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

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have not given a lot of speeches as I have been here only two years, but as some of my colleagues will know, I try to be as non-partisan as possible. I find it to be getting more and more difficult, the longer I am here.

One of the things I like to do with every piece of legislation that is put forward is to try to find what I can support or what I think is good in that bill or piece of legislation, and what I think needs to be improved upon. Unfortunately, when I look at Bill C-5, I cannot find a single thing in it that I think is worth supporting.

I came to this Parliament, that is, I ran for elected office and I got elected, to solve problems, not to create new ones. I find it somewhat hypocritical of the government. It said we needed this urgent election, to come here, dissolve Parliament and have an election, because we needed to deal with things concerning COVID and deal with this pandemic. However, one of the first bills the Liberals have introduced is one that would basically make it easier for criminals to stay out of jail and on the streets. This is not for first-time offenders. This is not for simple crimes. This is for serious crimes, and I will get into that later.

This should be about public safety and victims, and dealing with the root causes of the problems we have with gun violence and the increase in violence across this country. We should be addressing poverty, drugs, gangs and criminals, not focusing on making it easier for criminals. This bill eliminates mandatory prison time for drug traffickers and those who commit acts of violence, and makes it possible to put criminals under house arrest versus doing time in prison. Ultimately, it is going to put victims at risk.

I want to read into the record, and I know it has been done before, exactly what Bill C-5 is going to eliminate from the mandatory minimum perspective related to gun crimes: robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking excluding firearms and ammunition, importing or exporting knowing that it is unauthorized, discharging a firearm with intent, using a firearm in the commission of an offence, 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, possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking, and discharging a firearm recklessly.

The issue is we have seen the government in the previous Parliament bring in an order in council that targeted the most law-abiding citizens in the country, our legal firearms owners, and made it more difficult for our hunters, farmers and sport shooters. However, at the same time, the government introduced, in the last Parliament, Bill C-22. This bill is identical to that previous bill, which makes it easier for criminals to get off those charges.

The previous speaker indicated that these are policies that were failing that were brought in by previous Conservative governments. No, these 14 mandatory minimums that would be repealed via this bill, of the 67 that exist, are ones that were brought in by prime ministers Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Jean Chrétien. These are not bills that were brought in under former prime minister Stephen Harper. These bills were brought in by previous Liberal prime ministers.

My question, in a rhetorical sense to the previous speaker, is why they did not get rid of all mandatory minimums, the other 53 mandatory minimums, if that is the case. They are keeping the ones the previous Conservative government strengthened under Stephen Harper and eliminating the ones that have been around for decades.

I just want to make that clear. They are eliminating those mandatory prison times for criminals who commit robbery with a firearm, weapons trafficking and drive-by shootings, and they are basically doing this because they view the laws as unfair. They are more interested in standing up for the criminals versus the victims and keeping our communities safe.

The next aspect of the bill is eliminating that mandatory prison time for drug dealers. There are six mandatory minimums that they are eliminating that target drug dealers: trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking, importing and exporting or possession for the purposes of exporting, and the production of a substance schedule I or schedule II drug; i.e. heroin, cocaine, fentanyl or crystal meth.

Again, we have talked about this, and I fully acknowledge that it happens in my community. We have heard from communities right across this great nation about the opioid crisis and the need to help Canadians who are struggling with addiction. I have family members who have struggled with addiction issues, and I full appreciate that. However, they are not producing drugs, they are not running these meth labs, they are not trafficking drugs and they are not enabling the crisis in this country. There are other people we should be locking up, and we should make sure they serve the appropriate time without letting them off easy.

The next part of the bill talks about conditional sentencing. I am going to read the offences out, because it is beyond me why we would not want these criminals punished. These are not first-time offenders who have committed a theft because they are struggling to get by or do not have food. These are people who are doing serious things. We are talking about prison breach, criminal harassment, sexual assault, kidnapping, trafficking in persons, abduction of a person under 14, motor theft, theft over $5,000, arson for fraudulent purposes, etc.

I have an eight-year-old daughter. The last thing I want to see is for some hardened criminal who kidnaps my daughter, or the daughter or son of any Canadian for that matter, to be let off and not get the appropriate punishment because of this potential change in legislation.

I want to address the issue of simple possession. This is not what we are dealing with. Police officers already have a load of tools at their disposal to make a determination as to when charges should be laid. My colleague from Brantford—Brant spoke earlier and he is a former Crown attorney. There are some people here with a lot of knowledge who understand the justice system better than me, and I will trust them on how to address this stuff. However, my point, from a simple Canadian perspective, is that this bill would not do anything to make our communities safer and address support for victims.

I want to expand on the conditional sentencing orders, which allow judges to use their judgment when sentencing. I personally do not think there should be a reduction in penalties and a soft-on-crime approach when it comes to gun crime or repeat offenders. It is important that we do not forget the component of public safety when we consider our aim of reducing the overrepresentation of visible minorities in our prisons. We should be considering how to provide the right help and treatment for those suffering with addiction and mental health issues.

As long as I am a member of Parliament, I will continue to advocate for common-sense policies that keep criminals off our streets and respect law-abiding Canadians. I am committed to fighting for policies that keep our communities safe while ensuring that those who are suffering are getting the best help possible. I will not sacrifice public safety, and I will continue to fight for justice and proper resourcing to help those who most need it.

In conclusion, like many of my colleagues and I think the majority of Canadians, I believe serious violent offences committed with firearms deserve mandatory prison times. It is shameful that a bill is being brought here that would weaken the firearms laws in this country. I have serious concerns with this legislation, and I really think we can do better. I hope the government will do better.

Criminal Code and Controlled Drugs and Substances Act

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to debate Bill C-5. I have to say that this is not a straightforward subject; it is extremely complex.

As I am not a lawyer, I, too, have to make sense of it all. I want to thank the office staff of the leader of the Bloc Québécois, who have really helped clarify this issue. Bill C-5 addresses two extremely important issues. I believe it would be worthwhile to have two separate debates, and I will move a motion about that a little later.

Debating both issues at the same time is complicated because we might be against abolishing mandatory minimum sentences and in favour of decriminalization. This complicates the debate a little. In the case of mandatory minimums for offences committed with a firearm, we are looking at 20 specific mandatory minimums. In the case of simple drug possession, we are looking at decriminalization. I think we need to look at these two issues separately.

As I said, I am not a lawyer. However, I have heard lawyers on the same team debate this subject and it is hard to have a simple opinion. It is hard to choose black or white, because there are several grey areas in all of this. We will try to untangle it all together and weigh the various arguments.

There are several arguments in favour of eliminating mandatory minimum sentences, and there are several against it. In my opinion, it is important that we consider all the arguments.

The Liberal government promised to quickly reintroduce Bill C‑22 from the last Parliament. It also promised to reintroduce what we referred to as Bill C‑236. By merging these two items into one bill, the government is giving the impression that it wants to act hastily. However, when we try to move too fast, we often make mistakes or do things wrong. I think the impression we give people is important.

In the current context, Bill C-5 sends out a peculiar message. Let me explain: Canada is in the midst of a gun violence crisis. My colleagues have likely heard me talk about firearms and the situation in Montreal and other major urban centres during the various question periods. Almost every day, we hear about a new firearm death.

The circumstances and timing are therefore not really appropriate. We have been calling on the minister for three weeks to take the first real step to combat the trafficking of illegal firearms, and to tighten gun control and border measures. Ultimately, the first step the government took was to introduce this bill, which proposes eliminating mandatory minimum sentences for certain firearms offences.

The message that sends is a bit odd. It does not really reassure anyone. Montreal families are worried, especially mothers who have lost a son and are waiting for gun control measures to be tightened. People are afraid to go out in the evening and take a walk in their own neighbourhood, which used to be safe. I doubt that these people feel reassured when they are told that the only thing the Liberal government has done so far to combat gun trafficking is to abolish the mandatory minimum sentences related to such offences.

The context is different and we, as parliamentarians, have to consider that. Everything is changing. The context is changing. When Bill C‑22 was introduced, the context was different, even though this was a problem across the country. I think that we have no choice but to take that into consideration.

I am talking specifically about firearms because I am very familiar with this file. It should be noted that some mandatory minimum sentences that are set to be eliminated have to do with drug possession while the opioid crisis is raging both in Quebec and in the rest of Canada. It is rather odd to be introducing this bill at this stage.

That being said, the Bloc Québécois is usually in favour of the principle of rehabilitation and crime reduction in a different context.

There is a tendency to have a fairly high degree of trust in judges, and I think they should be given the benefit of the doubt and the flexibility needed to decide what sentence to impose for an offence.

It is important to keep in mind that if certain mandatory minimum sentences were to be abolished overnight, that does not mean that someone who has committed offences will not be charged. It means that we are leaving it up to the judge to decide the best way to ensure public safety.

If a mandatory minimum sentence exists, the judge can impose a harsher sentence if they feel that that is the right thing to do. However, the judge cannot go below the mandatory minimum. That is my concern. If individuals can be punished for their offences, but rehabilitated in ways other than being sent to prison, I think that can be beneficial. People often become more criminalized as a result of entering this cycle. Other options need to be considered. That is a pretty strong argument, I think, for abolishing mandatory minimum sentences.

Another argument is that it has long been accepted that mandatory minimum sentences do not deter certain kinds of targeted crimes. For example, it is a well-known fact that mandatory minimum sentences have virtually no effect on drug trafficking. Research in the United States and Malaysia has proven this. Both countries have strict minimum sentences for drug trafficking. However, this has not led to any change in drug use within the population. Rather, this only puts more small dealers in prison. Unfortunately, the focus is on the bottom of the ladder, when these individuals are often not irrevocably on that path. We could remedy all that and not necessarily send them directly to prison.

As for the effects of mandatory minimum sentences on firearms, no credible study has established that sentences have a deterrent effect on firearms offences. I think that someone who is planning to commit a crime or who commits a crime that is not premeditated does not say to themselves that they will not do it because there is a mandatory minimum sentence for that offence. Those who commit gun crime are either not aware of the consequences or they do not care about them and will commit the crime anyway.

I believe that even though the context is problematic, we agree that abolishing mandatory minimum sentences can be a good thing. However, it is not just about the context. Some details warrant further study.

In this case, Bill C-5 abolishes several mandatory minimum sentences for second and third offences. As I was saying, mandatory minimum sentences for a first offence may impact social reintegration, but keeping certain mandatory minimum sentences for second or even third offences could be justified to uphold the credibility of our legal system.

For example, the use of a firearm or imitation firearm to commit an offence is currently punishable by a mandatory minimum sentence of three years, which also applies to a second or subsequent offence. Under Bill C‑5, this would be scrapped.

However, an individual who uses a firearm or imitation firearm for a second or third offence deserves to be held accountable for that, in my view. It is worth considering.

My time is running out, so I will not have time to go into the second item that this bill addresses, diversion. What I would suggest to the government is that it simply split the bill. The government should withdraw Bill C‑5 and introduce two new separate bills. I think that would be a good solution.

The first bill would deal with diversion, which is represented by the part entitled “Evidence-based Diversion Measures” in the current Bill C‑5. The House could vote on the principle of the bill at second reading.

The second bill would deal with mandatory minimum sentences and would be sent to committee before second reading. That would give members a chance to examine the principle of the bill prior to second reading and propose amendments that would change its scope. Immediate referral to committee before second reading would allow for a full study on the subject.

That is the Bloc Québécois' proposal to the government. I hope it will be well received.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak today on Bill C-5, a seriously flawed and dangerous piece of proposed legislation. My commentary and opinion on this are shaped by my experience as a lawyer for almost 30 years, the last 18 years as a Crown attorney for the Province of Ontario.

A week ago today, members in the House stood in solidarity to honour and remember the victims of the Montreal massacre. Fourteen women were murdered, and 10 women and four men were injured. That day was an opportunity for the House, and especially the Prime Minister and his government, to stand strong against all forms of gun violence and to inform Canadians in very clear terms that they would take immediate steps to curb the ever-increasing tide of this criminal behaviour. What is most disturbing is that, less than 24 hours removed from this commemoration, the justice minister introduced Bill C-5, which was a tone-deaf and ill-timed response from this government.

The Prime Minister in the last election promised peace, order and good government. He said that Canada needs leadership that would not back down in the face of rising extremism and that he would take action to put an end to gun violence in our communities. Bill C-5 is the complete opposite of this pledge and proves to be another example of virtue signalling to all Canadians.

Bill C-5 is identical to Bill C-22, which was first introduced in the last Parliament. That bill never made it past the second reading before the unnecessary federal election was called. The bill would eliminate mandatory minimum penalties for 14 of the 67 offences in the code, 13 for firearm offences and one for a tobacco offence. Notwithstanding what we have heard over the last week by the justice minister and his government, this dangerous bill is not targeted at less serious gun crime.

As an example, let us take a look at section 244(1) of the code, which reads:

Every person commits an offence who discharges a firearm at a person with intent to wound, maim or disfigure, to endanger the life of or to prevent the arrest or detention of any person

I would ask any member of the House to somehow convince me that that would constitute a less serious gun offence.

The bill would also eliminate all six mandatory minimums for offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. These include the very serious offences of trafficking, importing and exporting, and the production of controlled substances. I invite members to think about that for a moment. This soft-on-crime, ideologically driven Liberal government believes that those who traffic and produce fentanyl, the most deadly and lethal form of street drug, which is being sold to millions of addicts, is causing an opioid crisis, and results in daily overdoses and deaths, should not expect to receive a minimum period of incarceration. It is utterly shameful and dangerous.

As a rookie member and political aficionado in Ottawa, I have repeatedly heard a false narrative from the Prime Minister and his government that Prime Minister Harper is to blame for everything that has gone wrong in this country. Perhaps it is about time for this government to engage in some self-reflection.

Contrary to the justice minister's talking points about the government “turning the page on a failed Conservative criminal justice policy”, the fact remains that it is keeping the other 53 mandatory minimums in the code intact and keeping most of the ones introduced by the Conservative Party. The justice minister needs to be reminded that it was former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau in 1977 and prime minister Jean Chrétien in 1995 who introduced several mandatory minimums for firearm offences.

These penalties have been rooted in our criminal justice system since the early 1890s. Legislators, over the decades that followed, have relied upon mandatory sentencing tools to mitigate inconsistencies in the exercise of judicial discretion. A key feature of our system of government is that Parliament constantly reviews all legislation and passes new legislation to ensure its laws, including sentencing laws, properly align with the demands of justice. Those demands of justice speak very clearly that there is a tremendous increase in gun violence across this country.

Conservatives believe that serious violent offences committed with firearms deserve mandatory prison time. If government members will not take our word on this subject, then perhaps they will listen and reflect on what eloquent jurists have said about gun violence in our communities.

Firearm use and possession is not a momentary lapse in judgment. Heavy regulation of firearms and ammunition mean that those who possess them had to make a concerted effort to do so. A person does not stumble upon an illegal handgun. There is a process of purchasing from a trafficker and secreting the handgun to avoid detection and prosecution. There is a high degree of deliberation and contemplation. Loaded firearms, especially in public, add a dimension of heightened risk.

Hear the words of Justice D. E. Harris:

A person with a gun in their hands has a god-like power over life and death. Virtually all that is necessary is to point at another person and to apply a few pounds of pressure on the trigger in order to end a human life.... The ease of killing with a gun...is an exigent danger to us all.

He said, “Such immense power with so little reason must be opposed with everything at our disposal.”

Listen to these chilling words from Justice Molloy in the decision of Ferrigon:

A person who loads a handgun with bullets and then carries that handgun, concealed on his person, into a public place is by definition a dangerous person. Handguns are used to shoot people. A person who carries a loaded handgun in public has demonstrated his willingness to shoot another human being with it. Otherwise there would be no need to have loaded it. That person is dangerous. He is dangerous to those with whom he associates; he is dangerous to the police and other law enforcement personnel; he is dangerous to the members of his community; he is dangerous to innocent bystanders, including children, who may be killed or maimed by stray bullets.

According to Public Safety Canada, violent crime involving firearms is a growing threat to public safety in our communities. Gun violence is on the rise: an 81% increase in violent offences involving guns since 2009; one in three homicides in Canada are firearm related; and 47% of Canadians feel gun violence is a threat to their community. Gun violence impacts people and communities across Canada. It happens in urban, suburban and rural communities across every province and territory, in all age and socio-economic groups and, last, among those who own guns and those who do not.

This is a moment in time to strengthen our gun laws to emphasize the principles of denunciation and deterrence. This is not the time to advance a soft-on-crime bill that puts communities and victims at risk.

Mandatory minimum sentences are an important tool for ensuring, not inhibiting, justice in sentencing. Rather than eliminating a judge's ability to assess a proportionate sentence, mandatory minimums set a stable sentencing range for an offence, permitting citizens to understand in advance the severity of the consequences that attend the commission of that offence.

The justice minister stressed that Bill C-5 was not aimed at hardened criminals but at first-time low-risk offenders. He was quoted on December 8, stating:

Think about your own kids. Perhaps they got into trouble at some point with the law. I bet you would want to give them the benefit of the doubt or a second chance if they messed up. Well, it is a lot harder to get a second chance the way things are now...

That is such a disturbing message from the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. I cannot think of any other example of being tone deaf to the obvious. We are indeed focusing on serious violent offenders and not misguided, mischievous youthful first offenders.

The Liberal government claims the bill is to address racism in Canada's criminal justice system. As noted by the Alberta minister for justice, Kaycee Madu:

While Ottawa’s new justice bill...contains some reasonable measures, I am deeply concerned about the decision to gut tough sentencing provisions for gun crimes....Removing tough, mandatory penalties for actual gun crimes undermines the very minority communities that are so often victimized by brazen gun violence. I also find it disingenuous for Ottawa to exploit a genuine issue like systemic racism to push through their soft-on-crime bills.

As a former Crown attorney, I am very much aware and wholeheartedly accept that there is a disproportionally higher rate of incarcerated indigenous and Black Canadians. We as parliamentarians have the tools necessary to put into place measures to address this problem. We already have principles that mandate jurists to consider the background of indigenous offenders.

The Liberal government last year committed $6.6 million to produce better informed sentencing decisions based on an understanding of the adversities and systemic inequalities that Black Canadians and members of other racialized groups faced.

Furthermore, Parliament has an opportunity to put into place a safety valve known as a constitutional exemption that would allow judges to exempt outliers for whom the mandatory minimum would constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

This flawed and dangerous bill would also substantially alter the conditional sentence regime, which would now allow such a sentence to be imposed for sex assaults, criminal harassment, kidnapping, human trafficking, arson and abduction.

What I found most ironic is that yesterday we heard from the justice minister that this legislation would reduce a significant amount of charter challenges and speed up the disposition of criminal cases. What he failed to address was how the changes to the conditional sentence regime would result in a plethora of increased litigation as the proposed amendments were lawfully unavailable.

A condition precedent to the availability of the conditional sentence is that a justice must be satisfied that serving a sentence at home would not endanger the safety of the community. Offenders convicted of sexual assault, criminal harassment, kidnapping and abduction are indeed dangerous.

Furthermore, section 752 defines the above offences as a serious personal injury offence, which the provincial appellate courts have consistently excluded from conditional sentence consideration.

The number one priority for the federal government is to keep Canadians safe. The Liberal government has been derelict in its responsibility. This soft-on-crime, ideologically driven bill needs to be defeated.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Never again? Never say never again here, from the other side.

Madam Speaker, that was on Bill C-235, which Mr. Bagnell tabled in the House. We had a second reading vote on his private member's bill. Fifteen Conservatives voted with him. I was one of them, because I thought an assessment order for those with fetal alcohol syndrome should get them some type of special treatment in the courts and judges should be directed to look at that during sentencing. It was an assessment in that case that I thought was perfectly reasonable.

If we look at my voting record on other bills, members will realize that I am willing to look at bills as they come forward and judge them on the merits of their content, not the aspirations placed behind them. Judges do not look at the aspirational language we use in this place to describe bills.

I have heard members say this bill would help indigenous or Black Canadians get the type of treatment they deserve in the court system so they are not overly given harsh criminal sentences, but the words “race”, "racism" and "systemic racism" are not in this bill. Another member mentioned, aspirationally, that the bill would help to stop minorities from being overly sentenced harshly by the judicial system, but I do not see those words. The Liberals could have introduced an assessment order and a requirement for judges to consider that.

On that point, Liberal members have asked several times if we do not trust judges. Of course we trust judges. The government appoints them to sit on the bench and render decisions on behalf of Canadians. They are supposed to look at both sides, those of the offender and the victim, and determine what outcome would be fair and just for society while including an opportunity for rehabilitation and a punishment that would fit the crime, to ensure that victims also feel that justice has been served in their case.

The Liberals talk about judicial discretion. How do they feel about the discretion of the Attorney General of Canada or those of the provinces? I wonder how Jody Wilson-Raybould would feel right now when we are talking about the discretion of judges. It was the current government, on the opposite side, that got itself involved in a criminal proceeding for favouring a particular party, so how does it feel about attorney generals using their discretion in the pursuit of justice?

I think it is hypocritical of government members to be talking about judicial discretion and the ability of judges to determine a proper sentence. We do not talk about attorneys general who give direction to prosecutors. In this caucus, we have several prosecutors on our side who have actually gone through this and used these sections of the Criminal Code to sentence people.

Many of our comments probably echo the member for St. Albert—Edmonton's terrific verbal dissertation on the merits of the bill's contents. However, I thought it remarkable that one of the offences that is being rolled back in the bill is the production and manufacturing of schedule I drugs, including hard drugs such as cocaine, heroin, fentanyl and crystal meth.

I live in a suburban community that is made up entirely of single-family detached homes, mostly next to a hospital. Just a few years ago, a fentanyl lab was found in my own community in one of the homes closest to Deerfoot Trail. I think two million or three million pills were found, including pill presses. This has been a common story in Calgary. These pill press mills are being found in residential neighbourhoods. In the past six years, this sleepy, suburban community also had two murders committed in it. One of these, if I remember correctly, was connected to the drug trade. Again, this is happening in all of our communities across Canada. We see the daily numbers of opioid deaths, and I entirely agree that it is a crisis.

However, again, the way in which the bill is being framed does not match the contents of the bill. What I see in the bill is a kind of softening of the minimum we can set for people who commit crimes such as robbery with a firearm or kidnapping, which are things that most of my constituents think is absolutely wrong.

Before I get accused of not caring about those who wind up in the prison system, in my riding we have the historic Ogden Hotel, which has been there for almost a century. A CP is located right next to it, and it is one of Calgary's original hotels. This is where Pastor Delaney runs the Victory Foundation for the church: It helps men who are getting out of the prison system to get back on their feet, find jobs and get some training and education.

I have had coffee there with people out of the prison system who are trying to get their lives back on track. I have a beautiful painting in my house from a gentleman who was homeless. He wound up in the judicial system and was charged, but I call him an expert painter from Calgary. He made a beautiful painting of an elk being attacked by a cougar, and he was helped by the Victory Foundation. I have met and interacted with these men and tried to better understand what they go through. Many of them will tell us that they wronged someone and that they have to right the wrong at some point.

There are two sides to the debate we are having here. Where is the voice of the victims who want to see fairness in the judicial system? If we are going to talk about judicial discretion, we have to talk about attorneys general being able to direct prosecutors to actually pursue these cases as well. Also, we set the box within which judges are supposed to rule, and the box shows what the minimum is, what the maximum is and what is reasonable in between.

A member on our side mentioned that it is an expectation of Canadians that a crime committed in eastern Canada, for example in Montreal on the south shore in beautiful Brossard, in the B section where I lived for part of my life, would be treated the same way if it was committed in downtown Calgary. The same crime would be looked at by judges in the same way and would be given a similar type of sentence. We say that every case is different and every case has particular circumstances to it, but that is what we are asked to do here. I am not a lawyer by profession, so I am unburdened by a legal education and can just give a layman's interpretation of what the judicial system should look like. I consider that a bonus, but maybe some lawyers do not.

Before I forget, I have a Yiddish proverb for members to consider: “When you sweep the house, you find everything.” As I have gone through the bill, I have mentioned the fundamental aspects of the judicial system here. As I am sweeping across the bill, I look for those terms that have been mentioned by members aspirationally hoping that it would achieve the goals of not having offenders judged solely by immutable characteristics such as race, but only on the merits of their particular cases. That is a concept that I agree with, but it is not in the bill. There is no assessment order. The government could have taken an idea from our former colleague Larry Bagnell and applied it to the particular thing that they truly care about.

I cannot see how I can support this type of bill. This is the same thing as Bill C-22 in the last Parliament, and government members knew we would not support this type of legislation. They had an opportunity to fix it, but they chose not to take it. Between tabling Bill C-22 and the return of this Parliament, they lost the opportunity to find some type of consensus in the House on producing a bill to help Canadians and to help victims of serious crimes.

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

Madam Speaker, it brings me no great joy to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C‑5.

The first thing I want to point out is that this bill is an exact copy of Bill C‑22, which was introduced and debated in the previous Parliament. Then there was an election, so now we have to start over. On second thought, maybe starting over is not such a bad thing, because if Bill C‑22 had been adopted in its entirety a few months ago, the mandatory minimum sentences for a number of important offences would have been reduced. At least now we have a chance to change things.

The main reasons that led me to become a Conservative MP have to do with public order, national defence, public safety and sound economic management. More than anything else, it was the Conservative approach to public order that really prompted me to become a Conservative MP. I was elected for the first time in 2015, but, unfortunately for my party, the Liberals won that time around and have been in power ever since.

Since 2015, we have witnessed drastic and tragic changes to how public safety issues are addressed. Victim protection has changed, and criminals have been given more rights. That really worries me.

Personally, I blame the Liberals, of course, but also the New Democrats, who, unfortunately, systematically support the Liberal approach. The Bloc Québécois tends to do that as well. As a Quebecker, I often have a hard time understanding how my Bloc colleagues can be so far to the left on these issues, but that is another debate. As I see it, the approach in Bill C‑5 is totally ideological and utterly incomprehensible.

Here are some examples of crimes for which Bill C-5 will reduce minimum sentences: robbery with a firearm; extortion with a firearm; weapons trafficking; importing or exporting an unauthorized firearm; discharging a firearm with intent; using a firearm in the commission of an offence; possession of a prohibited firearm; 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.

If Canadians and Quebeckers were listening carefully to that list of the various crimes involving firearms, most people would say that that does not make sense and that reducing the penalties for such offences is out of the question. If people had a clear understanding of what is being debated today, if people were polled, the vast majority would say that this makes no sense and that there is no reason to reduce the sentences of criminals who commit these kinds of offences. That is what the average person on the street would say.

Of course, each member has a duty to represent their constituents, about 100,000 people on average. The Liberals are going to say that this is what people want, and the NDP will support them. Unfortunately, we Conservatives are in a minority. However, I can guarantee that if we asked Canadians about this, the majority, over 50% of them, would surely say they are against this type of measure.

We also must remember that the Liberals have had a change of heart. The offences I just listed were included in the Criminal Code in 1976 under the Liberal government at the time, which was led by Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the current Prime Minister's father. Back then, the left and right saw crime very differently, and we can all agree that these were important measures that did the trick.

Today, over 40 years later, we are trying to understand why Pierre Elliott Trudeau's son has a totally different perspective on this issue and is taking his government in a direction that puts public safety in jeopardy.

What is more, Bill C‑5 deals on one hand with firearms and on the other hand with drugs. Let us be clear: We are talking about sentences for traffickers, not addicts or drug users. This is not at all about managing people who use drugs for various reasons and all the risks that entails. This is truly about traffickers, those who sell, produce and traffic in drugs such as heroin, cocaine, fentanyl and crystal meth.

On that, I would like to read what my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton said in the House yesterday. I find it very relevant when we are talking about fentanyl. He said the following:

We have an opioid crisis in Canada today. Every day, approximately 20 Canadians lose their lives to an opioid overdose. It has increased by 88% since the onset of COVID, 7,000 Canadians a year. The Liberal government's solution is to roll back mandatory sentencing for the very people who are putting this poison on our streets, endangering lives and killing 20 Canadians a day.

That is the main issue, that ideological and philosophical approach to criminals.

As my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton so wisely pointed out yesterday, how are Canadians supposed to agree with eliminating harsh sentences for drug traffickers, the people who are responsible for the fentanyl that kills 20 Canadians a day? Where is the logic there? I cannot wrap my head around it, and neither can most of my colleagues.

I would like to hear my colleagues from other parties, like the Bloc Québécois members and even some from the Liberal Party, acknowledge that the Conservatives are right and that the government is going too far with Bill C‑5.

This is not the right way to tackle the problem. As I was saying, this has nothing to do with addicts. When speaking about people who use for various reasons, a Bloc member said earlier that we should be proactive in tackling this problem. To be proactive, to help drug users, we would have to go after the traffickers who get those drugs onto the streets and whose actions lead to the death of 20 Canadians every day.

What is worse, the Prime Minister appears to think all of this is okay. He does not seem to grasp the problem, and the government does not seem to be able to find the right approach. If this were based on facts or on some logic that people could get on board with, it would be fine, but no, the government seems to think its ideology is perfect. This is unacceptable.

I remind members that Bill C‑5 would reduce minimum penalties for crimes that involve the use of a firearm. There has been talk in Montreal about firearms and the trafficking of guns through the United States for several weeks now. People are bringing in weapons from all over the place and selling them on the black market. There are 14- 15- or 16-year-old kids using these weapons on Montreal streets. Toronto has had the same problem for many years. Quebec is now grappling with this issue, as firearms are becoming increasingly prevalent in Montreal.

While police, judges and the justice system try to find a way to control this problem, here in Ottawa we are debating a bill that, ultimately, tells gun traffickers that they need not worry, and that if they are arrested, they will not be sentenced and that everything will be fine; that it is no big deal if they sell guns; and that there is nothing to worry about if they buy and use guns. Bill C‑5 sends the message that traffickers should not worry, they can do what they want, they will only get a little slap on the wrist and it will not really be that bad.

The same goes for drugs. Usually, in a society where the rule of law, law and order, is important, people who are considering selling drugs should say to themselves that they will be put in jail for some time if they are caught, so they should perhaps reconsider.

Instead, the government is telling them that there is no need to worry, that they can sell drugs to young people and that it is not serious if 20 people die every day. In my view, it defies logic.

The bill also refers to conditional sentences and house arrest. It is as though the Liberals want to empty jails completely by sending inmates to serve their sentences at home.

The bill contains a long list of crimes for which sentences will be decreased, including criminal harassment, sexual assault, abduction of a person under 14, trafficking in persons, motor vehicle theft, and breaking and entering, all of which are not minor crimes. Instead of being jailed, offenders who commit these crimes will be told to stay home and celebrate. That means a person who has committed a sexual assault could be under house arrest in a neighbourhood close to the victim. That is just ridiculous.

Let us get back to firearms. Last month, the media reported that the integrated RCMP Cornwall border integrity team had commenced a firearms smuggling investigation after a boat crossed the St. Lawrence River and made landfall near Cornwall, Ontario. The criminals unloaded three large bags from the boat into a vehicle and departed the area. The RCMP conducted a roadside stop of the vehicle and seized a large number of firearms, including prohibited and restricted weapons and high-capacity magazines. Inti Falero-Delgado, a 25-year-old man from Laval, Quebec, and Vladimir Souffrant, a 49-year-old Montrealer, were placed under arrest.

Under Bill C‑5, the two individuals involved in this arms trafficking and smuggling incident would not receive minimum sentences. It is unlikely either of them would go to prison. They would probably get a conditional sentence or, at worst, serve their sentence at home. That is how it works in real life because, in real life, criminals always think about the possible consequences of their crimes.

Criminals are aware that the government keeps reducing the penalties. That is why there has been a 20% increase in violent crime in Canada since the change of government in 2015. Criminals who want to commit a crime or live a life of crime will benefit from the measures the government is proposing. The hardened criminals will influence the younger ones and tell them not to worry because the Prime Minister's government made sure that things would not be so bad for them.

The other point I would like to raise has to do with systemic racism, which the government claims this bill will help to combat. It is not relevant to say that this will have an impact on Black and indigenous communities and other racialized groups. These groups may be proportionally overrepresented in prisons, but the notion of crime should not be related to race because that does not change anything. A crime is a crime, regardless of the skin colour of the person committing it, whether they are Caucasian, Black or indigenous. As soon as a crime is committed with a weapon, then race should no longer be a factor. The government is pulling the wool over people's eyes by saying that this bill will combat systemic racism. It is a false debate. There is no connection there.

We need to consider other solutions when it comes to incarceration and overrepresentation. Reducing sentences will not solve this problem. On the contrary, it will give just about any group more leeway to commit crimes, since they will be less concerned about the fear of incarceration.

I have a very concrete example of this. Three or four years ago, Bill C-71 was introduced to enhance gun controls. I was a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security at the time, and I was the one who asked representatives from indigenous groups to come and share their thoughts on the bill. I would remind the House that it is because of Bill C‑71 that gun owners are now required to apply for a number from Ottawa to sell a gun or transfer it to someone else.

That approach to public safety is debatable, but that is what we have, so that is fine. I asked indigenous people to appear before the committee to tell us what they thought. They were very clear that they felt it was irrelevant. The indigenous representative from Saskatchewan made it clear that there was no way a father wanting to follow tradition and pass his gun on to his son would contact Ottawa and ask for an authorization number. No one would do that.

My first reaction was this: Any time someone has two hands and picks up a gun, it is a public safety issue, regardless of whether the person is indigenous, White or Black. In my view, race has nothing to do with public safety. The fact remains that, until we hear otherwise, Bill C-71 does not apply to indigenous people. I had asked the former minister of public safety, but he did not have an answer.

They want to play with these ideas to get a message of openness across in the media. However, when I am talking about public safety, I prefer to have the facts: When someone picks up a gun and shoots, race becomes irrelevant. These are very sensitive issues, and I hate when the Liberals use them to try to score political points and make themselves out to be the best and most open of the parties. In reality, that is just not true.

I will finish by saying that Bill C‑5 is a bad bill because it is trying to pull the wool over Canadians' eyes and make them believe that it will solve systemic racism. In fact, all it will do is help criminals commit more crimes, and it will do nothing to help Canadians.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

The Conservative Party is wrong, and it is really sad that the Conservatives would actually say “hear, hear” to the fact that politicians know more about it than judges do.

The Conservatives implemented these reforms to be “tough on crime”, but what they really did was mean-spirited, further marginalizing indigenous peoples and Black and racialized Canadians. Their tough-on-crime measures have led to the explosion of the indigenous and Black prison population with no evidence that these measures actually reduce crime. It is past time to end these discriminatory sentencing provisions. Despite what the opposition says, we are not getting rid of these sentences but rather giving back to judges the discretion in sentencing. Where warranted, judges may even impose greater sentences than the mandatory minimum would have prescribed.

In 1999, indigenous peoples represented approximately 2% of the Canadian population but accounted for approximately 17% of admissions to provincial, territorial and federal custody. As of 2020, indigenous adults accounted for 5% of the Canadian population but represent 30% of federally incarcerated individuals, with indigenous women accounting for over 42% of all federally incarcerated women, with these numbers approaching 70% to 80% in some western provinces. Indigenous women are the fastest-growing prison population in Canada. They are now being transferred to Ontario because we are running out of room in women's prisons out west. I recently visited Grand Valley Institution for Women, where I met indigenous women who were separated from their families and communities. The solution is not to build more prisons but rather to prevent these women from entering the criminal justice system in the first place.

Black individuals represent 7.2% of the federally incarcerated population but only 3% of the Canadian population. We also know that Black people are also more likely to be admitted to federal custody for an offence punishable by a mandatory minimum sentence than other Canadians. In fact, 43% of all federally incarcerated offenders convicted of a drug offence punishable by mandatory minimum penalties were Black adults.

Thirty-nine per cent of Black people and 20% of indigenous peoples were federally incarcerated for offences carrying a mandatory minimum penalty. Repealing these penalties is expected to reduce the overall rates of incarceration of indigenous peoples and of Black Canadians.

Bill C-5's proposed reforms are informed by extensive consultations with a broad range of justice system stakeholders from across Canada. Prior to the introduction of the former Bill C-22, I held a round table with the Minister of Justice regarding mandatory minimum penalties and the impact on Black Canadians and indigenous peoples.

Organizations in my community, like the Canadian Caribbean Association of Halton and Advancement of Women Halton, made it clear that mandatory minimum sentences do not act as a deterrent for crime and cause many Black and indigenous peoples to be incarcerated. These consultations made a difference in the creation of the legislation. The president of the Canadian Caribbean Association of Halton, Andrew Tyrrell, let me know how important passing this bill would be for Black Canadians and was proud of his contribution.

The bill also responds to the calls for reform from various commissions and inquiries, such as 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.

In the 42nd Parliament, when I was vice-chair of the status of women committee, we tabled a report on indigenous women in the criminal justice system and called for the repeal of mandatory minimum sentences. Many indigenous women enter the criminal justice system because of minor drug offences that come with mandatory minimum sentences. I visited the Edmonton Institution for Women and met two indigenous women who were in prison for drug offences that were subject to mandatory minimums. They had been living in poverty, and each had a partner who exerted coercive control that led them to crime. This bill would prevent indigenous women from being criminalized for poverty and abuse.

Now more than ever we need to implement the TRC's calls to action. We need to focus on restorative justice, affordable housing and social supports for indigenous women instead of criminalizing them. Bill C-5 is a step in that direction. The all-party Parliamentary Black Caucus, in its June 2020 statement, called for the review and repeal of mandatory minimums and the removal of limitations on conditional sentence orders.

The common theme in all these calls for reform is the recognition that the broad and indiscriminate use of mandatory minimums, and the Criminal Code's current restrictions on the use of conditional sentence orders, have had numerous negative impacts that have been disproportionately felt by indigenous peoples, Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities. They have also made our criminal justice system less effective and less efficient, which ultimately makes Canadians less safe.

I believe this bill would help to restore the public's confidence in the criminal justice system by providing much needed discretion to sentencing judges to impose sentences that respond to the particular circumstances of the offence and of the individual before the court. I want to highlight the story of my friend, Emily O'Brien. Emily was sent to federal prison after her partner coerced her to smuggle narcotics across the Canadian border. She was sentenced to Grand Valley Institution for Women on a mandatory minimum sentence. During her sentence, she noticed that prison did not prepare women for integrating back into society. Once she was released, she created her own business: a deluxe popcorn company called Comeback Snacks that not only makes delicious popcorn but has a mission to hire women who have been sentenced to prison so they will not re-enter the criminal justice system.

Emily's story is the exception to the rule. Most women who come out of the criminal justice system because of mandatory minimums come out worse. It should not be the sole responsibility of people such as Emily to tear down the stigma and provide women with opportunities after prison.

I have talked a lot about mandatory minimum penalties, but the bill would also lift many of the restrictions on the availability of conditional sentence orders in cases in which offenders do not pose a risk to the public safety. This would allow them to serve their sentences in the community under strict conditions, such as house arrest or curfew, while still being able to benefit from employment, educational opportunities, family, community and health-related support systems. I think most Canadians would agree that conditional sentences are appropriate sentencing tools and should be available to judges for appropriate cases. I would expect that they would be used in less serious cases, and I am confident that judges could make appropriate assessments as to their use.

Lastly, the bill would require police and prosecutors to consider alternatives to criminal charges for simple possession of drugs, such as a warning or diversion to an addiction treatment program. These measures are consistent with the government's approach to treating substance use and the opioid epidemic in Canada as health issues rather than criminal justice issues. I believe the government is on the right track with this bill, and I urge Parliament to support its swift passage.

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

Madam Speaker, there is very little I can disagree with in the minister's speech, but when this bill was introduced in the previous Parliament as Bill C-22, we raised concerns. Given the scale of the opioid crisis and the scale of the over-incarceration of Black and indigenous Canadians, is there really enough in this bill or are we missing an opportunity?

The way this bill is drafted, which is very narrow, means that some topics we would like to discuss are outside its scope, such as expungement and recommendation 32 from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission on restoring discretion to judges completely, not just for a limited number of offences, when it comes to mandatory minimums and conditional sentences.

My question for the minister is very specific. Will he consider referring this bill to committee before a vote at second reading so the committee will have the chance to add some of these things, which are beyond the scope of the bill as it is currently written?

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, my thanks for the opportunity to begin my speech at second reading debate on C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Today, our government is taking an important step toward making our criminal justice system a more effective and fair justice system where decisions are based on facts. Most importantly, we are delivering on our promise to reintroduce former Bill C-22 within the first 100 days of our government.

Indigenous people, Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities are overrepresented, both as victims and as offenders in the criminal justice system. They face systemic racism and discrimination and are the collateral damage of law reforms that have not made us safer or the justice system more just.

Bill C-5 is an important part of our government's plan to address this unfortunate reality in our criminal justice system. It is also an important step in reorienting our criminal justice system so that it is both fairer and more effective, while ensuring public safety. This bill accomplishes these important objectives by advancing a series of coordinated sentencing measures and policies in three broad areas, which I will take up afterward.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, before I begin today, I would like to first thank the fine people of Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner for putting their trust in me for the third time. It is an absolute honour and privilege to serve them in this capacity.

I thank my core campaign team, including our chair, Ryan Thorburn; volunteer coordinators, office managers, get-out-to-vote leaders, full-time encouragers, and basically the real bosses of the campaign, Sharlyn Wagner and Margo Dick; our IT go-to guy, Dean Grey; my financial wizard and agent, Dave Camphor; planning and printing logistics, Tim Seitz; volunteer care and event planning, Val Seitz; and all things signs, Alex Dumanowski and Gary Proctor. I thank them all so much for their dedication and hard work. They are a testament of what can be accomplished when people get together as a team. I will always be indebted to them.

I thank the many volunteers who door knocked, put up signs, helped in the office and volunteered with scrutineering on election day. None of this is possible without them, and I thank them very much.

I will turn my attention now to Bill C-5, which is the exact same bill, ironically, that was introduced as Bill C-22 in the last Parliament before the Prime Minister called his snap vanity election.

The Liberals would want Canadians to believe that Bill C-5 is simply about reducing minimum sentencing for simple drug possession, but that is not so. Most Canadians would be alarmed to learn that the Liberal bill, Bill C-5, is aimed at eliminating mandatory prison time for criminals who prey on our communities and victimize the vulnerable.

Bill C-5 proposes to eliminate mandatory prison time not for petty crimes but for things like drug trafficking and acts of violence. It would even allow violent criminals to serve their sentences on house arrest and not in prison, putting our communities at continued risk.

Over the last six years, Liberal legislation on crime and the criminal justice system has been largely out of touch with the realities of most Canadians, especially those impacted by crime. Canada's crime stats confirm that we are seeing rising crime rates all across this country, increased gang violence and shootings, increased organized crime activities, and increased drug trafficking, drug use and drug overdoses.

Let me focus for the next few minutes on examining several of the main areas of Bill C-5, those being the elimination of mandatory prison time for firearm offences, the elimination of mandatory prison time for drug dealers, the expansion of conditional sentences and the diversion for simple drug possession.

I try to look at this legislation through the lenses of having been in law enforcement for 35 years and of being a parliamentarian representing the constituents of my riding and their voices. Let us first of all look at the elimination of mandatory prison time for firearm offences.

In contrast to the Liberal spin on their being so-called tough on gun violence, which is what they have been feeding Canadians, there is the complete hypocrisy of Bill C-5, which proposed to eliminate several mandatory minimum sentences related to gun crimes, including serious gun crimes such as robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearms, using a firearm in the commission of an offence, discharging a firearm with intent, which is Criminal Code language for shooting at someone, illegal possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm, importing or exporting an unauthorized firearm, discharging a firearm recklessly and other firearm offences such weapons trafficking, importing or exporting knowing the firearm is unauthorized, possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition, possession of a weapon obtained by the commission of an offence in Canada and possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking.

What does this really all amount to? Because the Liberals believe the current laws are unfair, they would be eliminating mandatory prison time for criminals who commit such crimes as robbery with a firearm, drive-by shootings and unlawful possession of firearms. It is clearer than ever that the Liberals are more interested in protecting criminals than they are protecting our communities. If we think things are bad now, just wait for this legislation to take effect, should it pass in its current form. I am afraid the worst is yet to come.

Let us look at the second area of the bill, which is the elimination of mandatory prison time for drug dealers. At a time when we are experiencing the heartbreak of addiction and overdose deaths in our country, the Liberals' solution is to eliminate mandatory prison time for several offences in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which specifically targets drug dealers and offences such as trafficking, or possession for the purpose of trafficking; importing or exporting, or possession for the purpose of importing or exporting; and production of a schedule 1 or schedule 2 substance, which are drugs such as fentanyl, crystal meth, heroin, cocaine, the very drugs that are wreaking havoc on our communities. How does that even make sense?

The Liberals are trying to spin it and say that Bill C-5 will help those who struggle with addictions. Come on, Canadians are not that naive or stupid. They know the Liberals are purposely failing to point out that the mandatory minimums they are eliminating are for drug dealers who specifically prey on those with addictions. This is not the solution. It would only make the current problems a lot worse.

The next area I want to look at in Bill C-5 is the expansion of conditional sentencing. The bill allows for greater use of conditional sentencing orders, such as house arrest, for a significant number of serious offences for which the offender faces a prison term of less than two years. Those offences now include sexual assault; kidnapping; criminal harassment; human trafficking; abduction of a person under the age of 14; assault causing bodily harm or assault with a weapon; assaulting a peace officer causing bodily harm, or assaulting a peace officer with a weapon; trafficking or importing schedule 3 drugs, which are hallucinogenic like LSD and psilocybin; and many other offences, such as prison breach, motor vehicle theft, theft over $5,000, breaking and entering a place other than a dwelling house, being in a dwelling house unlawfully, arson for a fraudulent purpose, causing bodily harm and criminal negligence.

What this all means is that criminals who prey on victims in their communities can now serve their sentence at home, many times in the same neighbourhood as their victim. Again, this clearly puts communities at risk. For years now we have heard whispers that the Liberal government was trying to empty out our prisons, expedite parole and reduce sentences. It now appears that those whispers are coming true. I wonder how conditional sentences will deter criminals who prey on our communities.

I also want to touch briefly on another aspect of Bill C-5, which is the diversion measures for simple drug possession. Again, the Liberals are trying to tell us, and are asking Canadians to believe, that the diversion section in Bill C-5 all of a sudden gives police and prosecutors the ability to use their discretion when determining for simple drug possession whether to lay charges, warn, or refer to support programs. It might come as a complete surprise to the Liberals, but that has been the case all along.

Police have been doing that. For decades they have been using their discretion whether to lay charges on someone for drug possession. In fact, Canada's Public Prosecution Service has previously issued a directive to prosecutors to avoid prosecuting simple drug possession unless there are major public safety concerns. Yes, I admit, Bill C-5 now does codify this approach, but it is unlikely to have any impact because this is already the practice when dealing with simple drug possession.

This legislation is out of touch with rising crime on our streets. It is out of touch with the needs of victims and communities battling gang violence. It is out of touch with law enforcement from across the country, who continue to report rising crime, increased violent crime and more gang shootings. This legislation is out of touch with our country's opioid epidemic. Crime has been increasing every year the Liberals have been in power, reversing a two-decade trend. This is the worst government on keeping Canadians safe in the last 20 years.

According to Stats Canada, the crime severity index has risen since 2015 from a 66.9 rating to a 79.5 rating in 2019, a 25% increase in serious crime. The violent crime index has increased from 70.7 in 2014 to 89.7 in 2019, which is also a 25% increase in the last five years.

Stats Canada also reports that rural crime and the rates of rural crime are increasing 23% faster than urban crime rates.

The Toronto Police Service has some of the best publicly available stats when it comes to the realities in its community. There has been an increase in shootings, gun homicides and injuries in each year of the last six years the Liberals have been in government. In comparison, let us first look at 2014, before the Liberals formed government, as the baseline for the Toronto numbers. In 2014, there were 177 shootings in Toronto alone, which resulted in 103 people killed or injured. Those are unacceptable numbers, but pale in comparison to the years that followed. In 2016, there were 393 shootings in Toronto, with 183 people killed or injured. In 2017, there were 367 shootings, with 180 people killed or injured. In 2018, Toronto again had 393 shootings, with 208 people killed or injured. In 2019, those numbers jumped to 492 shootings, with 284 people killed or injured. In 2020, there were 462 shootings, with 217 lives lost or injured. So far, in 2021, those numbers are continuing, at similarly unacceptable rates, with over 380 shootings and 198 people killed or injured.

I am sure Canadians are wondering how this bill will reduce shootings and people dying even by just one. What will removing mandatory minimum sentences on firearms offences such as the ones I have mentioned do for our communities? Safer communities should be the focus of the current government, but sadly they are not.

Since 2016, nearly 30,000 Canadians have died from opioid-related addiction and overdose. Why is the first action of the Liberal government to reduce sentences on drug trafficking? How does this help the tens of thousands battling addictions whose habits are being fed by the very drug dealers preying on the vulnerable this bill is meant to protect? Going after these drug dealers should be the priority of this place.

Canadians do not feel safe and nothing in this bill will help them be any safer in their homes and communities. In 2020, an Angus Reid survey found that 48% of Canadians felt crime was getting worse. Canadians are rightly tired of being afraid in their own neighbourhoods and homes. The top priority of any government should be the protection of its people. This bill does nothing to address those threats against Canadians; it only protects criminals from being held responsible for their crimes.

The bill really shows how far out of step the Liberal government is with the needs and concerns of everyday Canadians. A legal scholar recently suggested that when looking at legislation we should be asking what the problems are that we are trying solve and whether the proposed legislation would solve those problems. It is the kind of question that should be asked in this place every time the Criminal Code or any similar act is used to try and solve policy problems. I can say that after reviewing Bill C-5, I would assert that the legislation may actually contribute to the problems we are facing in this country, rather than trying to solve them. It does nothing to improve public safety.

Let us be clear. The problem the government should be trying to solve is gun violence committed by criminals and gangs using illegal firearms, mostly smuggled into this country and used to kill in communities across Canada. It should be trying to solve the addiction and drug problems we have and the overdose deaths plaguing our communities across this country, not catering to those who are contributing to the epidemic. It should hold criminals responsible for their violent crimes and drug dealing and focus on rehabilitation, not a revolving door of justice. However, the Liberal solution to these problems is a lazy, misguided approach that caters to criminals, ignores victims and does not protect Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, let me start by thanking the voters of Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke for sending me back to the House once again, this time for a fourth mandate. In particular, I would like to thank my partner for more than 20 years, Teddy Pardede, for his constant and enduring personal and political support. My role as an MP is now taking up more than half our relationship and I will never be able to repay him.

As I said during the campaign, I very much wanted to come back to the House to be able to deal with unfinished business from the last Parliament. Indeed, there were lots of things we made progress on that were cut short by the early and unnecessary election. That is why I was pleased to see the quick passage of the ban on conversion therapy, Bill C-4, unanimously no less, both here and in the other place.

There are other examples of bills on which this House had held hearings, had achieved a broad consensus on moving forward and is now able to do so. Those include my Bill C-202, to make coercive and controlling behaviour and intimate partner relationships a criminal offence and Bill C-206, which would remove self-harm from the military code of conduct as a disciplinary offence and instead make sure that self-harm is treated as the mental health challenge that it truly is. I hope we can find a way to move forward on both of those bills that were left undone in the last Parliament.

Today, here we are debating Bill C-5. I am frankly surprised to be up on Bill C-5 so soon because its predecessor was not one of those bills which had been to hearings and it was not of those bills where we had lots of discussions about how to come to a consensus on what needed to be done. Normally, I would be glad to see the House moving quickly to get stuff done that sat on the back burner for far too long. That would be especially true of the issue of systemic racism in the justice system and it would be even more true of the opioid crisis on our streets today.

However, Bill C-5 is a virtual carbon copy, to date myself with an archaic phrase, of Bill C-22, which the government introduced at the eleventh hour in the last Parliament. At that time, we New Democrats clearly told the government we found Bill C-22 to be weak sauce. After its introduction, there were only very limited discussions before Bill C-22 was reintroduced in this session as Bill C-5. In those brief talks I made it clear that New Democrats wanted to see a bill with a few more teeth. We have a crisis of over-incarceration, we have a crisis of opioids on our streets, and the bill is not strong enough.

I am not sure how happy I am to be rushing forward on a bill that remains a half measure, especially when it is not even very clear what it is a half measure of. Here is the first and most important question I have for the government about Bill C-5: Is this a bill to address systemic racism in the Canadian justice system? If so, why is its focus so limited? We know mandatory minimum sentences are one of the causes of the over-incarceration of racialized Canadians and indigenous people. Then why does the bill restrict itself to only removing mandatory minimums for some offences, namely personal possession of drugs and some firearms offences?

We have years of experience now with mandatory minimums. We know they do nothing to reduce crime. We know that they only result in the incarceration of people who have no place in the prison system.

As the over-involvement in the justice system is a real problem for indigenous and racialized Canadians every day, I still have my doubts of some of the provisions in Bill C-5, like introducing those diversion programs instead of more fundamental reforms. In the absence of tackling the thorny question of reform of the RCMP, again I still have some doubts about increasing police discretion in drug cases as Bill C-5 proposes.

If Bill C-5 is actually about racism in our justice system, then there is surely much more it could do. I will return to this question later in my remarks. If Bill C-5 is not about tackling the broad issues of systemic racism in the criminal justice system, then is it really about something else? In fact, the heavy focus on removing mandatory minimums for drug crimes might lead us to believe that Bill C-5 is actually about the opioid crisis. If that is the case, then once again, it makes it hard for me to be excited about quick action on the half measures to confront the opioid crisis that we have in the bill, especially when we have known for so long what is needed.

As an elected official, I first spoke in favour of decriminalization of personal possession of all drugs more than a decade ago as a city councillor in Esquimalt. At the time, I argued that decriminalization provided the most effective path, along with safe injection sites, to tackle the emerging problem of deaths from drug overdoses in my community.

Even then, I was able to point to early signs of success in Portugal where decriminalization was adopted in 2001. Since then, Portugal has seen an 80% reduction in overdose deaths. It has seen the proportion of people who use drugs fall from 52% to 6% when it comes to new HIV and AIDS diagnoses. It has seen a decrease of incarcerations for drug offences by over 40%. Instead, in Canada over the last decade, we have seen so many preventable deaths and now this problem has accelerated into a full-blown crisis across the country.

Last month the Province of British Columbia announced a record number of people had died so far this year from overdoses. There were 201 deaths in the month of October alone, the highest ever in a single month. Think of all the families we are talking about, all 201 families affected by the loss of loved ones in a single month in a single province. This is a crisis.

Numbers released by the B.C. Coroners Service show a death toll in the first 10 months of 2021 in British Columbia being 1,782, surpassing the 1,765 deaths recorded in all of 2020. B.C.'s chief coroner, Lisa Lapointe, was direct in her assessment of the situation in B.C., a situation no different than any other jurisdiction. “Simply put, we are failing,” she said. With six people dying every single day in British Columbia, the status quo cannot be accepted.

That is why recognizing the stark reality of the opioid crisis, the City of Vancouver, the Province of British Columbia and now the City of Toronto have all three applied to the Minister of Health for an emergency exemption from the provisions of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that criminalizes personal possession of small quantities of illegal drugs. They are asking that we recognize that criminalization only adds more harm to the toll addiction takes on its victims.

Where are the Liberals on decriminalization of so-called “hard” drugs, either as a temporary exemption or permanent strategy to shift our response to addiction from punishment to health care? One might be surprised to learn that decriminalization is the official policy of the Liberal Party, endorsed more than three years ago at its 2018 convention in Halifax. Perhaps some will be even more surprised to learn that the government was advised to move on decriminalization of personal possession of drugs before the last election.

The previous Minister of Health appointed a commission of experts to advise on drug policies well before that election. Don MacPherson, executive director of the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition at Simon Fraser, was part of the task force that simply said that charging people with simple possession and seizing their drugs makes no sense.

In a CBC Radio interview, MacPherson said, “There's mountains of evidence that show it's a bad thing. It's harmful, it hurts people and there is not really an upside to it.” He continued saying, “So the task force...came fairly quickly to the conclusion that the federal government should immediately start work on putting forward a plan to decriminalize simple possession of drugs across the board.”

The task force submitted that report before the election and has since followed up with the new Minister of Health and the new Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, but MacPherson reports they have yet to hear anything back.

Since we returned to Parliament last month, MPs have been increasingly vocal in raising their concerns about the opioid crisis. Certainly, my leader of the New Democratic Party, the member for Burnaby South, has repeatedly called on the government to commit to moving quickly on decriminalization. This call has come from all parties and all parts of the country, urban and rural.

Last August, during the election campaign, even the Conservative leader added his voice to those calling for shifting our approach from punishment to treatment as the way to respond to the opioid crisis, though he did not go quite as far as decriminalization.

Last week, the new member for Yukon, who was previously the Territories' medical health officer before running for the Liberal Party, rose in this Commons to acknowledge that the Yukon has the highest rate of opioid deaths in the country. The new Green MP, the member for Kitchener Centre, made a moving statement in this House on the scourge of opioid deaths in his community.

Indeed, when the new cabinet was appointed, we saw the appointment of the first Minister of Mental Health and Addictions at the federal level, which many of us took as encouragement and acknowledgement of the urgency and seriousness of the opioid crisis.

Therefore, when we know the severity of the problem and we know the solutions, it surely becomes incumbent upon all of us in the House to ensure that we act. Therefore, where is that action? It is not in Bill C-5.

Unfortunately, when it comes to the three emergency decriminalization applications from Vancouver, B.C., and Toronto, we have no indication that things are moving quickly. Under the leadership of Mayor Kennedy Stewart, a former member of the House, Vancouver submitted its preliminary application for an exemption on March 3, and its final application June 1. British Columbia's application was submitted November 1 and Toronto's December 1. It is not like the government has been taken surprise by these requests, yet all the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions is reported to have said is, “We are looking at these proposals very, very seriously.”

At the same time, the minister refused to set a timeline for a decision on these applications. Instead, the minister veered off into an argument that decriminalization alone would not solve the opioid crisis, as if anyone ever thought decriminalization by itself was a solution to addiction rather than an important measure of harm reduction.

The minister said that other options were being considered, including establishing a safe supply of opioids to give injection drug users an alternative to the increasingly toxic fentanyl now on the streets. She indicated the federal government was also looking at setting up more safe injection sites and making more counselling available. Yes, that it is all good, but there is no need to wait on decriminalization while putting together a more complete package.

What was especially disappointing to hear was the minister in one interview referring to these ideas as “innovative”. She should know that these are not new ideas, but rather tried and true harm reduction strategies with a track record of nothing but success.

When it comes to the temporary decriminalization applications, the B.C. minister of mental health and addictions, Sheila Malcolmson, also a former member of this House, told reporters last week that Health Canada staff had identified no barriers to speedy processing and approval of B.C.'s decriminalization application.

Where are we? On the one hand, we see no real sense of urgency on the short-term exemption applications and, on the other hand, that leaves us with Bill C-5, which reflects none of that necessary urgency to move toward permanent and complete decriminalization of personal possession of drugs. The narrow scope of Bill C-5, as drafted, certainly means that, for technical reasons, we cannot likely add decriminalization through amendments at the committee stage.

That brings me back to the question of what is Bill C-5 really about. It seems that in the government's mind, this must be a bill primarily about tackling systemic racism in our justice system. If that is the goal of the bill, is there enough there to support?

Clearly removing mandatory minimums for drug offences would be a step forward. Even better would be removing mandatory minimums for all but the most serious violent offences. That is not there, not in Bill C-5. The frustration with the ineffectiveness of mandatory minimums has gone so far as to see a provincial court judge in Campbell River last week substituting probation for a mandatory jail sentence for a woman convicted of dealing fentanyl to support her own addiction. The judge said that she could see no positive impact of a jail sentence in that case.

Not only does Bill C-5 fail to address cases like the Campbell River case, but as well Bill C-5 is missing other elements that would help right the wrongs caused by systemic racism in the justice system. Let us make no mistake about how serious this problem is.

Correctional investigator Ivan Zinger reported in 2020 that while indigenous people made up 4.9% of the total population of Canada, they made up just over 30% of the people in Canadian prisons. Approximately 3.5% of Canadians identified as Black in the last census, yet Black Canadians make up more than 7% of those in prison.

When we look at indigenous and racialized women, the figures are even more stark. Zinger reported that Black women made up just over 9% of women incarcerated and indigenous women made up a shocking 42% of the population in women's prisons. This is the result of mandatory minimums.

The injustice does not end with incarceration as then there is the legacy of a criminal record. Not only have indigenous and racialized Canadians been disproportionately targeted for investigation, prosecution, diversion, fining and imprisonment, the most marginalized among us then end up stuck with criminal records, criminal records that make getting a job almost impossible, criminal records that often restrict access to affordable housing. Bill C-5 lacks any provision for automatic expungement of criminal records for drug possession, something for which the NDP has been calling for more than two years.

Automatic expungement is clearly what is needed after seeing the failure of the government's program for expedited pardons for marijuana convictions, a program that has granted pardons for less than 500 people of the estimated 10,000 eligible in the two years it has been operating. We need something better; we need automatic expungement of these records.

Again, the narrow drafting of Bill C-5 means, for technical reasons, we likely cannot add those elements we really need to tackle racial injustice to the bill. Certainly we cannot add expungement. It is likely we cannot even add additional offences where mandatory minimums now apply to the removal list.

Therefore, I have a question for the government, one I had already been exploring with it before we rushed into this debate. Is there not a way we can make this bill do more to address both racial injustice and the opioid crisis?

The New Democrats are ready to talk, but we probably need to do so before we reach the conclusion of this second reading debate. There is one possibility I will put forward right now to get the ball rolling, and I have to credit the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which put forth the following recommendation in call to action 32 more than six years ago. This call to action states:

We call upon the federal government to amend the Criminal Code to allow trial judges, upon giving reasons, to depart from mandatory minimum sentences and restrictions on the use of conditional sentences.

This proposal would allow judges to ignore mandatory minimums where there are good reasons to do so, including the good reason that mandatory minimum sentences are, in and of themselves, most often unjust. This call to action to restore discretion to judges over sentencing for offences where mandatory minimums have been imposed is clearly doable, it is just not in Bill C-5.

A way to put this call to action into legislation has been provided in what is now Bill S-213. Again, it is probably not possible to add restoring discretion for judges when it comes to mandatory minimums to Bill C-5 in committee, because this idea is far beyond the scope of the existing bill.

What I am asking of the government is whether we can think about using the relatively rare process of sending Bill C-5 to committee before the vote at second reading. This would allow the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to alter the scope of the bill and to add missing provisions like the TRC call to action 32 to Bill C-5, and to add expungement to it. That would put some teeth in this bill.

Sending Bill C-5 to committee before a second reading vote would require a motion from the minister, and he has that opportunity later today when he speaks.

Let me conclude with this offer to work with the government on Bill C-5. This is renewing the offer New Democrats made when the bill was originally introduced in the last Parliament. I make this offer pointing to the progress we were able to make on bills like Bill C-4 and Bill C-3, when we were able to work together on common goals and purposes.

If sending Bill C-5 to committee before a second reading vote is not the way forward in the government's view, then let us work together to find other ways to strengthen the bill.

Am I optimistic about the chances of Bill C-5 proceeding? With the bill as it stands, can the government actually convince the New Democrats that there is enough in Bill C-5 to justify proceeding quickly or even proceeding at all? As I have said, I have good ideas about how we can ensure that is true.

I know there are misgivings in other parties about certain provisions of the bill, but I also know that no one in the House is unaware of the systemic racism in our justice system and its impact on racialized and indigenous Canadians. As well, I know no one in the House wants to turn a blind eye to the suffering imposed on families by the opioid crisis.

I also know we will not get a lot of opportunities to address systemic racism in the justice system in this minority Parliament and will not get many, if any, other opportunities anytime soon to respond effectively to the opioid crisis. Let us not waste the opportunity we have before us now with Bill C-5 to do one, the other or both—

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C‑5 is important. It was introduced during the previous Parliament when it was known as Bill C‑22. The two bills are substantially the same, with some minor differences. What really makes Bill C‑5 different from Bill C‑22 is context. Society is in a completely different place now.

In my mind, Bill C‑5 might be better off being split up. The debate over diversion and the debate over minimum penalties are two completely different debates. People could be very much in favour of one and against the other. If we want to be able to work effectively on this bill, all members of the House need an opportunity to speak to each of the aspects of the bill. We should be able to agree with one aspect and disagree with the other.

That said, the Bloc Québécois has historically been in favour of decriminalization. We believe that rehabilitation is an essential step to eliminating crime in a society. We can never completely eliminate crime, of course, but rehabilitation would at least help make our society better and more in line with our values.

The Bloc Québécois believes in rehabilitation. This can be seen particularly in Quebec's young offenders legislation, which facilitates diversion. For example, young people who have broken the law are asked to do community work, to engage in activities with various organizations.

I know of a case where a young man who shoplifted and vandalized the wall of a convenience store had to meet with the store owner, clean up the wall and do some work for the store. They ended up fully reconciled. While the young man and the convenience store owner may not have become great friends, they developed a relationship that was probably conducive, if not essential, to the young man's rehabilitation. There are other positive experiences and cases like that one. That is why the Bloc Québécois believes that diversion has a role to play and it has historically agreed with this principle.

With respect to minimum penalties, the courts must be able to exercise their power freely and judiciously. The Bloc Québécois has always believed that minimum penalties are a hindrance, but that is not always the case. In some circumstances, minimum penalties can be a way of sending a clear message to offenders. We need to look at this aspect of the question. However, generally speaking, we do not think that minimum penalties contribute to a healthier society. On the contrary, we believe that they may have given rise to some highly regrettable situations.

I remember one case in the Lower St. Lawrence region of Quebec. An 18-year-old man had a 16- or 17-year-old girlfriend. Both families were aware of the relationship and approved of it. Everything was fine. However, for one reason or another, they found themselves in court, and the young man was found guilty of corrupting a minor. The judge said he hated to do it, because the situation did not warrant it, but he had no choice, because there was a minimum penalty in the Criminal Code, and he had to impose it. At the time, this caused an uproar and a certain amount of frustration in Quebec, and for good reason. I was one of the ones who felt that, in a situation like that, not only did the minimum penalty not help, but it hindered the judicious exercise of judicial power. For this reason, the Bloc Québécois has historically also been in favour of the abolishment of minimum penalties.

That being said, I am speaking from a historical point of view, but we are now in 2021. The situation is not the same as it was in 2020, 2019 or 2018. I could go back as far as 1867.

Circumstances are changing, and the law is changing. There is a reason we pass laws here in Parliament and in the legislative assemblies of Quebec and the provinces. We are continually passing laws because circumstances change, society evolves and, as a result, the laws must be adapted to fit our different realities.

What is the context surrounding Bill C-5?

I think that it is important to discuss it, because that is our job as legislators. We cannot simply pass a law that will apply to everyone without considering the consequences. We cannot pass a law until we evaluate the context in which a decision will be made concerning Bill C‑5. What is going on in Montreal in 2021?

On January 4, 2021, a 17-year-old boy was injured in a shooting in the Saint-Michel neighbourhood of Montreal. On January 31, 2021, a 25-year-old man suffered minor gunshot wounds in the Rivière-des-Prairies borough of Montreal. On February 7, 2021, 15-year-old Meriem Boundaoui died from a gunshot wound to the head in Montreal.

On July 5, 2021, 43-year-old Ernst Exantus was shot dead in Montreal North. He was known to police for his ties to organized crime. On July 26, 2021, a 22-year-old woman was injured by glass shards when her vehicle was shot at. On August 1, 2021, an 18-year-old man sustained gunshot wounds to his lower body during a dispute between groups. On August 2, 2021, three people were killed and two others were wounded in a shootout in the Rivière‑des‑Prairies borough of Montreal.

On September 1, 2021, once again in Rivière‑des‑Prairies, a man was shot during an attempted murder. On September 10, 2021, 35-year-old Patricia Sirois was in her vehicle with her two young children when she was shot dead by her neighbour, a 49-year-old man from Saint-Raymond. On the night of September 24 to 25, 2021, a 19-year-old woman was shot dead in her vehicle.

On September 26, 2021, once again in Rivière‑des‑Prairies, 33-year-old Yevgen Semenenko was found dead near a vehicle with bullet holes in it. On September 28, 2021, a man was shot as he was walking down the street in Mount Royal. On October 25, 2021, a 25-year-old man was shot and wounded in Montreal.

On November 14, 2021, in the Saint‑Michel neighbourhood of Montreal, 16-year-old Thomas Trudel was shot dead as he walked home. On December 2, 2021, in the Anjou borough, 20-year-old Hani Ouahdi was shot dead in a vehicle; a 17-year-old boy in the vehicle was also wounded. On the same day, in Coaticook, Quebec, 80-year-old Jeannine Perron-Ruel was shot dead by her 38-year-old neighbour. On December 3, 2021, in Montreal, a woman in her fifties was injured at home by a bullet that came through her window. On December 6, 2021, an 18-year-old man was shot and wounded in a Laval library.

I have just listed 18 incidents that took place in Quebec in 2021. Were there more? Probably. I found 18 after a quick search.

Were there others outside Quebec? Probably. I would be surprised if crimes of this sort and gunshot victims were found only in Quebec. There are undoubtedly others. In any case, in the past 11 months, there have been at least 18 incidents involving as many, if not more, gunshot victims.

On September 21, the mayor of Montreal asked the federal government to institute gun control measures.

On November 22, the City of Montreal reiterated its request, and the Quebec government said that it wanted to increase pressure on the federal government regarding gun control at the border and banning handguns.

Many debates have taken place in the House in recent weeks, and I have taken part in them. We demand that the government take responsibility, because Quebec and certain parts of Canada are turning into the wild west.

We want the government to set up a special task force. Illegal firearms are flooding into Canada via the St. Lawrence River through the Akwesasne reserve, which borders the U.S. and the St. Lawrence. Quebec and Cornwall, Ontario, are just across the river.

We need a special task force. Currently, we can do little to prevent arms trafficking because there are too many jurisdictions involved. We need a special joint task force made up of U.S. agents, peacekeepers, the Ontario Provincial Police, the Sûreté du Québec and the RCMP to fight these crimes effectively. It could be funded by an investment from the federal government. For example, we could have five boats patrolling this part of the St. Lawrence 24-7. I can guarantee that the problem would be solved within a year. There would be no more firearms crossing the border there. They might cross elsewhere, but we will fight them where they are.

We need to take concrete action. We demand investments in the fight against arms trafficking and the creation of a joint task force. A bill against organized crime could be tabled, like the one I introduced in the House in 2016 during the 42nd Parliament. Unfortunately, the bill was rejected for reasons that, in my opinion, were not justified, but I will not reopen a debate from the past. Maybe the bill could be reintroduced, because organized crime, arms trafficking and the government's complacency on gun control are causing immense harm and putting Quebeckers in an unsafe and vulnerable position. We cannot let that happen, not in 2021.

I read out a list of 18 incidents. I explained that cities in Quebec and the provinces are demanding that the government take action. What did the government do? The latest incident I mentioned happened on December 6, when the 18-year-old man was shot and wounded in a library. A library seems like the ideal place to find peace and harmony, yet this young man was shot and wounded in a library on December 6. While we have been debating the topic for weeks, on December 7, the day after that particular shooting, the Liberal government chose to table Bill C-5, the bill we are considering today, for first reading. This bill aims to divert certain offences away from the justice system and to abolish certain minimum penalties, including for offences involving the possession and use of firearms and the commission of certain other crimes.

As I said, the Bloc Québécois has historically been in favour of abolishing mandatory minimum penalties. However, I am starting to seriously wonder about the Liberal government's timing. If the Liberals were tabling Bill C-5 and creating a joint task force; if they were proposing to deploy river patrols starting Monday to put an end to the arms trafficking; if they were investing in the creation of a special unit to patrol the entire border of Quebec and the other Canadian provinces to fight arms trafficking; if they were adopting a bill like the one proposed by the Bloc Québécois in 2015 to create a list of criminal organizations and treat members of these organizations in the same manner as members of listed terrorist organizations, so that if someone in organized crime is caught with a firearm, he gets his comeuppance; if that were what they were proposing, I would feel less uneasy voting in favour of Bill C‑5.

Right now, I am feeling very uneasy about the government's timing and its complacency in the face of an almost unheard-of situation that is threatening not only people's quality of life and ability to thrive, but the very survival of our youth on the streets of Montreal.

Once again, we are not in the wild west. This is not the 1600s or 1700s, when cowboys rode around with guns, shot at each other for no reason and were summarily hanged because a trial was too much trouble. It is 2021. I think that we should be able to agree on the importance of keeping our teenagers and the entire population safe, and we should not have to discuss it. We need to do something about it.

Once the government has done something about that, then we can talk about diversion programs. In fact, we could talk about it at the same time; we could talk about it now. With respect to minimum penalties, we need to abolish many of them. The Supreme Court itself has said so, and far be it from me to go against it. I think that it is entirely justified: some need to be abolished, and others need to remain in place.

Bill C‑5 warrants a good, solid discussion in committee. We need to review the details of this bill, but the government needs to step up, for goodness' sake. We cannot tell citizens that we are going to do away with minimum sentences when there are people going around with guns, yet nothing is being done to stop gun trafficking and people keep getting shot at week after week on the streets of Montreal. That would be absurd. If the government is serious and really wants to get tough on crime, then we would be talking about diversion programs because we want to rehabilitate young people, and we would be talking about doing away with minimum sentences because we want judges to be able to do their job effectively and judiciously. Most importantly, the government needs to get tough on crime by taking responsibility and putting an end to firearms trafficking and the gun violence we have been seeing over this past year.

We will take responsibility and work effectively in the public interest. I am here for one thing. I want to represent my constituents and Quebeckers, and I will not keep silent on this issue.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is talking about Bill C-22, which is really interesting. We are dealing with Bill C-5. Why are we dealing with Bill C-5 and not Bill C-22? It is because the Liberal Prime Minister, against the agreement of all parliamentarians in the previous Parliament, called an election during a pandemic. He killed his own legislation. He did not want to enact anything he had put forward at the time, because Liberals like to try to confuse motion for action. They get very little done. In this case, it is dangerous that one of the first pieces of legislation they are looking to enact is a soft-on-crime bill that punishes victims and rewards criminals.

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

Madam Speaker, at the outset, let me just be clear: Bill C-22 was introduced earlier this year. It was in our platform. On September 20, Canadians gave us a mandate to reintroduce that bill, because we promised to do so within the first 100 days. That is exactly what Bill C-5 represents.

I have a very direct question for my friend opposite. He has not used the words “systemic racism” at all. He has not even acknowledged that systemic racism exists within the criminal justice system. He has not addressed that within his comments this morning.

Why has he not included that important term in his speech today?

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C-5 is reintroduced from the previous Bill C-22.

The issues that my hon. colleague discusses are very important. They are in the hands of our Minister of Mental Health and Addiction, and our government is reviewing the requests of British Columbia and other places with respect to drugs. We will make decisions in short order.

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

Madam Speaker, we have taken very important steps today with Bill C-5, which is the reintroduction of Bill C-22. It was part of our platform commitment. We promised to introduce this within 100 days, and we had the mandate from Canadians to do that. We look forward to a very robust discussion at committee and at every stage of the bill. I look forward to working with my friend opposite on this.