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.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning, colleagues, and thank you to all the members from my departmental team who are here with me today.

I am pleased to help the committee as it studies the 2020-21 supplementary estimates (C) and the 2021-22 main estimates for the Department of Justice.

I am joining you today from the Department of Justice Canada, which sits on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people.

Despite the challenging times, Justice Canada has accomplished an enormous volume of work to help ensure a fair, transparent and accessible Canadian justice system.

We continue on our reconciliation journey with indigenous peoples, including introducing Bill C-15, legislation respecting the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Canada. This is fundamental to our broader efforts to tackle deep-rooted and systemic discrimination.

An important example of that is Bill C-22, which proposes changes that would reform sentencing practices and focus on diversion programs. It also proposes changes to treat substance use as a health issue, rather than a criminal one.

We also introduced Bill C-23, which provides greater flexibility on how courts hold criminal proceedings and issue orders. We must ensure that both victims and accused receive their fair and timely justice.

Ultimately, our goal is to ensure that our justice system remains fair, effective, accessible and equitable.

These priorities are echoed within the 2020-21 supplementary estimates (C), which include an additional $78.5 million this fiscal year, bringing the total budgetary authority for 2020-21 to $863.9 million.

Also, the 2021-22 main estimates include a budgetary authority of $794.5 million—an increase of $25.5 million from the previous fiscal year.

I would like to highlight a few key funding areas.

I mentioned Bill C-15 and our commitment to changing the relationship between the crown and indigenous peoples. To this end, the supplementary and main estimates include $2.6 million from the $2.8 million in funding announced in the 2020 fall economic statement. Coupled with funding provided to Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada to support indigenous partners, this funding will help us continue the engagement process as the legislation moves through Parliament.

The supplementary and main estimates also include an increase of $7.3 million per year to continue to respond to the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls final report. This will extend family information liaison units and community-based services to provide direct support to families of victims.

We are also focused on supporting the courts. The supplementary estimates of both the court administration service and the registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada include funding to help courts serve Canadians and adapt to new realities.

The supplementary estimates also include $20.3 million to address immigration and refugee legal aid pressures, to help provinces maintain service delivery levels and prevent processing delays for asylum seekers.

We are also taking action to better respond to the needs of families, particularly children, during divorce or separation. The supplementary and main estimates include, respectively, $1 million and $6.7 million to implement new family support enforcement provisions and to increase access to family justice services in the official language of one's choice.

Budget 2019 announced funding of $21.6 million over five years, starting in 2020-21, to support these provisions. These funds will help the department transform the Canadian justice system to better serve all Canadians. Our government will continue to push ahead with measures to create a strong, equitable and effective justice system that protects Canadians, their communities and their rights.

Thank you for your time. I'm now happy to take questions.

Alleged Premature Disclosure of Contents of Bill C-22—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on February 19 by the member for Fundy Royal concerning the alleged premature disclosure of the contents of Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

During his intervention, the member said that a CBC article posted online at 8:47 a.m. on February 18 described the details of Bill C-22 although it had not yet been submitted to the House. The member referred to the contents of the article, which he said discussed a number of the measures contained in the bill and boasted about the reliability of its sources. The Chair notes that the article had already been updated by the time the issue was raised. To be clear, with regard to this ruling, the Speaker considered the initial version of the article, which was published at the time of introduction and first reading of the bill.

After reviewing a series of precedents on the issue, the member said he also believed that the Minister of Justice's actions were contemptuous and that he had ignored the will of the House.

In response, the member for Kingston and the Islands informed the House that the office of the Minister of Justice had not shared the contents of the bill with the CBC journalist before its introduction. The member explained that he believed that the ministers' mandate letters sometimes allowed journalists to deduce the contents of bills on notice. After reviewing the contents of the article in question and comparing it with Bill C-22, the member argued that the article was sometimes inaccurate and even incomplete. In his opinion, the article was written by using a government source who was not familiar with the contents of the bill or by making conjectures based on previous policy statements. Finally, the member for Kingston and the Islands, basing himself on a ruling made on June 8, 2017, said that it is a prima facie case of privilege in such cases when the government admits that the leak occurred, but not when the government does not acknowledge a leak. In this case, the member stated that if the contents of the bill were disclosed prematurely, the government was not responsible.

As the member for Fundy Royal pointed out during his intervention, it is a recognized principle that the House must be the first to learn the details of new legislative measures. That is why both government bills and private members' bills are confidential from the moment they are put on notice until they are tabled in the House. Speaker Milliken's ruling of March 19, 2001, which the member for Fundy Royal mentioned, provides a good summary of the importance of respecting this rule:

The convention of the confidentiality of bills on notice is necessary, not only so that members themselves may be well informed, but also because of the pre-eminent rule which the House plays and must play in the legislative affairs of the nation.

That being said, when the Chair is called on to determine whether there is a prima facie case of privilege, it must take into consideration the extent to which a member was hampered in performing their parliamentary functions and whether the alleged facts are an offence against the dignity of Parliament.

In the case before us, an exhaustive review of the intervention by the member for Fundy Royal does not reveal exactly which aspects of Bill C-22 were supposedly shared with CBC for the article in question, nor did the member point out any similarities in language between the article and the bill to demonstrate that precise details of the bill were apparently disclosed to the media in a deliberate and premature fashion. The member for Kingston and the Islands pointed out inaccuracies in the article and differences from the bill.

When it is determined that there is a prima facie case of privilege, the usual work of the House is immediately set aside in order to debate the question of privilege and decide on the response. Given the serious consequences for proceedings, it is not enough to say that the breach of privilege or contempt may have occurred, nor to cite precedence in the matter while implying that the government is presumably in the habit of acting in this way. The allegations must be clear and convincing for the Chair.

As well, I believe it is important to mention that the distinction that the member for Kingston and the Islands wishes to make between questions of privilege that are a prima facie case of privilege and those that are not—simply because the government admits or does not admit that a leak has occurred—is not that clear. While there is indeed a well-established practice that a member must be taken at their word, the fact remains that the government's stating that it is not responsible for the premature disclosure of a bill is not in itself sufficient to convince the Chair. I would add that the source of the information is one factor among others and that it is important first and foremost to determine whether precise details were provided before the House was made aware of them. The Chair must thus take into consideration all the information before it and reach a conclusion based on the facts presented by the members.

The two precedents most like the current situation to which the two members referred are those that my immediate predecessor and I rendered with respect to Bill C-14 and Bill C-7 on medical assistance in dying. In these two cases, in light of the facts presented, it was clear that the information had been shared with the media before the bills were tabled in the House. In the case of Bill C-14, the Government offered no competing explanation. In the case of Bill C-7, it was clear that the anonymous source had spoken with the media despite the fact they were well acquainted with our customs and practices in the matter. That is not the case this time with Bill C-22.

Thus, in this case, in light of what has been presented, the Chair is not convinced that the question of privilege raised by the member for Fundy Royal is a prima facie case of privilege.

I thank the members for their attention.

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, Liberals claim to care about public safety, but they do not. With the PM gunning for an election, he is desperate to cover up his many failures on COVID and everything else, so he returns to the old Liberal playbook and flips to the page on targeting law-abiding firearms owners. Voila: Bill C-21 was born.

Canadians are not fools, though, and Liberal hypocrisy shone through when they introduced only a few days later Bill C-22, which lessens penalties for the real criminals who commit crimes with the real problem: illegal guns. Liberals are playing politics, and Canadians are paying the price. With last year's OIC and Bill C-21 and Bill C-22, Liberals have shown that they do not actually care about public safety, nor are they willing to get tough on crime.

Canadians deserve better, and Conservatives are ready to respect responsible firearms owners' rights and deal with the real problem: smuggled guns and gangs.

Criminal Code

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives have and will always support common-sense firearms regulations that keep Canadians and communities safe and respect their rights.

In Bill C-21, there are some things that the Conservatives have been calling for and can support. However, many things completely target the wrong people and the wrong groups, if the aim really is to improve and protect public safety. Also, crucial areas of concern are not addressed in the bill at all.

The Conservatives have always urged the Liberals to focus on and to target Canada's legislation and enforcement resources toward the primary source of most gun crime in Canada: illegally-smuggled firearms in the hands of gangs and criminals. That is why we support certain measures, like increasing the penalty for gun smuggling, something the Conservatives have advocated for years; authorizing disclosure to Canadian law enforcement agencies when there are reasonable grounds to suspect a firearms licence is used for straw purchasing; improving the ability of the CBSA to manage inadmissibility to Canada when foreign nationals commit offences upon entry into Canada, including firearms-related offences; and transferring the responsibility for transborder criminality from the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

The Conservatives are committed to actually strengthening and securing public safety through real action to tackle gun crime head-on. The Conservatives have always said that we would increase funding and coordination for border security to clamp down on illegal firearms smuggling, restore mandatory minimum sentences to keep violent gang members off the street and focus on gangs and criminals instead of making life more difficult for law-abiding firearms owners and retailers by ending automatic bail, revoking parole for gang members and new and tougher sentences for ordering or involvement in violent gang crime.

The Liberals do the opposite. They are big on rhetoric but short on real action. In fact, the day after the Liberals announced Bill C-21, they announced Bill C-22, which, incredibly, would eliminate mandatory minimums for unauthorized possession of a firearm, possession of a prohibited firearm, possession of a weapon obtained by crime, weapons trafficking, reckless discharge of a firearm, discharge of a firearm with intent to wound or endanger a person and robbery with a firearm; so reductions for all of those sentences. Bill C-22 would reduce sentences for a number of other horrible offences, including sexual assault, kidnapping, human trafficking, abduction of people under 14, motor vehicle theft and arson.

The Conservatives focus on outcomes and whether laws will achieve objectives. What Bill C-21 proves is that the Liberals, as always, are more concerned with appearances. They play fast and loose with the facts, make up words to scare and ignore the actual problem. With Bill C-21, they would effectively trade on Canadians' fear and safety for short-term political gain. The reality is that taking firearms away from law-abiding citizens does nothing to stop dangerous criminals and gangs who obtain their guns illegally and already do not follow laws, do not get licences and do not care about firearms classifications. This just continues the Liberal government's ongoing preoccupation with taking firearms off of regulated ranges, while leaving illegal guns on the streets in the hands of those gangs and criminals who will never comply.

In June 2019, the former Toronto police chief was asked about banning handguns in Canada. He said:

I believe that would be potentially a very expensive proposition but just as importantly, it would not in my opinion be perhaps the most effective measure in restricting the access that criminals would have to such weapons, because we’d still have a problem with them being smuggled across the border

Of course, the former Toronto police chief to whom I am referring is the current Minister of Public Safety.

Bill C-21 would create conditions on federal firearms licences to restrict handgun storage or transport within municipalities that have passed such bylaws. Again, the bylaws would be conditions on licences. Therefore, this proposed measure literally, specifically and only targets lawful Canadians who already have the paperwork and comply with the rules. This section would lead to yet another layer of confusing, overlapping regulations and a patchwork of rules for already law-abiding Canadians within and between communities, while violations could result in two years imprisonment or permanent licence revocations and would do nothing to crack down on illegal gun smuggling, trading and gang crimes with guns.

Many law enforcement officials have already said that this measure would not be effective, including the current RCMP commissioner, the former OPP commissioner, the police chief of Vancouver, the former president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, representatives of the Winnipeg and Halifax police services and police chiefs of Regina and Saskatoon. Provinces are already speaking out against Bill C-21: Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba, whose premier said, “It's just not going to work.”

In 2019, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police did not support calls for a ban on handguns and the former president, Vancouver police chief, Adam Palmer said:

In every single case there are already offences for that. They’re already breaking the law and the criminal law in Canada addresses all of those circumstances...The firearms laws in Canada are actually very good right now. They’re very strict.

Former OPP commissioner Chris Lewis says:

This municipal handgun ban is ridiculous...It would only impact legal owners. The gangbangers are already possessing/carrying them in defiance of the Criminal Code and don’t fear police whose hands are tied and weak judicial systems.

Toronto Police Services president Mike McCormack says:

There's no way in my world or any world I know that this would have an impact on somebody who's going to go out and buy an illegal gun and use it to kill another person or shoot another person...

This is a classic Liberal smokescreen. There is absolutely no impact on the illicit use of illegal firearms in crime. Of course criminals and gangs do not carry licences or register their illegally obtained firearms and will not be deterred by municipal bylaws. They do not even care about the Criminal Code.

The fact that at least 80% of guns used in Canadian gun crimes are illegally smuggled in from the states shows that enabling towns and cities to demand handguns from licenced owners will have little to no impact on actual public safety.

In 2016, a father of four for two years, whose children were only six and five along with one-year-old twins, was enjoying a night out with friends in Toronto when he was shot and killed by a stray bullet. Now a mother of three, carrying the lifetime grief from the loss of her child, his mum, Evelyn Fox, advocates to support at-risk youth and prevent youth involvement in gang activity. She believes that banning handguns in Canada is “nonsense” because “street level wise, they'll get access to the handguns anyways.”. She says, “I also would like to know how it is that penalizing law-abiding gun owners with a gun ban is going to deter gun violence on our streets when 80%, if not more, is coming across the border?” She is right.

In Toronto, despite the new Liberal order in council prohibition of thousands of firearms, there were 462 shootings in 2020, an increase over 2018 when there was no prohibition order. The year 2019 was a record year.

Since 2014, shootings in Toronto have increased 161%. Obviously residents and family are worried about this reality, causing sleepless nights, untold heartbreak and anxiety about security, and whether kids can grow up carefree in peaceful neighbourhoods. How galling that Bill C-21 would do nothing to make it more safe, while the Liberals claim otherwise.

In 2019, Toronto's police chief, Mark Saunders, reported that most guns using crime were illegally smuggled in. He said, “When it comes to the handguns, I believe, 82 per cent...of the ‘crime guns’ in the city are coming from the United States.”

Peel Police Association President Adrian Woolley says, “There are a lot of guns out there and they are not legal ones from target shooters but illegal ones smuggled in from the United States.”

For the 2017-18 year, CBSA seized 751 illegal firearms at the U.S.-Canada border, 696 the next year and 753 for the year after that. The CBSA has already seized 166 firearms for the first quarter of this fiscal year. Canada's border agents should be commended for that good work and lawmakers should support their efforts to improve public safety by getting tougher on gun criminals and gun smugglers when they are caught. That is exactly what our Conservative colleague from Markham—Unionville tried to do when he proposed Bill C-238, which would have cracked down on gun smuggling, knowingly possessing illegally smuggled guns by increasing sentences and making it harder for gun runners to get out on bail. However, the Liberals and the NDP voted against that public safety legislation a week before the announcement of Bill C-21.

When asked why the government is not getting tougher on criminals, the Liberal default is to say that they implemented a prohibition on “military-style” assault rifles. First, the term “military-style” assault rifle is of course invented with no legal definition, but it does sound scary. The reality is that fully automatic fire rifles have been prohibited for use outside of the military since the 1970s. The Prime Minister said that he made a law so people could not purchase firearms without purchasing a licence, but that is false.

Along the spirit of making things up, just last Saturday, the member for York South—Weston told a crowd of gun crime victims and families that his Liberal government's gun grab included “AR-135” submachine guns, except they absolutely do not even exist.

Unfortunately, it is easy to see why lawful, well-intentioned urban and rural firearms owners, collectors, hunters, sport shooters, enthusiasts and retailers, people who enjoy this Canadian heritage, are skeptical of the Liberals, to say nothing of the radical shift in Bill C-21. It would create a one-sided guilty-until-proven innocent-ask questions later regime, focused on Canadians who already did a filing and have the licences under Canada's stringent regulations and vigorous vetting processes for prohibition orders and warrantless search and seizures.

That is ripe for abuse and conflicts while bogging down already backlogged courts and law enforcement resources when right now there are multiple overlapping systems to ensure that law enforcement can respond to urgent situations involving threats to personal and public safety, as they must. The new approach actually may even take longer and could easily have unintended consequences and deliver the opposite outcomes. This pattern of saying one thing and doing another, of literally making things up, of not having the evidence to support the legislation to show it will achieve stated outcomes should make every every single Canadian question and challenge the Liberals to prove that their laws will actually make a difference for public safety, and combat gun crimes, too.

That brings me to the framework for the voluntary confiscation program. A 2018 Public Safety Canada paper entitled “Reducing Violent Crime: A Dialogue on Handguns and Assault Weapons” explained why confiscating firearms from lawful licensed owners would be ineffective at reducing gun crime in Canada. The report states:

The vast majority of owners of handguns and of other firearms in Canada lawfully abide by requirements, and most gun crimes are not committed with legally-owned firearms....

In most cases, individuals own handguns either in the context of sport shooting activities or because those handguns form a part of a collection....

Any ban...would primarily affect legal firearms owners,...

The public safety minister recently said that the government does not know how many firearms will fall under the confiscation program, but claims it is in the range of 200,000 and says that at an average price of $1,300 per firearm, it will cost taxpayers in the range of $250 million to $260 million. Of course, experts say that the Liberals are way off and that this confiscation program could cost as much as $5 billion when all is said and done. The fact is that the Liberals do not have any structure in place because no private sector proponents have agreed to run the program after two public requests for bids. It really does say something when highly reputable major firms look at the government's purported analysis and cost assumptions and decide they will not touch it with a 10-foot pole.

The Liberals still have not been clear on how they will address retailers left holding the bag with inventory they cannot sell or return to manufacturers either. Phil Harnois, the owner of P&d Enterprises in Alberta, says that 40% of his annual sales were of firearms that are now banned and that thousands of dollars of inventory became worthless overnight. The president of the National Police Federation, Brian Sauvé, says that “the evidence is that illegal gun trafficking leads to criminals owning guns, which leads to crimes with firearms.... [W]e need to look at the source of the problem.” The vast majority of gun crime committed in Canada is by gangs and criminals using already illegal guns, most often illegally smuggled in. That needs to be reiterated because Bill C-21 clearly misses the mark.

Sylvia Jones, spokesperson for Ontario's solicitor general, agrees. She says that “As law enforcement experts routinely highlight, it has not been demonstrated that banning legal firearms and targeting law-abiding citizens would meaningfully address the problem of gun violence.” The Liberals have shown, of course, though, that they do not really believe that their list of banned firearms in the hands of licensed law-abiding firearms owners are a real threat either. Otherwise, why is there this confusing step of banning them, but allowing Canadians to keep them in their homes so long as the guns are registered with the government? It is very confounding.

However, what is clear is that Bill C-21 finds a way to create a boondoggle that will result in the creation of another long-gun registry because some of the now-prohibited firearms are long guns and it will cost taxpayers billions of dollars while delivering no concrete results to improve the public safety of Canadians suffering at the hands of gangs and criminals carrying out the vast majority of gun violence and crime in Canada.

Another measure that is glaring in its obvious irrelevance to improving public safety in Canada while also imposing major consequences on everyday people is the prohibition of the importation, exportation and sale of all non-regulated air guns that look like modern firearms. Here is the deal. The Liberals are actually imposing a ban on Airsoft and a partial ban on paintball. Any rational, common sense person can see that toy guns are not responsible for the shootings are causing death in Canadian cities. Criminals and gangs with illegal guns are tragically ending the lives of Canadians. This provision in Bill C-21 would end hundreds of livelihoods, legacies and jobs and outlaw an entirely harmless hobby enjoyed by more than 60,000 Canadians.

Airsoft in Canada says the Canadian Airsoft market is worth $100 million and over 260 businesses in Canada are linked to the paintball or Airsoft community. The Quebec Airsoft Federation estimates that the industry brings in over $10 million per year in Quebec alone. Distributors and retailers are uncertain about what to do with the current stock and stock on order because all of it would be rendered worthless immediately, with no option to offset losses because the bill would prohibit sales. It will not only impact businesses that directly sell hobby and competition practice guns, but also the retailers of protective equipment and accessories, as well as the clubs and owners of sports facilities that have focused their businesses largely or solely around these activities.

This whole industry would be devastated. Matt Wasilewicz, who owns Canadian Airsoft Imports, says that the ban “confirms our worst fears”. Frank Chong, who owns Toronto Airsoft, Canada's largest airsoft retailer, says “It looks like it's doomsday for us at this point". Ziming Wan of BlackBlitz Airsoft in Waterloo says that “We're basically all going to have to shut down.... It's the death of the sport, as we know it”. Joe Kimpson of Flag Raiders in Kitchener says “You'll see the demise of airsoft in Canada”.

Seventy-four per cent of these businesses expect to lose over half their revenue because of Bill C-21 and 47% of them expect to be out of business for good. There are approximately 3,000 employees working in those affected businesses. It is unconscionable that half of them would lose their jobs and not a single life be saved for it.

It is hard to see how the Liberals are materially protecting the well-being and safety of Canadians by banning toy guns, shuttering more businesses and killing 1,500 jobs while Canada's unemployment rate is already the highest in the G7.

Mark from Motium Manufacturing in Lakeland says, “I was given no notice, no warning, no consultation. The hard work I've put in for over 8 years has been erased and my customers wrongfully criminalized. Why aren't criminals being as negatively impacted as my small business?”

A petition called “Stop Bill C-21” is circulating in the hobby community and 30,000 Canadians have already signed it. That is because Canadians know what experts have been saying all along, which is also what the Conservatives have been saying. What is missing from these Liberals is any meaningful emphasis or major legal framework targeting the main source of gun crime in Canada.

It is good to see some measures to help the CBSA and a small increase in penalties for gun smuggling, but those aspects of Bill C-21 appear more like a footnote in what seems to be a broader strategy primarily concerned with targeting already law-abiding members of Canadian society. One would read this bill and assume that the main goal is to be a nuisance to the legal firearms community. It is not at all obvious that the aim of Bill C-21 is to improve public safety.

The tragedy is that for all the big words and tough talk from the Liberals, it is the very real victims of growing gun violence and Canadian citizens and their families who are forced to bear the brunt of these failed Liberal policies and experiments. What is worse is that the evidence is available for all of us to see. Experts, law enforcement and policy-makers all agree that concrete strategies and legislation must be directed at criminals and gangs and supports for at-risk youth.

Conservatives will always support a common-sense approach to firearms legislation with concrete outcomes that protect personal and public safety. Bill C-21 does not get to the bottom of addressing the major cause of gun crime in Canada and all MPs really owe it to the victims of violent crime in Canada, past and future, to get serious about gun smuggling, gangs and criminals.

As Evelyn Fox says, “I see the homicides happen and it’s almost like a retrigger for me to think that another mother has to go through this and another mother has to deal with the fact that they aren’t going to see their children again.” Because Bill C-21 will not actually make any difference to that, Conservatives will strongly oppose it, and if it passes, repeal Bill C-21.

Alleged Premature Disclosure of Contents of Bill C-22

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

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am rising to speak to the alleged premature disclosure of the content of Bill C-22, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

My colleague, the hon. member for Fundy Royal, rose in the House on February 19 to allege that the content of the bill was divulged by the government in a CBC news story during the notice period. In his intervention he cited a Speaker's ruling on March 10, 2020, respecting the premature disclosure of Bill C-7 and Bill C-14, both dealing with medical assistance in dying. In those cases, the government acknowledged that some content was disclosed during the notice period, and as a result, the Speaker found there was a prima facie breach of privilege.

The case before the House on Bill C-22 is indeed different. I have discussed this matter with the office of the Minister of Justice, and they have confirmed to me that a CBC reporter did inquire about the content of the bill while it was on notice. The office explained to the reporter that since the bill was on notice, they could not comment on the content of the bill until it had been properly introduced in the House.

The government, in 2015, promised to make public mandate letters for the ministers, a significant departure from the secrecy around those key policy commitment documents from previous governments. As a result of the publication of the mandate letters, reporters are able to use the language from these letters to try to telegraph what the government bill on notice may contain.

I take umbrage with the member for Fundy Royal's assertion: “We are being asked once again to deal with the contemptuous actions of the Minister of Justice and his justice team.” The member should ensure that he has the facts on his side before casting such aspersions on any member of the House. It is neither decorous nor responsible.

Now let me deal with the matter directly.

Bill C-22 has three main policy thrusts: repealing mandatory minimum penalties in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Criminal Code, increasing the availability of conditional sentence orders and evidence-based diversion from simple possession offences. The article the member refers to and relies on for his argument was not correct in its description of all three elements and therefore resides in the realm of speculation.

When we get into the details of the article in comparison with the bill, the story gets the content wrong. Let me walk members through the content of the article.

On drugs, the article is rife with speculation. The 2019 mandate letter for the Minister of Justice states, “Make drug treatment courts the default option for first-time non-violent offenders charged exclusively with simple possession to help drug users get quick access to treatment and to prevent more serious crimes.” The reporting on this item seems to be speculative based on the title of the bill. Moreover, the bill does not contain measures dealing with drug treatment courts.

I will note for the benefit of members that the evidence-based diversion measures in the bill are entirely distinct from drug treatment courts. Drug treatment courts require non-violent offenders to plead guilty, and judge-mandated supervision has no relation to what is proposed in the bill. In fact, the bill seeks to avoid the laying of charges in the prosecution of simple possession cases in the first place, if appropriate.

The bill also proposes a principled approach for police and prosecutors to consider before laying or pursuing a charge of the offence of simple drug possession. This includes the possibility of referral to various treatment programs or social supports and/or empowering police and prosecutors to provide a warning or to take no action with respect to the potential offender instead.

On mandatory minimum penalties, the article states that the government will revisit the mandatory minimum penalties for drug-related offences. In fact, upon inspection of the bill, the government is proposing to remove all mandatory minimums related to the drug offences, as well as removing mandatory minimums for 14 other offences in the Criminal Code.

There is no mention in the article of conditional sentence orders, which are a key policy element of the bill. In addition, there is nothing in the bill that provides for reforms concerning restorative justice specifically. The article infers that the bill contains elements relating to restorative justice, based on the mandate letter commitment, previous public statements and commitments made in regard to the fall economic statement.

One can only assume two outcomes here based on the fact that the article did not accurately describe the contents of the bill. First, the reporter spoke to a government source who was not familiar with the content of the bill. The second outcome, which is perhaps more likely, is that the government did not publicly comment on the bill during the notice period and, as a result, the reporter had no other recourse but to speculate on the content of the bill based on previous policy statements.

I will turn now very quickly to the relevant precedents on the disclosure of the content of a bill during the notice period. In instances where government has acknowledged that an official of the government prematurely disclosed the content of a bill during the notice period, Speakers have found a prima facie case of breach of privilege. However, when the government has not disclosed the content of a bill during the notice period, Speakers have been reluctant to find a prima facie case of breach of privilege. On June 8, 2017, the Speaker referred to the distinction as follows:

When ruling on a similar question of privilege on April 19, 2016, I found a prima facie case of privilege in relation to the premature disclosure of Bill C-14, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other acts (medical assistance in dying). In that particular case, the government had acknowledged the premature disclosure of the bill while assuring the House that this had not been authorized and would not happen again. In other words, the facts were undisputed.

That is not the case with the situation before us. The parliamentary secretary has assured the House that the government did not share the bill before it was introduced in the House but conceded that extensive consultations were conducted. Nor is the Chair confronted with a situation where a formal briefing session was provided to the media but not to members.

Finally, it is a long established practice to take members at their word, and the Chair, in view of this particular set of circumstances, is prepared to accept the explanation of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

In conclusion, I submit that if the content of the bill was prematurely divulged during the notice period, it did not emanate from the government side.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege concerning the recent premature disclosure of the contents of Bill C-22, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Yesterday, the CBC posted online, at 8:47 a.m., an article that outlined details of Bill C-22. Bill C-22 was introduced in the House later that morning. The article outlined several measures contained in the bill, including amendments to the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the elimination of several mandatory minimum penalties. The article also boasts a reliance on sources, not unlike in the case I raised with you, Mr. Speaker, on another matter of privilege almost one year ago.

On February 25, 2020, I was on my feet in the House defending the privileges of the House on the matter of the premature disclosure of the contents of Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying). In that case, The Canadian Press posted an article that disclosed the details of the bill before it was introduced in the House and after the bill went on notice.

On March 10, 2020, Mr. Speaker, you came back to the House with your ruling. You said:

First, based on a reading of the Canadian Press article on Bill C-7 on medical assistance in dying, and in the absence of any explanation to the contrary, I must conclude that the anonymous sources mentioned were well aware of our customs and practices and chose to ignore them. It seems clear to me that the content of the bill was disclosed prematurely while it was on notice and before it was introduced in the House.

The rule on the confidentiality of bills on notice exists to ensure that members, in their role as legislators, are the first to know their content when they are introduced. Although it is completely legitimate to carry out consultations when developing a bill or to announce one’s intention to introduce a bill by referring to its public title available on the Notice Paper and Order Paper, it is forbidden to reveal specific measures contained in a bill at the time it is put on notice.

As everyone knows, the Department of Justice, unfortunately, has a history of leaking the contents of government bills. On April 19, 2016, the Speaker found that there was a prima facie case of privilege regarding Bill C-14, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other acts (medical assistance in dying). At the time, he said:

As honourable members know, one of my most important responsibilities as Speaker is to safeguard the rights and privileges of members, individually and collectively. Central to the matter before us today is the fact that, due to its pre-eminent role in the legislative process, the House cannot allow precise legislative information to be distributed to others before it has been made accessible to all members. Previous Speakers have regularly upheld not only this fundamental right, but also expectation, of the House.

Another question of privilege was raised on March 19, 2001, regarding, once again, the Department of Justice briefing the media on a bill before members of Parliament. In that ruling, Speaker Milliken said this at page 1840 of the House of Commons Debates:

In preparing legislation, the government may wish to hold extensive consultations and such consultations may be held entirely at the government’s discretion. However, with respect to material to be placed before parliament, the House must take precedence. Once a bill has been placed on notice, whether it has been presented in a different form to a different session of parliament has no bearing and the bill is considered a new matter. The convention of the confidentiality of bills on notice is necessary, not only so that members themselves may be well informed, but also because of the pre-eminent rule which the House plays and must play in the legislative affairs of the nation.

The Speaker found another case of contempt on October 15, 2001, once again involving the Department of Justice, which does not seem to learn, after it briefed the media on the contents of a bill prior to the legislation being introduced in the House.

We are being asked once again to deal with the contemptuous actions of the Minister of Justice and his justice team. We have had countless rulings from the Speaker. The House has expressed itself on numerous occasions. We have had three debates and extensive committee studies.

The message is crystal clear, yet the responsible minister continues to draft bills and then leak those bills to the media, ignoring the will of the House. I ask, Mr. Speaker, that you find a prima facie case of privilege, and I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

Language Interpretation Resources—Speaker's Ruling

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today on a question of privilege concerning the premature disclosure of the contents of Bill C-22, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank the member for Sydney—Victoria for his tireless advocacy in the fight against systemic racism. We are finally turning the page on failed Conservative criminal justice policies that have not made us safe and not deterred criminals. Instead, they have resulted in the over-incarceration of indigenous people, Black people and marginalized Canadians.

The package that has been tabled is a necessary reset for our criminal law. It proposes to repeal certain mandatory minimum penalties, restore greater availability of conditional sentence orders and provide police and prosecutors the tools and guidance to treat addiction as a health issue.

Bill C-22 represents an important step forward in the fight against systemic racism. We hope members across the aisle support this bill that will truly keep all communities in Canada safe.

Criminal Code

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, for the Minister of Justice]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)