather, is disproportionately criminalize and imprison communities that are already discriminated against, especially indigenous peoples and Black Canadians.

We need a policy that is truly effective, that protects all Canadians and that ensures that our justice system is fair. We need a justice policy that is, well, just. In particular, the Speech from the Throne committed to address systemic inequities in all phases of the criminal justice system, including from diversion to sentencing.

These are the primary areas of focus of my proposed legislative reforms.

There are three components to the changes we are proposing in Bill C-22. First, it would eliminate mandatory minimum penalties in all drug offences, a tobacco offence and some firearms offences. Second, it would reverse the previous Conservative government's severe restrictions on the availability of conditional sentence orders, or CSOs. Third, it would require police and prosecutors to consider other measures for simple possession of drugs, such as diversion to addiction treatment programs rather than laying charges or prosecuting individuals for simple possession of an illegal drug.

Before describing the proposed changes in detail, it is important to understand the impact our existing sentencing laws have had on the over-incarceration of indigenous persons, Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities. In 2020, indigenous adults accounted for 30% of federally incarcerated inmates, despite accounting for approximately 5% of the general Canadian adult population. Indigenous women account for 42% of all federally incarcerated women. Similarly, Black adults represent 3% of the overall Canadian population, but they now represent 7.2% of the federal offender population.

These figures are staggering, and the trends have continued to grow year after year. We must do something to turn the tide.

One of the main contributors to these negative trends has been failed sentencing policies. This includes the former government's increase to and indiscriminate use of mandatory minimum penalties of imprisonment, also known as MMPs. This one-size-fits-all approach to crime mandates that anyone who commits an offence, regardless of the circumstance or the individual's degree of responsibility for that crime, must be imprisoned for at least the amount of time prescribed in that MMP.

I ask members to consider the following scenario: A single mother struggling with substance use has begun selling drugs in order to support her addiction and have a bit of money left over to put food on the table. She is charged and convicted of drug trafficking. Even though the judge recognizes prison time would not be appropriate in her circumstance, they have no choice but to order the mandated prison time. As a result, she is separated from her children, her job and her life.

Now, I ask members to contrast this situation with the individual who runs a network and specifically targeted her and other vulnerable individuals like her to get them hooked on drugs and eventually trafficking to fuel their addiction. Because of the mandatory minimum sentence, the judge cannot choose to send only one of these two individuals to prison. They must both be punished in the same way.

I ask my colleagues what that serves. Bill C-22 proposes to eliminate all mandatory minimum penalties for drugs, which were brought in by the previous Conservative government in 2012. It would also eliminate MMPs for some firearm offences, which we know have a disproportionate impact on indigenous and Black communities.

Between 2007 and 2017, 39% of Black and 20% of indigenous offenders were placed in federal correction facilities for an offence that carries a mandatory minimum sentence.

During that time, the proportion of Black Canadians admitted to federal corrections for importing or exporting drugs increased from 33% to 43% in 2017. Even worse, the proportion of indigenous offenders admitted for firearms-related offences punishable by a MMP more than doubled.

In a similar vein, Bill C-22 would reverse the previous Conservative government's severe restrictions on the availability of conditional sentencing orders, which give judges the option to order that a sentence be served within one's community under strict conditions, if the individual does not pose a risk to public safety, and if the penalty given would have been less than two years of incarceration.

Previous Conservative governments would have us believe our communities are safest when we put all criminals behind bars and throw away the key. That is simply not supported by the evidence. When it comes to lower-risk and first-time offenders, prison is actually associated with elevated risks of recidivism and worse outcomes in both the short term and the long term.

On the other hand, alternatives such as conditional sentencing, or CSOs, are an effective and proven way to enable more effective rehabilitation and reintegration by enabling individuals to maintain their employment, or continue caring for children or family members in need. The data is clear. We just have to listen to it.

The removal of restrictions on CSOs is crucial to reducing the failed trend of Conservative justice policies that have made it difficult, if not impossible, for judges to sentence individuals appropriately. This individual tailoring of sentences is supposed to be a fundamental principle of our criminal justice system, yet it has been altered by these policies.

Our sentencing laws have also prevented sentencing courts from giving full effect to the Gladue principle enshrined in paragraph 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code, which is based on restraint and requires courts to consider all available sanctions other than imprisonment for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of indigenous offenders.

With respect to indigenous women offenders, these targeted measures will have real and measurable impacts. Take, for example, the changes to CSOs. Prior to the previous Conservative government's restrictions, many indigenous women received conditional sentences with positive outcomes. After the restrictions, indigenous women in the same circumstances were instead sent to prison. By restoring the availability of CSOs, more indigenous women can heal within their own communities, continue caring for their children and family members, and have access to culturally appropriate support services. This is effective criminal justice policy in action.

These failed so-called “tough on crime” sentencing policies have made the criminal justice system less efficient. For instance, in cases involving offences with MMPs, the evidence demonstrates that trials take longer to complete, accused persons are less likely to plead guilty and a stark increase in successful charter challenges before Canadian courts. In short, MMPs also clog up our criminal justice system.

Let me provide an overview of the bill. Bill C-22 will repeal MMPs for all drug offences that were enacted by the previous Conservative government in 2012. It will also repeal MMPs for certain offences involving—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is rising on a point of order.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I appreciate listening to the minister's speech, but the connection is fuzzy and is cutting in and out. It appears he is in his Parliament Hill office, so I wonder if it would be possible for him to deliver the speech in the chamber. We would then not have a connection problem, and we could hear him. Given that he seems to be in the building anyway, it would make sense.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

There is a problem with the connection cutting in and out. I do not think it is the sound, but rather the Internet, because we also see the image failing for a few seconds.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on the same point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

On the same point of order, I have been listening and have had no issues with hearing both the English and the translation of the minister. I do not know if some might be a little more challenged to hear it, but what I object to is the member standing up to highlight something that is personal. I should not be penalized for not standing inside the chamber, but should be respected for being able to appear inside or outside the chamber, and my motivation should not be challenged on why I might be in one place versus the other. I do not think that is appropriate.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I too am sitting in my parliamentary office, and although I am in a different building, I too have had some connection problems. This is a very important speech that I have been trying to listen to. For many of us, it is a very personal speech, and I would really like to hear it, but the sound has been coming in and out, I am afraid.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We will ask the minister to resume, because the interpreters have not complained yet, so we have been able to get the interpretation done.

[An hon. member]

It is not the interpretation.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

That is usually the problem with connections, that we do not get the interpretation, but the interpretation is working in this case, so I will let the minister resume. I would remind members that we do not usually refer to where the members are, particularly now.

The minister will please proceed.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, I remind the House that I have taken all decisions based on the health and safety of my employees, following regulations and meeting the needs of my constituents, as well as Canadians across the country in my portfolio.

I will provide an overview of the Bill C-22. The bill would repeal MMPs for all drug offences, which were enacted by the previous Conservative government in 2012. It would also repeal MMPs for certain offences involving the use or possession of firearms and a tobacco-related offence. We know that MMPs do not deter these crimes or keep people and communities safe. In eliminating these MMPs, Bill C-22 would restore judicial discretion, reduce the time and money spent on needless litigation, and address systemic barriers to equality.

We have always held that serious criminals should be treated seriously. As such MMPs will remain for the most serious offences including murder, child sexual offences and firearm offences linked to organized crime.

These changes go hand in hand with the proposed measures in Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments with regard to firearms, to increase maximum penalties for certain firearms offences related to gun smuggling and trafficking.

This would allow judges to issue stricter sentences for the most serious gun crimes, including gang-related violence, while enabling a broader range of options for lower-risk and first-time offenders, including alternatives that could help prevent them from becoming hardened criminals behind bars. This is critical to helping keep our communities safe.

With Bill C-22 serious crimes would be sentenced seriously and proportionate to the gravity of the offence and degree of responsibility of the offender.

The second area of proposed reforms I would like to discuss focuses on realigning the conditional sentence regime with the purpose for which these sentences were originally intended, namely, to address the overreliance on incarceration for less serious non-violent crimes. A CSO is a sentence of incarceration of less than two years that may be served in the community under strict conditions. It is only available if a judge is satisfied that doing so would pose no risks to public safety.

Bill C-22 would repeal a number of restrictions brought in by the former Conservative government on the availability of CSOs. The additional restrictions have limited judges from imposing CSOs in appropriate cases. The current restrictions have resulted in more people being sent to jail and more charter challenges and have contributed to the over-incarceration of indigenous persons, in particular.

In July 2020, in the case of the Queen v. Sharma, the Ontario Court of Appeal struck down the provisions in the Criminal Code limiting the availability of CSOs for offences punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of 14 years or life, or 10 years if drugs were involved. The court noted that these limits on the availability of CSOs undermined the remedial purpose of the Gladue principle in the Criminal Code by limiting a judge's ability to impose fit sentences to take into account the circumstances of indigenous offenders, including the well-documented impacts of colonialism and residential schools.

Bill C-22 seeks to reform the CSO regime in a way that would allow courts to order sentences other than incarceration in appropriate cases that focus on restorative justice principles. We have heard a strong and positive response from the legal community to these proposed changes. These changes would have real, measurable results. Again, CSOs would only be available for those facing sentences of less than two years and where the judge is satisfied that there is no risk to public safety. They would not be available for more serious offences, including murder or attempted murder, torture, advocating genocide, and criminal organization and terrorism offences punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years or more.

I would now like to turn my attention to describing the third set of important legislative reforms proposed by Bill C-22, which support our commitment to public health-centred approaches to drugs and substance use.

Bill C-22 aligns with amendments proposed by Private Member's Bill C-236, an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, in terms of evidence-based diversion measures, with certain technical amendments. I would like to thank the member for Beaches—East York for his private member's bill and his leadership in this area. We agree that these changes to treat addiction as a health issue would improve the state of the criminal justice system in Canada, particularly as we examine better approaches to dealing with the opioid crisis, and believe that changes like these may very well help save lives.

Substance use is first and foremost a health issue. Bill C-22 would enact an evidence-based diversion framework in the CDSA with a set of guiding principles informed by Canada's drugs and substances strategy, as well as principles adopted by the United Nations and the World Health Organization. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, on February 19, released a statement in support of C-22's treatment of drug possession offences. It is clear that we must move toward more effective ways to address public safety concerns relating to substance use.

These reforms are also inspired by the successful approach used in the Youth Criminal Justice Act. They would require peace officers and Crown attorneys to consider alternatives to charging and prosecuting. That includes diverting individuals to a public health agency before proceeding with a charge, or before proceeding with a charge, once laid. It is worth noting that prosecutors and law enforcement work together in determining which charges to lay in a specific situation and, as such, extending this requirement to both would help ensure that appropriate discretion is exercised.

The reforms proposed would encourage the diversion of simple drug possession cases away from the criminal justice system and focus on the needs of the individual.

Another important benefit of these reforms is that individuals would not have the stigma and the legal costs associated with being charged with a criminal offence. Moreover, these reforms are consistent with the director of public prosecutions' August 2020 guideline that requires prosecutors to pursue diversion for simple drug possession cases.

These proposed amendments will support my 2021 supplementary mandate letter commitment to divert first-time, non-violent individuals charged with simple drug possession at an early stage.

These proposed legislative reforms will generate several long-term benefits to the criminal justice system, including overall cost reductions, and will lead to more effective responses leading to less recidivism. I am confident that Bill C-22 strikes the right balance. Indeed, it has been applauded as much-needed legislation. It responds to long-standing calls for reforms by the Quebec Bar and the Canadian Bar Association.

Our changes reflect several calls to action made by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, calls for justice by the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, and recent calls by the Parliamentary Black Caucus.

Moving forward, we will do more. We have committed to support the application of Gladue principles and Gladue report-writing in the criminal justice system. We have also committed to supporting community justice centre pilot projects across Canada, which will provide more culturally appropriate services to address root causes of crime. Finally, we have noted our support for the implementation of the impact of race and culture assessments, which will better inform sentencing decisions, as they will be based on an understanding of the systemic inequalities faced by racialized groups such as Black Canadians.

In advancing these reforms, I am conscious that some stakeholders and parliamentarians may believe that Bill C-22 does not go far enough or, for others, it goes too far.

Bill C-22 is an important step that advances evidence-based reforms, which will alleviate some of the negative trends plaguing our criminal justice system. It will ensure that sentencing judges are better able to consider the entire context, circumstances, and seriousness of an offence when they impose a sentence.

The time has come to break with the past, the so-called tough-on-crime policies of the previous government, whose only benefit has been to make politicians look tough. We can do a better job and we will.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Red Deer—Mountain View.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, I just want to refer the minister to a BC Civil Liberties Association report, which states:

Today, there are approximately 50 offences carrying a mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment in the Criminal Code, the vast majority of which came into force in 1995.

Mandatory minimums were the hallmark of former Liberal governments. What political party was governing Canada in 1995?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his apparent change to being critical of mandatory minimum penalties, which I can glean from the question.

Mandatory minimum penalties simply have not worked. We have focused in this bill on mandatory minimums that result in the over-incarceration of Black and indigenous Canadians, in particular, and that have served to clog up the criminal justice system. They are not helping anybody. They were simply fuelling the ideological tough-on-crime narrative, which has not proven to be true empirically, has not served our communities, has not made us safer and not helped victims.

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

Madam Speaker, the minister knows that my question is going to about why he has not gone a bit further. Why are we still talking about criminal penalties for the personal possession of small amounts of drugs when all health authorities recognize that we should treat addiction and drug use as a health problem, and not as a criminal problem? Why be so timid? Why do we not just move to eliminate those criminal penalties altogether?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his dedication to this issue. Like him, I feel that there is a serious question that needs to be studied here, particularly in light of the very serious opioid crisis in various parts of the country. I also understand and agree with the idea that we ought to treat health problems as health problems, and not as criminal problems.

What I was doing here, and I hope the hon. member will understand this, was attacking one part of that, the part that revolves around criminal sentencing, so I stayed within those parameters. This is not to preclude larger debates from happening in other areas, which I would welcome.

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

Madam Speaker, let me congratulate the Minister of Justice for bringing forward this bill. I know he has put a tremendous amount of work into it.

It is extremely important that we look for more diversion programs, more opportunities to decrease the number of people throughout our cities who are in jail for miscellaneous things and who have criminal records that will prevent them from getting viable work later on.

When we talk about diversion programs, I would be interested to hear from the minister some examples of where he thinks the diversion program could be better played out in the justice system.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, during the 2019 election, I met with leaders of the Black community in Toronto, at a meeting in Scarborough.

They were univocal in asking us to support the kinds of programming they did. Around the table, there were ministers, in the religious sense, other community workers and ex-convicts who were working in their communities. They were developing programs that worked with kids, after-school programs that kept kids out of gangs.

They said that they wanted me to get these kinds of programs supported so that we would not send kids to jail, because when we send them to jail, they just end up becoming hardened criminals.

In the fall economic statement, we have supported community justice pilot projects in cities like Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal, precisely to target these cultural communities and to give police officers and prosecutors alternatives to divert people from the criminal justice system.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. minister for introducing Bill C-22.

I used to work for a community organization focused on alternative justice. We worked on preventing crime among young people who sometimes had drug problems. We obviously quickly learned that criminalization was not a solution in some cases. What these people needed was more support. Public health plays a very important role in this issue.

However, would the minister agree that the federal government should be sending money to the provinces so that they can ensure that these struggling young people and young adults, who will not have a criminal record, will get the support they need from public health?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question.

I am working with my counterparts across Canada. The principles in this bill could obviously apply to other bills. I am prepared to work with my counterparts in Quebec and across Canada to find the best and fairest solutions.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, some of these so-called minor offences to which the minister refers are: robbery with a firearm; extortion with a firearm; weapons trafficking; importing or exporting, knowing it is an unauthorized firearm; and using a firearm in the commission of an offence. What these offences all have in common is that each and every one of them had a mandatory prison sentence, as it should, assigned to them before the Conservatives took government.

I appreciate that the hon. minister and I will not agree on a soft-on-crime approach, but I wish he would be upfront with the fact that these mandatory minimums are Liberal mandatory minimums. Would the minister at least admit that?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, reading between the lines, I am happy with the member's criticisms of mandatory minimums. That is quite a great deal of progress from someone who was an integral part of the justice hierarchy in the previous Conservative government.

I want to correct the record. We are not touching mandatory minimums where there is gang-related offences involved, where there is arms trafficking involved or where there are prohibited weapons involved.

The mandatory minimum with respect to robbery, for example, only applies to long guns. It is one particular subset of that offence. It is, again, something that is disproportionately touching Black and indigenous communities across Canada.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the minister has presented lowering sentences and increasing judicial discretion as a solution to systemic racism in the justice system. We acknowledge there are problems of systemic racism in many institutions, including in the justice system.

It is not obvious to me, though, how lowering sentences across the board addresses those problems. It does not seem to me that increasing discretion or lowering sentences across the board actually tackle the specific problem of systemic racism, unconscious bias and judges making decisions that reflect certain presumptions that may have been influenced by racist ideas, intentionally or not.

What does the minister have in mind that actually addresses directly the problem of systemic racism?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, the presumptions upon which the hon. member bases his question are completely false based on the evidence. If people are Black or indigenous, they are more likely to be stopped by the police. They are more likely to be charged with a crime that carries a minimum mandatory penalty.

The point of bringing back discretion for first-time offenders, offenders who do not pose a risk to society, is precisely to keep them out of the criminal justice system. Serious offences will be punished seriously. We are giving back discretion at the lower end of the spectrum so judges, for example, can take into account a Gladue report, which tells judges they should be accounting for very particular circumstances, such as residential school or history of intergenerational trauma.

This is precisely what we are doing. It is true to the common law, but it is also true to better justice policy and it has been a call from every major commission in Canada over the last number of years.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, what we have heard from the minister on a very important bill, Bill C-22, has certainly been educational so far. I think the minister and everyday Canadians probably have a very different idea of what is a serious offence and the types of offences whereby criminals should be held accountable.

I would like to ask for unanimous consent of the House to split my time with the member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-22.

When this bill was first introduced, I read the news release on it, heard the minister's comments and, like many Canadians, took the government at its word about what this bill would do. Unfortunately, when we actually saw the text of the bill, we saw that this was not about simple possession of drugs; that this was not about minor crimes, as the minister just remarked in his statement; and that it was not about minor offences.

I want to highlight the text of the bill and what it actually would do. I think most Canadians would be alarmed by the approach the government is taking.

First, I will talk about mandatory minimums and the elimination of mandatory prison time for what the government is saying are minor offences. What are these minor offences? They include robbery with a firearm; extortion with a firearm; weapons trafficking; importing or exporting knowing a firearm is unauthorized; discharging a firearm with intent; using a firearm in the commission of an offence; possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition; possession of a weapon obtained by the commission of an offence; and possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking. What do all those mandatory prison sentences have in common? They predate the previous Conservative government. Most of them are one-year minimums that were brought in by Liberal governments. We did not hear the Liberal minister mention that in his press release, and it would have been good of him to do so.

I think Canadians would be surprised that the bill in fact would do away with minimum sentences on all those offences, and that was certainly not made clear by the government. In fact, the government's messaging was primarily framed as turning a page on Conservative justice policy. There are two things that are worth raising on that.

I am proud to support strong sentences and prison time for individuals who conduct drive-by shootings, robbery with a firearm or crimes like weapons trafficking. This is impacting Canadians from coast to coast. Whether people live in an urban centre or a rural area, they deserve to be safe from crime. In fact, I think most Canadians would agree with that, which is why the Liberals will not talk about what offences they are actually repealing mandatory prison time for. We just heard the Minister of Justice speak. He did not list the firearms offences, like I just did, that would have their punishments lowered under the bill.

Second, the former Conservative government certainly did bring in some mandatory prison sentences for violent offences like the ones I just listed. It is worth noting, though, that if we trace the mandatory prison sentences back, we can trace many of them to 1995 and beyond, under former Liberal governments. In fact, we can even trace the mandatory prison sentence for using a firearm in the commission of an offence back to former Primer Minister Trudeau in the 1970s. Many of the mandatory minimums being maintained by the Liberal government, being kept in the Criminal Code were implemented and strengthened by a former Conservative government.

This is all to highlight the fact that this is largely the Liberals leaning heavily on warped communications to make reforms to the Criminal Code to weaken penalties for crimes that most Canadians would say deserve mandatory prison time.

Now I will touch on the mandatory prison time being eliminated under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The Liberals would have us believe this is just about simple possession of drugs. In fact, Bill C-22 tells us it is just the opposite.

Bill C-22 would eliminate mandatory prison time for trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking; importing and exporting or possession for the purpose of exporting; and production of a substance schedule I or II, for example heroin, cocaine, fentanyl and crystal meth. People would be forgiven if they were confused, because the federal government's news release does not mention that it will be eliminating mandatory prison time for drug traffickers. It does not mention that they will be eliminating mandatory prison time for those importing or exporting drugs. Nor does it mention that Bill C-22 would eliminate mandatory prison time for the production of drugs like heroin, cocaine, fentanyl and crystal meth.

I hypothesize that the government's news release does not mention any of this because it recognizes that Canadians would not support eliminating mandatory prison time for drug traffickers. To be clear, these are not people in simple possession of drugs. These are people who are preying each and every day on addicts, on people who need help. These are the individuals taking advantage of them in our communities. These are the people involved in criminal activities and are actively preying on those who struggle every day with addiction.

There is a component in the bill that codifies principles that police officers and prosecutors should follow when determining whether to lay charges, but the fact is that police officers already have the ability to use their discretion when determining to lay charges. Further, the director of public prosecutions previously issued a directive to prosecutors telling them to avoid prosecuting simple possession charges unless there are major public safety concerns. This change, in practice, will therefore have little impact.

The Conservatives believe that those struggling with addiction or mental health issues should get the help they need. Many Canadians struggling with addiction should have access to treatment rather than prison if their crime was non-violent. However, the bill before us would do absolutely nothing to address that.

I will now move on the to the conditional sentencing component of the bill.

Bill C-22 would make a number of offences eligible for conditional sentencing, which means a person would serve their sentence from the comfort of their own home. Again, the government's news release does not outline what those offences are. The minister referred to them as minor offences. Well, here are some examples of offences for which a conditional sentence would be available under Bill C-22: manslaughter, discharge of a firearm with intent, sexual assault with a firearm, robbery, breaking and entering a dwelling-house, breaking and entering a place other than a dwelling-house, assaulting a police officer causing bodily harm, sexual assault, abduction of a person under 14 and kidnapping. The government did not mention any of these specific offences in its news release. It completely brushed over this point and referred to them as minor offences. I think almost all parliamentarians and Canadians would agree that those are in fact serious offences and that people should not be serving a sentence from the comfort of their own home if they have just finished burning down one of ours.

The government has said that removing the section of the Criminal Code that prevents conditional sentences from being issued for the offences I just listed would allow for more effective rehabilitation and reintegration by enabling individuals to maintain employment or to continue caring for children or family members. Quite frankly, I do not think someone convicted of kidnapping, sexual assault, manslaughter or the many other offences I listed should be eligible for house arrest, and I think most Canadians agree on that point.

The Conservatives support reducing recidivism, but Bill C-22 is not the way to tackle it. In fact, my colleague, the member for Tobique—Mactaquac, has introduced Bill C-228, an act to establish a federal framework to reduce recidivism. This bill would set up a framework of measures to help reduce recidivism, reducing the number of people coming into continual contact with the criminal justice system. I hope members on all sides of the House will support it.

We have seen a trend from the government in its failure to respond or stand up for victims of crime. In November of last year, the federal ombudsman for victims of crime called on the government to proceed with the in-depth parliamentary review of the Canadian victims bill of rights, as required under the legislation, so that further means to protect victims of crime could be identified. This has yet to happen.

This is an opportunity to strengthen the act and ensure that supports are made available for victims. The federal ombudsman for victims of crime said that based on the data available to her, it appeared the objectives of the act established in 2015 have not been met. Her office released a series of recommendations in a progress report that should be reviewed more fully in the parliamentary review that the government should proceed with quickly to ensure that victims and their families receive the support they deserve.

A few days after the report from the federal ombudsman was released, a decision by the Quebec Court of Appeal struck down a section of the Criminal Code allowing for consecutive life sentences. This was the case of a man who murdered six people in a Quebec City mosque in 2017—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

My apologies, but we have to go to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Kings—Hants.

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

Madam Speaker, I had the chance to do a background review on my hon. colleague, and I see that he was a lawyer before his time in Parliament. I was too, and I know there are going to be different ideologies on this legislation through and through. When I look at it, I do not see how I, as a parliamentarian, should have the discretion to decide sentences.

The member talked about discretion a lot in his speech. As he is someone with a legal background, does he not believe that we should be giving judges and the people who can hear the facts and particular circumstances of a case the discretion to put sentencing in place, as opposed to allowing parliamentarians, without any context, to set mandatory minimum sentences?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, I agree that judges should have discretion when it comes to sentencing, but this is also the role of Parliament. We are the ones who decide, through the Criminal Code, what is a criminal act, and we set out the parameters for a minimum sentence or a maximum sentence. That is part of our job and it is not a partisan thing. Many of the minimums being eliminated by the Liberal government were introduced by previously Liberal governments. This is about ensuring that there is an appropriate sentence for someone who commits a very serious crime.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Fundy Royal for his speech. This is not about reducing sentences but tailoring them. This also does not mean that some offences are not necessarily serious.

When the member said that police officers can use their own discretion when determining whether to lay charges, sometimes the reality is that charges must be laid because the actions were serious, even though the external circumstances would justify a different penalty.

In the end, as the previous speaker stated, that is why this bill seeks to put power back into the hands of judges. Does the hon. member not believe that judges have adequate training?

If we simply needed people to look at a chart of minimum sentences and tick one off, could we simply do without judges and their many years of training?

Is the member questioning judges' training?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, the bill does not deal with minor and insignificant offences. It deals with what I would say are very serious offences, such as robbery with a firearm and extortion with a firearm. Parliament, in its wisdom in the past, has assigned to offences not only maximum sentences, which impact a judge's discretion, but also minimum sentences. This has been done with Parliament's wisdom. It is up to us and within our power to change that, but it has always been the case that Parliament sets out the parameters whereby judges sentence people.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's intervention was very interesting. I was very happy to hear him talk about support for those struggling with addictions and struggling with the possession of small amounts of drugs.

I am wondering whether he supports emergency exemptions for the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act concerning personal possession and supports the full decriminalization of possession of small amounts of drugs for personal use, potentially even going so far as to support safe supply. We have listened to health care providers, front-line service workers, police and public health officials, and we know this is the way to save the lives of people struggling with addictions. Is he supportive of those initiatives?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, I think a lot of us were quite surprised about this when we read the bill. This has nothing to do with the simple possession of drugs. In fact, it has everything to do with the people who are preying on addicts in our communities. For trafficking, possession for the purpose of trafficking, importing and exporting, and even the production of schedule I and schedule II drugs, minimum sentences are being removed. We are lessening the sentences of those who are preying on victims. That is moving in the exact wrong direction. I agree—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am speaking this afternoon to Bill C-22, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Liberals have advertised this bill as a response to the disproportionate number of Black, indigenous and other marginalized Canadians caught up in Canada's criminal justice system. They have advertised this bill as removing what they have characterized as unfair and disproportionate mandatory jail time for what they claim to be minor offences. The Liberals have repeatedly advertised in that regard that Bill C-22 eliminates mandatory jail time for simple possession. On its face, it all sounds pretty good. The only problem is that Bill C-22 is not as advertised by the Liberals.

The bill has very little to do with helping marginalized Canadians and persons who are struggling with drug addiction, as the Liberals have advertised. It has absolutely nothing to do with eliminating mandatory jail time for simple possession, because there is no mandatory jail time for simple possession. Rather, Bill C-22 is about the government advancing a radical, ideological agenda that is not evidence-based. It is based on putting the rights of criminals first. Through its false advertising, this cynical government in a cynical and dishonest way is seeking to change the channel from what the bill is really all about. Quite frankly, I believe the more Canadians learn about Bill C-22, the more alarmed the vast majority of Canadians will be.

It is true that this legislation does eliminate mandatory jail time, but it does not eliminate mandatory jail time for so-called minor offences. Rather, the bill removes mandatory jail time for some extremely serious offences, including serious firearms offences.

What sorts of firearms offences does this legislation eliminate mandatory jail time for? Those offences include robbery with a gun, extortion with a gun, discharging a firearm with the purpose of inflicting injury, weapons trafficking, using a gun in the commission of an offence and possession of a gun obtained in the commission of an offence. I could go on.

I say this to the government, through you, Madam Speaker: How does that benefit or help marginalized Canadians? The simple answer is that it does nothing in that regard. Instead, it helps give a free pass to dangerous criminals.

This is quite ironic because this is the government that talks a lot about getting tough on guns and gun crime. When the Liberals talk about getting tough on guns, what they really mean is getting tough on law-abiding Canadians who own guns. We see this in Bill C-21, which was introduced three days before the Liberals introduced this deeply flawed piece of legislation, which imposes onerous new restrictions on law-abiding firearms owners and threatens law-abiding firearms owners with jail time if they fail to comply.

There we have it, in terms of the Liberal approach. If someone happens to be a law-abiding firearms owner, the Liberals are coming after them and threatening them with jail, but if they happen to be a serious criminal who commits serious offences with guns, the Liberals are here to help them stay out of jail. Talk about a mismatched set of priorities on the part of the government. Talk about putting ideology ahead of common sense and public safety.

This legislation would not just eliminate mandatory jail times for serious firearms offences. This bill would also remove mandatory jail times for serious drug related offences, as my colleague, the member for Fundy Royal, pointed out. These include drug trafficking, exporting and importing drugs, and possession for the purpose of trafficking. I could go on.

That is very inconsistent with the false advertising of the government, which says this bill is about helping people struggling with addictions. In fact, what this bill is really about is helping those who prey on some of the most vulnerable Canadians, including Canadians who are struggling with addictions. It is simply a further example of the dishonest approach the government has taken with respect to selling this deeply flawed and ideological piece of legislation.

The difference in the approach of the previous Conservative government, compared with the approach of the current government to Canada's criminal justice system and holding dangerous criminals accountable, could not be more stark. The previous Conservative government worked tirelessly to strengthen Canada's criminal justice system by holding dangerous criminals accountable under the law.

Among the measures taken by the previous Conservative government was ending house arrest for some very serious offences. Bill C-22 would eviscerate the measures that were introduced by the previous Conservative government by allowing persons convicted of some very serious offences to serve their time in their homes, perhaps next to you, Madam Speaker, instead of behind bars where they belong.

Offences that could be served in the community if this legislation is passed include manslaughter, prison breach, criminal harassment, sexual assault, kidnapping, kidnapping a minor, motor vehicle theft, theft over $5,000 and arson for a fraudulent purpose. That is just scratching the surface.

Bill C-22 would put the rights of criminals ahead of victims, public safety and safe streets and communities. It is why we, on this side of the House, will vigorously oppose this legislation every step of the way.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, my father, who was a political commentator, once referred to a Conservative minister of justice as the “minister of crime and punishment”, and I am very proud to be speaking on behalf of a government that has a minister of justice.

The Conservatives have several times referenced the discretion of the police in the justice system, and it is clear that Conservatives trust the police more than judges. I will let them explain that.

Extreme crimes would still get extreme sentences. That is clear. This bill deals with mandatory minimum sentences, and is focused more on prevention than on punishment. The former governments' approaches, Liberal and Conservative, clearly have not worked. The situation is getting worse. It is getting more violent and there are more victims. The status quo is unacceptable.

Every time we talk about prevention, whether it is gun control or new investments in housing, child care, education, health care or recreation, Conservatives vote against prevention. There is no evidence, none, that mandatory minimum sentences prevent crime. There is none.

If there is no evidence mandatory minimum sentences prevent crime, what are Conservatives prepared to do to stop a crime before they respond to it with more punishment? Why are they more interested in building jails than building housing, saving people rather than saving—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I regret to interrupt the member to advise him that he is supposed to be wearing a tie during his interventions and he is not.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The member is quite right. I am sorry I did not notice that.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

My apologies.

We will give the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton the opportunity to respond.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would say respectfully to my colleague that I disagree with the premise of his question that mandatory jail times do not work. Mandatory jail times have always been part of Canada's criminal justice system. If the hon. member talks about prevention with respect to, for example, firearms offences, surely that hon. member would recognize that 80% of firearms offences in Canada occur as a result of guns smuggled into Canada. That is why I was very surprised that the hon. member, who represents a downtown Toronto riding that has issues with gun violence, would have voted against the hon. member for Markham—Unionville's bill—

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Point of order. Point of order. That is not an accurate representation of my vote. If you—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Would members respect the fact that I have to give them the opportunity to speak? If the member for Spadina—Fort York has a point of order, he needs to ask for it.

Does the member have a point of order?

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do have a point of order. If the member opposite would care to check the record and check the facts, he would see that I actually supported his colleague's motion. I spoke to it in the House and was thanked by many of the member's colleagues for standing on that principle, not because it is a preventative measure, but because I do not think guns should be coming into this country.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé for his question. He always asks questions that are relevant and often too tough for me to answer.

Earlier, I cited the example of the young couple accused of enticement of a minor. I do not remember the exact charges, but I thought the case was rather frightening. There are situations that are not criminal in nature. In this instance, we are not talking about someone who misled and manipulated a young girl without her consent and behind her parents' backs. We are talking about an open, normal, healthy relationship that was supported by the parents of the young couple, who wound up in court. The young man unfortunately had to be sentenced because of the minimum sentences. I think this is a terrible situation.

My colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé is right about drugs. We are talking about people who have a health problem, who are addicted to drugs. Instead of receiving treatment, they are sent to prison, where they may meet people convicted of drug trafficking or other, more serious crimes, and spend one month, one year, six months or 10 years with them. It does not matter how long—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Order. I need to give others a chance to ask questions.

The hon. member for Essex.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I find this kind of interesting. Bill C-21 potentially throws airsoft firearms owners and paintball gun owners in jail, while Bill C-22 literally allows criminals and gangs to run free, those same gangs that do drive-by shootings.

Bill C-22 eliminates mandatory prison time for those who commit armed robbery. Can the member confirm that he supports the elimination of mandatory prison time for someone found guilty of an armed robbery?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

We have already been asked why we would support Bill C-21, which would take certain firearms off the market.

I can understand why he would say that Bill C-21, at face value, appears to restrict or prohibit weapons that are harmless, or, at least, not harmful or the same type we want to restrict or prohibit.

We took the same approach with Bill C-21. We said that it needed to be studied in committee and amended. If my colleagues want perfect bills that can be passed as soon as they are introduced, I encourage them to immigrate to Quebec. Once we become a sovereign nation, we will have excellent pieces of legislation. The only thing we can do now is study the federal government's bills, and there is no question that they need amendments.

We have to study them in committee so that we can hear from experts and get people to reconsider poorly worded bills. My colleague is right; Bill C-21 must be improved.

I do not believe that people playing with toy guns need to be sent to prison. When I was a kid I played with guns and I did some things that my children and grandchildren may not be able to do today. I do not see how I, or anyone else, could have been sent to prison for such activities.

My colleague is right: Bill C-21 needs to be improved, and so does Bill C-22.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke will have five minutes to begin his speech and to resume the next time the bill comes to the floor.

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

Madam Speaker, I would be pleased to rise in the House today rather than just speak to a pinhole camera, as I always say, but let me say that New Democrats will be supporting Bill C-22 at second reading, because there are some good ideas in it. However, if we are going to be amending the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, we see Bill C-22 as a real missed opportunity. We have two very important crises in front of us as Canadians. One is the opioid crisis and the other is the over-incarceration of indigenous people, Black Canadians and Canadians living in poverty. We had a real chance to tackle both of those issues in this bill and, instead, the government has given us a very tepid response.

What we should see in this bill is a change to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to decriminalize the personal possession of small amounts of drugs for personal use, and we should also see a second provision that would automatically expunge previous criminal records for personal possession of drugs. If we had those two things in this bill, we could tackle the problem of addiction by moving it clearly to the health system rather than the criminal justice system, and we could tackle one of the main causes of over-incarceration of marginalized people in Canada.

The policies that New Democrats are talking about are more effective, more just and even cheaper. I want to talk about mandatory minimums. The one good idea in the bill is to eliminate mandatory minimums for drug offences. New Democrats have certainly long argued for this. Conservatives, in their speeches, have been saying that the bill would eliminate mandatory minimums created by the Liberals, which is true and I am for that, and it creates a lot more mandatory minimums created by Conservatives, and I am also in favour of that.

Mandatory minimums do not do a thing to prevent or deter crime or make Canadians safer. All that mandatory minimums do is to guarantee that some people who should not be in prison at all, who would be better off in rehabilitation or diversion programs, are incarcerated. Mandatory minimums end up costing the public money, and having spent 20 years as a criminal justice instructor before coming here, I can say that those who go to prison actually end up far more likely to reoffend than those who do not. Therefore, rehabilitation and diversion programs are a great success and mandatory minimums stand in the way of those programs.

When it comes to overrepresentation, there is no doubt that when we look at the statistics of how many indigenous people are in the correctional system, though they are only 4.9% of the population, they make up over 30% of the people incarcerated in Canada, as the criminal investigator, Ivan Zinger, reported. If we look at Black Canadians, in the last census though they were about 3.5% of Canadians, they are more than double that percentage of the prison population. Many people who live in poverty end up embroiled in the criminal justice system because of very minor drug offences. Again, if we are looking at what the real solution is to both of these problems, it is decriminalization of the personal possession of small amounts of drugs.

Let us take the example of Portugal, which decriminalized personal possession in 2001. We see some very positive results as a result of that legislative action. There have been steep declines in overdose deaths in Portugal, in drug usage, in new cases of HIV and hepatitis C infections and in drug-related crime. Overdose deaths declined from over 400 per year to less than 40. Drug usage declined among all age groups, but it was an especially large decline in the 15-year-old to 24-year-old age group. New HIV infections declined by 90%. Portugal previously had the highest rate of drug-related HIV cases, and decriminalization led to that very steep decrease. It also led to a decrease in incarceration, by about 75% for drug offences.

This measure had lots of related impacts. First of all, the police reported that they had much more time to devote to serious drug trafficking cases when they were not messing with personal possession cases, and it helped eliminate many long delays in the Portuguese criminal justice system by taking many of these minor cases out of the court system.

Did it solve all problems related to addiction and drug use? No, of course it did not. Observers have pointed to the need that if we decriminalize personal possession, we need strong prevention and treatment programs to go along side that. We need things like supervised injection sites, needle exchanges, provisions for the safe supply of drugs, better access to anti-overdose medications and improved access, obviously, to drug prevention and treatment programs.

Certainly the opioid crisis makes more dramatic action than this bill offers necessary. On the south island, in 2019, there were 65 overdose deaths. In 2020, during the current pandemic crisis, there 120 deaths. In British Columbia as a whole in the period of COVID, the number of toxic-drug deaths doubled in that time period.

Is decriminalization of the possession of small amounts of drugs for personal use still an idea outside the mainstream? Certainly I felt like an outlier when I first began talking about this as a city councillor in 2008, though, of course, Portugal was my example then as it is now. However, now we can add to the list of supporters of decriminalization of personal possession, including big city mayors, from Kennedy Stewart in Vancouver to Valérie Plante in Montreal; the Elizabeth Fry Society; the John Howard Society; virtually every criminal justice researcher; the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police; the World Health Organization; the Global Commission on Drug Policy; and various UN agencies.

While the New Democrats are offering support for this timid bill, it does do one good thing in eliminating those mandatory minimum sentences for drug offences. However, what we are offering is also criticism for the failure to take on the bigger questions that lie behind our failure to confront the opioid crisis, the over-incarceration of indigenous people, Black Canadians and Canadians living in poverty.

The New Democrats will continue to fight for more effective, comprehensive and cheaper measures to get these two jobs done.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 6:42 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 24 consideration of the motion that Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my good friend, the member for Beaches—East York.

I am speaking to members from the traditional lands of the Mississaugas of the Credit in Scarborough—Rouge Park. I want to, first and foremost, thank the Minister of Justice and his team for their hard work in bringing this bill together. I will be speaking in support of Bill C-22. There are three basic elements to it. First, it repeals mandatory minimum penalties of imprisonment for 14 such offences. Second, it allows for conditional sentence orders to be expanded and, third, it requires police and prosecutors to consider all other measures for simple possession of drugs, such as diversion and addiction treatment programs for those who may be charged.

I have worked extensively within the criminal justice system as a youth worker. I used to run a youth organization here in Scarborough called the Canadian Tamil Youth Development Centre. During my tenure there, I met with dozens of young people who had been charged both criminally and under the YCJA. My experience led me to believe that the criminal justice system has a profound impact, particularly on racialized youth, and in the case of Scarborough, particularly Black youth.

The experience goes beyond my work at the Canadian Tamil Youth Development Centre. It goes into my work as a lawyer when I started practising, as well as into when we developed the national anti-racism strategy in 2019. As I went across the country, community after community spoke to the disproportionate impact of the criminal justice system on young people, particularly Black, indigenous and racialized youth. I believe Bill C-22 addresses, in part, some of the concerns that stem from the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences, particularly since 2006 when it was brought forward by the previous Conservative government.

My experience with young people leads me to believe that they are often caught in a moment when they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. They may have been with the wrong set of friends or they may have just acted stupidly. This gets them into the criminal justice system. It is an on-ramp that eventually leads to greater charges, in part because they are also being surveilled by several police services.

I want to highlight the recent case of someone I know quite well now. His name is Rohan George. He was admitted to the bar of the Law Society of Ontario just last year. He served eight years for manslaughter. He talks about his life experiences as a young person who went to St. Mother Teresa school in my riding of Scarborough—Rouge Park.

It started when he was about 14 with a stolen bottle of alcohol and a failure to attend court. This eventually escalated into something much more serious. This speaks to the failure of the criminal justice system to ensure that there are adequate supports and off-ramps for these young people. This young man served his time. He served eight years, went to law school and did thousands of hours of community service. I know him because he was working at an organization called the South Asian Autism Awareness Centre. I never knew that he had a criminal conviction and he was finishing his time.

I want to quote a line from the Law Society panel. It said, “The concept of rehabilitation is based on the capacity in human nature for someone to recognize their mistakes, to make amends, to correct the course of their lives, and to become productive and positive members of their community.” I believe that young people, particularly those from racialized communities who have been charged, are often not given the support that they need to get out of the criminal justice system.

As a member of Parliament, I have seen many cases that have come to our office where there may have been criminality that has escalated to removal from Canada because of immigration status. I believe the supports were not there when young people were around and getting into trouble for them to get off on these off-ramps.

The work I did, particularly with young Tamil men in Scarborough, has proven to me the need for community intervention and investments into the community. At that time, the work we did stemmed from the national crime prevention strategy funding of $50,000. We were able to help hundreds of young people avoid the criminal justice system. Those who did enter into it were supported to get out, often through education.

Since being an MP, I had the chance to visit institutions such as Millhaven and Beaver Creek. One does not have to spend too much time there before one realizes there is a gross misrepresentation within these institutions. It is partly because when one goes in, the officers, those who help people enter the facility, are primarily white, but once one goes into the facility it is racialized Black and indigenous people who occupy the cells. Once one talks to people, and I think as MPs we have the prerogative to speak to these individuals, one soon finds out there is an incredible story, which is the failure of the system, when one digs deeper into each and every one of those cases.

In 2019, I had the opportunity to welcome the Minister of Justice to Scarborough—Rouge Park. There are many organizations in Scarborough as well as around the GTA that do a great amount of work supporting youth. I want to recognize their work. Fernie Youth Services is an organization that provides an off-ramp right here in Scarborough—Rouge Park, as well as the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers, which has been really vocal in its opposition to the impacts of mandatory minimum sentences, particularly on Black youth. TAIBU Community Health Centre, the Zero Gun Violence Movement, the Urban Rez Solutions, Urban Alliance on Race Relations are some of the organizations that were able to meet with the Minister of Justice and outline the disproportionate effects mandatory minimums and other measures have on young people within our community.

The numbers speak for themselves and I want to give members some highlights.

Between 2007 and 2008, 39% of all Black offenders and 20% of all indigenous offenders were admitted into federal custody for MMP offences. That is an astonishing number. When we look at the proportion of indigenous offenders admitted with an offence punishable by an MMP, it has increased from 14% in 2007-08 to 26%. It has essentially doubled in the decade from 2007 to 2017. Of the offenders convicted of a Controlled Drugs and Substances Act section 6 offence, 42% were Black. The proportion of Black offenders increased from 33% in 2007-08 to 43% in 2016-17.

In 1999-2000, indigenous people represented 2% of the Canadian adult population, but accounted for 17% of admissions to provincial and federal sentenced custody. In 2020, despite this population growing to 5% of the overall adult population, 30% of male inmates and 42% of female inmates were indigenous.

The numbers are quite clear and show that there is a need for this to be addressed. This is systemic racism that needs to be addressed. I believe—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately the hon. member's time is up.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's speech, but I am going to call the Liberals out on Bill C-22.

There are absolutely some helpful measures, and I appreciate that we are tackling some important reforms to the justice system, but let me be very clear, a declaration of principles is not a substitute for decriminalization. Warnings and referrals are not a substitute for decriminalization. The problem with giving police officers this kind of power is that their discretion varies, depending on what province and what city they are in.

Could the hon. member tell us why, despite all of the evidence from so many organizations, including the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Liberals are not being bold with this reform to our justice system and getting rid of section 4 in our Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, making it fully decriminalized?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I believe these are very important measures to address issues of systemic racism.

When I was going across the country to develop the national end to racism strategy, it was evident across the board that mandatory minimum sentences, in particular, had a disproportionate effect on indigenous and Black communities. I believe this is an important step in that direction.

Obviously there is more to do. There is more to do on, overall, addressing systemic racism, but in this particular case, I think this is a very important step that does take us in the right direction.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his work at the community level to support youth and recidivism rates.

I do have some concerns about this bill, however. My understanding is that it eliminates prison time if somebody robs someone with a gun or fires a gun at someone with the intent to harm them. Further, it eliminates mandatory minimums if a criminal sexually assaults someone or kidnaps someone, and it allows them to serve that time on house arrest.

I am very unsettled and think this would make communities very unsafe. It also does not adequately ensure punishment for someone who robs someone with a gun or intends to hurt them with a gun.

I would appreciate it if the member could comment on that.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member's interpretation of this bill is incorrect.

There are 14 mandatory minimum sentences where the mandatory component would be taken out. It would still leave discretion with our highly qualified judges to make the determination. In terms of sexual offences, they are not included in this bill. As well, any serious offences that are highlighted would continue to have mandatory minimums.

The member's comments on this measure are incorrect. I would invite her to review the changes to the mandatory minimum provisions as outlined in the bill.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am concerned.

I have experience working with community organizations that focus on delinquency prevention. My concern is this: What ever happened to a change that would target basic prevention needs to avoid minimum sentencing?

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that. When will there be a clear commitment to education, monitoring and prevention for these crimes that lend themselves to changing the bill?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, the changes to the particular provisions of the criminal justice system are just one aspect of a broader set of measures that our government has introduced over the years, including the Canada child benefit. This has directly taken over 300,000 children out of poverty, which in my opinion is one of the major factors in reducing overall crime. In fact, the social determinants of health have impacted many communities, particularly the racialized communities.

I believe the measures taken by the government are an important step in addressing the systemic issues that my friend opposite has highlighted.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am in support of Bill C-22. Bill C-22, for those interested in the subject, comes in three parts. It would address mandatory minimum sentences in a serious way; it would restore judicial discretion as it relates to conditional sentencing and an emphasis on restorative justice; and the third piece is an emphasis on treating drug use as a health issue, and I will have more to say about that in a bit.

I want to start by focusing on mandatory minimum sentences with a simple premise that is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence, which is that mandatory minimum sentences do not work. They are ineffective; they do not deter crime. I am the member of Parliament for Beaches—East York, and we were deeply impacted by the Danforth shooting a few years ago. If mandatory minimum sentences could prevent another Danforth shooting from happening, I would support them, but they would not, and instead they disproportionately and negatively impact racialized Canadians. We see the numbers. We see, of Black Canadians, who represent 3% of the population, 9% are imprisoned. We see, of indigenous people, who represent 5% of the population, 30% are imprisoned. There are obviously instances where crimes are so abhorrent that retribution demands a lifetime in prison, and that obviously accords with our sense of justice, but we have seen cases before our courts, and there are obviously any number of hypotheticals that lawyers will devise, where mandatory minimum sentences do not fit the crime and judicial discretion is important. We have seen courts render these mandatory minimums unconstitutional because of their unfairness. They are not only ineffective, but unfair.

It is the same with conditional sentencing, that notion of effectiveness but also fairness. Punishments and remedies need to take into account context. There are reasons of fairness, and I mentioned reasons of fairness as it relates to racial justice, but also I have already heard a question from a Conservative colleague emphasizing public safety, so let us talk about public safety. Unless offenders are sentenced to life or something close to it, they will, as a simple fact, be released into our community. If we do not focus on restorative justice, rehabilitation and reintegration, we put our communities at greater risk. The evidence is there. It is as simple as that. If we care about public safety first and foremost, we ought to care about restorative justice.

I want to move to, for the remainder of my comments, the third part of Bill C-22, which is the reform, in a more sensible way, of our drug policy laws. This is roundly accepted by anyone who has studied the issue, but the so-called “war on drugs” is an abject failure. I will read from the Global Commission on Drug Policy. They write, “the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that repressive strategies will not solve the drug problem, and that the war on drugs has not, and cannot, be won.” The long-term answer is regulation, that all drugs should be, in many cases, strictly regulated according to their respective harms. Caffeine is different from morphine and they should be regulated, of course, differently. Again, this is the view of the Global Commission on Drug Policy, a commission made up of experts and former world leaders who have been deeply impacted by the failings of the war on drugs. They write:

Regulation and management of risky products and behaviors is a key function of government authorities across the world. It is the norm in almost all areas of policy and law – except drug policy. ... In the field of public health, when compared with policy responses to other risky behaviors – such as dangerous sports, unhealthy diets or unsafe sex – it is punitive drug prohibitions that are the “radical” policy response, not regulation. Drugs should be regulated not because they are safe, but precisely because they are risky.

We are not going to get there tomorrow, so on the road to that goal, let us first take stock of where we are and where we will go from here, realistically. In taking stock, we can look over the last five or six years. We have as a government regulated cannabis, a real model for the world. We have expanded harm reduction options, including safe consumption sites across this country to save lives. We are in the midst of an opioid crisis, and we know that the benefits of safe consumption sites have been proven and that they save lives. We have also increased money for treatment options for the provinces.

We have implemented safer supply pilot initiatives, including here in the east end. South Riverdale just received funding to renew its safe supply pilot for another two years. Again, this will save lives.

We have established new guidelines for prosecutors in relation to the simple possession of drugs and the prosecution of simple possession of drugs. In practice, for those interested in the numbers, from 2014 to 2018 we saw drug possession prosecutions cut in half, from 13,678 to 6,374. Now, we unquestionably need to build on that progress, and that brings me to the third part of Bill C-22, which is nearly a cut-and-paste of a private member's bill I introduced in February of last year.

To go even further back to the fall of 2019, in the midst of an election I was at Hope United Church here in the east end of Toronto and I was asked this question: If you had the opportunity to introduce a private member's bill, what is the first private member's bill would I introduce? I very quickly said that I had had a bill in the last Parliament to reform our drug policy laws and to treat drug use as a health issue, and I would revisit that issue. Early in 2020, I introduced two bills in this Parliament to that end, and I never expected that one of those bills would be picked up so quickly as a government bill in an almost identical fashion.

Now, the bill is not perfect, and I said in the course of my speech on my private member's bill that I would like to see full decriminalization. I do not think that there should be any penalty. There should be no intervention other than a positive, voluntary health intervention for people who use drugs. These are the people we want to help, not the people we want to punish. However, I also recognize the reality of the ability to move a private member's bill forward, and I want to make difference in the law.

The elements in Bill C-22 as they relate to drug policy are not perfect either, but they unquestionably will make a significant difference. The bill would make it virtually impossible for a prosecution of simple possession to proceed successfully. It would not give discretion to police, as they have discretion already, and it would not give discretion to prosecutors, as they have discretion already, but it would significantly fetter their discretion in accordance with evidence-based principles, which are simply worth reading from the bill. These principles are:

(a) problematic substance use should be addressed primarily as a health and social issue;

(b) interventions should be founded on evidence-based best practices and should aim to protect the health, dignity and human rights of individuals who use drugs and to reduce harm to those individuals, their families and their communities;

(c) criminal sanctions imposed in respect of the possession of drugs for personal use can increase the stigma associated with drug use and are not consistent with established public health evidence;

(d) interventions should address the root causes of problematic substance use...; and

(e) judicial resources are more appropriately used in relation to offences that pose a risk to public safety.

Now, there are real challenges to police and prosecutorial discretion, but the proposed system, if implemented well, is not so far away from the Portugal model that we hear many advocates of decriminalization call for. In this model, police remain first responders in many cases, and dissuasion panels have significant discretion to mete out different remedies, including some that are quite punitive.

I have spoken with Bryan Larkin, chief of police for the Waterloo area, and he has helped to lead efforts. I want to credit the chiefs of police for really pushing for decriminalization and a more sensible drug policy. I can tell members that with prosecutors and chiefs of police on board, we now unquestionably need resources from the government to expand treatment options and health services for the provinces.

There is a real opportunity with Bill C-22 to make a meaningful difference and to effectively end the war on drugs. My preference would be to simply delete section 4 of the CDSA, which is the preference of the Global Commission on Drug Policy as well.

It is important to remember that of the 250 million people around the world who use drugs, 10% are problematic cases. Therefore, the idea of throwing the book at people and that people who use drugs ought to be criminalized is significantly divorced from the evidence. We need to replace the criminalization and punishment of people who use drugs with the offer of health and treatment services.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's candour regarding his desire for full decriminalization. It is vital and important. However, he speaks about the fact that he wants full decriminalization and that this bill would fail to achieve that.

I would ask him again why the government does not support full decriminalization for the possession of small amounts of drugs for personal use and the automatic expungement of previous criminal records for personal use possession.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have called for drug decriminalization since I was elected. I remember the then leader of the Conservative Party getting up in question period and saying that the member for Beaches—East York wants to do this and how dare he. He then asked the Prime Minister what he thought of it. I wondered if I had just indirectly asked the Prime Minister a question in the House of Commons around drug policy.

The answer to the member's question is politics. I am glad the member is calling for full decriminalization and treating drug use as a health issue. I remember when the leader of the NDP called for this in his leadership bid, and I have not heard him speak about this in a significant way since. I hope all leaders, whether they are individual members of Parliament or leaders of our parties, speak up, and speak up loudly, to change the narrative and educate Canadians, because that is the way we will move this forward.

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I will ask a question around prosecutorial and police discretion because I still have concerns about the lack of understanding that still exists in Canada.

I am wondering what other additional measures the member would like to see. I am thinking about Bill C-3, which made it mandatory for judges to have training around sexual assault. What about trauma-informed care? What about information around residential school experiences, or about Canadians who continue to be oppressed in our country? Are there additional measures that the member would like to see in this bill?

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not know that the measures need to be in this bill. It becomes about the implementation of the bill. I mentioned the need to implement it well, and we are lucky insofar as we have a situation right now where the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police recognizes that the status quo is ineffective and we need to reform our drug laws. Prosecutors and judges recognize this as well.

We are in a good place to move this forward and implement it well, but it does come down to resources, and I would say resources are twofold. One relates to health care and ensuring that, if there are referrals to health care providers, there are resources in the health care system so those treatment options exist. The second relates to training resources for police officers.

To the member's point, I do not think they need to be in the bill per se, but as we implement the bill, they absolutely need to be there. It is great for the chiefs of police to believe in decriminalization, but we need police officers on the ground to have training as well, and that will require resources. If we want to implement this well, the government will need to step up with financial resources to make it happen.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague and I do not always agree on things, clearly not on his desire for decriminalization, even though I very much support harm reduction in a variety of ways.

Since we have gone ahead with the legalization of marijuana, and we have certainly helped a tremendous number of young people avoid incarceration, what has he seen during this period as to the implications, negative or positive, of the legalization of marijuana?

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think of the legalization of cannabis in three ways. One is tackling organized crime and undercutting the profits of organized crime. It is not perfect yet, but as the system continues to develop, we will get there, just as we got there with alcohol. Two is that, as The Global Commission on Drug Policy makes clear, a legalized and strictly regulated framework can also reduce access for young people. We need greater education resources in this area, but this can do significant work as well. Three is treating responsible adults as responsible adults. That is what the framework does as well, and I would include myself in that category.

Not all of the policies as they relate to cannabis translate to other drugs. There are some that carry much more serious potential risks, but we need to learn the lessons and to be a world leader on this, not only in enacting real progressive policies domestically, but also in taking that message to the world stage to reform the narcotics control regime internationally.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will split my time with the member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

Conservatives are the party of law and order that ardently stands with victims of crime and their loved ones, and that applies common sense and outcomes-based principles to protect innocent Canadians from violent criminals who would harm others. Conservatives also take a practical approach and acknowledge that, of course, many offenders will be released back into society. There is a real need to prepare those offenders for release so they do not fall back into a life of crime, as seen in the good work of the member for Tobique—Mactaquac in his Bill C-228, which aims to set a federal framework to reduce recidivism.

However, Canadians also do not want the justice system to be a constantly revolving door. Common sense must prevail for the common good. Canadians, victims of crime and their families deserve to live freely without fear in Canadian society. When violent criminals seek to take that away or revictimize them, the government has a role in ensuring the laws and systems in place are designed to prevent it. The only thing worse than a government that fails in this duty is a government that actually promotes conditions that will ultimately lead to, or frankly guarantee, that violent criminals will strike again.

Bill C-22 gives great consideration to the relief of criminals and offenders, but it is missing any substantive policy or action to care for, protect, or prevent victims of violent crime in Canada. In fact, Bill C-22 would reduce the penalties for many violent crimes, some of which disproportionately affect the most vulnerable in Canada.

The first thing Bill C-22 does is build on the Liberals' “guns for gangs only” bill, Bill C-21, which targets law-abiding licensed firearms owners, retailers and even hobbyists who play airsoft and paintball. What is missing from Bill C-21 is a strategy to deal with the root cause of shooting deaths in Canada cities, criminal gangs with illegally smuggled guns.

In fact, Bill C-21 does nothing to protect public safety or victims from violent gun crime and criminal gangs. It lays a heavy hand on law-abiding Canadians who already follow the rules, but takes a hands-off approach to the very criminals and gangs who should obviously be the targets of public safety policy.

Bill C-22 takes the hands-off approach even further. It reduces jail time for violent firearms offences and will not stop the flow of illegal firearms into criminal gangs in Canada. In Bill C-22, the Liberals are telling Canadians these offences are no big deal by reducing penalties for: weapons trafficking, possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking, importing or exporting a firearm knowing it is unauthorized, possession of a firearm knowing its possession is unauthorized, possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition, possession of a weapon obtained by commission of an offence using firearms in the commission of offences, robbery with a firearm and extortion with a firearm. We should all think about how each of these offences ties into actual violent crime and deaths in Canada.

That is not all. Bill C-22 would also reduce penalties for discharging firearms where it is unsafe to do so, say, for example, in the streets of Toronto, and for discharging firearms with intent, such as in a drive-by shooting, like the one in Montreal two months ago that tragically and horribly killed 15-year-old Meriem Boundaoui.

In fact, Montreal police inspector David Bertrand says his city had a 10% rise in gun crimes between 2019 and 2020, despite the Liberal firearm ban at the time. He says that this is due to the “trivialization” of gun use by criminals and that criminals are “using more guns when committing infractions”.

Bill C-22 plays right into the wrong hands. If the Liberals listened to experts, they would know not to trivialize crimes for which consequences need to be strengthened in order to keep Canadians safe from criminals with guns.

It seems Conservatives are the only ones listening to experts on gun crimes, but we cannot take all the credit for tough sentences for these crimes. Most of the above examples are long-standing and were introduced under previous Liberal governments, so sentences for using firearms in the commission—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry, but I have a point of order.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This particular piece of legislation, Bill C-22, is with respect to the Criminal Code as it relates to controlled substances. The member has spent her entire speech talking about gun control.

I am not trying to be obstructionist. I really think she might be speaking to the wrong bill. The content is certainly not relevant—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I appreciate the hon. member raising a point of order. However, as I am sure he is well aware, there is some flexibility within debate on specific bills. I do want to remind the member that she needs to keep her speech relevant to the subject matter at hand, which is Bill C-22.

I would ask the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands to ensure that he stops his debate in the House while I have the floor or when anybody else has the floor.

The hon. member for Lakeland.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-22 would reduce penalties for all those crimes with firearms, except the member gave me a perfect segue. With Bill C-22, the Liberals would also soften consequences for other violent crimes, like prison breaches, criminal harassment, motor vehicle theft, theft over $5,000, breaking and entering a place other than a dwelling house, being unlawfully in a dwelling house, arson for a fraudulent purpose, causing bodily harm by criminal negligence, assault causing bodily harm or with a weapon, assaulting a peace officer causing bodily harm or with a weapon.

To summarize, under Bill C-22, someone could break out of prison, steal a car to escape, break into several businesses, steal massive amounts of goods and cash, break into a home, assault the occupants with a weapon and then attack a police officer with a weapon. Apparently, according to the Liberal government, that is all worthy of a slap on the wrist and definitely no baseline consequence set by elected representatives.

In Canada, during the first six months of last year, there were 17,602 opioid deaths. That is 24 people per day, and a 54% increase over the same period of the previous year. Opioid deaths jumped nearly 60% last year in Ontario. In Alberta, 2020 was the deadliest year on record for overdoses.

Dr. Jennifer Jackson, an associate professor at the U of C's nursing program, says, “From the data we have available, more people are dying in Alberta from opioids than they are from COVID.”

As the opioid and overdose crisis grows, Canadians will be concerned to know that Bill C-22 would reduce consequences for drug trafficking; possession for the purpose of trafficking; importing, exporting or producing hard drugs such as heroin, cocaine and crystal meth, with increasingly deadly fentanyl.

The Liberals talk about how this would help those suffering with addiction, but the reality is that the police already have the tools and discretion to take alternative approaches with addicts other than only criminal charges and there are no mandatory minimum sentences for simple possession.

The truth is that the Liberals are not helping the vulnerable or acting with compassion in this measure in Bill C-22. Instead, they are enabling and enlightening the consequences for the very criminals who prey on people struggling with addictions during an unprecedented national overdose crisis.

One of the most galling aspects of Bill C-22 would be creating situations for offenders to revictimize by allowing those who commit violent crimes against women to return home instead of facing jail time. The sentences for these heinous criminal acts could be completed in the very places they occurred, next to the very people they victimized.

Incredibly, in Bill C-22, the Liberals aim to allow house arrests for kidnapping, abduction of a person under 14, sexual assault and human trafficking. The Liberal Bill C-22 says that criminals who kidnap, rape and enslave or trade human beings for sex should be at home in their own beds in our neighbourhoods instead of behind bars. It has not even been two full months since this House designated February 22 as National Human Trafficking Day.

StatsCan says that about 4.7 million Canadian women, 30% of all women in Canada, 15 years of age and older, have been victims of sexual assault at least once and 55% of women who identify as being in an indigenous group have experienced violence since the age of 15. The justice department says that in 86% of sexual assaults, the victim knows the accused; 41% were assaulted by an acquaintance; 28% by a family member; 10% by a friend; and 20% were victimized by a stranger. It is unjust and unconscionable that the government would enable convicted abusers to be sent to the places where they are most likely to have easy access to 86% of their victims, and even living under the same roof.

Human trafficking in Canada must end. There is not a single MP who disagrees. It is also true that human trafficking victims should not be at risk of being exposed to further heinous acts by the action of the government. Human trafficking victims and witnesses are often reluctant to come forward due to feelings of shame and mistrust of authorities. Certainly, Bill C-22 would do nothing to instill confidence in the system for victims or their loved ones.

StatsCan says that 1,400 human trafficking victims were reported by Canadian police over a 10-year period. Half involved other offences related to sexual services, physical assaults, sexual assaults or other sexual offences where Bill C-22 would reduce penalties. It is a fact that 97% of human trafficking victims are women and girls, half between the ages of 18 and 24, a third of them minors below the age of 18.

Several hundred kids in Canada are victims of this unimaginable evil and 92% of the victims know their abusers. Therefore, where do children go to escape when their abusers are put right back in the same place they found them? Violent crime victims already do not necessarily get notified when their abusers re-enter neighbourhoods. Bill C-22 would make it incumbent on the victims to uproot their lives to protect their personal safety. It says to victims that through some fault of their own, the burden now rests with them. One of the hallmarks of abusers is a shifting of responsibility and blame to victims, something that Bill C-22 does repeatedly.

Twice this year on February 18 and March 19, in written statements, the public safety minister said:

We are working together to build a safer and more resilient Canada, where all people are protected from human trafficking and its harms.

His department says that there were over 107,000 victims of police reported intimate partner violence in Canada in 2019; 80% were women.

How can the minister say that he is protecting Canadians from human trafficking and days later bring in a bill that would reduce the penalties for it and many of the other crimes abusers inflict on their victims? It is heartbreaking and it is infuriating.

On International Women's Day, the Prime Minister talked about reaffirming gender equality so all women and girls could contribute to their full potential and be in a better, safe and more inclusive world. However, Kelly Franklin, the founder of Ontario-based Courage for Freedom says that predators are hiding in plain sight and that victims are younger and younger. She says that every 30 seconds another person becomes a victim of human trafficking.

The lives of women and girls are being stolen away more and more, but the Liberal plan is to go softer and easier on criminals that specifically target them.

Let us all vote against Bill C-22, because it is the right thing to do.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's speech touched mostly on gun control. I would argue that taking assault rifles off our streets will absolutely help to reduce gun violence.

However, on the subject of Bill C-22, it is important to note that the Conservatives put forward legislation for mandatory minimums and we did not see a reduction in the amount of violence in Canada.

By eliminating mandatory minimums, this bill proposes to put the power in the hands of our judicial system and our judges to determine the best sentence possible in the circumstances. We know that mandatory minimums disproportionately affect indigenous and Black offenders, and they do not work.

What is the member's position on mandatory minimums?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Once again, we see the member without a headset. We all know that translation in the House of Commons is very tough. Clearly, the member does not have a headset today. How do you allow a question without a headset?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I do apologize. I did not notice that the member did not have her headset on. I will double-checked to ensure the interpreters did hear. There was no problem for the them.

I want to thank the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood for raising that point of order. I want to remind all members to ensure they have their headsets on before they speak.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Far be it for me to challenge the Chair, but the question is not whether the interpreters heard it. We have been told in our caucuses that there is a health and safety risk to the interpreters because of the lack of the use of headsets. That is the question. It is not whether the interpreters heard it and can pass on the question; it is that there has to be respect for the interpreters and their protection because they are doing this day in and day out.

I would ask the Chair to consider reminding members that it is not just that they should but they have to wear their headsets. If they are not, they should not be putting questions.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I appreciate the additional information the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay has brought forward. I certainly am very aware of the challenges this brings for the interpreters.

The reason I asked whether the interpretation had been heard was that I would have asked the hon. member to repeat her question, with the mike on, to ensure the question was heard.

Again, I do want to remind the member, and I will do my best to recognize whether members have their headsets on before questions are asked. I know I looked at it for the member giving her speech, because it was difficult to see if she had it on.

I will go to the hon. member for Lakeland for a response.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure what legislation the members who are raising this issue are reading. Frankly, I do not know if they are actually examining the fact that Bill C-22 would reduce mandatory prison times, eliminate mandatory prison times for these firearms offences, robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, importing or exporting knowing it is unauthorized, discharging a firearm with intent, using a firearm in commission of offences, possession of firearms knowing its possession is unauthorized, possession of a prohibited restricted firearms with ammunition, possession of a weapon obtained by commission of offence, possession for purpose of weapons trafficking, discharging a firearm with recklessness. Members who do not recognize that these are in the legislation and do not want to talk about them are not applying the scrutiny and due diligence to the bill as they ought to.

The reason the front half of my speech focused on that is because that is what Bill C-22 would do. I also focused on all the other violent crimes for which the consequences would be lightened and softened by Bill C-22. That is also what the bill would do. Elected representatives—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There are many others who want to ask questions.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Thérèse-De Blainville.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am trying to understand the member's approach.

We all remember that under a Conservative government, the system was very judicialized in areas that warranted a different approach. That is what this bill seeks to do. Evidence suggests that some measures and the way certain offences are handled are ineffective. Criminalization leads precisely to outcomes we do not want. In Quebec, there has been a heavy focus on rehabilitation for certain issues.

Why do the Conservatives fail to recognize that this evidence on offences shows that this is more of a public health issue than a public safety issue?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do not think I have a single constituent in Lakeland who actually thinks that prison breach, criminal harassment, sexual assault, kidnapping, trafficking persons for material benefit, abduction of a person under 14, motor vehicle theft, theft over $5,000, breaking and entering a place, being unlawfully in a dwelling house, arson for fraudulent purposes, causing bodily harm by criminal negligence, assault causing bodily harm or with a weapon and assaulting a peace officer causing bodily harm or with a weapon are in any way, shape or form minor offences, as the member just said.

I think Canadians expect the government to stand up for the rule of law, put victims first, stand up for their rights, target violent criminals, sexual offenders and criminal gains, ensure the Criminal Code protects Canadians and changes and evolves as public safety and crime trends shift. As well, as MPs, also relative to the question asked to me previously, we must be willing to reflect the values of the people we represent. That is what I am doing here.

My constituents, and I believe all Canadians, consider these crimes to be extremely serious. They want the system to combat them. By reducing mandatory sentences for serious crimes, Bill C-22 says that elected representatives do not need establish any bottom lines, do not have to set any automatic consequences. It would turn the government's back on those who need its support and need to know right now more than ever that someone has their backs.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to stand once again in this House and participate in an important debate. I plan to address two major themes in my speech. The first has to do with the fact that it seems the members opposite are simply not aware of what is contained in this bill. This bill actually reduces some of the penalties for serious firearms offences. I will get into the specifics of that here in a moment. The second is the larger topic of conversation surrounding being soft on crime and the very troubling trends that we see, not only with this bill, but with some of the larger context of how the government is failing victims.

First, on firearms, I find it absolutely tragic that we are debating firearms in this place in a way that completely ignores the facts. The members opposite will talk about how it is important to ban assault rifles and these military-style weapons, when very few members opposite understand the reality of what they are talking about. The reality is truly a trifecta of misinformation and political rhetoric torqued to the highest extent possible to appeal to a narrow band of political interests that is simply not based on reality.

I have a few examples. The Conservative member for Markham—Unionville brought forward Bill C-238, a bill that was meant to bring many people together to combat a real issue, and that is violent gun crime. However, the Liberals voted against it. How tragic is it that the Liberals, who claim to be targeting law-abiding firearms owners, would absolutely dismiss an attempt by parliamentarians to address some of those issues? It is absolutely shameful.

Second, we see the context of aspects of this debate with last year's order in council banning 1,500 firearms. It was absurd logic. In fact, when I participated in the member of Parliament's briefing for that OIC, the officials who were brought in did not even understand the very basis of the firearms they said they were banning. How absurd is it that we have such a disconnect between the consequences of what I would suggest is a massive overreach of the executive branch, targeting something, and then they torque it up with their rhetoric about how they are somehow taking action on crime? It is shameful, the record of the government.

The members opposite suggest that this somehow does not have relevance to the debate today, which is absurd and again more of their torqued political rhetoric, at a time when they seem to be bent on calling an election in the midst of a pandemic. I would note, as a bit of an aside, that there is a Supreme Court challenge in Newfoundland that has been launched today by an opposition party because of an election there that many would suggest, and certainly this lawsuit suggests, does not have the confidence of the people. It was a Liberal majority, yet the Prime Minister and the government seem bent on stealing power at any cost.

The third aspect of this bill is that it takes the serious criminal offences. Specifically, as I mentioned in the first part of my speech, I want to talk about the firearms side of things. The fact is that they are lessening penalties on serious firearms offences.

The Liberals introduced Bill C-21, literally banning toy guns. They said that was fake news, yet the reality, as we have learned, is that bad legislation creates bad outcomes and does not do what they say they are trying to accomplish. In the same week, they introduced Bill C-22, only a few days later. On Tuesday, they introduced a bill to punish law-abiding Canadians for simply living their lives, in many cases using something that is a tool in many parts of our country.

I come from a rural constituency, where a firearm is a tool like many others. It can be used as a weapon, but so can a baseball bat, a kitchen knife or a van, yet that torqued-up rhetoric based on a blind ideology has labelled so many thousands or millions of Canadians to be somehow criminals.

The same week, only a couple of days later, on a Thursday, the Liberals introduced Bill C-22, eliminating penalties for serious firearms offences. It is absurd that this is what they think they can get away with. Certainly, my constituents see through that absurdity. I hear from Canadians across the country, including the constituents of quite a few members opposite, who are saying they are starting to see through the facade, the political spin that the government is trying to bring on this and how absolutely shameful it is in that regard.

That brings me to the second part of my speech, which addresses some of the other aspects of this bill and the very troubling trend that I would suggest it is setting.

Bill C-22 eliminates a number of those firearms offences and the mandatory prison times, such as robbery with a firearm, discharging a firearm with intent to harm, and weapons trafficking. Those are the problems, not the law-abiding firearms owners.

The Liberals are also proposing in this bill that criminals could serve house arrest rather than jail time for a number of offences, including sexual assault, in the midst of the conversation around sexual assault in the military. I listened to the testimony on the Bastarache report regarding sexual assault in the RCMP and the revelation of how terribly pervasive that is within our society, yet the Liberals, who talk tough, with their woke feminist Prime Minister, are truly being soft and punishing victims at a time when victims deserve an advocate.

There is also trafficking in persons for material benefit and kidnapping. At a time when we are trying to bring awareness to human trafficking, the fact that the Liberals are punishing victims is absolutely absurd and shameful.

There is a series of other offences where the sentences are being reduced. The trends that are being set are very troubling, such as the soft-on-crime approach and ignoring victims. Meanwhile, we have seen, especially in my large constituency in rural east-central Alberta, a massive growth in rural crime and serious offences that have really affected the way of life of my constituents, the ability of Canadians to feel safe in their homes, and so many aspects of the way in which we live.

The Liberals are going to suggest that somehow we, the evil Conservatives, want to punish people for not breaking the law, which is just Liberal spin. It is unfortunate that it has devolved to the point it has, because it is taking away from the seriousness of this debate. It is quite simple. Conservatives are focused on ensuring that Canada's drug laws target individuals who prey on Canadians struggling with addictions through the trafficking and sale of drugs to the victims of what is an opioid pandemic, which is what those drug dealers and gangs deserve. The member for Lakeland, who spoke prior to me, articulated very well the challenges we face regarding drug use in this country. This is not about punishing a victim; it is about ensuring that those who are responsible for those abuses, the gangs, the drug dealers and whatnot, are punished.

The Conservatives have talked about mental health. We believe there needs to be a clear plan on ensuring there is restorative justice and a plan that addresses and helps victims. That is the clear difference here. We have the hug-a-thug mentality from the Liberals on the other side, and we have the Conservatives, who want to stand up for victims. Bill C-22 is incredibly troubling in the context of the bigger picture and the blatant hypocrisy that exists on the firearms debate.

I would conclude by saying that I cannot in good conscience support this. My constituents have overwhelmingly told me that this is a bad bill. I certainly will not be supporting it going forward.

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

Madam Speaker, before I had the privilege of representing the people in Kings—Hants, I served as a lawyer, and I can certainly say that not all the factors of each case are the same. Every case is built differently.

Does the member believe that it is his job here in Parliament, and that he is in a better position than the men and women we appoint as judges, to decide the sentences of individuals who commit crimes? Does he think he is better placed here in Parliament than someone who would hear the actual facts of the case?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, there we have it. It is the spin of somehow suggesting that Conservatives are simply wanting to target or prescript offences and whatnot. The reality could not be farther from the truth. Conservatives do believe that serious crime deserves serious time, and the vast majority of Canadians suggest the same. I find it very ironic that the Liberals want to paint this as all being the evil Harper era that brought in all of these things, when it was actually Pierre Elliott Trudeau. They are repealing some laws that date back to the Prime Minister's own father.

To acknowledge the member, a proper balance has to be found. In practice, right now, in the public prosecution service and the discretion of law enforcement there is a great deal of flexibility, but when it comes to serious crimes, there have to be serious penalties for that in this country. Victims deserve it.

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

Madam Speaker, we have been working with the Mushkegowuk Council on the fire keeper patrol to deal with the opioid crisis in downtown Timmins, which has caused devastation, to have a mobile team working with the homeless, getting them off the streets and getting them the help they need. That is only part of what we are facing with the devastating impacts of fentanyl and crystal meth in all of our communities. We need to have treatment centres. We have been reaching out to the Liberals saying we need action and we need a commitment. We are losing people every day across the country, and in our communities we have had massive deaths because of fentanyl and the opioid crisis.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague why he thinks it is that we are talking about many things in the House, but we never hear from the Liberal government on the crisis that we are seeing right on the ground in all our communities.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I agree. Certainly the pandemic has taken a lot of airtime regarding health issues, but at the same time there has been an epidemic of opioid deaths. In fact, in British Columbia, and I will be forgiven for not having the most recent stats, there were more opioid deaths than there were COVID deaths, at least a number of months ago. I think it is absolutely tragic that we are not taking this seriously.

Part of the reason I am opposed to this bill in particular is that the government seems intent on lessening penalties for those who would be responsible, not the victims who are experiencing mental health challenges and a series of other factors that would lead to addiction, but the people who are bringing these drugs, getting them onto our streets and smuggling them into our country, and the gang activity associated with that. It is troubling that this issue is not taken more seriously.

Then, on the other side, I was proud of the Conservative private member's bill to deal with recidivism, and further significant Conservative pressure to deal with mental health challenges to ensure that we are addressing the full context here. Certainly victims, including victims of opioid addictions, need to be stood up for, and this bill fails miserably at that.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Harper Conservatives did bring in a significant number of tough-on-crime measures. I am trying to understand what this bill is all about.

I have a question for you that is strictly about opioids. You talked about victims, but there are also people who use opioids who need to be protected.

Would you support the decriminalization of the possession of substances like opioids?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the member to address her questions through the Chair and not to the member directly.

The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, the simple answer is no. I do not agree with the decriminalization of drugs. However, it is a misconception that this bill would somehow fix the problem of individuals who would be charged with simple possession. That is not what this bill addresses. It addresses the serious offences of those who are trafficking, smuggling and involved in the gang activity that leads to these victims on our streets. We have to have a plan to address opioid addiction in this country.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time this morning with my hon. colleague from Humber River—Black Creek.

This is the first time that I have had the chance to speak in the House since the passing of Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh and the royal consort. I want to go on record to recognize his significant achievements to public life and the Commonwealth. I know other parliamentarians have spoken to this, but I want to add my voice.

We are here today to talk about Bill C-22, which is about repealing mandatory minimum sentences that had been established under the previous Harper government. For Canadians who are listening in today on this debate for the first time and so they can understand the intent of the legislation, essentially there are three elements underpinning what this legislation is about. It is about repealing mandatory minimum penalties for certain offences, it is about allowing the judiciary to use greater discretion in terms of conditional sentence orders and it would also require police and prosecutors to examine whether it is appropriate to treat simple drug possession as more of a health issue as opposed to a justice issue.

I am the member of Parliament for Kings—Hants, in which there are three indigenous communities. I often say—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry to interrupt. There is a point of order by the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am sure my friend would not want to deliberately mislead the House. Many of the changes being made to this bill are not Harper changes. They date back to—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

That is a point of debate and not a point of order.

The hon. member for Kings—Hants.

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

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned, there are three indigenous communities in my riding of Kings—Hants. There is also a sizable African-Nova Scotian population as well. When we look at the statistics across Canada, they are jarring, to say the least. Five per cent of the Canadian population is composed of indigenous adults, yet they account for 30% of the incarcerated population. Indigenous women account for 42% of women incarcerated in Canada. Black Canadians represent about 3% of the Canadian population, but in prisons represent 7.2%.

This type of thinking of getting rid of mandatory minimums and letting the judiciary have the discretion on sentencing for some of these offences is the type of thinking that will resonate in the communities of Kings—Hants, particularly in the marginalized communities.

We do not have to think back far to the death of George Floyd and the global movement it drove, which is something that resonated in my own riding of Kings—Hants. There were Black Lives Matter movements in Kings County and Windsor. I had the opportunity to speak with the African-Nova Scotian community directly, and we have been working on a series of local initiatives since last summer.

I want to thank groups like the Valley African Nova Scotian Development Association, VANSDA, for the work it does, as well as Robert Ffrench. There is a whole host of individuals who are doing great work on the ground in my community, and I would like to just take a moment to recognize their contributions.

When I look at this legislation, it really comes down to two underlying principles that are important. One is the recognition to try to alleviate systemic barriers and systemic issues that put individuals, whether they are in marginalized communities or not, behind bars for longer when the circumstances of the case may not necessarily warrant a mandatory minimum penalty. It goes back to allowing the judiciary, the men and women we appoint, to hear the circumstances of each case and have the discretion.

I asked my hon. colleague before I had the floor whether he saw this as being our role as parliamentarians when the particular circumstances of a case and the sentencing could be taken five, six or seven years down the line. As parliamentarians, we do not have all the facts. As I mentioned, I was a lawyer before I became a parliamentarian. I did not practise criminal law, but I have been involved in civil litigation and other matters and can say not all circumstances of cases are treated equally in the sense that each case is uniquely different. There might be some symmetry in a rare circumstance, but there is always a bit of nuance.

At the end of the day, when we look at sentencing in our courts, to me, as a parliamentarian, I do not think it is my job to sit here six years down the line from when a case could actually come before the courts and say I know what is best when it comes to sentencing. We have common law in this country. We have common-law principles in terms of sentencing. We have adopted Gladue principles through the Supreme Court of Canada.

There are both aggravating factors, where an individual should be perhaps incarcerated for a longer period of time because of the nature and circumstances of the particular offence, and there are sometimes mitigating factors, which really warrant a different treatment of the sentencing. That is what the core of this type of legislation is getting at.

I guess what I would compare it to is Her Majesty's loyal opposition. I do not want to stereotype all parliamentarians, but there is generally a great respect for the independence of the judiciary. We have seen that with some of the legislation that have gone through, where members would get up and talk about this, and yet when we are talking about giving the independence to the judiciary to be able to make decisions around sentencing, we have this huge push-back.

I hear the “soft on crime” and the traditional slogans that come up any time this discussion happens, but really this is about allowing the judges to be able to assess the situation and be able to make a proper sentencing. Yes, it is our job as parliamentarians to help craft what offences are under the Criminal Code, but let us leave the sentencing to the common law and to the individuals who are actually involved with hearing the circumstance of the case.

I also want to take this opportunity to talk about the third element and marginalized communities. We are talking about repealing certain mandatory minimums, but we are also talking about small drug offences and treating those more as a health issue as opposed to a justice issue. The member before me talked about trafficking, large amounts of drug abuse and kind of preying on victims, but this is really targeted at someone who might have simple possession, and we do not necessarily want to put them in prison for a mandatory period of time if the circumstances warrant that it is not necessarily an appropriate way to go about this. I think that a lot of members in this House understand this.

At the end of the day, the bill would allow the discretion for the men and women who hear the case and for the prosecution and police to be able to look at this from a certain angle to try to get better outcomes. It is not to necessarily put individuals into a federal penitentiary and hope that would alleviate the issues that these individuals could be repeat offenders. This is another element. Maybe there are different ways we could treat individuals to try to resolve it, whether it be mental issues or other challenges. This is the type of thinking that I support. As I mentioned, I have worked in law before, and I think, across the board, that this is the type of direction we should be going.

I also want to speak to the piece around the conditional sentence orders. Again, this is giving discretion to the judiciary to make decisions. However, my time is quickly coming to a close, and so I will stop there and look forward to taking questions from my hon. colleagues.

[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?

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

Mr. Speaker, all I will say in reply is that it is the member and his colleagues who have cast judgment on all law-abiding firearms owners in this country by confiscating their lawfully obtained property. They have used misinformation campaigns to demonize and vilify those who simply own firearms for the purposes of hunting, sport shooting and recreation, or who use them on their farms as a tool.

If we are not going to cast judgment on people, then perhaps we could start with not casting judgment on law-abiding citizens in this country. If we are going to cast any judgment at all or take any responsibility as parliamentarians, perhaps we should focus on those doing the most damage in society, such as irremediable offenders and repeat offenders, whether they are doing property crimes or crimes against persons, and making sure that those people suffer consequences instead of law-abiding citizens.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Conservative colleague for his speech. This is yet another example of taking a very harsh approach to safety and security issues. The Conservative Party tends to go overboard with turning these issues into legal and police matters.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the NDP's proposal to address the drug problem by decriminalizing simple possession of narcotics. Decriminalization would take a big load off our legal system and our courts. It would recognize that drugs are not a police or a legal issue, but a health and social services issue. It would also recognize that a prison sentence is not the way to treat drug addiction.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage my colleague to look at the changes being offered in Bill C-22. The mandatory minimum penalties are being reduced for trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking controlled drugs or substances, importing and exporting or possession for the purpose of exporting controlled drugs and substances, and production of a substance in schedule I or schedule II. These are not simple possessions. These are people who are using controlled drugs and substances in organized crime by smuggling it into our country and dispersing it among our population. We now have more people dying, I believe, in western Canada from fentanyl overdoses than we have from COVID.

If we are going to talk about the substance of the bill, let us actually talk about what the government is proposing, which is possession for the purpose of trafficking and smuggling or the manufacturing for the purpose of trafficking. That is what the government is doing. It is a misnomer and it misleading the House to suggest that this bill is talking about simple possession. It is simply not true.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a number of times the Liberals have mentioned the inability of the 338 members of Parliament to make laws that are appropriate, as we do not have the expertise. I would like to ask my colleague from Red Deer—Lacombe this: Does he believe, as we are normally called members of Parliament, and sometimes called legislators or lawmakers, that those terms interchangeable?

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

Mr. Speaker, we have vast experience as legislators in the House of Commons, and we know full well what our roles and responsibilities are. As the member of Parliament for Red Deer—Lacombe, I would be remiss in my duties if I did not take the government to task for its misleading ideas and information in its attempt to basically decriminalize all criminal activity in this country.

Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

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

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion.

I move:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, the order for the deferred recorded division on the motion standing in the name of the member for Perth—Wellington to concur in the third report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology be discharged and the motion be deemed adopted.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay. I hear none.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion being adopted, please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Criminal Code

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to speak in the House today regarding Bill C-22.

This last weekend the Prime Minister, while speaking to the Liberal Party policy convention, said that the Conservative Party of Canada was disconnected with Canadians. If the Prime Minister was looking for an example of a party disconnected from Canadians, he need look no further than his own party with the introduction of this bill, Bill C-22, and how it would affect those in rural Canada.

As someone who has lived my whole life in northern Saskatchewan, I not only find this bill dangerously naive, but the government's communications around it are actually offensive to me. Of course, far be it for me to suggest anyone might deliberately mislead Canadians. Perhaps it is simply a poor understanding of the Criminal Code or the tendency to rely on divisive political ideology that led to the inaccuracies in communicating what is actually in this bill.

Contrary to what members of the Liberal Party may have been given as talking points by the PMO to use in the debate, those of us who actually read the legislation understand this is not about reducing mandatory minimum penalties for simple possession of drugs. Mandatory minimums for simple possession do not exist today. This is not about minor crimes, and it is not about minor offences.

Here are just a few examples of what Liberals consider minor offences for which Bill C-22 would eliminate mandatory minimums as they relate to gun crimes: robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, importing or exporting knowing a firearm is unauthorized, discharging a firearm with intent, using a firearm in the commission of an offence, possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition, possession of a weapon obtained by the commission of an offence, possession for the purposes of weapons trafficking and discharging a firearm with recklessness.

Additionally, Bill C-22 would eliminate mandatory minimums under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that actually target drug dealers. Examples of these are trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking, importing and exporting or possession for the purpose of exporting, and the production of substances included in schedule I or II. Examples of these are heroin, cocaine, fentanyl and crystal meth. This is not, as suggested, help for those who struggle with addictions. It is actually help for those criminals who prey on those people who suffer from addictions.

Finally, this bill would allow for greater use of conditional sentence orders for a number of offences. The list is long, so I will include only a few examples such as sexual assault, kidnapping and assault causing bodily harm or with a weapon, which includes the assaulting of a peace officer causing bodily harm or with a weapon. This clearly puts communities in my riding at risk.

As a lifelong resident of northern Saskatchewan, a hockey coach, a former mayor and now member of Parliament, I have seen first-hand how gun and gang violence, and drugs, ruin people's lives and devastate families and communities. I find myself wondering if members of the Liberal government have been contacted, like I have been, by mayors, chiefs, police officers and community members pleading for something to be done and if that would make them realize Bill C-22 is not a solution. Neither is Bill C-21.

One month ago, there was a story reported in the Battlefords News-Optimist that literally brought me to tears when I read it. I would encourage all members of this House to read the story, as it provides an incredible insight into what life can be like in the northern and often remote communities in my riding.

The story reviews a judge's decision, arguments by the Crown prosecutor and the victim impact statements of RCMP officer Robert McCready and of my good friend Staff Sergeant Ryan How. The incident, as reported, happened in my riding and shows an almost unbelievably violent disregard for human life. It includes multiple guns, pursuits, many other things, and finally, police ramming a vehicle.

In his victim impact statement, my friend Staff Sergeant Ryan How said the following:

When I encountered the gold truck you were in north of Loon Lake the only emotion I felt was sadness.

I knew right away how this was going to end. It’s always the same, just a varying degree of tragedy. When I saw your co-accused run from the Equinox and point what may have been a gun at me, I just felt tired and defeated....

I knew what you would do when you came up to the road block. And you did the same thing every other desperate criminal does - you accelerated and swerved towards the police.

As you did that, I took off my seatbelt and accelerated my truck directly at you. I wanted to be able to at least have the chance to manoeuver in the cab if you and your fellow gang members started shooting at me. As I lined up my truck to yours head-on I fully expected to be shot but I tried to make sure my truck would stay on a straight path and hit you even if I couldn’t steer because you needed to be stopped.... Even after all of this, after hours of chasing after you, hours of being frustrated, angry, and tired, [I] was required to be of calm mind and use sound tactics as I drew my gun on you and the people with you.... At that moment I was furious that it had come to this. I was furious that your stupidity was causing me to miss an important family event going on right at that moment I had you in my gun sights. I was furious that I might have to shoot and kill you.... I didn’t shoot you...My coworkers didn’t shoot you, even though we were taunted and dared to do it by the people in the truck with you. Even though your actions caused one of my coworkers to almost be run over and killed. We made sure you were safe. It was a joke and a game to you. It was life and death for me, for my partners, and the public. I’m telling you that on January 17, 2019, you were lucky to be arrested by some of the most capable and experienced police officers in the country. They showed incredible restraint and professionalism to make sure you lived to be here today.

Another one of those capable and experienced police officers was Officer Robert McCready, who was called in six hours before his shift was scheduled to begin. A short part of his victim impact statement includes the following. He said:

I had been in Loon Lake for a while at that time, and had a feeling that it was probably related to gang activity, firearms or both. I got geared up and found that gang members/affiliates have possible firearms and are driving in two vehicles and are evading police. My thoughts are “great, here we go again.” This was a constant way of life around that area, something would pop off, at least once to twice a week or more.... This went on all afternoon, which took a bad turn when the vehicle started going through a populated area, just as school was letting off, and for fear of worsening conditions, police had to back off again.

In speaking with Staff Sergeant How later, he shared with me how these events had become almost routine. Can members imagine this being a routine part of their day? This is the part that brought tears to my eyes as I fought back the emotion.

Let me be clear, this day was the culmination of a long history, but it had to start somewhere. The idea that government is seeking to eliminate mandatory prison time for drug traffickers and for those who commit violent crimes is really hard to fathom for me. Allowing criminals who commit violent acts to serve their sentences on house arrest puts communities at risk.

For the last couple of minutes, I would like to talk about the issues many community leaders talked to me about. In addition to doing everything they can to combat gun and gang crime, they spend many hours fighting those who traffic drugs in their communities and who prey on the vulnerable who are struggling with mental health issues and addictions. Bill C-22 would make life far more difficult for local law enforcement and prosecutors by reducing and, in some cases, removing penalties for trafficking, importing or producing schedule I or II substances.

Conservatives believe that those struggling with addiction or mental health issues should get the help they need. They need treatment rather than prison time if their crime is not violent. Conservatives support restorative justice policies to lower incarceration rates for overrepresented groups in our criminal justice system, provided that public safety considerations are paramount.

What is clear in Bill C-22 is that the government, driven by ideology and having no basis in the reality on the ground in rural Canada, is making our communities less safe by removing many important tools. I encourage all members to take a long, hard look at the proposed legislation before they vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member started off talking about how the Prime Minister had made a comment that Conservatives were disconnected from Canadians. However, 54% of Conservatives do not believe in climate change and do not think that it is something that needs to be at the forefront of their agenda. The overwhelming vast majority of Canadians believe that we need to act on climate change. So, I think it is quite clear why the Prime Minister may have made that comment given some of the discussion that came out of this member's convention a few weeks ago.

However, to the member's point about reading out the victim statements, I am really glad that he did that. They were very meaningful words, and I thank him for that. I guess the difference is that I believe that those victim statements are best intended or best used for a judge to make a decision on how to cast judgment on somebody who breaks the law. Does the member not agree that the best purpose of having those victim statements is to help the judge in determining what the sentence should be?

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would start my answer by simply suggesting we are talking today about Bill C-22, not about climate change, so let us stick to the topic. In the context of discretion of judges, judges are professional. They have great training and they have great abilities. As a new member of Parliament I clearly understand it to be part of my responsibility to make legislative decisions, to set laws and to set guidelines for judges and for the criminal justice system. I believe this is not a partisan issue. Many of the minimums that would be eliminated by the government were in fact introduced by previous Liberal governments. It is our job, in my understanding, as legislators and members of Parliament to, in fact, have input into these matters.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about our job as legislators.

I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides to talk to outreach workers and organizations. Pierre Laporte is an outreach worker for L'Écluse des Laurentides who is helping us understand the consequences of the crimes that may be committed by people who are suffering.

What is so wrong about trying to understand what these people went through before they committed these crimes? This is about taking a different approach to better understand the causes. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on this and to hear him explain how he can be against this bill.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, fundamentally I do not disagree with my colleague. As I deal with many of the people in northern Saskatchewan, I understand there are many underlying issues and there are many issues that are foundational to the challenges faced in these communities. For example, one of my chiefs begged me one day to help him teach the people of his community to be good parents. The children of his community are begging for parents. There are many underlying issues that start well before we get to the commission of crimes, but in the commission of crimes, these are not minor offences; these are not minimum kinds of matters that we are talking about with this legislation. At the end of the day I absolutely and 100% believe that our actions result in consequences, and those consequences have to act as a deterrent at the end of the day.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the problem with the Conservative approach to the justice system is that they assume every offence is exactly the same, when there are always complicating individual factors. In the Criminal Code, there exists already section 718.2, which allows a judge to increase a sentence depending on the severity of the case.

Why do the Conservatives not have faith in our judges to dole out the appropriate punishment when the Criminal Code already has a section that allows them to do just that?

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would provide a very simple answer like I started originally. It is the responsibility of us, as members of Parliament and legislators, to give guidelines. I believe that is one of the fundamental roles that we have. In my time as mayor of a small city, there were two things that I took very seriously. One was the management of the finances of my little city and one was the safety of my citizens. Those two were paramount. As a member of Parliament, I believe the safety of my citizens, of my riding and this country is paramount, and I believe it is our job as members of Parliament to set the guidelines, to establish the rules and laws to which those guidelines must submit.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency)]

Mr. Speaker, you are doing a wonderful job, as always, in the Speaker's chair.

I would just like to say I am coming from the traditional territory of the Kwanlin Dün First Nation and the Ta’an Kwäch’än Council.

When I heard there was a bill coming up with some of the content here, I was really supportive of it. I asked if I could speak to it to show my support. There are five items from my riding, my area or my perspective over the years, which I am very supportive of.

First, the reduction of overrepresentation of indigenous people in our jails. Parliament has wrestled with this for a long time, trying to come up with solutions to this. Two parties have already mentioned in this debate that roughly 5% of people in Canada are indigenous, yet they make up about 30% in federal jails.

Second, I would like to see movement towards the success Portugal has had in its dealings related to drugs as a health issue.

Third, the bill would make society safer, and I will go into the reasons why.

Fourth, it will lower costs for government. Almost every member of Parliament has ideas where that saved money could be spent, or it could pay down the debt.

Finally, it will reduce the number of victims.

I will explain how the three elements of the bill would do this, from my perspective. I have not written these down in a speech. I have just scratched out some points to make.

First, on the mandatory minimums and the effect on indigenous people and racialized people in our justice system. A large number of those particular people are in jails because of offences that have mandatory minimums.

Second, related to mandatory minimums—

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Sorry to interrupt, but I believe the parliamentary secretary forgot to indicate that he is going to split his time with the member for Newmarket—Aurora.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I did forget that and I thank the member.

I will now go to the three main elements of the bill and explain how they would fill the objectives of which I am supportive. I mentioned the unbalance of people in federal institutions. Certain mandatory minimums have also been found unconstitutional because they are excessive. They do not reasonably match the crime and the criminal with the punishment. People can get off unreasonably and I do not think others would want that if that happened.

Another item related to the mandatory minimums is it leads to longer trials and often more cases end in acquittals, that many would not have occurred if people were not facing an unreasonable option as an end result. Another reason, from my perspective, is for first-time offenders on minor offences. The evidence has shown that often it is less safe and has less positive results when first-time offenders are put in jail as opposed to some of the alternatives like diversion and other types of programs and treatments.

We are all social animals. If people do not think they are, they can try to go against their own political party members on a particular issue.

I call jail the university of crime. If we put people in jail for the first time, they will learn from the people they deal with every day, and they will learn from every day on how to become more hardened criminals, rather than from dealing with their problem.

Some people say that putting criminals in jail makes communities safer. It does not if they are making more hardened criminals. The point people neglect to mention when making that case is that virtually almost everyone gets out of jail, so we want them safer when they get out and we want them rehabilitated.

Another reason to remove some mandatory minimums is that we cannot really trump other provisions of the justice system, like the Gladue provisions and other such provisions on racialized reports, by having a mandatory minimum. There is a conflict there. A number of people from various parties have raised the fact that it limits a trained judge from the individual tailoring of a sentence to the severity of the crime and the background of the criminal.

The second major item in the bill is related to the greater use of conditional sentences. For people who want evidence-based policy and legislation, it has been proven time and time again that people are far less likely to reoffend if they have the appropriate rehabilitation. A conditional sentence can be very hard with the treatment that can be assigned with it. It is not easy for someone, but it is much more effective.

I remember when we were dealing with this and debating it about 10 years ago. A big supporter of this was Conservative Senator Vern White, who had been the police chief in Whitehorse and then in Ottawa. At that time, recidivism rates were around 40% to 60%, and the conditional sentencing rates were 10% to 30%. Much progress has been made in many cases.

I appreciate the Bloc's view on this from the experiences it has had in Quebec with diversion, conditional sentences and other forms of dealing with people, especially young offenders. I remember in February 2001, Michel Bellehumeur from Berthier—Montcalm was really passionate about this. In fact, I think he spent most of his term in the House of Commons passionately making that case about more appropriate treatment of people. In that case, it was young offenders, but also more progressive and successful treatment of first-time offenders.

Also, I want to clarify what some have talked about with respect to safety and conditional sentencing. Once again, that is only allowed if the person is not a “danger to society ”, which is the term for use by the judge and only for a sentence that is less than two years. There have been a number of successful stories of women who were not put in jail, but were given conditional sentences to stay with their family and their social network, and go to treatment.

The third element of the bill relates to the possession of drugs. In the majority of crimes, people are either on substance or are trying to get money for a substance, including alcohol. Therefore, I personally would move more toward what Portugal is doing. It is a step in the right direction. If people have an addiction, the last thing they need is a criminal record. It is harder for them to get a job, which is what may have caused the addiction in the first place, to feed their family, etc.

Finally, the federal economic statement, which I hope we will be voting on this week, has support for some of the items that people have mentioned, such as support for the Gladue report, the race and cultural assessments and community justice centres, all of which can deal with the root causes and the situations people are in. From my perspective, this is a move in the right direction on a number of fronts to make it safer, to reduce the number of victims, to reduce the costs and to have a fairer justice system.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and congratulate him for his speech.

I am hearing a lot of comments about sentencing. We know that harsher sentences do not result in fewer crimes being committed. Prisons are overcrowded, and people from racialized or indigenous communities are overrepresented in our prison system. We are hearing a lot about good will. We are also hearing a lot about protecting victims of serious crimes.

However, I have not heard anything about a solution for the root cause of the problem. It is not necessarily by reducing sentences, eliminating minimum sentences or encouraging convicted criminals to undergo therapy that we are going to find a solution for the root cause. Racialized communities and indigenous people continue to account for a large proportion of the prison population, and I would like my colleague to tell us how to solve this problem.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the bill does deal with them, but unfortunately only once they are in the system. Then we try to ensure they do not go back into the system.

The member is exactly right. We have lobbied and made the case for years that we have to deal with the root causes as to why people come into the system in the first place. That is why we have the biggest housing fund in Canadian history. It all starts with housing first. If people do not have a home, how can they deal with other problems, such as addictions or anything else that might lead them into the justice system?

That is why we have increased the homelessness programs. I think we have more than doubled those. We have increased money for mental health, because a number of people in the mental health system end up in hospitals or jails when there should be mental health supports. That is why we have increased the special contributions to every province and territory for mental health. It is why we have supported indigenous and other cultures to ensure they are included in our policies and laws so they do not feel disjointed, which could add to them getting into the criminal justice system.

All these items relating to poverty and addiction need to be dealt with to reduce the root causes. Then we would not need to have a major debate like this.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of Parliament representing a riding in Alberta, I have been horrified by our provincial government's response to the opioid crisis that is devastating our province and other regions of the country.

The lack of understanding, the lack of empathy and the lack of common sense shown by the UCP in regard to this issue has meant that Albertans, more than ever, are depending on the federal government to step up and protect our loved ones, and to treat addiction and substance abuse as a medical issue, not a criminal issue.

Sadly, this bill simply removes the mandatory minimums, but individuals who struggle with substance issues will still end up in the criminal justice system.

The member spoke about how he possibly did not agree with this, but I wonder how he can support legislation that does not go far enough, that does not take people struggling with addiction out of the criminal justice system.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think we should let the perfect be the enemy of moving forward, of having some success. We have to take steps. This is a move in exactly that direction. It will reduce some. I would like to move as far as Portugal has.

As the member very appropriately said, it is a health issue. A majority of crimes in Canada are caused by someone with an addiction or someone raising money to support an addiction. That is where the support needs to be to deal with that. It is not a criminal issue. Criminalizing people with addictions just accentuates the problems that would put them in jail. I agree.

It is a move in that direction, maybe not as far as some people want, but we have to take as many steps and opportunities as we can to move in that direction.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, today I join you from the traditional territories of the Wendat, Haudenosaunee and Anishinabe people and the treaty land of the Williams Treaties First Nations to speak to Bill C-22, particularly on the issue of MMPs, or mandatory minimum penalties, in the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The importance of equitable sentencing laws in the criminal justice system cannot be overstated. Indeed, imprisonment represents one of the most grave intrusions by the state into the lives of individuals and, as such, sentencing laws must be carefully reviewed to ensure that they reflect the values that Canadians hold dear. Unfortunately, there are inconsistencies with the current sentencing regime provided by the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that disproportionately impact indigenous peoples, Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities.

Bill C-22 proposes to repeal the particular MMPs that have shown to have the most significant impact on these communities, while ensuring that the courts can continue to impose sentences for violent and serious crimes that respond to their seriousness and the harm caused.

When considering the appropriate sanction for an offender in a criminal case, a judge must effectively balance the principles of proportionality, parity and restraint. The principle of proportionality requires a sentence to reflect the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The principle of parity requires it to be similar to those imposed on similar offenders in similar circumstances. Perhaps most importantly, the principle of restraint dictates that an offender should not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions can be appropriate under the circumstances.

Balancing these principles is a highly individualized process that demands an assessment of all relevant factors, including personal characteristics, life experiences and the individual standing before the court. However, when an offence carries an MMP, the minimum punishment is prescribed by law, which removes a certain amount of discretion from judges and means that they cannot impose sentences below the legislated minimum, even in cases where they find that a shorter period of imprisonment or no imprisonment at all would be an appropriate sentence given the circumstances of the offence.

While proponents of MMPs would argue that this ensures consistency and fairness in sentences for the same crime, the reality is that for some crimes this cannot and does not yield a fair result, which has negative impacts on the justice system at large, as well as on the victims. MMPs can be inconsistent with the direction of the Criminal Code requiring judges to use imprisonment with restraint and to consider all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of indigenous offenders.

Between 2007 and 2017, data shows that indigenous and Black individuals were more likely to be admitted to federal custody for an offence punishable by an MMP than were other Canadians. In fact, the proportion of indigenous adults admitted with an offence punishable by an MMP almost doubled between those years, from 14% to 26%. Similarly, in 2018-19, Black persons represented 7.2% of the federal inmate population, but only 3% of the Canadian population.

Indigenous people and Black Canadians are particularly overrepresented for firearm and drug offences carrying MMPs. Specifically, Black Canadians comprised 43% of individuals convicted of importing and exporting drugs in 2016-17, while indigenous people comprised 40% of those admitted for a firearm-related offence in the same year.

Bill C-22 responds to this data by proposing to repeal MMPs for all drug offences in the CDSA, as well as for one tobacco-related offence and 13 firearm offences in the Criminal Code.

MMPs would remain for offences such as murder, sexual assault, all child sexual offences and for certain offences involving restricted or prohibited firearms or where the offence involves a firearm and is linked to organized crime.

While MMPs have been in place since the Criminal Code was first enacted, they were largely the exception until relatively recently. Over the last two decades, there has been an increased reliance on MMPs to further denounce crimes, deter offenders and separate them from society. The proliferation of MMPs has resulted in an increase in successful charter challenges at all levels of court, including the Supreme Court, culminating in two significant decisions. The first decision was Nur, in 2015, involving three- and five-year MMPs for illegal possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm, and the second was the Lloyd decision, in 2016, involving a one-year drug MMP. Both cases make it clear that the use of MMPs for offences that cover a broad range of conduct is susceptible to charter challenges. More charter challenges mean more trials, increased costs and delayed justice, outcomes that are good for no one.

It is my understanding that as of February 8, 2021, out of 560 ongoing charter challenges in Canada tracked by the federal Department of Justice, 47% are challenges to MMPs. The proposed reforms will therefore improve the efficiency of the justice system by lowering the volume of charter challenges in the courts, which put additional pressures on their already limited time and resources.

The MMPs being repealed in this bill have failed to achieve their purported objectives: deterrence and the protection of public safety. Research has shown that increases in the severity of sanctions actually increase the likelihood of recidivism, thus failing to deter crime or protect the safety of the public. We know that a justice system that provides a one-size-fits-all response to crime can be ineffective and lead to unjust results for victims, for offenders and for Canadians in general.

Courts must have the flexibility to order sentences that reflect the circumstances of each case. In some cases, jail will be appropriate, and this bill would not change the ability of judges to sentence offenders to incarceration when it is warranted. However, in other cases, sentences that more effectively address the root causes of the offence and that better address the harm caused may be more appropriate. I might add that they would be more effective in ensuring public safety as well, because they reduce the likelihood of reoffending.

The amendments proposed in Bill C-22 would ensure that the courts are still able to impose tough sentences for violent and serious crimes, while restoring their ability to consider the systemic factors that disproportionately impact indigenous peoples, Black Canadians and marginalized people, and impose non-custodial sentences or sentences of imprisonment below the MMP when satisfied that the sentence would be appropriate to the degree of responsibility of the offender and the gravity of the offence.

The reforms would also respond to recommendations from many stakeholders in the area of anti-racism and the criminal justice system, including key stakeholders in my riding of Newmarket-Aurora, whom I had the pleasure of bringing together for a conversation with the Minister of Justice back in October.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission has also called for the elimination of indigenous overrepresentation in correctional institutions over the next decade, including through amendments to the Criminal Code in the area of MMPs. Similarly, in its final report, the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls called for all levels of government to evaluate the impact of MMPs on the over-incarceration of indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA people, and to take appropriate action to address their over-incarceration. More recently, the parliamentary Black caucus, composed of senators and members from all parties, called for the elimination of MMPs in the statement issued on June 20, 2020, which I am proud to support.

Bill C-22 shows that we are listening to the calls of our fellow Canadians to bring about evidence-based reforms to the sentencing regime. The proposed amendments are an important step toward creating a justice system that represents and protects all Canadians in an equitable and non-discriminatory way.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment to make myself. Several people today have noted that the science with respect to mandatory minimum penalties has been conclusive and their usefulness has been completely debunked. In my opinion, this is false. I reached out to the Library of Parliament a few weeks ago and asked them this very question. Their conclusion to me, in a lengthy document that I would be happy to share, is that while deterrence, as such, may or may not be increased in certain punishments, it “is not the only factor in the debate over MMPs”, as mandatory minimum penalties are called, “and some other factors are more commonly addressed from a qualitative rather than quantitative standpoint.” Their final conclusion to me is, “Due to the variety of different metrics employed, the Library is unable to definitively comment on the degree to which scholarly opinion is settled with respect to MMPs.”

I wonder if the member could comment on the status of the science in question and the research report from the library.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

There was no interpretation for a minute. However, the problem now seems to have been resolved.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the member for her patience with the interpretation issues.

We will now ask the hon. member for Newmarket—Aurora for his response.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure we will have varying degrees of interpretation as to what is most effective. What I see in what is being proposed here is that we are making progress. I am not sure we will reach end-state resolution, but we are moving forward, and this bill would go a long way toward dealing with the overrepresentation that is caused by the MMPs. It is long overdue for us to give consideration to correct that shortcoming.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I should let you know that I will be sharing my time with the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.

I am pleased to rise virtually in the House to talk about Bill C-22, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Liberals want to amend the Criminal Code to repeal certain mandatory minimum penalties, allow for a greater use of conditional sentences and establish other measures for simple drug possession offences.

Bill C-22 is the Prime Minister's attempt to honour his 2015 campaign promise. Unfortunately, every time we examine Liberal bills in committee or in the House, we find major flaws that suggest they never bother to consult people on the ground. That is the case with this bill too.

It is important to thoroughly analyze what the Liberals are trying to do with this bill, in which the Minister of Justice is proposing amendments that will have major consequences for Canadians' safety and well-being. I will point out various elements of the bill that I think are worth a closer look.

Bill C-22 eliminates some of the mandatory minimum sentences set out in the Criminal Code for offences involving weapons, including firearms. For example, the mandatory minimum sentence set out in subsection 85(3) for use of a firearm in the commission of an offence would be eliminated. The mandatory minimum sentence set out in subsection 92(3) for possession of an unauthorized weapon, whether it be a firearm or other weapon, would also be eliminated.

The bill eliminates all the mandatory minimum sentences set out in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The bill creates new provisions that advise the police or prosecutor to consider an individual's drug use and to refer the person to a treatment program. However, it is important to understand that some provinces do not even have drug treatment courts.

Bill C-22 also proposes to eliminate certain provisions of the Criminal Code related to tobacco, particularly the sale and transfer of tobacco products without an official licence. That is another thing that we are trying to understand. Finally, the bill proposes to eliminate some of the restrictions set out in section 742.1 of the Criminal Code so that more offences are eligible for community-based sentences.

Everything I just said contradicts the Liberals' official position on public safety as it relates to firearms. The message of Polytechnique was well understood, with the Liberals always claiming to be doing a lot and much more. However, the reality is that bills such as this hamper the courts and law enforcement and greatly diminish the significance of crime when the opposite should be happening.

We always have difficulty understanding how, on the one hand, the Liberal discourse is about tougher measures when, on the other hand, their actions have the opposite effect. This is totally inconsistent in terms of public safety and the protection of Canadians.

Today we are debating Bill C-22, but we cannot forget Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments with respect to firearms. There is no consensus on this other bill among gun supporters, such as owners of guns for sport shooting or hunting, or among those who oppose guns and want them to be banned, such as the Polytechnique advocates. Bill C-21 does not do nearly enough, and the Prime Minister is not addressing the real issues.

Bill C-22 would reduce the sentences for violent gun crimes. We are trying to understand why the government wants to reduce sentences for people who commit gun crimes, when we should be doing the opposite.

I remind members that the Conservatives and my colleague introduced Bill C-238, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to possession of unlawfully imported firearms, which would have strengthened the Criminal Code by addressing smuggled guns and gun crimes. However, the Liberals showed their true colours and chose to vote against this bill. They would rather protect criminals than protect law-abiding citizens.

We cannot understand it. We do not understand how the Liberals can be so dishonest with Canadians when it comes to protection, public safety and firearms. The introduction of Bills C-21 and C-22 is not going to do anything to reduce gun crime. It will also not do anything to reduce the number of guns circulating in Canada, and it will simply not prevent criminals from getting their hands on illegal firearms.

That was made very clear two weeks ago on J.E., a 30-minute investigative reporting program on TVA. I encourage everyone to watch it. Those who do not speak French should find a way to get it translated, because it is really good.

The report clearly showed what is happening with firearms in Canada, how illegal firearms from the United States are streaming right across the border. We have land management problems, our customs officers do not have sufficient resources, and the law does not allow action to be taken in certain areas. Aerial images taken by drones showed traffickers bringing in weapons by snowmobile in the winter and by boat in the summer. If members want evidence, here it is.

Montreal is starting to have the same problem as Toronto. It is easy for street gang members to get their hands on illegal firearms with the serial numbers scratched off, and young gang members are taking pride in committing crimes with the guns that are coming across the border.

Not one of the measures proposed in Bill C-21 and Bill C-22 will solve that problem even though that is what we need to focus on. Instead of helping people with drug addiction, the Liberals are reducing mandatory prison time for those producing and trafficking harmful drugs. Instead of tackling criminal gangs, they are reducing mandatory prison time for those in possession of illegal firearms.

No family should ever feel unsafe in their community, in their neighbourhood or walking down their street. The previous Conservative government pledged to change those laws and keep our streets and communities safe. Before the 2019 election, we released our platform entitled “A Safer Canada”, a three-pronged action plan targeting street gangs and arms trafficking, among other things. We covered it all in our platform.

Then the Liberals regained power. It was fortunate for them that they won the election, but it was unfortunate for Canadians because the Liberals are not doing what needs to be done to protect people and fix the firearms problem once and for all.

To read Bill C-22 we can only assume that the Liberals are incapable of discharging their governmental responsibility to ensure our safety. In contrast, the Conservative government always brought in measures to ensure the safety of all Canadians. The Prime Minister claims he wants to help Canadians, but he is doing nothing to ensure that criminals are brought to justice and answer for their actions.

We as Conservatives support our Canadian justice system as defined by our charter and our Constitution, and we do not support a justice system that would favour criminals to the detriment of Canadians's safety and security.

During this difficult time, Canadians need to know that the government is ensuring their safety and security. The Liberal government needs to show leadership and stand up to criminals. Canadians cannot afford for Parliament to get this wrong. This bill is extremely worrying for our children and for the future of our justice system.

We will do the job that Canadians have entrusted us to do: asking the government questions to ensure that the safety of Canadians remains the top priority.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I would like to talk abut something that is critically important to us.

We are talking about drug trafficking. We must obviously do everything we can to put an end to it, because it affects our youth in particular and many people in our society.

However, the NDP has put forward a proposal to decriminalize simple possession of narcotics. We are not talking about hardened criminals or traffickers, but about people who often also have problems. This overloads the judicial system. For the NDP, it is not a police issue, but a health and social services issue.

What does my colleague think of the NDP proposal, which would actually prevent our prisons from becoming overcrowded with people who are victims of drug trafficking, rather than perpetrators?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. As I have already mentioned in this place during our study of other bills, the Conservatives are willing to look at this with some degree of openness.

In the case of simple possession, these individuals are often going through problems or have developed an addiction. They are not the source of this social problem. Rather, we need to focus on those who sell or produce drugs.

We are open to exploring this and making changes, as the NDP has suggested.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his discussion this afternoon on Bill C-22.

One of the things the bill proposes is a reduction of mandatory minimums. A little known fact is that many of those mandatory minimums were put into effect by previous Liberal governments. I am wondering if the hon. member could speak to the consequences of lowering mandatory minimum sentences for the most severe crimes, which the bill proposes to diminish.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

This provision does indeed reflect the inconsistencies we see with this new Liberal government, which has been in place since 2015 and which we are struggling to understand. There was a time when Liberal governments had more logical positions that were more grounded in reality. However, the current Liberal government is very ideological and considers prison sentences to be problematic. These last few years, the release rate has even risen to 20%, which is a staggering jump. The government is doing everything it possibly can to empty prisons. This really reflects the ideology of the 2015 Liberal cohort. Previous governments had more common sense.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we know that the opioid crisis is leading to the deaths of thousands of Canadians. We have a crisis right across the country.

What does the hon. member think about decriminalizing the use or simple possession of drugs, and eliminating section 4 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act so that we could provide a safe supply of drugs to people who have addiction issues?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the same question asked by our colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

We are open to this idea. As I mentioned, we accept that users are for the most part victims of their drug use. We therefore must tackle the source of these drugs, many of which are imported. For example, we know that opioids, substances that are very difficult to detect because they are so small, come from Asia. Stopping them from entering Canada is not easy, but we must find every imaginable way possible to block the arrival of these products that are so harmful to Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out briefly that there has been a suggestion in this debate that judges should have complete discretion with criminal punishments. I do not believe that is a legal principle. It is up to us here to make the laws and we have, in many cases, already fettered the judges' discretion. It is not up to the judges to choose capital punishment or corporal punishment, even if they wish to.

I want to ask the member if he believes that the House has the authority to fetter the discretion of judges in sentencing matters if it so chooses.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand my colleague's question.

I agree with him in part. The government and Parliament have a responsibility to enact laws and make decisions about how justice should be administered. It bothers me a bit when the justice system makes decisions that contradict the will of the House of Commons. If there is a problem with a law or if a court decides for some reason that there is a problem, Parliament must review the legislation, debate it once again and put it to a new vote. Once Parliament makes its decision, however, the courts must abide by it.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be back in the House today to speak to Bill C-22, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

This has been an issue. We come to Parliament with different goals and priorities both from our ridings perspective and also from our personal passion. One of my passions has not only been the subject of mental health but has been addictions and treatment as well, which be should be the core of this bill.

COVID-19 in the last 14 months has obviously shown that the virus is a serious public health threat for our country and for the global community, but also the growing angst and mental health challenges that many Canadians are facing is certainly something we are not talking enough about or acknowledging enough. When we look at the statistics, suicides have been increasing and issues with addictions have certainly been on the rise as well, which is unfortunate.

For those who know me, I am a political junky not only in Canada but I follow U.S. and U.K. politics quite closely. There are few examples where my view has been changed or a light has gone off, an aha moment has happened for me, more than watching the U.S. presidential election, going back to 2016. I try not to bring too much American politics into our House of Commons, but I certainly think this example and this perspective is one to which we need to listen.

At that time, the former New Jersey governor Chris Christie was running for president and was in the state of New Hampshire. For those who know the state of New Hampshire and follow politics as closely like I do, a serious opioid crisis has beleaguered that state for many years. The number of people who have become addicted and unfortunately the number of people who have lost their lives is a real crisis in that state. Chris Christie was doing a town hall, and there is a video of that. I would encourage Canadians following this debate to look at that video. It is about a six to eight minute clip. In that video, he tells the story of his late mother and his law school friend back in the day, and it certainly hit home for me.

As a society, we have to look at addictions and substance abuse in this country differently from the way we have in the past. In politics, we talk about being more compassionate, the lens in which we see people and empathy. This is one where we need to do that.

Chris Christie talked about his mother who was diagnosed with cancer numerous times. The first time she was diagnosed she went to the hospital, was treated and went into remission. Unfortunately the cancer came back. She went back to the health care system, had treatment again and beat cancer a second time. It came back a third time. At no point did anybody in the health care system say, “Sorry, you have had cancer three times, it's is a lost cause, we're not going to treat you any more.” That would be an absurd proposition for a doctor, or a government or a state to say. He said that we had to think that way when it came to addictions. People who have substance abuse problems do not belong in a prison cell; they belong in rehabilitation. They need help to get their lives back on track. This is so important. Substance abuse and addictions know no barrier when it comes to gender, race or income level. It can impact and wreck anyone's life.

I want to speak today to Bill C-22 because as a Parliament, as we begin to have these conversations, more Canadians have a degree of separation, where unfortunately a friend, or a neighbour or a colleague has battled substance abuse or abuse issues. People are becoming more compassionate and know that we do not have enough services in the country when it comes to rehabilitation.

The government had the opportunity to bring a bill forward that could address this. I think we would find strong support in the House and across the country if we were to say that we would look people with simple minor possessions. As opposed to putting them through the criminal justice system or throwing them in prison with a long sentence, we would look at them with a focus on rehabilitation. That would be great.

Some parts of the bill address that. However, it goes way beyond what is reasonable in terms of prevention. Our legislation and laws need to look after individuals who need help, who need rehabilitation. However, our legislation and law enforcement should focus on people who prey on those with addictions, those who are trafficking, those who are preying on them and those who are turning to violence when it comes to drug trafficking. If we had that in the bill, I believe there would be strong support for it. I was very disheartened when I saw the opportunity for a bill to come forward on criminal justice reform but then saw the government add several pieces that would go way beyond that.

Bill C-22 would eliminate a number of mandatory minimum sentences when it comes to gun crimes, for example, robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, importing or exporting knowing it is unauthorized, discharging a firearm with intent, possession for purpose of weapons trafficking and the list goes on.

Furthermore, there is an expansion of conditional sentencing. The bill would allow for a greater conditional sentence, such as house arrest, for a number of offences where the offender faces terms of less than two years of imprisonment. The following offences are now eligible: prison breach; criminal harassment; sexual assault; kidnapping; abduction of a person under the age of 14; trafficking or exporting schedule 3 drugs, like LSD; breaking and entering a place other than a house or dwelling; and arson for fraudulent purposes.

We do not need to make it easier for those criminals and people who prey in drug trafficking and drug control. We need to clamp down more than ever on them. We need to provide supports for those with addiction issues who need it. We talk about reducing this, but to go out now with a message to say that we will lessen sentences, give house arrest, and not take these types of serious offences as seriously as we have in the past is the wrong message to send as a Parliament, if we pass this legislation.

We have an opportunity here in the coming weeks and months to improve this. I hope the government makes serious amendments to the bill that focus on exactly what I have spent the last seven or eight minutes talking about. There is not a dollar more for a rehabilitation treatment centre anywhere in the country or a commitment to do more. We need to focus on that.

We need to let people know that government is here for them when they need support. We need to send a very strong message to those who are trafficking, those who are in the drug trade, that the police and law enforcement will get the tools they need from this Parliament to go after them and stop these acts from happening.

I look forward to the debates as they go forward, but the bill goes much further than what I believe a majority of Canadians want. They want more compassion for individuals who have an addiction or substance abuse issue, and tougher enforcement.

The law enforcement, front-line police officers are not asking us for less restrictions and penalties for those who are trafficking drugs. They are asking us to close loopholes. This revolving door that happens frustrates our law enforcement.

We had a private member's bill come forward from my colleague, the member for Markham—Unionville, a common-sense tough bill that would address the core issue and the core problem, and it is being ignored.

I look forward to the debate and to hear what my colleagues have to say. However, for a Canadian who is struggling, this bill does more to empower drug trafficking and those creating the root cause of this problem than finding solutions.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much feel the empathy my hon. colleague has for people living with substance abuse disorders.

My question is more on the mandatory minimums part of his speech. I find the problem with mandatory minimums is that they take away from judicial discretion in a case. I hope the member will agree with me that every offence that goes before a judge is very unique and they all have very different circumstances. We cannot have a one-size-fits-all for every offence that is committed.

What does the member think about the existing Criminal Code section 718.2, which allows judges in cases to increase sentences based on the severity of the crimes? Does he not have faith that our judges already have tools in the Criminal Code to dole out the appropriate punishment to fit the crime?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the message we need to send to those trafficking drugs and preying on the vulnerable in our country is that when we make laws, in certain cases there is a benchmark and for certain crimes that benchmark needs to exist. Judges should have discretion, which we have talked about in different cases, but I look at the message this sends. We are doing the opposite of what law enforcement is asking us to do. It is asking to us to close gaps, to tighten them up and to stop the revolving door that they are seeing in our justice system today.

I agree that we need to have a balance. Too many of the balances are being removed and the message that is sending to those in the illicit black market and trade is that we are getting easier, giving less less. We need to clamp down more than ever, not take these away.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, just by way of correction, law enforcement had asked us to take the step we are taking with respect to drug diversion in this legislation. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has asked for and endorsed the position we are taking.

Given that the member opposite is a member of the Conservative Party of Canada, does he recognize that the Correctional Service of Canada indicates that between 2007 and 2017, Black and other racialized offenders were more likely to be admitted to federal custody based on an offence punishable by an MMP, and the same goes for indigenous accused, such that Black individuals were more than twice overrepresented in the prison population and for indigenous people it was sixfold. Would he agree that shows proof positive through the evidence that the policies of the Harper government have failed with respect to indigenous and Black Canadians?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a correction for my colleague. Many of these mandatory minimums were introduced under a Liberal government, going back as far as 1976, the Pierre Trudeau government. When he talks about a Harper failure, that is an attempt at a cheap shot that fails.

As I mentioned in my speech, when we are talking about simple possession, we are talking about people who individually have a small possession, who are not out trafficking, who are not committing robbery with a firearm, or extortion with a firearm, or weapons trafficking, or discharging firearms with intent, or prison breach, or sexual assault or kidnapping. Law enforcement in my riding is not asking me to reduce sentences for those cases.

We can deal with the issue of addictions or substance abuse of individuals. I agree with him that our prisons are overpopulated for certain demographics, absolutely. However, the answer for those individuals is getting better treatment, not sending the message that on these numerous serious offences, we are going to lower sentences or give more discretion on them. I do not believe that is what Canadian law enforcement wants.

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

Mr. Speaker, the correlation between poverty and crime is well established.

Quebec is in the midst of a serious housing crisis. Does my colleague agree that better targeted policies to address homelessness would be a good approach to combatting the type of crime this bill addresses?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we Conservatives have been very clear in the debate, the speakers the House has heard, that those struggling with addictions should get the help they need. Those Canadians should have access to treatment, not be in a prison cell. We can show more compassion, more empathy and more support for those who truly need it, but I believe we need to maintain tough laws and enforcement for those who prey on the vulnerable, who are trafficking drugs for the purpose of wrecking the lives of people, to send the message that that type of behaviour and conduct is not acceptable in this country. I do not believe sending the message of lowering the bar on that is the right way to go.

With respect to the member's point, providing help for the individual is what this legislation should focus on, but it takes on a wide array of other offences that I do not believe belong in the bill.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country.

I want to wish everyone celebrating the first day of Ramadan a very blessed Ramadan Mubarak.

It is with pleasure that I speak to Bill C-22, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. These proposed reforms represent an important step in our government's continuing efforts to make our criminal justice system fairer for everyone by seeking to address the overrepresentation of indigenous, Black and other members of marginalized and racialized communities.

Bill C-22 focuses on existing laws, which have exacerbated the underlying social, economic, institutional and historic disadvantages that contribute to systemic inequalities at all stages of the criminal justice system, from the first contact with law enforcement through to sentencing.

Issues of systemic racism and discrimination in the Canadian criminal justice system are well documented, including by commissions of inquiry: the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, and the Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System.

I will be candid in saying that it was to address such inequalities and racism that I originally ran for office in this chamber. This objective has been fostered by my progressive constituents in Parkdale—High Park who attend Black Lives Matter rallies in large numbers, who focus on reconciliation and the need to address systemic discrimination against indigenous persons, and who have attended a regular series of discussions that I have held as a member of Parliament on the issue of combatting systemic racism in the wake of the deaths of George Floyd and Regis Korchinski-Paquet, which occurred in my riding.

As a nation and as a continent, I firmly believe that we are seized with a moment and a movement now that Canadians are no longer willing to tolerate systemic racism and systemic discrimination. It is in that vein that our government is acting in response. Bill C-22 is a key part of that response to help remove systemic barriers that Black, indigenous and people of colour face in this country.

We know that the Parliamentary Black Caucus, as represented by members of all parties in this chamber, in June 2020 called for “reform the justice and public safety systems to weed out anti-Black racism, systemic bias, and make the administration of justice and public security more reflective of and sensitive to the diversity of our country”. As an ally, I was pleased to sign this statement, as were numerous cabinet ministers in our government, including the Minister of Justice himself.

All of these calls to action have recognized that sentencing laws, in particular the broad and indiscriminate use of mandatory minimums and restrictions on the use of conditional sentences, have made our criminal justice system less fair and have disproportionately hurt certain communities in Canada. To draw the juxtaposition as clearly as possible, there is a difference between being tough on crime, as the previous Conservative government purported to be, and being smart on crime, which is exactly what we, as Liberals, are doing with this legislation before us and other initiatives. This is precisely why Bill C-22 proposes to repeal a number of MMPs, including for all drug-related offences and for some firearms-related offences. Although some MMPs would be retained for serious offences, such as murder and serious firearms offences linked to organized crime, data shows overwhelmingly that the MMPs that would be repealed have particularly contributed to the over-incarceration of indigenous peoples, Black Canadians and other racialized and marginalized people. Members heard me put that to the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry in the questions and answers that preceded this speech.

This bill would also increase the availability of conditional sentence orders, CSOs. This is a critical facet that has not been focused on enough: conditional sentence orders in cases where offenders do not pose a risk to public safety. CSOs allow offenders to serve sentences of less than two years in the community under strict conditions, such as house arrest or a curfew, while still being able to benefit from employment; educational opportunities; and family, community and health-related support systems.

In order to appreciate the pressing need for these reforms, we have to look back at the foundational principles of sentencing in this country. The fundamental purposes of sentencing in Canada are the result of trail-blazing reforms that were made in 1996, which created a statutory recognition that sentencing is and must be an individualized process that relies on judicial discretion to impose just sanctions. Such sanctions are proportionate to the degree of responsibility of the offender and the seriousness of the offence. The member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford just referenced this individualized nature in his most recent intervention.

To achieve just sanctions, the 1996 reforms directed judges to take into account a number of sentencing principles, including rehabilitation and deterrence. Some of these principles acknowledge that in sentencing less serious crimes, imprisonment is often ineffective, unduly punitive and to be discouraged. The sentencing principles also recognized the need to address the over-incarceration of indigenous persons who were at the time already overrepresented in the criminal justice system. This was in 1996. What has happened since then, including after 10 years of the Harper government, are some of the statistics I have already indicated in the course of this debate.

As such, the amendments to the Criminal Code directed judges to consider all sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances before choosing to send an offender to jail. This principle applies to all offenders and requires judges to pay particular attention to the circumstances of indigenous persons.

In order to give full effects to these remedial principles, the 1996 reforms created conditional sentences of imprisonment to allow courts to order that terms of imprisonment of less than two years be served in the community under certain conditions. An offender could be eligible for a conditional sentence if serving their sentence in the community would not pose a risk to public safety, that the offence for which they are convicted is not subject to a mandatory minimum and that the community-based sentence would be consistent with the fundamental purposes of sentencing.

However, the increased use of mandatory minimums for a broad range of offences and the enactment by the previous Conservative government of additional restrictions on the availability of conditional sentences has restricted judicial discretion and made it difficult for courts to effectively apply these principles. As a result, these tough-on-crime, Harper government measures have made our criminal justice system less effective by discouraging the early resolution of cases. These measures have eroded public confidence in the administration of justice, something that is a hallmark of the rule of law in this country and is actually entrenched in the charter in section 24.

By far the most problematic consequence of these sentencing laws has been the disproportionate impact on Black, indigenous and persons of colour. In fact, the jurisprudence indicates how these processes and policies have failed, the policies of the previous Conservative government.

The Ontario Court of Appeal found in its 2020 decision in Sharma that certain of the limits on conditional sentence orders enacted in 2012 undermined the purpose of the Gladue principle by limiting the court's ability to impose a fit sentence that takes the offender's circumstances into account. The Court of Appeal held that those limits perpetuate a discriminatory impact against indigenous offenders in that sentencing process.

If I am going to zoom out, what I would say is that we, as a government on this side of the aisle, do not believe in handcuffing judges. What we believe is in empowering them to consider the overall situation of the accused. This is exemplified in Bill C-22, but also in other things that were captured in the fall economic statement, such as our approach to Gladue principles, our approach to community justice centres and to funding impact of race and culture assessments so the judges, when faced with an accused who is Black, indigenous or a person of colour, can look at the overall context of that individual and address a specifically tailored remedy for that situation to cure this malaise of overrepresentation.

The bill targets the sentencing policies and in doing so would restore the courts' ability to effectively enforce the fundamental objective and principles of sentencing and ensure that sentences are tailored to the individual and to the circumstances of the case.

Although it is important to ensure that fair and compassionate sentences are imposed, it is equally important to ensure that measures are in place to avoid contact with the criminal justice system in the first place. That is why Bill C-22 would require police and prosecutors to consider alternatives to laying and proceeding with charges for the simple possession of drugs, such as issuing a warning, taking no action or diversion to addiction treatment programs. Again, this came up in my questions put to the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry with respect to police and law enforcement being behind this provision of the bill.

We want to focus on getting individuals the help they need, whether that be treatment programs, housing or mental health support, instead of criminalizing them. These measures are consistent with our public health-centred approach to substance use and the opioid epidemic in this country. Together, these measures would encourage responses that take into account the individual's experience with systemic racism and health-related issues, and the particular supports they could benefit from. These reforms would allow police, prosecutors and courts to give full effect to the important principle of restraint in sentencing, particularly for indigenous offenders, and explore approaches that focus on restorative justice, rehabilitation of the individual and reintegration into the community.

It is essential that Canadians have confidence in the system and that it be there to protect them, not harm them. These reforms reflect what we have heard from Canadians, particularly now in the wake of this movement and us being awoken to the issue of systemic racism and systemic discrimination in the criminal justice system. I will leave it at that and I look forward to questions from colleagues on all sides of the chamber.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have some concerns about the debate today. Earlier on this morning, I asked one of his colleagues about full decriminalization and his colleague said that politics was getting in the way of being able to put full decriminalization of small amounts of drug possession. Later on, I asked another colleague who replied, and I am paraphrasing, that of course it was the right thing to do, but that we could not let perfect get in the way of good. This member has also articulated how important it is to keep people out of the criminal system, particularly around possession of small amounts of drugs.

Does the member understand that, in fact, he is part of the government, that the government brought forward this bill and it has the potential, the ability and the capacity to change this bill and make it better? Why are they not doing that?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Edmonton Strathcona for her contributions to this debate and others in the House.

The issue of how one treats drug offences is critical, and I appreciate she has put the question to many members speaking today. Obviously, I am painfully aware I am a member of the government, and I am proud to be a member of a government doing the work that is necessary in this regard. We have taken very important steps with respect to the legalization of cannabis and the restrictions there too. Those were taken under the previous Parliament.

What we are doing here with this legislation is an important step in the right direction, which is responding to calls from, among others, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police in respect to what we need to do to stop clogging up the courts to free up resources such as police resources, Crown resources and judicial resources, so they can target the most serious situations.

With respect to drugs, obviously a tailored approach needs to be taken, particularly when it comes to large-scale drug trafficking and gang-related activity.

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

Mr. Speaker, in Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, a new resource has emerged out of the pandemic. La Halte du coin is a high-intake shelter that welcomes the homeless no questions asked, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. People who use the shelter receive help with their substance abuse. Obviously they are less likely to commit crime if they are not in the street.

However, La Halte du coin is facing a challenge. It received funding during the pandemic to run its operations, but it is waiting to find out whether it will be able to continue after the pandemic. There is certainly a demand for this type of resource to get people off the street.

Does my colleague not think that it is time to provide predictability for organizations that work with clients who are at risk of committing crime?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question and it aligns with our overall theme of providing support to organizations that help clients struggling with addictions.

Our perspective is about harm reduction and about meeting people on their own terms. It is also about not overly criminalizing either the individual or the people who are serving them. The member's question is well-founded. What we are trying to do is fund harm reduction and harm reduction centres, and ensure safe injection sites are available where all are protected, not just the people who are using the substance, but also the people who are serving them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today on this very important bill, Bill C-22, which I have to say, having served in Parliament representing Saanich—Gulf Islands during the time many of the mandatory minimums were brought in, is disappointing on a number of levels.

As I recall it from memory, I think it was Mr. Harper's omnibus bill, Bill C-10, and we fought really hard against it at the time. There was no evidence whatsoever from any jurisdiction that mandatory minimums worked. I am disappointed. Why, when 43 mandatory minimums have already been found to be unconstitutional by courts across this country, are only 19 of them being removed?

We could go farther. We should do more. Perhaps a willingness to take on more in committee would be salutary. We certainly would not remove mandatory minimums with this bill, which do not work. They just cause increased congestion in prisons, and, as we know, provinces have to take on those costs.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her contributions today and every day in this Parliament.

I have three responses. One is that we are responding to all of the Supreme Court determinations with respect to mandatory minimums. Two is that we are repealing all of them with respect to drug-related offences. She is absolutely correct that there are some that remain with respect to certain firearms offences that deal with things such as where a firearm is used in the context of hurting another individual or where a firearm is used in the context of increasing the supply of illegal guns in this country, or trafficking. Those mandatory minimums would remain and there is sound justification for doing so.

What we have tried to do is take a tailored and targeted approach. We have seen, particularly with respect to Black and indigenous accused, overrepresentation linked to particular firearm-related offences such as simple possession. Those are the ones we are targeting with this bill. I look forward to her work at committee going forward.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-22, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which was introduced a couple months ago and proposes some important reforms to reduce the over-incarceration of indigenous peoples, Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities.

As we all know, a fair and effective criminal justice system is critical to ensuring that Canadians feel safe in their communities, have confidence in the justice system, and have trust that offenders are being held accountable in a manner that is equitable, transparent, and promotes public safety in Canada. The unfortunate reality is that far too many people face discrimination and systemic racism in all stages of our criminal justice system. For example, indigenous adults represent 5% of the general population, but 30% of federally incarcerated inmates. Black Canadians represent 3% of the Canadian population, but 7% of federal offenders.

This is a clear problem that has been exacerbated by “tough on crime” sentencing policies, including the indiscriminate and broad use of mandatory minimum penalties of imprisonment, or MMPs, as well as added restrictions placed on the availability of conditional sentencing orders, or CSOs. MMPs run counter to the fundamental principle of sentencing, namely that sentences must be individually tailored to the particular circumstances of the offence and the degree of the responsibility of the offender before the court. An excessive use of MMPs implies that we do not have trust in the judiciary to hand out sentences that fit the acts of the crime.

Rather than giving that to the judge, who would have heard all of the evidence that had been tested in court between the prosecution and the defence, it assumes that Ottawa knows best. It assumes that parliamentarians should institute blanket penalties regardless of the facts.

This one-size-fits-all approach to sentencing denies the reality that offences can be committed in a broad range of circumstances with varying degrees of seriousness. For example, someone who steals to feed their family is arguably less blameworthy than someone who steals goods to sell on the black market. This one-size-fits-all sentencing has too often used the latter example as a baseline for sentencing laws, and this has created problems in our justice system. This is one of the reasons MMPs are often found to constitute cruel and unusual punishment and are thus found to be unconstitutional for violating section 12 of the charter.

There are other reasons we should only utilize MMPs in the narrowest of situations. Number one is that they do not make our communities safer. The weight of evidence shows that minimum sentences do not deter crime, reduce rates of reoffending or make our communities any safer. Rather, it has been shown that they increase recidivism.

Number two is that they have a massive cost to society. The average cost of incarceration per person is over $125,000 a year. Number three is that unfair sentences are more likely to be appealed up to the highest court of the land, and this puts a strain on DOJ resources, gums up our court system and impacts the timely administration of justice.

This is an issue because the evidence shows that trials now take longer. Between 1996 and 2018, the time from first appearance to decision increased 228% for firearms offences and 60% for drug offences, and charter challenges to MMPs now represent 47% of all constitutional challenges to federal criminal laws. Over the last 10 years, 69% of charter challenges related to drug offences with mandatory minimum penalties have been successful, and it is the same for 49% of firearms MMPs.

The last minister of justice for the Conservative party claimed he was going to put away “the worst of the worst” during the tough on crime mandate of the Harper years, but the outcome has simply been a massive increase of unjust sentences forced on offenders, which the Supreme Court continues to deem unconstitutional.

Bill C-22 represents an important step forward, providing alternatives to incarceration where appropriate, including for indigenous and Black Canadians. One important component of the proposed reforms is a series of amendments to the conditional sentencing regime that would allow the regime to fulfill its original purpose, namely to address the overreliance on incarceration for less serious crimes. A CSO allows an offender who does not pose a threat to public safety to serve a prison term of less than two years in the community under strict conditions, including house arrest and curfew.

The law governing CSOs provides judges with the ability to impose a broad range of conditions that balance public safety with other important objectives such as rehabilitation. For example, a judge can require an offender to attend an approved treatment program, which can help address the underlying reasons that led to offending in the first place.

Evidence shows that allowing offenders who do not pose a risk to public safety to serve their sentences in the community under strict conditions, while maintaining access to employment, community and health-related support systems, is more effective at reducing future criminality than harsh penalties such as incarceration. In certain circumstances, it can provide the environment for offenders to take responsibility for the harm they caused to the victim by their actions, as well as take responsibility for their actions through restorative justice.

I have had the opportunity to see the excellent work that the North Shore Restorative Justice Society and the Restorative Justice Program of the Sunshine Coast have done in this regard. This is well known to be a powerful way of not only reducing recidivism, but also helping communities heal.

Having established why MMPs are problematic, it is worth highlighting that they are particularly so in drug cases. This is top of mind in my province of British Columbia, where more people have been killed by the opioid epidemic since the pandemic reached our shores than have passed away from COVID-19. Rather than treat substance use and addiction as a moral issue, we need to continue to take steps to treat it as a health issue, so that we can get help to those individuals who are suffering.

Bill C-22 would require police to consider other measures for simple possession of drugs, such as diversion to addiction treatment programs rather than laying charges and necessitating incarceration. In doing so, we would diminish the danger associated with substance abuse by no longer forcing individuals to use drugs in secrecy out of fear of punishment and incarceration. It would prevent a vicious cycle where Canadians incarcerated as a result of drug charges become more likely to recommit the same crime and use again. Instead, pursuing alternatives to incarceration would allow real healing to take place, which is necessary if we are to combat the opioid crisis, which has particularly wreaked tragedy in the privacy of people's homes.

That takes me to my next point. In 2020, the majority of fatal drug overdoses took place in privacy and solitude. By contrast, zero deaths have occurred at supervised consumption or drug overdose prevention sites in B.C. because of medical interventions from staff. When simple drug use no longer needs to be concealed out of fear of criminal prosecution, government programs that provide for safer supply are possible, and we create the space for treatment to rehabilitate those suffering from addiction. This method has shown success in communities across my riding, and they have overwhelming community support.

In Sechelt, the Sunshine Coast’s first sanctioned safe consumption site was established last July. There, trained staff provide support, which includes access to naloxone, counselling, overdose response and education, drug checking, and detox treatment options. A couple months ago, an overdose prevention site opened in Squamish. This new site is dedicated to the memory of the late Squamish resident Sarah Jane Thompson, a vocal advocate for harm reduction who tragically died of drug toxicity during a relapse in November.

To sum up, this legislation makes some important improvements to our criminal justice system. It gets rid of unfair laws, which do nothing to make our communities safer, but which pose a massive cost on the public, impact our institutions, and disproportionately impact indigenous and Black Canadians and other marginalized communities. In its place, we will create real opportunities for individuals to get the help they need, while allowing for rehabilitation and reintegration of our communities and create safer communities as a result.

I urge all members to support this important bill.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country will have five minutes for questions and comments when the House next gets back to debate on the question.