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.

Judges Act

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, as we approach the final sitting days of the House before it rises, this is likely my last opportunity to speak before we all return to our ridings for the summer months. In light of this, I would like to start off my remarks today by acknowledging the great people of my riding of Fundy Royal, whom I am honoured to represent here in this 44th Parliament.

On the topic at hand, we are here today to discuss Bill C-9, an act to amend the Judges Act. I will begin by going over a bit of a summary of the bill.

The legislation would amend the Judges Act to replace the process through which the conduct of federally appointed judges is reviewed by the Canadian Judicial Council. It would establish a new process for reviewing allegations of misconduct that are not serious enough to warrant a judge’s removal from office and would make changes to the process by which recommendations regarding removal from office can be made to the Minister of Justice. As with the provisions it replaces, this new process would also apply to persons, other than judges, who are appointed under an act of Parliament to hold office during good behaviour.

In short, the objective of the legislation is to update the Judges Act to strengthen the judicial complaints process. The existing process was established in 1971, so it is due for a refresh. We can all agree that strengthening and increasing confidence in the judicial system, and taking action to better respond to complaints that it may receive from Canadians, are good things. Canadians are really depending on this Parliament to strengthen our judicial system.

As it stands, the judicial system in Canada has been weakened by COVID delays and a lack of resources for victims in particular, like, as I have mentioned, the vacant victims ombudsman position. There really is no excuse today for that when we see so many stories ripped from the headlines that impact Canadian victims. We also see legislation like the bill the parliamentary secretary just mentioned, Bill C-5. The victims we have talked to, whom we have seen and heard from at committee, are concerned about that bill and its predecessor bill, Bill C-22. The victims ombudsman had a lot to say about it.

I would love the benefit of hearing from a victims ombudsman, except we do not have one. We were supposed to have that position filled back in October, so for many, many months it has been vacant. That is completely unacceptable, not only for victims and their families but also for all Canadians. I should note that when the position of the federal ombudsman for federal offenders in our federal prison system became vacant, it was filled the next day. We can see where the government's priorities are.

Bill C-9 was originally introduced in the Senate as Bill S-5 on May 25, 2021. The previous version of the bill did not complete second reading. We heard commentary across the way about delays, with some asking why we are talking about delays. Why was that bill not passed? Well, the Prime Minister called his snap pandemic election in August 2021. That is what happened with that version of the bill.

The bill was reintroduced in the Senate last year as Bill S-3, but the government had an apparent change of heart, dropping Bill S-3 from the Senate Order Paper in December of 2021 and introducing that bill in the House of Commons as Bill C-9. That is where it has languished for months until today, just days before we go into our summer recess.

The bill would modify the existing judicial review process by establishing a process for complaints serious enough to warrant removal from office, and another process for offences that would warrant sanctions other than removal, such as counselling, continuing education and reprimands. Currently, if misconduct is less serious, a single member of the Canadian Judicial Council who conducts the initial review may negotiate with a judge for an appropriate remedy.

It may be helpful at this point to provide a bit of background on the Canadian Judicial Council, what it does and who its members are.

Established by Parliament in 1971, the Canadian Judicial Council is mandated to “promote the efficiency, uniformity, and to improve the quality of judicial services in all superior courts in Canada.” Through this mandate, the Canadian Judicial Council presides over the judicial complaints process.

The Canadian Judicial Council is made up of 41 members and is led by the current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Right Hon. Richard Wagner, who is chairperson of the council. The membership is made up of chief justices and associate chief justices of the Canadian provincial and federal superior courts. The goal of the members is to improve consistency in the administration of justice before the courts and the quality of services in Canada's superior courts.

Returning back to the bill itself, the reasons a judge could be removed from office are laid out. These include infirmity, misconduct, failure in the due execution of judicial office and “the judge [being] in a position that a reasonable, fairminded and informed observer would consider to be incompatible with the due execution of judicial office.” A screening officer can dismiss complaints should they seem frivolous or improper, rather than referring to them to the review panel. A complaint that alleges sexual harassment or discrimination may not be dismissed. The full screening criteria will be published by the Canadian Judicial Council.

The minister or Attorney General may themselves request the Canadian Judicial Council establish a full hearing panel to determine whether the removal from the office of a superior court judge is justified. The Canadian Judicial Council is to submit a report within three months after the end of each calendar year with respect to the number of complaints received and the actions taken. The intention of this bill, as stated by the government, is to streamline the process for more serious complaints for which removal from the bench could be an outcome.

As I mentioned earlier, these amendments would also address the current shortcomings of the process by imposing mandatory sanctions on a judge when a complaint of misconduct is found to be justified but not to be serious enough to warrant removal from office. Again, such sanctions could include counselling, continuing education and reprimands. In the name of transparency, this legislation would require that the Canadian Judicial Council include the number of complaints received and how they were resolved in its annual public report.

To clarify, the Canadian Judicial Council’s process applies only to federally appointed judges, which are the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada and the federal courts, the provincial and territorial superior trial courts and the provincial and territorial courts of appeal. The provinces and territories are responsible for reviewing the conduct of the judges at the provincial-territorial trial court level, who are also provincially appointed.

Since its inception in 1971, the Canadian Judicial Council has completed inquiries into eight complaints considered serious enough that they could warrant a judge's removal from the bench. Four of them, in fact, did result in recommendations for removal. A ninth inquiry is under way, but has faced delays due to public health restrictions imposed by the Province of Quebec, such as curfew and indoor capacity limits.

Under the proposed new process laid out in Bill C-9, the Canadian Judicial Council would continue to preside over the judicial complaints process, which would start with a three-person review panel deciding to either investigate a complaint of misconduct or, if the complaint is serious enough that it might warrant removal from the bench, refer it to a separate five-person hearing panel. If appropriate, a three-person review panel made up of a Canadian Judicial Council member, a judge and a layperson could impose such sanctions as public apologies or courses of continuing education. If warranted, a five-person hearing panel made up of two Canadian Judicial Council members, a judge, a lawyer and a layperson could, after holding a public hearing, recommend removal from the bench to the Minister of Justice.

Judges who face removal from the bench would have access to an appeal panel made up of three Canadian Judicial Council members and two judges and finally to the Supreme Court of Canada, should the court agree to hear the appeal.

I know that sounded very convoluted and lengthy, but believe it or not, this would actually streamline the current process for court review of council decisions, which currently involves judicial review by two additional levels of court, those being the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal, before a judge can ask the Supreme Court to hear the case.

The amendments would provide for a funding mechanism for the new process. The financial impact of the review process has been raised by a number of stakeholders. I want to encourage the Liberal government to take its fiscal responsibility to taxpayers into consideration with all government policies, but this bill is as good a start as any.

I would like to take a moment to point out that we have the former leader of the Conservative Party to thank for paving the way to having this bill before the House of Commons today. The Hon. Rona Ambrose introduced her private member's bill, Bill C-337, in 2017. This legislation would require the Canadian judiciary to produce a report every year that detailed how many judges had completed training in sexual assault law and how many cases were heard by judges who had not been trained, as well as a description of the courses that were taken. It would also require any lawyer applying for a position in the judiciary to have first completed sexual assault case training and education. Last, it would result in a greater number of written decisions from judges presiding over sexual assault trials, thus providing improved transparency for Canadians seeking justice.

The original premise of Bill C-337 was in response to a complaint about the behaviour a federal judge who was presiding over a case of sexual assault in 2014. The Canadian Judicial Council of which we speak today launched an investigation into the behaviour of that judge. Ultimately, in March 2017, the Canadian Judicial Council sent a letter to the federal Minister of Justice recommending that this judge be removed from the bench, and the minister accepted the recommendation.

The bill before us today works to expedite and facilitate the complaints process so that extreme cases like the one I just referenced can be fully and properly reviewed without causing too much disruption in terms of time, costs and delays in processing smaller but still important complaints.

Earlier this year, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights received correspondence from the Canadian Bar Association stating its support for the legislation as written in Bill C-9. In part, its letter reads as follows:

The CBA commented on the state of the judicial discipline process in its 2014 submission to the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC). On the subject of judicial discipline proceedings, our 16 recommendations were to ensure that the objectives of balancing the independence of the judiciary and the public’s confidence in the administration of justice were respected in the process. The CJC and Justice Canada responded with its own reports, which culminated in the present amendments to the Judges Act proposed by the Minister of Justice.

The letter from the Canadian Bar Association goes on to say:

In the view of the CBA Subcommittee, Bill C-9 strikes a fair balance between the right to procedural fairness and public confidence in the integrity of the justice system with the discipline of judges who form the core of that system. The proposed amendments enhance the accountability of judges, builds transparency, and creates cost-efficiencies in the process for handling complaints against members of the Bench.

I would like to pause here briefly just to say that at a moment like this, looking at a bill like this, it seems to me that it would be a very good time to have a federal ombudsman for victims of crime to hear the perspective on how the judicial complaints process is or is not currently working and how this bill would or would not be able to meet those challenges or rectify those concerns.

In testimony given to the justice committee on June 3, 2021, the federal ombudsman for victims of crime at that time raised what she described as a “most critical” issue, which was the legal recourse or remedy that victims have if their rights are violated.

She stated:

Currently, victims do not have a way to enforce the rights given to them in law; they only have a right to make a complaint to various agencies. This means that victims have to rely on the goodwill of criminal justice officials and corrections officials to give effect to or implement their statutory rights under the bill. This means victims count on police, Crown prosecutors, courts, review boards, corrections officials and parole boards to deliver, uphold and respect their rights.

But my office continues to receive complaints from victims that are common across all jurisdictions in Canada. Victims report to us that they are not consistently provided information about their rights or how to exercise them, they feel overlooked in all of the processes, and they have no recourse when officials don't respect their rights.

While the bill we are discussing today is, as I said earlier, a step in the right direction, there is certainly more work that needs to be done to make sure our justice system in Canada works for everyone who comes into contact with it, and I will add especially victims. One way this can be achieved is by immediately filling the position of federal ombudsman for victims of crime, which has now been vacant for nine months. There is absolutely no excuse for this position to have remained vacant for nine months when other positions are filled immediately, including, as I mentioned earlier, the position of ombudsman for those who are in our federal prisons.

By contrast, as I was mentioning, when the offenders ombudsman position became vacant, the Liberal government filled it the very next day, as it should have been. It should be filled right away, but so should the position of the ombudsman for victims of crime.

In 2021, the Canadian Judicial Council published “Ethical Principles for Judges”. I would like to reference excerpts from this publication to add some context into the role and duty of the judiciary.

They read as follows:

An independent and impartial judiciary is the right of all and constitutes a fundamental pillar of democratic governance, the rule of law and justice in Canada....

Today, judges’ work includes case management, settlement conferences, judicial mediation, and frequent interaction with self-represented litigants. These responsibilities invite further consideration with respect to ethical guidance. In the same manner, the digital age, the phenomenon of social media, the importance of professional development for judges and the transition to post-judicial roles all raise ethical issues that were not fully considered twenty years ago. Judges are expected to be alert to the history, experience and circumstances of Canada’s Indigenous peoples, and to the diversity of cultures and communities that make up this country. In this spirit, the judiciary is now more actively involved with the wider public, both to enhance public confidence and to expand its own knowledge of the diversity of human experiences in Canada today.

As was just referenced, social context and society overall change over time, and critical institutions like the justice system must grow to reflect these changes. Much of the time, this simply requires education on emerging issues or a more updated perspective on older issues.

In order to grow, there is a crucial partnership that must be respected between the judiciary and Parliament. While the Parliament and the courts are separate entities, there is a back-and-forth conversation between the two that is essential to our democracy and our judiciary. We have recently seen examples in which that conversation, unfortunately, was desperately lacking. On Friday, May 27, of this year, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the punishment of life without parole in cases concerning mass murderers.

When confronted on the impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Liberal government is determined to stick to their talking points by telling Parliament and concerned Canadians that we should not worry about mass killers actually receiving parole, because that possible outcome is extremely rare. What that actually means is that this government is comfortable putting these families through a revictimizing, retraumatizing parole process, even though, at the end of the day, it is essentially all for show because, according to the government, we just need to trust that a mass killer will not receive parole anyway.

In the Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling, the decision stated, “A life sentence without a realistic possibility of parole presupposes the offender is beyond redemption and cannot be rehabilitated. This is degrading in nature and incompatible with human dignity. It amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.”

What the court is saying here is that keeping mass killers behind bars for the number of years that a judge has already decided would adequately reflect the gravity of their crimes amounts to “cruel and unusual punishment”. Personally, I and many others feel and believe that having the victims' families endure a parole hearing every two years for the rest of their lives is the real cruel and unusual punishment, and the federal government has a duty and a responsibility to respond to the court’s decision, something that it has not done and has shown no inclination to do.

Essentially, the Supreme Court also ruled on May 13 that one can drink one’s way out of a serious crime. We have called on the government to respond to that as well, and we look forward to debate on the response that needs to be coming. Just because the Supreme Court has made these rulings does not mean that this is the end of the road. What it means is that there is a discussion and a dialogue that has to take place, and now the ball is in our court. It is for us to deal with these decisions in Parliament. The Liberals can now create legislation that responds to the Supreme Court’s decisions, and this legislation can be used to make sure that victims, survivors and their families can live in a country where they are equally protected and respected by our justice system.

Bill C-9, an act to amend the Judges Act, is a step in the right direction. I will note that there is much, much more to be done to make sure that the justice system is fair and balanced for all.

Criminal Code

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the member for Dufferin—Caledon.

I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-5, an act that would amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. It is a bill being spun by the NDP-Liberal government as beneficial to Canadians, but it is far from it. This bill focuses on eliminating mandatory minimum sentencing for heinous offences. Thus, in a true NDP-Liberal fashion, it is prioritizing petty politics and the interests of offenders over the safety and security of the vulnerable and innocent in our communities.

Even after repackaging what was once Bill C-22 from the last Parliament, the government claims that Bill C-5 focuses on the fair treatment of offenders and some demographics' overrepresentation in our correctional facilities.

Upon closer inspection, the bill proves not only that the government will do anything to remain in power but also that it will also completely disregard the safety and security of Canadians in the meantime. The approach proposed by Bill C-5 is critically faulty and appalling. Quite frankly, it is a slap in the face for Canadians who have placed their trust and faith in the government to do what is right and advocate for common sense solutions to protect vulnerable Canadians’ sovereignty and security.

This bill suggests some highly concerning amendments to both the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Criminal Code of Canada by removing mandatory minimum sentencing not only for offences relating to the consumption and distribution of illicit drugs and substances but also for offences involving firearms.

It does not stop there. Apart from pushing to loosen gun restrictions in Canada, the government is also advocating for the availability of conditional sentences such as house arrest on heinous crimes, which would substantially put lives at risk. These crimes include but are not limited to attempted murder, torture as inflicted on another person, advocating for genocide, sexual assault, kidnapping and abduction of a person under the age of 14, human trafficking for material benefit, and firearms smuggling.

What I just listed are just some of several offences that could qualify for conditional sentencing, such as house arrest, if mandatory minimum sentencing is lifted under Bill C-5. The government seems to heavily rely on the theme of protecting the offenders and punishing Canadians, thus providing more opportunities for criminals to be emboldened to terrorize. They are now abetted by the government.

The NDP-Liberal government is turning a blind eye to illegally procured firearms by not cracking down on gang operations and activity. It is also sparing these criminals from incarceration at correctional facilities by removing mandatory minimum sentencing for serious offences, such as those involving firearms.

Furthermore, Bill C-5 would add to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act by highlighting a series of principles peace officers and prosecutors should use when determining whether or not to lay charges for drug possession. Again, the government is failing to address its alleged aim to lessen overrepresentation of under-represented communities in our penitentiaries, because peace officers, law enforcement and prosecutors already have the authority and flexibility to decide whether or not to lay charges for simple possession of drugs or illicit substances.

A directive from the Public Prosecution Service of Canada was also previously issued to direct prosecutors to limit their involvement in the prosecution of simple drug possession unless there were proven and immediate public safety concerns. Conservatives argue that offenders involved in serious, violent crimes committed with firearms, including substantially horrific offences, deserve prison time and most definitely not to be tucked away in their individual homes with a slap on the wrist.

Furthermore, drug offenders should be presented with mandatory participation in Canadian drug treatment courts to end the cycle of crime and drugs, and to provide them with rehabilitative, therapeutic opportunities in lieu of premature reintegration into communities or being subjected to correctional facilities and the criminal justice system.

To date, this rehabilitation program is critically limited through strict eligibility criteria and non-mandatory participation. The government’s proposal to lift mandatory minimums is a performative stunt that does nothing to address the root of the drug and crime crisis in our country. I also find it questionable how the government insists on conditional sentencing for alleged low-risk offenders, as if our police officers have the time and resources to continually monitor these people serving their conditional sentences in their respective communities and ensure their compliance.

Contrary to what the NDP-Liberal government claims that this bill suggests, the elimination of offenders’ mandatory time in correctional facilities will not alleviate the overrepresentation of Black and indigenous communities in our penitentiaries, but will only offer more opportunities for criminals to infiltrate and prey on the vulnerable and innocent.

In addition, the government claims to state that it will be removing mandatory minimum penalties for simple possession, but how can the Liberals do that when mandatory minimums for simple possession do not exist? Instead of pushing Bill C-5, we Conservatives believe in establishing mandatory participation in support and rehabilitation centres for those struggling with addictions, reinforcing our borders to prevent firearms smuggling and abolishing conditional sentencing opportunities for crimes that threaten the safety and security of Canadians.

Why is the government weakening our gun laws, standing up for criminals, blatantly disregarding the grief and trauma experienced by victims and being lenient with the deterrence and punishment of offenders, instead of defending our communities? These actions only show that the NDP-Liberal government prioritizes the interests of offenders and is not serious about protecting the safety and security of Canadians.

With regard to drugs and illicit substances circulating in neighbourhoods, Conservatives believe that all mandatory minimum sentences should be sustained, not only as punitive damages for committing crimes outlined under the Criminal Code, but also to serve protection and justice for the vulnerable, the innocent and the victims of these abhorrent transgressions. How can the Liberals claim that they are doing what is best for Canadians when they are proposing to keep offenders under house arrest as opposed to having them placed in rehabilitation centres if their crimes were fuelled by substance abuse, or behind bars for serious transgressions?

The government claims that it would rescind mandatory minimum sentencing for simple possession, but it must be highlighted that our officers already have that discretion in place, offering offenders treatment programs or other support services as opposed to prison time.

Regardless, mandatory minimums for simple possession do not exist. It is simply time the government gave up the act of performative activism and actually invested in the rehabilitation of offenders and put the security of victims and the vulnerable first.

Considering the questionable tactics that the government has advocated for in the past, this is simply a missed opportunity to prove that the Liberals are here for Canadians, for survivors and the appropriate rehabilitation of offenders while protecting the security of our communities. It is time for the government to go back to the drawing board with Bill C-5 and sustain mandatory minimum penalties for the offences aforementioned and all others outlined under the bill.

In conclusion, I recommend that the government closely reconsider its advocacy for Bill C-5 and prioritize the safety and security of all Canadians through the close reconsideration of lifting mandatory minimum sentencing, the consumption and distribution of drugs and illegal substances, and mandatory minimum penalties for serious offences.

I now welcome questions from my colleagues.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-5 is legislation that seeks to reduce sentences for violent criminals. It is the same bill, unfortunately, that was introduced as Bill C-22 in the last Parliament before the Prime Minister called his completely unnecessary $630-million pandemic election.

For the second consecutive election, the Liberal Party received fewer votes than the Conservative Party. The voters did not give the Prime Minister a mandate to experiment with the criminal justice system or any other ideological experiment on how Canadians govern themselves. The evidence on how opportunistic the election was is the length of time it took for the government to recall Parliament to avoid democratic scrutiny of its failed policies. Parliamentary committees were only formed just before we were shut down for the Christmas season. So much for the sense of urgency in calling an election.

During the election, the Prime Minister and his party used vulnerable and marginalized Canadians, the same Canadians who they say suffer from systemic racism from a justice system they have been running for the last six and a half years, as a cover for the real objective of the bill, which is to pursue a Liberal ideological agenda of going soft on criminals. Canadians heard endless political rhetoric from the Liberals about how firearms pose a significant threat to public safety and the security of our communities.

As has been the Liberal practice in all eight elections I successfully ran in, the Prime Minister, on cue, attacked the one group that is statistically proven to be the most law-abiding, that being Canadians who own and responsibly use firearms. Within three and a half weeks of the House reconvening following the election, what did the Liberal Party do? It introduced legislation not to get tough on firearms offences, but to help criminals who illegally use firearms and put the lives of people at risk.

Bill C-5 will allow criminals to stay out of jail and in the community. It is only common sense, when the court system puts dangerous offenders back out on the street rather than putting them behind bars where they belong, that there is going to be a greater risk they are going to commit other offences. It is known that there is a high proportion of repeat offenders in Canada's criminal justice system and Bill C-5 will contribute to the perpetuating of the backlog in the courts.

There has been silence from the justice minister that Bill C-5 will lead to our justice system being overwhelmed by repeat offenders, basically exacerbating the situation in our trial system, which is already heavily backlogged with cases. This backlog led to the infamous Jordan decision. Canadians would be interested in hearing how Bill C-5 will increase the safety and security of individuals as applied to the Jordan decision.

The Prime Minister and his Liberal-socialist alliance want Canadians to believe that Bill C-5 is only about reducing minimum sentences for simple drug possession, but that is not so. Most Canadians would be alarmed to learn that this legislation is aimed at eliminating mandatory prison time for criminals who prey on our communities and victimize the vulnerable.

Bill C-5 puts the rights of criminals first and the rights of victims last. It endangers public safety, while doing nothing to help marginalized vulnerable Canadians. Bill C-5 proposes to eliminate mandatory prison time not for petty crimes, but for crimes 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 communities at continued risk.

Let us now look at the elimination of mandatory prison time for firearm offences. In contrast to the Liberal election spin that demonizes lawful firearms owners to placate the anti-firearms lobby on it being so-called tough on gun violence, there is the complete hypocrisy of Bill C-5. It will eliminate mandatory minimum sentences related to gun crimes, including serious gun crimes, such as robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, 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 an unauthorized firearm, discharging a firearm recklessly, and other firearms offences, such as 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 Bill C-5 does, which is baked into every piece of legislation brought forward by the Liberal Party, is blame the victim. Conservatives believe that criminals should be held responsible for their actions. Victims should have just as many rights in our criminal justice system as criminals do.

Canadians know from the famous Kokanee grope incident comment about women perceiving things differently that the fake-feminist Prime Minister likes to blame the victim.

Violence against women continues to be fact of life in Canada. On average, one woman is killed by her intimate partner every five days. On September 22, 2015, Carol Culleton, Nathalie Warmerdam and Anastasia Kuzyk were murdered by someone known to each of them. The man finally convicted of their murders had a long criminal history, including charges involving two of the three women. Happening in my eastern Ontario riding during the middle of the 2015 federal election campaign, their violent death scarcely caused a ripple in the too cynical national media, leaving the families and the rural Ontario communities these women were members of to grieve in silence.

I can assure the Prime Minister that I have not forgotten what happened to these women. The system failed these women. Talk is cheap when I hear members of the government saying to scrap the progress our Conservative governments made in reforming the criminal justice system, but I invite the Minister of Justice to spend some time listening to the families of these murdered women. Changing our laws to blame the victims by giving the criminal a pat on the head is just plain wrong. Let us not allow Carol, Nathalie, Anastasia and all the other women who have been murdered by their intimate partners to have died in vain.

During this debate, Canadians have heard the Liberal Party confirm in their statements, while omitting the fact that they have been the government for the last six and a half years, that they have presided over a justice system plagued by systemic racism. The Criminal Code is supposed to apply equally to everyone in Canada, and if the government were actually serious about ending systemic racism, it would be tabling a plan to build the communities instead of resorting to blame-the-victim legislation.

An Ottawa publication has stated that Sam Goldstein, a criminal lawyer and former Crown attorney, has said that mandatory minimum sentences act as general deterrents to crime and has argued that if there are problems with marginalized communities, like social dislocation and poverty, fixing those makes more sense than adjusting criminal law. He said, "I don't like it when politicians try to interfere in criminal justice for their own social justice ends, because ultimately it doesn't serve people well." He expanded further, noting that moves toward support for therapeutic drug courts makes more sense than decriminalization.

Mandatory minimum sentences simply protect society at every level. They deter crime. They make society safer. They do not violate the Constitution. Remember, the Criminal Code is supposed to apply equally to everyone in Canada. Mandatory minimum sentences do not discriminate against those who are marginalized, and if they do intrude on judicial independence, it is to restrain activist judges who forget that their role is to uphold the law, not to rewrite it in every case.

Do not tinker with amendments to the law that will make people feel less safe in their own homes. The public has a right to feel safe, and that is no longer possible for Carol, Nathalie and Anastasia, whom our criminal justice system failed.

In closing, Bill C-5 puts the rights of criminals first and the rights of victims last. It endangers public safety while doing nothing to help marginalized and vulnerable Canadians. This bill needs to be defeated.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, I am very glad to rise today to speak on Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Throughout the years, Canadians have witnessed the disproportionate representation of indigenous peoples, Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities in prisons across the country, including in my home province of Nova Scotia. Following the last federal election, our government promised to reintroduce the former bill, Bill C-22, during the first 100 days of our mandate, and that is exactly what the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada did in December 2021. Bill C-5, as it is now known, supports our government's efforts to eliminate the systemic racism in Canada's criminal justice system that has been reported on for years by commissions of inquiry.

The main objective of Bill C-5 is to ensure public safety while at the same time ensuring that the responses to criminal conduct are fairer and more effective. Importantly, the bill would help reduce the overrepresentation of indigenous peoples, Black Canadians and marginalized communities in prisons from coast to coast to coast, which we heard the member for Vancouver Kingsway describe.

Bill C-5 would also ensure that courts across the country can continue to impose severe sentences for serious and violent crimes. Canadians all around the country desire a fair and competent criminal justice system. They want their provinces and their cities and their neighbourhoods to be and to feel safe at all times. They want to have faith in their justice system. They want to believe that offenders will be held responsible for their crimes in a transparent, fair and consistent way that upholds our country's ideals. As members of Parliament, we must listen to these concerns and then work hard to act on them, and act on them we have.

Bill C-5 includes three categories of reforms. The first would repeal mandatory minimum penalties for all drug offences, some firearm offences and one tobacco-related offence. Second, it would allow for a greater use of conditional sentence orders, or CSOs, and I will come back to those shortly. The third reform would require police and prosecutors to consider other measures for simple possession of drugs, such as diversion to addiction treatment programs.

Bill C-5 would repeal mandatory minimum penalties for certain offences that are associated with the overrepresentation of the groups I have mentioned.

The numbers do not lie. In 1999-2000, indigenous people represented 2% of the Canadian adult population but accounted for approximately 17% of admissions to federal custody. Since then, those numbers have moved in the wrong direction, and significantly so: Recent data suggests that indigenous Canadians now account for 5% of the Canadian adult population but 30% of federally incarcerated individuals. It is just not right.

Black Canadians represent 3% of the Canadian adult population but 7% of federally incarcerated individuals. They too are overrepresented in terms of federally incarcerated individuals.

Data from the Correctional Service of Canada for 2007 to 2017 revealed that 39% of Black people and 20% of indigenous people incarcerated in a federal institution during those years were there for offences carrying a mandatory minimum penalty. Again, 39% of Black people and 20% of indigenous people were there because of mandatory minimums.

Further, during the same years, the proportion of indigenous offenders admitted to federal custody for an offence punishable by mandatory minimum penalties almost doubled, rising from 14% to 26%. Bill C-5 would reverse that trend and, in so doing, seek to make the criminal justice system fairer and more equitable for all.

When the Minister of Justice visited my riding of Halifax, he met with members of the African Nova Scotian community, including members of the African Nova Scotian Justice Institute, who, among many things, are committed to fighting racism in the criminal justice system. This group has been advocating impact of race and cultural assessments, something that originated in Nova Scotia, and I want to thank people like Robert Wright for their hard work and Brandon Rolle, who appeared at the justice committee on this legislation, for helping move this idea forward.

Our government is funding impact of race and cultural assessments across Canada by investing $6.64 million over five years, followed by $1.6 million of annual ongoing funding.

Alongside the changes contained in the bill, these are the kinds of important investments needed to make our justice system fairer for all.

If mandatory minimum sentences are repealed, as provided for in Bill C-5, individuals may still be sentenced to harsh penalties. However, the courts will be able to consider the unique circumstances of each offence and determine the most appropriate sentence, rather than having their hands tied by mandatory minimum sentences, which, as we just heard, are filling up the jails with people who do not need to be there. This will help ensure that a person found guilty of an offence receives a sentence that is proportionate to their degree of responsibility and to the seriousness of the offence, while taking into account individualized factors.

Canada is not alone in recognizing that the increased and indiscriminate use of mandatory minimum penalties has proven to be a costly, ineffective and unfair approach to reducing crime, as others have also moved to reform. For instance, while the United States has historically made great use of MMPs, or mandatory minimum penalties, in the last decade many states, including Republican states, have moved toward reducing or eliminating mandatory sentences, with a particular focus on non-violent and drug-related charges.

The lead that the opposition followed in the Harper years from the Republicans in the United States has been proven not to work, and those Republicans are now changing their approach. Also, evidence shows that approaches other than imprisonment, such as community-based sanctions, reduce reoffending because they enable more effective reintegration into the community and reduce the stigma associated with criminal justice system involvement.

I do want to emphasize that those who commit serious crimes should face serious consequences. This is why, alongside Bill C-5, our government has brought forward Bill C-21, which will increase maximum penalties for firearms crimes. This would create the flexibility needed for our judges to impose appropriate sentences based on individual situations, and it is baffling to me that the Conservatives do not support it.

Bill C-5 would also increase the availability of conditional sentence orders, known as CSOs, without compromising public safety, so that sentencing courts could impose community-based sentences of less than two years when the offender does not pose a risk to public safety. A CSO is a sentence of incarceration of less than two years that is served in the community under strict conditions, such as curfew, house arrest, treatment and/or restrictions on possessing, owning or carrying a weapon.

The evidence is clear: Allowing offenders who do not pose a risk to public safety to serve their sentences under strict conditions in their community can be more effective at reducing future criminality. Offenders can keep a job, maintain ties with their families and maintain ties with their community. These are the measures that bring back flexibility of sentencing by allowing judges to help people, not just jail them.

For example, a judge can impose a CSO for an offender to serve their sentence at home and receive appropriate mental health and rehabilitation supports that we have heard again and again are so important to rehabilitation. This will increase access to alternatives to incarceration for low-risk offenders while also furthering the sentencing goals of denunciation and deterrence.

We have heard some claims from the other side that dangerous offenders will be able to get CSOs. That is simply not the case. CSOs will not be available for some offences prosecuted by way of indictment, including advocating genocide, torture, attempted murder, terrorism and criminal organization offences, for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years or more. CSOs will only be available for sentences of under two years for offenders who do not pose a risk to public safety.

This is an important step in reorienting our criminal justice system so that it is both fairer and more effective, while ensuring public safety at the same time. All in all, Bill C-5 represents an important step in our government's efforts to eliminate systemic racism in Canadian society. This bill would also ensure that all Canadians have a safer and more equitable future.

The measures outlined in this bill go hand in hand with a slew of additional investments announced in the 2020 fall economic statement and the 2021 budget, which provide funding to promote co-operation on an indigenous justice strategy and engagement with indigenous communities and groups on creating legislation and activities that address systemic barriers in the criminal justice system.

Further, the government provides funding to community groups and programs that aid at-risk adolescents, give alternatives to criminal charges when possible, and help fight injustices in the judicial system that affect Black Canadians, indigenous peoples and other racialized communities.

I urge all of my colleagues in this chamber to support Bill C-5 to ensure a more equitable and fairer future for all Canadians. Regardless of their race, ethnicity or socio-economic backgrounds, Canadians from coast to coast deserve to feel safe and accepted in our society.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just quickly on this, in the context of the debate on Bill C-5 and Bill C-22 before it, this is not to be partisan in any way, but to illustrate that the idea of the concept of Parliament sending a clear message to Canadians, to victims, to criminals and, yes, to the judges presiding over sentencing, is not a Conservative notion in some way exclusively.

Before we take what I think is a drastic step and possibly eliminate a mandatory prison sentence for some of these section 85 offences on using a firearm in the commission of an offence, I want to quickly note that the minimum was first introduced as far back as 1976. In 1976 and forward since then, some of these have been on the books. That doesn't mean we can never make changes—I get that—but some of these sections have lived on through Liberal governments, Conservative governments and so on, all of them agreeing to keep these provisions in place, and all the while, these provisions, although challenged, many of them were upheld.

I think it's important to contextualize that, because if you listen to the debate, you would think that all of these mandatory minimums—I'm kind of lumping a bunch of them together here—somehow came from the previous Conservative government when, in fact, I've taken the time to look at all of the mandatory minimums being eliminated, and virtually all of them pre-existed the previous Conservative government.

In fact, on the mandatory minimums that we brought in under the Safe Streets and Communities Act or previous legislation, the current government has chosen to keep those on the books, to not eliminate them.

It's important, before we make a change like this, to recognize that some of these have been on the books for the better part of 50 years. It's not something that just is a recent invention but something that we should really consider really very weightily as we deliberate on each of these clauses and on removing what could amount to the only barrier between someone who has committed a serious offence and their being right back out on the street.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Recognizing that it seems to be the will of this committee, I don't want to be presumptuous, but based on the last vote it would appear that the mandatory minimums that are in place are at risk of being struck down, which, in my view, puts our communities at risk, particularly when there is a recidivist element and repeat offenders who are committing the same crimes and the same types of crimes over and over.

What our CPC-1 would do, in an effort to compromise, is reduce the mandatory minimum penalty from one year to six months. For virtually all of the minimums we deal with in Bill C-5 and Bill C-22, which came before it, I think the lowest minimum is one year. I don't think there were any that were below one year. Some of them were more than a year, but the majority of them were a year.

What this would do is acknowledge what appears to certainly be the will of this committee to deal with mandatory minimums but also acknowledge the cry from the public right now that there be real consequences for serious crime. This amendment would be an effort to extend the olive branch and say, if one year is too much, then six months would take someone off the streets, hopefully get them some of the help they need and also show that there is a level of confidence in our justice system that if you commit some of the serious firearms offences and other offences contained in Bill C-5, we as a Parliament say that if you commit an offence like that, there needs to be some period of incarceration.

This amendment would lower the mandatory minimum penalty from one year to six months for using a firearm in the commission of an offence.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-5 is Bill C-22 from a previous Parliament. It died on the Order Paper when the government went to an election. If the Liberals were so serious about passing such a bill, they could have done it.

We believe in mandatory minimum sentences, strict monitoring for high-risk individuals, increased enforcement and prosecution of smuggling, safe storage provisions, firearms safety training, a certification system for all those wishing to acquire a firearm legally and putting more law-enforcement officers on our streets. Which one of these are the government and the hon. member against?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses for taking part in the study of Bill C-5, formerly Bill C-22.

Many good points have been raised. I will encourage you, Mr. Spratt, since you mentioned Conservatives, to take the time to research the origins of most of the mandatory minimum penalties that are being repealed here. You'll find direct links back to previous Liberal governments, including the government of the current Prime Minister's father.

By no means are the mandatory minimum penalties in the Criminal Code there just by virtue of Conservative governments, although having been part of the former Conservative government, I'm very proud of the measures we took when it came to conditional sentencing. One of the key responsibilities for us as parliamentarians is to put in place legislation that creates balance and has a justice system that's balanced and protects rights, not only of the accused but protects society, protects victims and respects victims and their families.

What we were finding with conditional sentences in the past was that too often, for something very serious in the community, the punishment being meted out to offenders was to serve their time in the community. There are times when that's appropriate, but there are times when that is certainly not appropriate.

My question is for you, Ms. Dunn. I appreciated your testimony. Section 718 of the Criminal Code cites that one of the main objectives of sentencing is to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and the community.

You mentioned victims in your testimony. Bill C-5 expands conditional sentencing, like house arrest, to individuals who are found to have benefited financially from human trafficking. We have spoken a lot about human trafficking. It's a scourge on our nation and internationally. We've heard very compelling testimony at this committee of the tragedy that is human trafficking. What message do you feel it sends to Canadians, particularly to the women and girls that you mentioned, that people benefiting from human trafficking would be allowed to serve their sentences home in their community?

[Brandon Rolle, Senior Legal Counsel, African Nova Scotian Justice Institute]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon. My name is Brandon Rolle, and I'm the senior legal counsel at the recently established African Nova Scotian Justice Institute.

I'm pleased to speak today in support of Bill C-5, which we see as a necessary step towards justice.

African Nova Scotians are a distinct people who descend from free and enslaved Black planters, Black Loyalists, Black refugees, maroons, and other Black people who inhabited the original 52 land-based Black communities in that part of Mi'kma'ki known as Nova Scotia.

The African Nova Scotian Justice Institute is a provincially funded—but importantly, community-led—infrastructure developed in response to systemic anti-Black racism faced by African Nova Scotians in the justice system. We acted as intervenors in the Anderson case, a Nova Scotia Court of Appeal decision that affirmed the use of impact of race and culture assessments, IRCAs, as a valuable sentencing tool when sentencing people of African descent and provided a framework for applying systemic and background factors related to race and culture.

There can be no serious dispute that systemic anti-Black racism exists in the criminal justice system. In R. v. S. (R.D.), a well-known case from Nova Scotia that went to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Supreme Court endorsed comments from another Nova Scotia case and put it very bluntly:

[Racism] is a pernicious reality. The issue of racism existing in Nova Scotia has been well documented in the Marshall Inquiry Report (sub. nom. Royal Commission on the Donald Marshall, Jr., Prosecution). A person would have to be stupid, complacent or ignorant not to acknowledge its presence, not only individually, but also systemically and institutionally.

The evidence is also very clear that one of the ways that systemic anti-Black racism has manifested is through the over-incarceration of African Canadians.

The committee has the data from the Department of Justice about the disproportionate impact of mandatory minimums on custody rates for Black people, but I would suggest there are some contextual factors that we can look at to help us understand why MMPs disproportionately impact people of African descent.

First, we know that Black communities are subjected to over-policing and over-surveillance. Since Black people are more likely to be arrested and charged with an offence, they are subject to a disproportionate risk of criminal liability for offences carrying a mandatory sentence.

Second, Black accused are disproportionately detained before trial. The research is increasingly clear that accused persons who have been denied bail feel greater pressure to plead guilty.

Third, African Nova Scotians and African Canadians at large have experienced the legacy of slavery, colonialism, segregation and racism that has led to this historic pattern of disadvantage, which includes overrepresentation in custody, involvement in certain offences, being denied bail and receiving longer jail sentences, and subsequently serving harsher time while in custody.

We submit that to truly address systemic anti-Black racism, the approach has to be multi-faceted and must include the type of legislative reform being proposed by Bill C-5. We suggest that has to be done in combination with efforts further upstream in the justice system that address the root causes of offending behaviour, which is the type of infrastructure we're trying to build here at the African Nova Scotian Justice Institute.

We endorse the comments of Justice Derrick in R. v. Anderson, that case I mentioned earlier, when she was discussing this exact type of legislative reform. At that time it was called Bill C-22, but we know that was the earlier version of this bill. She said, and I quote:

It speaks to what the Supreme Court of Canada noted in Gladue: “Overincarceration is a long-standing problem that has been many times publicly acknowledged but never addressed in a systematic manner by Parliament”.[29] Its proposed reforms would enhance the discretionary powers of judges in sentencing Black offenders. The increased availability of conditional sentence orders would afford judges greater scope in imposing sentences that better serve the principle of proportionality, thereby better serving the community and the offender, with systemic factors and historical disadvantage taken into account.

We agree that MMPs do not effectively address recidivism. Longer and harsher jail sentences have been shown to actually increase recidivism, and as such MMPs can work to decrease public safety. Mandatory minimum sentences do not accord with the fundamental sentencing principle of proportionality, because they remove that discretion of the sentencing judge to consider the moral blameworthiness of the offender and provide no opportunity to account for not only the personal circumstances of the accused but also those systemic and background factors that may come into play.

When it comes to African Nova Scotians and Black Canadians, we suggest that judicial discretion should always be informed by tools like impact of race and culture assessments to better address overrepresentation. This type of legislative reform is an important part of the answer. It's not the complete answer, but we suggest it is a step towards substantive equality.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Steve Sullivan]

We did have an opportunity to discuss the previous bill, Bill C-22, I believe, with department officials. We also met with the then parliamentary secretary to the minister of justice and expressed exactly the same sentiment we're expressing here today.

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

Madam Speaker, when I spoke to the first iteration of this bill back in April 2021, I remarked at the time on how out of touch the Liberal government had become. If anyone from the new NDP-Liberal coalition actually took time to come and speak to mayors, chiefs and councillors, or the RCMP members in northern Saskatchewan, they would know that bills like this do far more to hurt communities than to help them.

When I speak to elected leaders, I constantly hear that there are violent offenders they do not want in their communities. In fact, they are searching for ways to keep them out. They wonder why these repeat offenders cannot remain in custody and why they are allowed to keep returning to victimize their communities. They are frustrated. They realize that when certain people are removed, they seem to have a time of peace and quiet. This bill would add to the frustration.

Bill C-5 would eliminate mandatory minimums for offences such as robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, importing or exporting knowing a firearm is unauthorized, and discharging a firearm with intent. The list goes on. The Minister of Justice, just this afternoon, told us that he believes these are just minor offences. I do not believe these are minor offences.

Police officers, judges, prosecutors and many others in the communities already do everything they can for non-violent offenders to ensure they have every opportunity to stay out of prison. Sometimes the peace of mind that comes with mandatory minimums is essential to ensure our communities feel safe and are safe.

In northern Saskatchewan, there is a concerning trend of witness intimidation, as well as increasing recruitment of young people into gangs and the drug trade. Mandatory minimums assist the police and prosecutors to ensure the safety of witnesses. By keeping violent offenders off the street, greater opportunity is provided to engage in early intervention and prevent criminal gang recruitment.

March 17, just last week, Meadow Lake's RCMP Staff Sergeant Ryan How wrote an article in Saskatchewan Today. It reads:

From October 1, 2020, to March 15, 2021, Meadow Lake RCMP responded to 66 firearms complaints. In the same time frame in 2021 to 2022 RCMP have received 30 firearms complaints. Any level of gun violence is unacceptable and the Meadow Lake RCMP Detachment is unfortunately still busy dealing with violent occurrences, while at the same time noting that this reduction in gun calls is welcome progress.

A focused formal enforcement project led by North Battleford Provincial GIS was put in place in early 2021 to dismantle one of the gangs involved in the violence and has resulted in the following convictions....

He goes on to list the names, the offences they are charged with and the sentences of several violent gang members. It is shocking that the charges include one that is being proposed to no longer have minimum sentences under this bill. The Government of Canada ought to be supporting more initiatives like the one Staff Sergeant How talks about and supporting enforcement officers like him who are investing time and energy in building relationships in the communities they serve, rather than basing Criminal Code policy on political ideology.

I am neither an RCMP officer nor a crown prosecutor, like some of my colleagues, but when I hear from experts on the ground that getting rid of mandatory minimums like those proposed in Bill C-5 would put our communities in greater danger, I tend to believe them. We need to be equipping law enforcement to carry out their duties and keep our communities safe, not neutering their abilities to keep violent offenders off the streets.

One of the questions that keeps coming up around this bill is regarding judicial discretion. While I agree that judges should have some discretion when it comes to sentencing, this is also the role of Parliament. Parliament, in the past, has assigned not only maximum sentences, which impact judges' discretion, but also minimum sentences. This has been done with Parliament's wisdom. It is up to us and within our power to change that, but it has always been the case that Parliament sets out the parameters whereby judges sentence people.

We are the ones who decide, through the Criminal Code, what is a criminal act, and we set out the parameters for sentencing. That is part of our job, and it is not partisan.

Many of the minimums being eliminated by this Liberal government were in fact introduced by previous Liberal governments. This is about ensuring there is an appropriate sentence for someone who commits a very serious crime. Again, as I said previously, Bill C-5 is not about minor and insignificant offences. It deals with what I would conclude are very serious offences, such as robbery with a firearm and extortion with a firearm. I have not even begun to discuss the sections in the bill dedicated to drug-related offences.

Bill C-5 would also eliminate mandatory prison time for trafficking or possession for the purposes of trafficking, importing and exporting or possession for the purpose of exporting and production of a substance under schedule I or II. Examples of those are heroin, cocaine, fentanyl and crystal meth. When I read the legislation, it seems clear to me that no one from the Liberal-NDP coalition has ever sat across the table from a chief and elders pleading to get and keep these drug dealers out of their communities.

When I first spoke to Bill C-22 in the last Parliament, I shared a story from a local paper. The story was about a judge's decision, arguments by the Crown prosecutor and the victim impact statements of some RCMP officers. Today I am going to take a few minutes of my time to share that story again, one of the victim impact statements of one of the officers. I truly hope today that all members in this House, even if they ignore everything else I say today, will listen to this story.

The statement said:

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

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

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

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

I had the opportunity to speak to Sergeant How after this and he shared with me how these events had become almost routine in his world. I am asking members to imagine this becoming part of the daily routine. I remember having to fight back the emotion.

Finally, this bill would allow for greater use of conditional sentence orders for a number of offences. Allowing criminals who commit violent acts to serve their sentences on house arrest puts communities in my riding at risk.

In closing—

Bill C‑5—Time Allocation Motion

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

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

I also thank his colleague from Rivière-du-Nord, who supported Bill C‑22, which was introduced in the House during the previous Parliament. The bill we are debating today is identical, and since the hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord fully supported it last time, I hope he will support it this time for the same reasons.

I think it is very important to work with my colleagues, and I am prepared to work with them on this bill, which has already been thoroughly debated, studied and discussed. We can now move on to the next stage.

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

Mr. Speaker, indeed, in the previous Parliament with this bill's predecessor, Bill C-22, and now in this Parliament, we have had ample opportunities to discuss this bill. We are still waiting for the opposition to show the evidence.

Today, the Parliamentary Budget Officer came out with a report looking at one of the minimum mandatory penalties that was thrown out by the Supreme Court of Canada. The clear conclusion of the Parliamentary Budget Officer was that not only did it contribute to the overrepresentation of Black and indigenous peoples in the criminal justice system, and not only did it cost more money, but it was completely ineffective at reducing the overall sentencing rates.

Criminal Code

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as this is my first time rising to give a speech as a member of the 44th Parliament, I want to take a moment to thank the people of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex for re-electing me to this place on their behalf. It is a responsibility, honour and privilege that I do not take lightly. I am really grateful to them for sending me back here.

My re-election was made possible by everyone who supported my campaign, believed in me, had my back and helped me through this journey. With the dedication and professionalism of my team, the passion and commitment of our volunteers, the generosity and sacrifice of our donors and, of course, the love and support of family and friends, we were able to share our positive Conservative vision. I am grateful beyond words.

I would not be here without my amazing campaign team. I thank my campaign manager David Sverginsky, my official agent Doug Plummer, and the rest of my core team and staff without whom I would not be here. They are Russ Kykendall, Tony Reznowski, Yvonne Hundey, Anna Marie Young, Todd Gurd, Cheri Davies and Kim Heathcote; and the group of volunteers who canvassed with me almost every day: Archie Nugteren, Mark Etienne, Gerry Rupke, Steve Stellingwerff, Marius, Juliette, Hannah Kurjanowicz, Brandon MacDougall, and my predecessor, Bev Shipley.

I would also like to thank Julie, Angela, Holly, Candice and Jennifer for always being there and for their steadfast support throughout my political journey.

The sign crew put up over 3,000 signs. I thank them for their hard work and dedication.

A special thanks to my parents, Diane and Theo Rood, for their love and support. My dad took on the enormous task of installing the signs, removing them and just being there for me throughout this.

I thank my brothers Jeremy Rood and Steele Leacock, and my grandma, Helen Jamrozinski, for their love and support throughout this journey.

Going on to the bill that is before us, it should come as no surprise when I say the Conservatives are the party of law and order. We are the party that stands with victims of crime and their loved ones. We are the party that applies common sense and outcome-based principles to protect innocent Canadians from violent criminals who would harm others. We are the party that understands that it is criminals who are committing these crimes, not law-abiding firearms owners, anglers, hunters and sports shooters.

The Liberals claim to be serious about getting tough on crime, but their hypocritical actions speak louder than words. Last February, in the previous Parliament, the government introduced Bill C-22. The goal of this harmful legislation was to reduce the sentences for illegal gun smugglers and remove mandatory minimum sentences for many serious offences. That bill died when the election was called, but here we are again with the same bill, but with a different number.

Just months before the Prime Minister called an unnecessary election in the middle of a pandemic, my Conservative colleague introduced a private member's bill, which would have imposed tougher sentences for criminals who were caught smuggling or in possession of illegal guns, which is the larger problem.

Brian Sauvé, who is the president of the National Police Federation, has said that policies like what the Liberals are advocating for may be politically popular, but they fail to address the root cause of gun violence. He says:

The narrative is that we need to restrict gun ownership because that will curtail crime, when really the evidence is that illegal gun trafficking leads to criminals owning guns, which leads to crimes with firearms.

Therefore, we need to look at the source of the problem.

Crimes with firearms are exactly what the government claims it wants to stop, yet it voted against a bill and continues to fail to support legislation that will do just that. Does that sound like a government that is serious on tackling gun crime for the people of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex? It sounds kind of hypocritical to me.

Bill C-22 is back as Bill C-5, but with the same purpose. This legislation is a revolving door for criminals. It would do nothing to stop crime. It would do the exact opposite. It would repeal the penalties for crimes like weapons trafficking, reckless discharge of a firearm, discharge with intent to wound or endanger and armed robbery. It would also remove conditional sentencing for heinous crimes like sexual assault, kidnapping, child abduction, human trafficking, vehicle theft and arson.

That tells me the Liberal elites in Ottawa do not care about our safety or the safety of our loved ones. Conservatives like myself will always fight against harmful legislation like Bill C-5. Canadians do not want the justice system to be a constantly revolving door. Common sense must prevail for all common good.

I studied criminology in university, and I have friends who are corrections officers, probation and parole officers. I hear the same thing from them all the time. It is the same people revolving through the doors committing the same crimes over and over again. If it is a provincial offence, which is two years less a day, they will not get the kind of help they would need. If they were sent to a federal facility, they would have help for mental health and addictions problems.

The government has a role to play in ensuring that Canadians, victims of crime and their families can exist freely and without fear in our society, but in Bill C-5, the Liberals are telling Canadians that these offenses are no big deal. Is it no big deal that someone could leave prison, steal a car, rob several businesses, assaulting the occupants with a weapon, and then attack a police officer on their way out? Apparently, the Liberal government thinks that scenario only deserves a slap on the wrist, not a guaranteed minimum punishment for harmful criminal behaviour. In fact, what is proposed in this bill would allow someone who did all the above the opportunity to not even spend a single day in jail.

Again, as a Conservative, I have to stand here and attempt to bring common sense to a government that is clearly showing no indication that it has any sense left, common or not. In fact, some days it feels like the Liberals have removed the words “common sense” from the dictionary entirely.

At the end of the day, Bill C-5 gets soft on gun crime and gives great relief to criminals and offenders. It is missing any good reasons why this policy cares for, protects or prevents repeat offences against victims of violent crime in Canada. It misses the mark on what should be targeted to stop crime and illegal guns. As Winnipeg police constable Rob Carver said, “When we seize handguns, the handguns are always, almost 100 per cent, in the possession of people who have no legal right to possess them. They're almost always stolen or illegally obtained.” Again, it is not the law-abiding hunters, farmers and sport shooters who are committing serious crimes.

Let us now look at the final part of this so-called landmark progressive legislation. During an unprecedented national overdose crisis, we have a government that is actively trying to enable the criminal proliferation of drug trafficking, importing, exporting and production. Where is the sense in that?

I heard from Louis, a constituent in my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, who asked me, “Can we address the fact that known drug dealers are getting away with murder? We lost a grandchild.” What Canadians want and need is a compassionate approach to mental health and addictions recovery, and this is not found in Bill C-5. In fact, no part of this bill even attempts to touch on the subject, and it is too busy enabling the pushers.

The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health estimates the economic burden of mental illness in Canada at $51 billion per year, which includes health care costs, lost productivity and reductions in health-related quality of life. Addictions and mental health issues have costly and far-reaching impacts in our society and must be given proper attention in legislation to combat the crisis.

When will the government put forward legislation to address this impact instead of using a real crisis to score cheap political talking points at the cost of protecting Canadians? The Prime Minister and the Liberal members across the floor are all talk. They talk big and they make sweet-sounding promises to address serious concerns about gender-based violence, opioid addiction, systemic racism and other forms of discrimination. They make boldfaced claims to be helping Canadians, but then offer nothing of use.

What I see, and what the constituents I represent see when the Liberals grandstand, is hypocrisy. I see before the House a bill that is soft on gun crime and soft on the criminal drug enterprise. Canadians know bills like Bill C-5 are contrary to evidence, countless news stories and the testimony of victims. It should be impossible to ignore the madness of the government’s relentless attempts to gaslight Canadians otherwise.

Canadians expect the government to stand up for the rule of law, to protect victims first and to stand up for their rights. The government should be targeting violent criminals, sexual offenders and criminal gangs, and ensuring that the Criminal Code protects Canadians. Any changes should be made in a well-informed manner that protects public safety.

As legislators, we must represent and reflect the values of the average Canadian, and Canadians consider the crimes that Bill C-5 relaxes measures against to be extremely serious. By reducing mandatory sentences for serious crimes, Bill C-5 says elected representatives do not need to be accountable to the victims of these crimes. The utter hypocrisy of this bill and those who vote for it is staggering.

To vote in favour of this bill signals a victory for violent criminals who commit some of the most heinous crimes against the most vulnerable victims in Canada. It comes at a cost to victims and their families, present and future, and to the dignity of our great nation. That is a fact I find unacceptable, and it is why I will be voting against the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend, neighbour and colleague for Red Deer—Mountain View for his excellent speech.

As this is my first opportunity to deliver a speech on behalf of the constituents of Red Deer—Lacombe in the new Parliament, I want to thank all of my volunteers and my family. Of course, I thank the voters of Red Deer—Lacombe for sending me here for a sixth term. My commitment to them is to do my best in representing the issues and values that we hold deer in central Alberta. One of those is addressed in this proposed legislation.

Many of the hard-working people in central Alberta are law-abiding firearms owners. They get up every day, go to work, follow all the rules, follow the law, work hard and pay their taxes. In return, they simply want to be treated with dignity and respect by their government. They want their tax dollars used effectively and efficiently, and none of them feel very good right now about the direction that our country is heading, particularly when it comes to the legislative agenda of this current government. They are very concerned and very worried about government's approach, which is soft on violent and dangerous crime.

Bill C-5 is another iteration of Bill C-22, which appeared just before the election was called in the last Parliament, and the bill is absolutely abhorrent, I believe, in the minds of most of my voters back in Red Deer—Lacombe.

I am a law-abiding firearms owner, and I am a former law enforcement officer in the conservation law enforcement field. My job was to go into situations and deal with law-abiding hunters and firearms owners on a daily basis. I would go into situations as a conservation officer or as a national park warden where virtually every person I dealt with had an axe because they were camping; a knife because they were fishing; or a firearm, bow or crossbow because they were hunting.

I did this with complete confidence that the people I was going to deal with and work with were going to be honest and forthright people for the most part, and I had nothing to fear and nothing to worry about from law-abiding hunters and firearms owners in this country. I am proud to say that I safely did my job with a respectful group of hunters, anglers, campers and outdoor enthusiasts for a number of years before I ended up in this place.

These are good people, and they do not deserve to be demonized by this current government. They certainly do not deserve to be taken to task or held accountable for dangerous, violent criminals who are operating under the auspices of organized crime in our large urban centres, such as Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, Edmonton and Calgary. Even in one of the largest cities that my colleague for Red Deer—Mountain View and I share, Red Deer, Alberta, which is a beautiful city full of good, honest, hard-working people, there is the odd one that causes problems. We need to be focusing on the ones that cause problems, which is the problem with the legislation before us today.

Ladies and gentlemen of Canada, and ladies and gentlemen of Toronto, who are watching need to know the crimes the people they voted for are actually reducing and eliminating mandatory minimum penalties for. One is robbery with a firearm. We would think that in a city such as Toronto, where there are virtually daily shootings being reported, that somebody would say, “Robbery with a firearm is a fairly serious thing and people should probably go to jail for that”, but not according to a Liberal member of Parliament members from that city.

Another is extortion with a firearm, which must be a pleasant experience for the victim. Why do we not do what Liberals do and get rid of any mandatory minimum prison sentences for somebody who is being extorted with a gun to their head? the thirds is weapons trafficking, excluding firearms and ammunition. Weapons trafficking is the illegal movement, sale and acquisition of firearms. This is the problem.

We know from people like professor emeritus Gary Mauser from Simon Fraser University that a person is very unlikely to be a victim of crime from a law-abiding firearms owner. In fact, when we take a look at the statistics from Statistics Canada going back to 2012, we know that 0.6 in 100,000 murders in this country were committed by law-abiding firearms owners. That is less than the average of 1.8 murders per 100,000 in the country.

The safest person we can be around in this country when it comes homicide is a law-abiding firearms owner, but we are going to make sure that smugglers and people who traffic firearms and bring these guns into the country would potentially face zero jail time for their actions. There is also importing or exporting knowing that a firearm or weapon is unauthorized, which is called “smuggling”, and it is smuggling firearms across the border.

This is the problem. This is what Liberals in la-la land think deserves no jail time whatsoever. If voters are in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver, these are the people that they voted for and sent here and this is what they are doing to the community. The Liberals are saying to the people who voted for them that they are going to remove mandatory minimum sentences for people who smuggle guns across the U.S. border and instead blame and conflate issues on law-abiding firearms owners. It is absolutely disgusting.

Discharging a firearm with intent, when does that happen on the streets of Toronto? Daily, but if someone is the one with the gun, apparently in Liberal la-la land, they do not need to go to jail.

With regard to using a firearm in the commission of an offence, holding somebody up, committing a robbery, committing a carjacking, using a firearm, in theft or any of these other types of activities, if people take a firearm along with them, they should not worry if they voted Liberal. The Liberals are looking out for their interests and making sure they spend no time in jail as a result.

On possession of a firearm knowing its possession is unauthorized, these are people that are not getting firearms licences like every law-abiding firearms owner in this country actually does. Canadians might be surprised to know that every single day all 2.1 million of my fellow law-abiding firearms owners are checked by CPIC to make sure that we are eligible to continue to possess firearms.

As a matter of fact, the law is written in this country that people cannot possess a firearm at all. Every firearm is illegal, unless they have a licence to have one. That is what the law currently says. Law-abiding Canadians by the millions in this country follow those rules on a daily basis and we are checked on a daily basis to make sure that we can continue to lawfully possess our property.

Instead of harassing people like me, the government is going to make life easier for people who are unlicensed. If people are found in possession of a basketful of handguns in downtown Toronto, they should not worry; they do not have an RPAL, the guns were smuggled and they might even be the smuggler. Guess what? They have the option of going home and sitting in their house and thinking hard about how bad they are because that is the Liberal solution to organized crime in our country. This is absolutely ridiculous.

On possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition, these are guns we are not even allowed to have, so now we are talking about illegal owners. They should not worry; the Liberal Party of Canada has their back. If they have one of these, they do not have to go to jail, here is a “get out of jail” card just like in the Monopoly game; they do not have to face the consequences.

Possession of a weapon obtained by commission of offence is theft. That is someone who comes into my home and steals my gun. That is someone who comes into a rural property in the County of Red Deer, the County of Lacombe, the County of Ponoka, or any one of our communities, steals from us and may be purposefully there trying to steal our firearms. The Liberal response is because our disarmament policy for law-abiding Canadians is not working, they are going to let thieves out of jail for free for stealing a law-abiding citizen's property.

This legislation is absolutely ridiculous. It flies in the sensibilities of everybody. On these mandatory minimums just on the firearms, and not getting into the drugs and all of the other things that the government is reducing or limiting minimum penalties for, in this legislation, virtually all of them except for one, guess who introduced these pieces of legislation in the Criminal Code? Was it Stephen Harper or Brian Mulroney? One of them happened under the government of Stephen Harper. The other dozen of these provisions in the Criminal Code were put in place by none other than Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Jean Chrétien. Today's Liberals are certainly not yesterday's Liberals, ladies and gentlemen. Our country is not any safer with these guys at the helm.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like start by welcoming the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice to his role. I did a lot of positive work with his predecessor, and I think Bill C-5 shows there is a lot of work we could do to improve legislation.

When this bill was introduced as Bill C-22 in the last Parliament, lots of stakeholders in the community criticized it for its narrowness and for being a half measure. Certainly the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, more than six years ago in its call to action number 32, called for the restoration of judicial discretion to ignore mandatory minimums when there were good reasons to do so.

Why has the government chosen to pick just 14 offences instead of following the truth and reconciliation call to action to give judges back their discretion when there are mandatory minimum sentences?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to join the House this morning to speak to Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. I want to acknowledge that we are gathered here on the traditional unceded lands of the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples.

This bill fulfills a platform commitment to reintroduce former Bill C-22 within 100 days, and I am proud to work with the Minister of Justice on this important piece of legislation. The proposed reforms represent an important step in our government's continuing efforts to make our criminal justice system fairer for everyone by seeking to address the overrepresentation of indigenous people, Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities. Bill C-5 focuses on existing laws that have exacerbated underlying social, economic, institutional and historical disadvantage and which have contributed to systemic inequities at all stages of the criminal justice system, from first contact with law enforcement all the way through to sentencing.

Issues of systemic racism and discrimination in Canada's criminal justice system are well documented, including by commissions of inquiry 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.

More recently, the Parliamentary Black Caucus, in its June 2020 statement, called for reform of the justice and public safety systems to weed out anti-Black racism and systemic bias, and to make the administration of justice and public security more reflective of and sensitive to the diversity of our country. I was pleased to sign this statement, as were numerous cabinet colleagues, including the Minister of Justice, many members of Parliament and senators representing the different political spectrums.

The numbers speak for themselves. Black Canadians represent 3% of the Canadian population yet represent 7% of those who are incarcerated in federal penitentiaries. Indigenous people represent roughly 5% of the Canadian population yet represent 30% of those who are federally incarcerated. The number is profoundly higher for indigenous women, who represent 42% of those who are incarcerated.

Indigenous people and Black Canadians have been particularly marginalized by the current criminal justice system. The calls for action recognize that sentencing laws, and in particular the broad and indiscriminate use of MMPs, or mandatory minimum penalties, and restrictions on the use of conditional sentences have made our criminal justice system less fair and have disproportionately hurt certain communities in Canada.

This is precisely why Bill C-5 proposes to repeal a number of mandatory minimum penalties, including for all drug-related offences and for some firearm-related offences, although some MMPs would be retained for serious offences such as murder and serious firearm offences linked to organized crime. Data shows the MMPs that would be repealed have particularly contributed to the over-incarceration of indigenous people, Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities.

This bill would increase the availability of conditional sentencing orders in cases where offenders do not pose a risk to public safety. CSOs allow offenders to serve sentences of less than two years in the community under strict conditions, such as house arrest and curfew, while still being able to benefit from employment, educational opportunities, family ties and community and health-related support systems.

I want to talk about who we want to help with Bill C-5. It is the grandmother who agrees to let her grandson leave a gun at her house overnight even though she knows she is not supposed to because he did not purchase the gun legally. It is for the young indigenous man who shoots a hunting rifle at what he believes to be an empty building and no one gets hurt. The incident prompts him to get his life back on track. He goes into a rehab program to get off drugs and starts counselling to address childhood and intergenerational trauma that has haunted him throughout his young life. By the time of sentencing, he has a job and a new relationship, and is ready to contribute positively to his community.

These are not the hardened criminals. These are people who deserve a second chance or an off-ramp from the criminal justice system. They are people who, with the right support, will never offend again. Sending them to jail, which hurts not only them but their families and communities, will do nothing but put them on a path toward further criminality. This is why MMPs that tie judges' hands can lead to negative outcomes in the justice system and for our society more broadly.

To appreciate the pressing need for these reforms, we must go back to the foundational principles of sentencing in Canada. The fundamental purpose and principles of our sentencing regime are rooted in trail-blazing reforms made in 1996, which created a statutory recognition that sentencing is an individualized process that relies on judicial discretion to impose just sanctions. Such sanctions are proportionate to the degree of responsibility of the offender and the seriousness of the offence.

To achieve these sanctions, the 1996 reforms directed judges to take into account a number of sentencing principles, including rehabilitation and deterrence. Some of these principles acknowledge that in sentencing less serious crimes, imprisonment is often ineffective, unduly punitive and to be discouraged. The sentencing principles also recognize the need to address the over-incarceration of indigenous persons, who were at that time already overrepresented within the system. As such, the amendments to the Criminal Code directed judges to consider all sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances before choosing to send an offender to jail. This principle applies all offenders, but requires judges to pay particular attention to the circumstances of indigenous offenders.

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

Unfortunately, the previous Conservative government's increased use of mandatory minimum penalties and imposition of additional restrictions on the availability of conditional sentencing orders have restricted judicial discretion and made it difficult for courts to effectively apply these important principles. These so-called tough-on-crime measures have actually made our criminal justice system less effective by discouraging the early resolution of cases. These measures have eroded public confidence in the administration of justice.

The biggest problem with these measures has been that they disproportionately affect indigenous people, Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities.

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

By targeting these sentencing policies, Bill C-5 seeks to restore the ability of courts to effectively apply the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing, and ensures that sentences are individualized and appropriate for the circumstances of the case. Although it is important to ensure that fair and compassionate sentences are imposed, it is equally important to ensure that measures are in place to avoid contact with the criminal justice system in the first place.

This is why Bill C-5 would require police and prosecutors to consider alternatives to laying or proceeding with charges for the simple possession of drugs, such as issuing a warning, taking no action or diversion to addiction treatment programs. We want to focus on getting individuals the help they need, whether that be treatment programs, housing or mental health support, instead of criminalizing them. These measures are consistent with the government's public health-centred approach to substance use and the opioid epidemic in Canada.

Together, these measures would encourage responses that take into account individuals' experiences with respect to systemic racism, health-related issues and the particular supports they could benefit from. These reforms would allow police, prosecutors and the courts to give full effect to the important principle of restraint in sentencing, particularly for indigenous offenders, and explore approaches that focus on restorative justice, the rehabilitation of individuals and their reintegration into the community.

It is essential that Canadians have confidence in the justice system and that they believe it is there to protect them, not harm them or their community. These reforms reflect what we have heard from Canadians.

The 2017 national justice survey revealed that Canadians overwhelmingly support diversion measures, less restrictive sentences and judicial discretion in sentencing, even in cases where there is an MMP. For instance, 91% of Canadians indicated in the survey that judges should be granted flexibility to impose a lesser sentence than an MMP. Moreover, 69% of those polled believe that diversion could make the criminal justice system more effective and 78% believe that diversion could make it more efficient by reducing the caseload for the courts and court processing times.

I would like to assure my colleagues that our government takes violent gun crimes seriously. I am from Scarborough, a community that has issues with gun violence. I understand the need to crack down on firearm traffickers and the organized criminal element that threatens our communities. In my previous life, I ran a youth organization and saw many young men buried as a result of gun violence. I saw the pain in the faces of the parents. In fact, I recall one mother, whose son was killed over 20 years ago, who is still grieving for her loss. This affects the community as a whole. That is why we are not repealing MMPs for those offences.

I had a chance to speak with Louis March of the Zero Gun Violence Movement this morning. He has advocated for taking guns off our streets. He came to Parliament about two years ago, just before the pandemic, to advocate for MMPs to be removed, because he feels it is crucial for judges to have discretion over decisions and that MMPs have disproportionately impacted members of the Black community. Many of the mothers who came here that day were broken by what they saw as a problem with guns. I bring the issue of gun violence to Parliament each and every day, and in many ways, in Toronto and other major cities, it is a significant problem that requires a significant response. Our government is working toward that.

For less serious offences, particularly when someone is a first-time offender who is young or non-violent, MMPs are not the answer. MMPs that send young Black men in my community to prison, when they could be rehabilitated and turn their lives around, only serve to continue the vicious cycle that leads to involvement in gangs and further criminality.

We are repealing the MMPs for robbery and extortion with a firearm, and for discharging a firearm with intent or recklessly when this does not involve a restricted firearm or organized crime. In other words, where the offender—

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

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

Madam Speaker, as this is my first time on my feet in the 44th Parliament, I want to thank everyone in Beaches—East York who sent me back to work here, and my riding association and the countless supporters who have really helped me do this work over the last six years. I want to give special thanks to my family in particular for putting up with me, especially my wife Amy.

My commitment to Beaches—East York remains the same. I will keep working across party lines. I will maintain a sense of independence, holding our government accountable to deliver on the promises we made and pushing for greater ambition.

Much of the work ahead will require greater ambition, but the throne speech rightly notes that the first priority remains getting the pandemic under control. It requires layers of protection, so the throne speech rightly identifies vaccinations, boosters and vaccines for our kids. My five-year-old will be getting vaccinated later today, and I encourage everyone to get themselves and their families vaccinated.

However, we also require other layers of protection. When we see ubiquitous rapid testing available in other jurisdictions, that rapid testing needs to be widely available here in Canada as well. The throne speech rightly identifies the importance of vaccine equity. We see around the world the concerns with respect to variants, and to address the global challenge requires better addressing global vaccine equity. Canada in some ways has been a leader here, but much more has to be done, not only by Canada, but by the world. It was important to see the government commit in the throne speech to increasing foreign assistance every year, but we really need to do more. Whether it is through a TRIPS waiver or tech transfer, we really need to solve these challenges for the world.

Beyond the pandemic but related to it, we need to strengthen our social safety net. I say related to the pandemic because the chief public health officer notes that racialized communities have been more greatly impacted in my community of Toronto in the course of this pandemic. She states:

Members of racialized communities are more likely to experience inequitable living and working conditions that make them more susceptible to COVID‑19, such as lower incomes, precarious employment, overcrowded housing, and limited access to health and social services.

The answer for us, as a lesson learned in this crisis, is a stronger social safety net, supporting the most vulnerable in our communities and working to reduce poverty. We have seen great progress and a significant reduction in poverty since 2015, but again, not enough. If there is a theme to my speech, it will be that we have made significant progress, but not enough, and that more needs to be done, so there are commitments to EI reform and to the Canada disability benefit. My ask of the government is simply that we realize these promises in the boldest way possible.

It is related to the cost-of-living challenge when we think of our most vulnerable communities. I know the government is going to see to bringing child care through. I have every expectation that the Ontario government will finally come to the table, knowing that its own election is in sight in June, but we also need to ensure that we address the housing challenge for the most vulnerable. We need to continue the work to end homelessness and to expand upon the rapid housing initiative, and there remains much more to be done to strengthen our social safety net and address the cost of living, especially for the most vulnerable.

I would note, by the way, that we increased the Canada workers benefit significantly in budget 2021, but there is an opportunity for cross-party collaboration. In the Conservative platform and its emphasis on the Canada workers benefit, there is an example that addresses the cost of living in a serious way for the most vulnerable.

Another important lesson learned, and a key lesson and key priority in the throne speech, is better health care. I mentioned poverty, and it is a key component of this conversation when we think of the social determinants of health, but so are better health care for our seniors via home care and long-term care, a strong rare disease strategy, the details of which are to come, healthy food in our schools for our kids, better mental health care and strong mental health care standards.

An issue that is dear to my heart and something I have worked on significantly over the last number of years is treating drug use as a health issue. We have listened to our public health experts in the course of this pandemic and we need to listen to them in the course of the opioid crisis. Experts on a special advisory committee of the Public Health Agency of Canada state:

A number of factors have likely contributed to a worsening of the overdose crisis, including the increasingly toxic drug supply, increased feelings of isolation, stress and anxiety and limited availability or accessibility of services for people who use drugs.

Fundamentally, we need to end the criminalization of people who use drugs so we can ensure they get the treatment they need. Members will note that the experts point to the toxic drug supply that is killing people. If we truly care about following the evidence, we need a strictly regulated, safer supply to ensure we save lives.

The throne speech also identified safer communities, and this is related to the conversation on the opioid crisis and saving lives, but it is also about saving lives as it relates to stronger gun control. Nora, a young Liberal in my community, has been with me ever since I started in politics. It was at her birthday party that we lost Reese Fallon, one of her best friends, in the Danforth shooting. When I spoke to her recently at our youth council meeting, she encouraged me to again raise stronger gun control when I came to Ottawa. I am glad to see that the government is prioritizing this issue in the throne speech. Again, though, we have made strong commitments, but are they strong enough? I would say no, it does not make sense to devolve the responsibility to cities. We need to show national leadership on handguns.

We also need to protect people in our online communities, and this is an issue that I will continue to work on in this Parliament, across party lines. I note the work of my colleague from Timmins—James Bay, and I have worked with Conservatives on this file as well, but we need to ensure that we have stronger platform governance and, as Canadians increasingly live their lives online, that our rules reflect that reality in a more serious way.

The throne speech commits to addressing inequality in a number of different respects, and I can talk about child care and homelessness, but there is another conversation that at times has been divisive in the House. The evidence is clear and overwhelming and there is a path we see through Bill C-22. We need to address diversity and inclusion by lifting people up, but also by reforming our outdated and ineffective criminal justice system. That means police reform, and it means recognizing that we are throwing people in prison in a really unfair and disproportionate way, disproportionately impacting people from Black and indigenous communities. We need to reform these rules. Bill C-22 is an important first step, but we need to move forward in a further way on mandatory minimum sentences.

The two issues I reflect on are what are we going to accomplish in this minority Parliament. Minority Parliaments hold potential for greatness. I said this in 2019, and then the pandemic hit. We saw some moments of greatness and collaboration to deliver pandemic supports and benefits, but not enough. When we think of this Parliament and the two biggest issues this Parliament can look back on other than delivering affordable child care, it really is around advancing reconciliation and establishing a credible path to net zero, attacking climate change in a really serious way.

Advancing reconciliation means closing gaps in federal funding. It means clean water, obviously. We passed the legislation and now we need to do the hard work of implementing UNDRIP. In Toronto, fundamentally, those who represent urban centres need to raise our voices for urban indigenous people and ensure that federal supports flow. They flowed in the course of the pandemic, and we need to make sure they flow in a more permanent way to urban indigenous service organizations.

On climate action, the throne speech says we must go faster and further. A common criticism from opposition parties is that we have never met one of our targets. The original target for 2030 was 30% below 2005 levels. That works out to 512 megatonnes, for those keeping score. If we look at budget 2021, where is the trajectory added? If the Conservative government does not get elected in the future and all policies hold, we are at 468 megatonnes, so yes, there is a reason we advanced a new target. It is that the previous target, if all policies hold, would have been met. The new target is important. It will require greater ambition to get there. We see greater ambition in the throne speech and in our platform in relation to capping emissions in the oil and gas sector and in terms of driving electrification, but more needs to be done.

Again, I cannot emphasize this enough, but we have come so far, and while there is reason to be complimentary in some respects, I have to emphasize the need for continued and constructive criticism and saying we have yet to do enough.

I will close here by saying that in this Parliament we recognize the progress that has been made, but I hope we can collaborate across party lines and push this government to do more, because we need to do more on so many of these important issues.

Public Safety

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday on the issue of gun violence, after the tragic Etobicoke shooting that seriously injured an 11-year-old, a five-year-old and a one-year-old, the minister of public safety stated that his government's approach to banning firearms owned by law-abiding citizens would curb such violence, yet his government introduced Bill C-22, which weakens penalties for gun crimes by eliminating mandatory minimum sentences.

Can the minister of public safety please explain how weakening penalties for gun crimes somehow reduces gun crime?

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to address this issue this afternoon. There are a couple of aspects that I would like to provide some comment on, but first and foremost is the idea of Bill C-30, now at report stage, and how important passing it is to all Canadians.

The other day, I talked about a progressive agenda. The Government of Canada has put forward a very strong, healthy, progressive agenda that includes today's bill, Bill C-12, Bill C-6, Bill C-10, Bill C-22 and Bill C-21. Of course, I often make reference to Bill C-19 as well. All of these pieces of legislation are important to the government, but I would argue that the most important one is the bill we are debating today, Bill C-30.

The budget is of critical importance for a wide variety of reasons. I can talk about the benefits that seniors would be receiving as a direct result of this budget bill, in particular those who are 75 and over, with the significant fulfillment of our campaign promise of a 10% increase to OAS for seniors aged 75 and above, and a one-time payment coming up in the month of August for that group. During the pandemic, we have been there for seniors, in particular those 65 and over, with one-time payments closer to the beginning of the pandemic, and even an extra amount for those who were on the guaranteed income supplement. That is not to mention the many different organizations that the government supported, whether directly or indirectly, to support our seniors, in particular non-profit organizations.

We have done a multitude of things, many of which are very tangible. The Minister of Finance made reference to the extension of some of the programs, for example, which we brought in so we could continue to be there for businesses and real people. This was so important. At the beginning of the process, the Prime Minister made it very clear that this government, the Liberal Party and the Liberal members of the House of Commons were 100% committed to working seven days a week, 24 hours a day to ensure that the interests of Canadians in combatting and fighting the pandemic were going to be priority number one.

As to that priority, we saw the establishment of a large number of new programs that ensured money was being put directly into the pockets of Canadians. One was the CERB, which benefited somewhere around nine million Canadians. Virtually out of nowhere this program came into being, in good part thanks to our civil servants, who have done a tremendous job in putting in place and administering the many different programs.

We have seen programs to support our businesses in particular, whether it is the Canada emergency wage subsidy program, the emergency rent subsidy program, the emergency business account or the regional relief and recovery fund. We recognized what Canada needed. The Government of Canada worked with Canadians and with, in particular, provinces, non-profits, territories, indigenous leaders and many others in order to make sure that Canadians were going to be protected as much as possible. All of this was done with the goal of being able to get us, as a nation, out of the situation we are currently in.

We have put ourselves in a position where Canada will be able to recover, and recover well. It is interesting to hear the Conservative Party asking about the debt. Many of the things I just finished talking about are the reasons why we have the debt. The Conservatives in many ways are saying we should be spending more money, while the Conservative right is saying we have spent too much money or is asking about the debt. Some Conservatives are talking about the creation of jobs. The most recent Conservative commitment was that they would create one million jobs.

Between 2015, when the Liberals were first elected, and the election of 2019, we created over a million jobs. We understand how important jobs are. Jobs are one of the reasons it was important for us to commit to businesses of all sizes, and small businesses in particular, to get through this difficult time. We knew that by saving companies from going bankrupt and by keeping Canadians employed we would be in a much better position once we got ahead of the pandemic.

I am actually quite pleased today. I started off by looking at the national news. A CBC story said that when it comes to first doses Canada is now ahead of Israel, according to a graph that was posted. When we think of populations of a million or more, Canada is doing exceptionally well. We are ahead of all other nations in dealing with the first dose.

I am now qualified to get my second dose. Earlier today I had the opportunity to book an appointment for a second dose on July 7. Canadians are responding so well to the need for vaccination. We understand why it is so important that we all get vaccinated. We need to continue to encourage people to get those shots.

It goes without saying that we need to recognize many very special people who have been there for Canadians. The ones who come to mind immediately are the health care workers here in the province of Manitoba. They are a special group of people that not long ago, in a virtual meeting, the Prime Minister expressed gratitude for in a very strong and significant way.

Our health care workers, whether the nurses, doctors or lab technicians, and people in all areas of health care, including those providing and sanitizing facilities as well as a whole litany of people, have ensured that we have been there from a health perspective.

We can look at workers involved with essential items such as groceries. Whether it was long haul truck drivers, people stacking groceries or collecting money for groceries, or taxi drivers who took people where they needed to go, whether to the hospital or the grocery store, they were there. Public institutions were there. I think of Winnipeg Transit bus drivers who opened their doors not knowing who was walking onto their buses. They were all there.

This legislation we are debating today is a continuation of getting Canada in a better, healthier position to deal with the coronavirus. We needed to bring in time allocation because of the destructive behaviour of the official opposition. We wanted to work and the Conservatives wanted to take time off. There was an excellent indication of that last Thursday, which was the biggest day in terms of debate for government. The Conservatives attempted to end the session only moments after the day got under way. It is not right that the Conservatives are playing games. We need to pass this legislation. I would ask all members to vote for it.

Extension of Sitting Hours in June

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

Madam Speaker, those were excellent points raised by my friend for South Okanagan—West Kootenay. It is a very beautiful riding, for those members who have not had the opportunity to visit that part of British Columbia.

I talked in my speech about Bill C-12 and Bill C-6. Those are obvious areas where the government could find co-operation from our party in moving them forward. Also, another bill, Bill C-22, is important to reform our justice system by reforming the Criminal Code and would put some important reforms on the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. I just wish, in hindsight, that the Liberals had focused laser-like attention on two, three or four government bills at the most, and tried to shepherd those through. Instead, I made mention of the scatter-gun approach. It was all over the place, with no rhyme or reason, and suddenly we are in late May and June, and the government is looking at the calendar and panicking. That is where we are today.

We are scheduled to return on September 20. There should not be a reason for panic, but we know the Liberals are trying to engineer an election this summer.

Alleged Breaches of Privilege Presented in the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very sorry. My hon. colleague from Jonquière is absolutely right. I mentioned it, but I used my inner voice. I was unable to speak because my lips were zipped. It happens sometimes and I am very sorry.

You are very kind, Madam Speaker, to give us a chance to share our time. You will not regret it because the member for Jonquière is a great orator. You will be impressed by what he has to say.

Now, for the matter at hand. That reduced the amount of time we would have liked to have in the House. Of course, we must understand that these are extraordinary circumstances. In addition to the pandemic, which is complicating the work that we do in the House and in committee because of limited resources, there is something else going on. I will give my colleagues the scoop. They will be impressed by what I know. We are in a minority Parliament. No one seems surprised to hear that, I see.

This means that an election can happen at any time. Some may expect, and I say so with due regard, that elections may perhaps be called in August, September or October. Over the weekend, the Prime Minister appeared on different television stations. It is as though the Liberals are getting ready. It is as though he had put on his running shoes. It may not mean that he is going to call an election, but it might be about that. Now, we are going to prepare for an election.

There are lots of irons in the fire. A lot of documents are on the table and they just need a little push to be passed. In some cases, it represents the fruit of almost one year's labour. Some bills have been waiting for a long time, and we must try to pass them so we can say that our efforts bore fruit. That is always rewarding.

The Liberals recently told us that they have priorities, including Bill C‑6, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to conversion therapy, Bill C‑10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts, Bill C‑12, Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act, Bill C‑19, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act with regard to the COVID‑19 response, and Bill C‑30, budget implementation act, 2021, no. 1. Those are the government's absolute priorities.

The Liberals also have two other priorities that they would like to refer to committee. I will not speak at length about them, but I am talking about Bills C‑21 and C‑22. We need to move these bills along.

For reasons it has already given, the Bloc Québécois absolutely wants Bill C‑10 to be passed by Parliament and the Senate, because that is what the cultural sector wants.

Madam Speaker, you know Quebec as well as anyone. You are the member for Brossard—Saint-Lambert, and there are surely artists in your riding who have called and asked you to help get this bill passed because Quebec's cultural vitality depends on it.

Quebec's culture is very important; it is the soul of a nation. This bill must be passed. Quebeckers are calling for it, the Quebec National Assembly has unanimously called for it, and my colleagues know that Quebec's cultural sector is waiting for this bill. We want to be able to accomplish this goal we have been working so hard on.

Unfortunately, we must face the fact that the Liberal Party is in power. I have been in Parliament for a year and a half. I was expecting to be impressed. I thought it would be impressive to see 338 members of Parliament capably and efficiently managing a huge country. As I watched the Liberals manage their legislative agenda I was disappointed on more than one occasion, and even very disappointed at times. They did not seem to want to get anything done. It never seemed as though they were taking things seriously.

For example, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs worked very hard on Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act regarding the COVID-19 response. We held 11 meetings and heard from 20 experts at all levels, and we finished drafting the report after the Liberals had introduced the bill.

If I were a sensitive guy, I might have thought I had done all that work for nothing. It might have hurt my feelings. Think of how much work went into coming up with solutions to help the government draft a smart bill. Instead, the government chose to introduce its bill before the committee had even completed its study, without even looking at what we had to say. To top it off, the government waited another three months to bring it up for debate, and that debate lasted just four hours.

Then it decided to move time allocation because the matter was suddenly so urgent despite the fact that the government spent just four hours on it over the course of five months, choosing instead to engage in three months' worth of obstruction at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which wanted to move the bill forward but was working on prorogation and had asked the Prime Minister to appear.

Once the obstruction was over, we asked if we could carry on with our work, but the government accused us of delaying the committee's work when it was actually the Liberals who stalled things. Once again, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs had to get to work on Bill C‑19 at the last minute.

That is how the government is managing its legislative agenda, and I could go on about that for hours. On Bill C‑10, the committee wanted the ministers to appear but the government stalled, forcing the committee to wait and obstructing the committee's work. When we were finally able to begin, we were like excited puppies waiting for visitors, but the government said we were too late. However, it is the government that has created the problem we are facing today. We are being squeezed like lemons, and the government thinks that if the committee members are not studying an issue, there is something wrong with them. This is what happens when the legislative agenda is not managed properly.

Nevertheless, the Bloc Québécois will support this motion because we want to move things forward for Quebec.

Extension of Sitting Hours in June

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I am very glad that we were able to get to this point. I am concerned and disappointed, even in the last half-hour. I think we need to realize that, although members of the Conservative Party will say they want more debate time, in reality nothing could be further from the truth. I would argue that ultimately the Conservatives have been very much a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons. I would like to explain why it is so important that we pass the motion that the minister of procurement has just presented.

The pandemic really challenged all of us. We needed to find new ways to get the job done, the job that Canadians have been very much relying on us to do. We gradually brought in a hybrid Parliament to ensure that MPs could do their job from wherever they are in the country. This was so it would be inclusive, whether they are up north, the west coast, the east coast or in central Canada, like me here in Winnipeg. We found ways for the House to debate and pass legislation that would ultimately help Canadians during the pandemic. Many bills were passed to ensure that millions of Canadians had the funds that they needed to put food on their table, pay the rent, cover mortgages and so on.

We have a number of pieces of legislation before the House in one form or another. I would like to give some examples of the legislation that are in limbo because the Conservatives are more interested in playing political games than they are in serving the best interests of Canadians. I would like to highlight a few of those pieces of legislation and then make a point as to why this particular motion is necessary.

We have seen motions of this nature previously. I have been a parliamentarian for 30 years now, and I have seen it at the provincial level and at the national level. Political parties of all stripes have recognized that there is a time in which we need to be able to bring in extended hours. In the most part it is meant to contribute to additional debate and to allow the government to pass important legislation. That is really what this motion is all about.

Looking at the last vote we just participated in, it would appear as though Bloc members, New Democrats and Greens are in agreement with the members of the Liberal caucus that we need to sit extra hours. My appeal is to the Conservatives to stop playing their political, partisan games and start getting to work.

There is nothing wrong with sitting until midnight two to four times between now and mid-June. Stephen Harper did it. He had no qualms moving motions of this nature. Yes, we will also sit a little extra time on Friday afternoons. I believe Canadians expect nothing less from all members of the House.

When Canadians decided to return the government in a minority format, it was expected that not only we as the governing party would receive a message, but also that all members of the House would receive a message. The Conservative opposition has a role to play that goes beyond what they have been playing and what we have been witnessing since November or December of last year. I would cross the line to say that it is not being a responsible official opposition.

I spent well over 20 years in opposition. The Conservative Party, with its destructive force, is preventing the government of the day and other members, not only government members, from moving the legislation forward. I appeal to the official opposition to not only recognize there is a genuine need to move this legislation forward, but also recognize that, at the end of the day, we extend hours to accommodate additional debate.

My concern is that the Conservatives will continue the political, partisan games, at great expense to Canadians. I will give an example. Bill C-30 is at report stage and third reading. We were supposed to debate that bill today. Chances are that we will not get to that bill today. We have not been able to get to other legislation because of the tactics of the official opposition, the reform Conservative Party, as I often refer to it.

The last budget legislation was Bill C-14. The first female Minister of Finance of Canada presented an economic update to the House back in late November, and the legislation was introduced in December. For days, the Conservatives would not allow it to pass. This was legislation that helped businesses and Canadians in many ways, yet the Conservatives saw fit to filibuster it. Bill C-30 will pass. It is budget legislation. It is not an option for the government.

Bill C-12 is the net-zero emissions legislation. If members canvass their constituents, they will find out that it does not matter where they live in Canada, our constituents are concerned about the environment and are telling all members of the House that we need to do more. Bill C-12, the net-zero emissions bill, is very important legislation. It answers, in good part, the call from Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

To a certain degree, we have seen a change in attitude by some Conservatives with their new leadership. Some in their caucus do not support it, but the leadership agrees that there is a need for a price on pollution. They seem to be coming around, even though they are five, six or seven years late. Surely to goodness, they would recognize the value of the legislation. Bill C-12 is stuck in committee.

What about Bill C-10? Bill C-10 would update very important legislation that has not been updated for 30 years, since 1990 or 1991. Let us think of what the Internet was like back in 1990. I can recall sitting in the Manitoba legislature, hearing the ring, the buzzing and then a dial tone. We can remember how slow it was.

I will tell my Conservative friends that things have changed. Now all sorts of things take place on the Internet. This is important legislation. The NDP, the Greens and the Bloc support the legislation. The Conservatives come up with a false argument, dig their feet in and then say they are not being given enough time, yet they have no problem squandering time.

Thankfully, because of the Bloc, we were able to put some limits on the committee, so we could get it though committee. If the Bloc did not agree with the government and with that concurrence, it would never pass the committee stage. There is absolutely no indication that the Conservatives have any intent of seeing Bill C-10 pass through committee stage.

If members have been listening to the chamber's debates in regard to Bill C-6, they have heard the Conservatives disagree with another piece of legislation. They say they do not support mandatory conversion therapy, and they are using the definition as a scapegoat to justify their behaviour on the legislation. Once again they are the only political entity inside the House of Commons that is preventing this legislation or putting it in jeopardy. The leadership of the Conservative Party might think one thing, but the reality is that the behaviour of the Conservative Party has put Bill C-6 in limbo.

I could talk about Bill C-21, the firearms legislation. Members know that the Conservatives have been using firearms as a tool for many years. Even when I was an MLA in the mid-nineties, I can remember the Conservative Party using firearms as a tool, and nothing has really changed. The bill is still in second reading. There is no indication at all that the Conservatives are willing to see that piece of legislation pass. Members can check with some of the communities and stakeholders that are asking and begging not only the government, but also opposition parties, to let this legislation pass.

That is not to mention Bill C-22, which is about criminal justice reform. That is another piece of legislation that, again, the Conservative Party has given no indication it intends to let see the light of day or go to committee.

Another piece of legislation that is important not only to me, but should be to all members of the House, is Bill C-19. I understand this important piece of legislation is going to committee tomorrow, but if we apply what we have seen at second reading to the committee stage, it is going to be a huge concern. This bill would give Elections Canada additional powers to administer an election in a safer, healthier way for voters and for Elections Canada workers. It is a good piece of legislation. I am somewhat familiar with it because of my role as parliamentary secretary to the minister, who I know has worked very hard on bringing this legislation forward and wants to see it passed. It is a piece of legislation on which the Conservatives have said we should have more debate.

The government attempted to bring this legislation in a long time ago. It tried to get it to committee a long time ago. One day I was ready and primed to address Bill C-19, and the Conservatives' game at that time was to bring in a concurrence motion, because if they did that they could prevent debate on Bill C-19. That is what they did, and it was not the first time. The Conservative Party does not even recognize the value of it. It is a minority situation. We do not know when there is going to be an election. It seems to me that the responsible thing to do is to get Bill C-19 passed. As I say, it is at the committee stage today. I hope that the Conservative Party will see the merits of passing that bill out of the committee stage.

At the beginning of the pandemic, there seemed to be a greater sense of co-operation. From the very beginning, the Prime Minister has been very clear: He and the Government of Canada have had as their first priority minimizing the negative impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, and being there in a real and tangible way for Canadians. That is for another speech in which I can expand on the particular argument the Prime Minister put forward.

We can do other things. We have seen that in some of the legislative initiatives that we have taken. As I say, at the very beginning there was a high sense of co-operation and the team Canada approach applied within the House of Commons. The Conservatives started falling off the track last June. One year later, there is no sign that the Conservative Party recognizes the value of working together.

I would remind my Conservative friends that, as we in government realize, it is a minority government. If someone gives me 12 graduates from Sisler High School, or any high school in the north end of Winnipeg, whether it is Maples Collegiate, Children of the Earth High School, R.B. Russell Vocational High School or St. John's High School, I can prevent the government from being able to pass legislation. It does not take a genius to do that.

We need co-operation from the opposition, and the Conservative Party has been found wanting in that. It has not been co-operative in the last number of months. I find that shameful. Obviously, the Conservatives are not listening to what Canadians expect of them. In fact, what we have seen is delay and more delay, to the point that it becomes obstruction.

Conservatives have obstructed the work of the House as it has debated Bill C-14. If I were to draw comparisons, I would compare Bill C-14 and Bill C-3. Bill C-14 is vitally important to all of us. Canadians needed Bill C-14 passed, but look at the amount of debate and filibustering we had from the official opposition.

On the other hand, Bill C-3 was also a very important piece of legislation. All parties supported it. In fact, the initial idea came from the former leader of the Conservative Party, Rona Ambrose. Everyone supported it. We spent many hours and days debating that piece of legislation, when we could have been debating other legislation. Not that the other legislation was not important, but we all know there is no time process outside of time allocation to get government legislation through. That is in a normal situation, when we have an opposition party that recognizes the value of actual debate of government agenda items that they should pass through, but they did not. Instead, they would rather debate it.

We have moved motions to have extended sittings in the past to accommodate additional debate. I say, in particular to my Conservative friends, that if they are going to behave in this fashion they should not criticize the government for not affording time to debate bills. What a bunch of garbage. They cannot have it both ways. I appeal to the Conservative Party to recognize true value. They should work for Canadians and let us see if we can make a more positive contribution and start working together for the betterment of all.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'll just state on the record that I'm quite shaken, as I'm sure we all are, by the news that I've heard from London, Ontario, in the last 36 hours. It's weighing heavily upon all of us, as it should be: a horrific hate crime and an act of terror targeted against a Muslim family who lost their lives.

I'm thinking about victims who deal with hate and victims who deal with targeted acts. I know neither of the witnesses spoke to this directly, but I might ask Mr. Berkes.

Mr. Berkes, you commented a little on your views on Bill C-22, the mandatory minimum penalties bill, and I share all of your views and echo them. There's also another bill before the House, which is Bill C-21 and which dovetails a bit with this theme that I'm raising. It talks about red flags, and how you might address people who might be potentially in a situation where they might commit an act of hatred; by flagging them, you might help to remove potential weapons, including firearms, from them.

Would you care to opine on what impact that kind of legislation would have in terms of protecting Canadians?

Thanks, Mr. Berkes.

Income Tax Act

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

Madam Speaker, I disagree very much with the previous three speakers, so much so that I am not even sure I am going to refer to the notes that I have in front of me, but let me see if I can make some sense out of the nonsense that I have heard and the falseness of the arguments that have been presented about this very important Private Members' Bill.

In recent years, we have seen crime rates rise across Canada and that crime is getting more severe. This is especially true in rural Canada. In 2017, the crime rate was 23% higher than in urban centres. In some parts of the country, particularly in the Prairies, it is staggeringly higher: between 36% and 42% higher. While provincial governments have responded with concrete measures to tackle this serious issue, the Liberal government has not only refused to take any meaningful action, but has actually made the situation worse.

I want to thank my colleague for Prince Albert for introducing this Private Members' Bill, Bill C-234. This bill seeks to create a non-refundable tax credit for home security measures. It is unfortunate that this bill is necessary, but the Liberal government refuses to undertake the necessary reforms to our justice system, something that no one from the Liberal Party, the Bloc or the New Democratic Party wants to talk about. This is necessary to protect rural Canadians. The issue is the justice system.

We need to do what we can to support Canadians in their efforts to acquire and put in place the devices and mechanisms so that they can feel safe, or at least have some semblance of feeling safe, in their homes.

During a recent study, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women heard testimony from two women who had been repeat victims of rural crime. These women spoke about the toll it takes on a person's mental health when they are constantly worried about being victimized over and over again. They spoke about how repeat offenders from outside their communities target them because they know that help from law enforcement is a long way away, and that if the police come to the scene the criminals are already usually long gone.

They told us how the vast majority of people in their communities have been victims of crime, often more than once, and that many people do not even bother reporting crime anymore: They do not see the point because the justice system continues to let them down. They also spoke about how these criminals are more often armed with firearms and are not afraid to use them, yet shamefully the Liberal government is cracking down on farmers and hunters and law-abiding firearms owners while softening punishments for criminals who use their firearms illegally.

The idea that Canadians are giving up on the idea of justice should be of deep concern to all members of Parliament. When people see that the system does not work for them, they lose confidence in it. When that system is the police and the courts, the consequences of inaction are dire. It is already starting to happen: An Angus Reid poll from January 2020 found that confidence in the RCMP, local law enforcement and the criminal courts has been declining steadily since 2016. The same poll noted that in 2020, 48% of Canadians said they noticed an increase in crime, while only 5% of Canadians thought there had been a decrease.

People may be wondering how we got here. I grew up on a farm. When I was a young man, we were not particularly worried about crime at all. We could leave our doors unlocked when we worked in the fields or went into town. We could leave keys in the ignition of our pickup trucks with the windows rolled down when we parked in town to go into a store for a few minutes. We did not wake up at night scared that someone was armed and prowling around our yards looking to help themselves to our property. The only problem we really ever had was that once in a while, somebody would come into the yard, pull up to the gas tank and fill up their car.

However, the world is a different place now. For the past five years or so it has been getting worse. When it comes to rural Canada out west, the Liberal government does not get it or simply does not care, as we have seen from the member for Kingston and the Islands. He never mentioned crime, which is what this bill is all about. He never mentioned the justice system, which is what this bill is all about. He never mentioned that businesses can write off all of the things that this bill proposes to do, but private citizens cannot. He never mentioned those things at all.

Very often it seems that rural Canadians are the last of the Liberals' worries. Policies that are touted as landmark achievements of the government are typically at the expense of rural Canadians: the carbon tax, the tanker ban, the no-more-pipelines bill and the gun grab, just to name a few.

Another extremely damaging policy that has contributed to the increase in rural crime is Bill C-75 from the last Parliament. Bill C-75 took a number of very serious offences and made them hybrid offences so that they could be dealt with through a fine or a minimal amount of jail time. It also made the requirement that bail be given at the earliest opportunity with the least onerous conditions.

My colleague's legislation was brought forward, in part at least, in response to the Jordan decision by the Supreme Court of Canada. This decision clarified that the timeline for a trial to begin is in order for the Crown to uphold the constitutionally protected right to trial in a reasonable amount of time.

One would think that if the justice system was backed up with numerous serious cases, to the point where trials were being thrown out, the logical decision would be to increase the capability and capacity of the justice system to appropriately deal with it.

This would have allowed accused individuals to have their right to a fair trial upheld in a timely fashion and kept public safety and the administration of justice as a key objective for the security of Canadians.

Instead, the Liberals took the path of least resistance and decided to clear up backlogs of serious offences by giving prosecutors the ability to offer light sentences for serious offences. They also ensured that more people got out on bail just for good measure. The Liberal government, through its changes, took the already quickly revolving door of the justice system and made it spin even faster.

For rural communities, this meant that offenders who regularly target residents would be back on the street shortly after being arrested. In rural Canada, where a small RCMP detachment can be responsible for a vast geographic area, the government has created an almost impossible task. Instead of getting tough on crime, which I vividly recall our current Attorney General of Canada referring to as “stupid on crime”, the government decided to put criminals' needs ahead of victims and their families in rural communities.

It is important to note that those tough-on-crime policies that the Minister of Justice smirked at were hugely successful at reducing the crime rate and the crime severity index and in instilling confidence in our justice system. Instead of doubling down on our Conservative formula and putting public safety at the heart of the justice system, the Liberal government has now also introduced Bill C-22. This bill slashes punishments for a number of serious firearms-related offences and ensures that all of the offences that the Liberal government hybridized in Bill C-75 are now eligible for conditional sentencing, which basically means jail time in one's house.

My constituents are absolutely shocked at the Liberal government's decisions to put the wants and desires of criminals above the needs and safety of law-abiding Canadians. Instead of providing them with assurances that the government understands the issue and that they are working to restore confidence in our justice systems, the Liberals have done the complete opposite.

That brings us back to Bill C-234. This bill is starting down the path of trying to correct what the Liberals have broken since forming government in 2015. Since that time, we have seen crime increase in frequency and severity, yet the Liberals have taken no meaningful steps to curtail it, only to exacerbate it. That is why my Conservative colleagues and I have formed a Conservative rural crime caucus to come up with solutions to this epidemic that the Minister of Justice and Attorney General cannot seem to be bothered with.

The legislation that we are discussing today is a great first step in addressing the rural crime epidemic. It will help Canadians get the tools that they need to protect themselves and their homes from criminals by providing a non-refundable tax credit. Tools like security gates and other access control devices to keep the yard safe could help deter criminals by preventing access and making it harder for criminals to target a rural property. Cameras and alarms could help provide valuable information that law enforcement could use to hopefully identify and catch these criminals, even if they are not able to respond while the crime is in progress because they are so far away.

While this bill is an important step, Conservatives understand that it cannot be our only step. Deterring criminals to find a less prepared victim is not a permanent solution. To that end, I was pleased to introduce my private member's bill, Bill C-289, back in April. It seeks to create an aggravating factor for targeting people or property that is experiencing increased vulnerability due to its remoteness from emergency police or medical services.

My bill would also seek to make existing aggravating factors for home invasion more inclusive of rural properties and face the realities of rural crime. Last, Bill C-289 would ensure that a judge would give careful consideration as to why an offender did not get bail when the judge is considering extra credit for time that was served before the trial.

Rural crime is a complex issue. Given the unique challenges posed by geography and more humble resources in many of the communities, it requires a thorough, multi-faceted approach, and the federal government needs to be an engaged partner. In fact, over a year ago, there was agreement for the provincial and federal government to create a pan-Canadian working group on rural crime. We have heard nothing about this since then from the Liberal government. While the governments across the west in the provinces have been quick to back up these words with action, we have seen no movement from the Liberals at all. The provinces have done an admirable job, but we cannot escape the reality that this is an issue that requires federal leadership.

This should not be a difficult decision for the government, so it raises the question of why the government is so opposed to doing the right thing. Is it because the government really has no understanding of the challenges facing rural Canadians? Is it because rural crime is disproportionately an issue based in the west and the electoral math does not portray it as a worthwhile initiative when there are plenty of policies that the government still wants to enact? Is it because the Minister of Justice is so blinded by ideology and so committed to his hug-a-thug plan that he is willing to let rural Canadians bear the cost of his inaction?

Canadians have a right to life, liberty and security of the person. For rural Canadians in many parts of our country, the Liberal government is not creating the conditions for those rights to be realized.

Opposition Motion—Action Toward Reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples

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

Mr. Speaker, let me start by congratulating you on your 10-year anniversary in that chair as Deputy Speaker and your distinguished service as a parliamentarian in this chamber, respected by every one of your 337 colleagues.

I want to speak today about something that is critically important, not just now but all of the time, that has come to the forefront given this opposition day motion that we are discussing, and that is the events at Kamloops in terms of the shocking discovery of the mass grave of 215 children who belonged to the Tk'emlúps te Secwépemc First Nation.

After hearing about it on the radio, and the sheer magnitude, my first reaction was simply one of horror, and I had to explain to my kids why I was reacting the way that I was.

My second response was as someone who came to this chamber as a lawyer who has some experience with international law, particularly with Rwanda at the UN war crimes tribunal. I thought of how we usually associate mass graves with foreign conflicts and not with Canada. Then I started to think of what we have done vis-à-vis indigenous people of this land and how sometimes it is not much different in terms of the overt assimilation that we have propagated against them, and when the declared policy of the government at the time was to “take the Indian out of the child”.

I also reacted as a parliamentarian who has not been in this chamber as long as you, Mr. Speaker, but for six years now, who feels like he has gathered some understanding of the situation. I had gone through the calls to action, but I was still shocked and surprised. However, we do not have to dig too far to realize that there were a lot of people who were not surprised, and a lot of those people are indigenous people of this land, particularly elders.

This led me to the question of how we value knowledge and recognize its legitimacy, and how this Eurocentric idea has been passed down that unless something is reduced to writing or photographic or video evidence, it probably did not happen. This is a bias that we bring to the table that we have to acknowledge. I thank a constituent of mine who wrote to me about the issue of Canadians, including Canadian parliamentarians, who need to learn to embrace oral histories as legitimate histories so that we can truly come to terms with the magnitude of what we are dealing with.

I also reacted as a father, as I mentioned, when I heard the news that morning on CBC Radio while my children were eating cereal in front of me. My boys are very dear to me. I mean, everyone's children are dear to them. My wife, Suchita, and I are raising two young boys, Zakir and Nitin, and we try and do right by them. However, it one thing for me to imagine my children being removed from my home against my will, but it is another thing entirely to imagine them never returned to me and to never know their whereabouts, which is exactly what has transpired over and over again with indigenous families of this land. This is the true tragedy that needs to be dealt with and understood, and it needs to be accounted for, which can only start with a very strong, historical, educational exercise.

There are some people in this House who are younger than I am, which is the tender age of 49, who had the benefit of actually being educated on this. However, I went through every level of school, including post-secondary education and through law school, and never once was I instructed about the history of the residential school legacy in this country, which is quite shocking for a guy who graduated law school in 1998.

I know that people are now getting that education, and that is important. I also know that people are taking steps, and we heard the member for Kings—Hants talk about what was happening in his community in Nova Scotia. In my community of Parkdale—High Park in Toronto, there was a vigil just yesterday about this very issue, which raised awareness, and that is important. I thank my constituent, Eden, for organizing the vigil. She took the reins on doing so, because she felt so strongly about it. I took my oldest son to that event, because I wanted him to be there to understand, to learn, and to see how others were reacting to what we had learned on Friday morning.

It is one thing to read stories, and I do read him stories, particularly the orange shirt story of Phyllis Webstad, the woman who wore that infamous orange shirt, which was removed from her at that residential school. She is also a member of the Tk'emlúps te Secwépemc First Nation. However, it is more than just the stories, and I wanted him to get that. It is not just past or distant history, it is still unfolding around us, which is very important, because we should not deem it relegated to the past. It was also important for him and for me to see the turnout, the number of young people who were there, and to hear the demands, and there were many.

There were many directed at the federal government, the government that I represent. There was outrage, shock and horror, but it was important for me to hear the demands. It was important for my son to hear the demands. If I could summarize it, which is difficult to do, but they want justice, accountability and transparency and they want it now, not at some date to be determined in the future.

I hear that sentiment and I very much share that sentiment. I say that in all sincerity in this chamber for those who are watching around the country. In particular ,what I think is most critical is just having a sense that if this happened to the Tk'emlúps First Nation, in Kamloops at that former school, we know that there are 139 sites around this country where it may very well have happened there as well. That forensic investigation, that radar investigation must be done and it must be done immediately.

I know that we have dedicated as a government almost $34 million to address some of the calls to action we have heard extensively about during the course of today's debate. If more money is needed, it must be provided forthwith. That is what I am advocating for.

Others have also said to me just get on with every single one of those calls to action, get it over with now. It has been far too long. I hear that outrage and that sense of urgency. I pause because I know in looking at the calls to action that some of them relate to us at the federal level, us as parliamentarians in the House of Commons. Some of them relate to provincial governments, city governments. Some of them relate to institutions and school boards. Some of them even relate to foreign entities.

I, for one, would be dearly appreciative to see a formal papal apology. That is call to action 58. That is a call to action that the Prime Minister squarely put to the Pope on a visit to the Vatican and that has not yet been acceded to. I think that stands in stark contrast to what we see with other denominations of Christian churches in this country that have formally accepted and apologized for the role that the church played in terms of administering many of these residential schools. That needs to be forthcoming and Canadians are demanding that, rightfully so.

Others I believe have been met at least in part if not fully. I count myself as very privileged to have served in the last Parliament when I was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Heritage. We worked on and co-developed with first nations, Métis and Inuit leaders what became Bill C-91, Canada's first ever Indigenous Languages Act.

I personally count that as one of my most significant learning opportunities as a parliamentarian. It took that lawyer who was not educated about this stuff in law school and it turned him into a parliamentarian who was dealing directly with first nations, Inuit and Métis leaders about the difficulties of not having that connection to one's language and what that does to one's psyche, one's level of mental anxiety, one's connection to one's culture.

We have remedied that. It speaks directly to TRC calls to action 13, 14 and 15. We have also made great strides with respect to indigenous child and welfare legislation. That was Bill C-92 in the last Parliament. The most important piece there is that the norm now based on that legislation is if we must remove a child, then we keep them within their group, within their first nation, among their community and only as an absolute last resort would they be removed.

We have worked on UNDRIP with members of the opposition parties including the NDP. We have worked on Bill C-22, which I count myself privileged to have worked on as parliamentary secretary to the current Minister of Justice. It deals with curing the overrepresentation of indigenous people in this land. Much more remains to be done. I do not discount that and it needs to be done quickly. We need to do that work together.

I welcome this debate. I welcome the discussions we have been having literally all week, not just today about this important topic, because they are critical. I do feel at my core that we will only gather sufficient momentum when all Canadians are talking about this stain on Canada's history and Canada's legacy. That is critical to see. We have seen it over the course of this pandemic where people, non-white and white, people who are racialized or not racialized have taken up the call for addressing systemic racism and systemic discrimination in wake of George Floyd and in this country people like Regis Korchinski-Paquet.

I am seeing that again now. I am seeing that massive outreach now and that is a good thing because it gives us momentum. It gives us the initiative to keep working hard at these issues and to keep focused on these calls to action in addressing the needs of indigenous people, but always in a manner that is led by indigenous people and done on their terms, because gone must be the paternalism where Ottawa dictated to indigenous people the appropriate remedies. We must be listening and responding.

Foreign Affairs and International Development

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I do not know how many times I have listened to members of the opposition say they want to have more time to speak to a bill, whatever that bill might be. It happens consistently.

At the same time, the at-times-unholy alliance of opposition members will bring forward issues to prevent the government from bringing forward legislation. On one hand, they say they want more time to speak to government legislation and are critical of government for not allowing more time, then on the other they do what they can to prevent government legislation from passing.

For example, today we were supposed to be debating Bill C-22. Is the Bloc comfortable seeing that bill pass? Do the Bloc members want more time on government legislation? If not, then maybe we should be debating this issue more often than is being suggested.

Criminal Code

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak today to Bill C-21, hoping that I can bring a calm and reasoned approach to this discussion. All parties in the House are united in their desire to get rid of gun crime in Canada. The question is, what is the best way to go about doing that?

We know that we need to be fact- and evidence-based. In fact, the Liberal government is always talking about how it is fact- and evidence-based, but in this particular discussion, it has missed the mark.

We know that 95% of gun crime in Canada is illegal guns and guns used illegally. What does Bill C-21 do to address illegal guns coming into Canada? The answer is, nothing. What does Bill C-21 do, then, about guns used illegally? The answer, again, is nothing. In terms of trying to address gun crime in Canada, this bill misses the mark.

If we look at the 261 gun-related crimes that happened last year, 60% of those were committed with handguns that are already prohibited or restricted. One in four homicides was related to gang activity. If we look at the people who were arrested for illegal firearms offences in 2019, the Toronto chief of police said that the 326 people charged with firearms offences are free on bail. Even when people commit a crime, we are not enforcing the law, and the penalties are reduced.

If we look at an approach of what we ought to be doing to reduce gun crime in Canada, the first thing is to address the illegal guns coming into the country. I am sad to note that the Liberal members voted against a private member's bill from the member for Markham—Unionville that would have introduced measures against illegal guns coming into the country.

Certainly the point has already been made today that we need to step up the effort at the border, because we know from the statistics that most of the guns coming in are coming in from the U.S.A. There is a role to play there. I know that the National Police Federation has called on the Government of Canada to increase the funding to the RCMP border integrity program to enable dedicated and proactive RCMP investigative weapons enforcement activity in order to address gun crime at the border.

Another issue that Bill C-21 does not address is organized crime and gangs. We have heard the statistics about one in four homicides being related to gang activities. This is something that has not yet been addressed.

What does Bill C-21 actually do? There are a number of things in the bill, but basically, for firearms that have already been banned for lawful gun owners, they are allowed to keep them but there is no defined compensation yet. Again, this is a measure that comes against people who are abiding by the law, and now the government is punishing them. They are not allowed to use these guns, and they are not going to be compensated. Nothing has been put forward on that.

At the same time, the Liberals are trying to remove the provincial authority for the chief firearms officer to “approve, refuse, renew and revoke authorizations to carry” and to give that power to a federal commissioner of firearms, another “Ottawa knows best” kind of strategy coming from the government.

In terms of importing ammunition, the government wants to add additional requirements for a licence to import ammunition. Again, it is always focused on people who will obey the law, and what it is missing is the main point that criminals do not obey the law. They do not obey the existing gun laws, and they would not obey these new guns laws. They would not obey a requirement to have a licence to import ammunition. The naïveté needs to stop, and we need to start with reasoned approaches to actually address the issue.

The municipal ban that is proposed by Bill C-21 has actually been opposed by many of the mayors across the country. The government ought to listen to mayors who are saying that this is not municipal jurisdiction. The RCMP has the expertise in this area, and that is where the power should rest.

At the same time that the government is implementing things that will not do anything about gun crime in Canada, we also see that it is introducing other bills, like Bill C-22, that will reduce the penalties for crimes committed with guns. I cannot even imagine why Liberals would think about doing that.

Bill C-22 repeals several minimum penalties. Let me read the list: unauthorized possession, possession of a prohibited firearm, possession of a weapon obtained by crime, weapons trafficking, possession for the purpose of trafficking, reckless discharge, discharge with the intent to wound or endanger, and robbery with a firearm. Why would we ever reduce the penalties for those very things that are part of the problem of gun crime in Canada, which is the thing we are trying to solve?

At the same time, Bill C-22 would also eliminate a number of offences that would be ineligible for conditional sentencing, such as sexual assault, kidnapping, trafficking in persons for material benefit, abduction of people under 14, motor vehicle theft, and arson for fraudulent purposes.

Again, we are trying to solve the problem of gun crime in Canada: illegal guns, guns used illegally, and the kind of organized crime and gang crime activity that is related to all these illegal activities. We have a huge issue of drugs in the country, so we should definitely be putting our money there.

I see that my time is drawing short, and yes, I am going to get to my points. There has also been an allegation that suicide is a reason for the banning of weapons for lawful gun owners, that it would really do something about suicide in the country. I would offer that people who are going to kill themselves, sadly, are going to find other ways: hanging themselves, slicing their wrists, taking pills.

We see a huge increase in suicide in this country. In fact, because this pandemic has gone on so long and the Liberal government has failed to get a plan to exit, we have seen a quadrupling of suicides. Instead of the 4,000 people a year who typically commit suicide, if that is quadrupled, the number of people dying from suicide is approaching the number of people dying from COVID-19. This is why it is important for the government to focus its efforts there and, if it really wants to eliminate suicide, get us a plan to exit this pandemic, absolutely.

The undefined buyback program needs to be clarified so that we can actually comment on it. Right now it just looks like weapons will be banned and there is no defined plan, but the plan is likely to be very expensive and it looks to me like the initial estimates have underestimated what that cost will be.

All in all, Bill C-21 misses the mark on eliminating gun crime in Canada. I want to summarize by saying that the problem is illegal guns and guns used illegally. Bill C-21 does nothing about illegal guns. It does nothing about guns used illegally.

What do we need to do? Let us step up the efforts to keep illegal guns from coming into the country and the penalties associated with being involved in gun smuggling, and once those people are convicted, let us keep them in jail and not let them back out on the street with their weapons again.

Let us make sure that we focus on organized crime and gang activity. I think there are resources that would be better applied there. In fact, the National Police Federation said that we should divert from the monitoring activities on lawful gun owners that we spend on and put some of those resources into crime prevention. That is a very good thing to do as well.

At the end of the day, all of us want the same thing. We all want to eliminate gun crime in Canada, but Bill C-21 does not do it.

Business of the House

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

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

This afternoon, we will begin report stage and third reading of Bill S-3, regarding offshore health and safety. Tomorrow, we will resume second reading debate of Bill C-21, on the Firearms Act.

On Monday, we will resume third reading stage of Bill C-6, on conversion therapy. That evening, we will consider in committee of the whole the main estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development.

On Wednesday, we will consider Bill C-22, on criminal justice reforms, at second reading.

Tuesday and Thursday will be allotted days.

Once again, I thank my colleague for his very important question and wish him a great afternoon.

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

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

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to rise virtually to participate in the debate on the budget and to provide the perspective of many Canadians, especially that of my constituents in northern Saskatchewan who feel left out, forgotten and, in some cases, at complete odds with the Liberal government.

It has now been 19 months since I was selected the member of Parliament for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River. During that time, my team and I have done what we could under the current restrictions to meet with as many constituents, local representatives, indigenous representatives, business owners and many others across northern Saskatchewan to keep in touch with their priorities.

For example, in an attempt to reach as many constituents as possible, my office developed an online survey, targeted through social media to the people in my riding. The results show just how out of touch the Liberal government is with the people in northern Saskatchewan. When given a list of 10 issues and asked to choose their top three, the most common issues identified by the people in my riding were: ending and recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic, jobs and the economy, and rural and gang crime.

This budget was an opportunity for the government to chart a clear path forward, to introduce a growth and jobs budget that would provide hope for Canadians that the fight against COVID-19 is nearly over, and that we have a path to recovery. Instead, it is a poorly crafted campaign document that plunges Canada so far into debt that my grandchildren's grandchildren will be paying for the reckless spending of the Prime Minister.

I want to touch briefly on these top three issues that were raised by my constituents for the duration of my time, starting first with ending and recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic. As I am sure members have noticed, several weeks ago Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe released a reopening Saskatchewan plan. This plan included vaccination targets by age groups and corresponding parts of the economy and social life that would be opened once these targets were met.

The response in Saskatchewan has been very positive. This has not only encouraged people to get vaccinated, but has done what I think is most important: it has given people hope, hope that this will soon be over, hope that there will be a return to normal, hope that we can once again gather with friends and loved ones, and hope for business owners that there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

Unfortunately, we have received no such plan from the Prime Minister or his government. We have been asking for months for a plan, for targets that once achieved would lead us on a path back to life as we know it. Instead, we see Liberal minister after Liberal minister stand in front of cameras and pat themselves on the back, while at the same time attacking premiers from across the country.

Speaking of premiers, premiers across Canada came together and had one ask for this budget. It was an increase in health care transfers to deal with the pandemic, and with the hundreds of billions of dollars the Liberals are spending, they could not even provide a commitment to the provinces on this matter. That is a shame.

Next, my constituents ranked jobs and the economy. Unemployed Canadians hoping to see a plan to create new jobs and economic opportunities for their families have been let down by this budget. Workers who have had their wages cut and their hours slashed hoping to see a plan to reopen the economy have been let down by the budget.

Finally, families who have seen their taxes continually increase over the past six years under the Liberal government and who are struggling to save more money for their children's education or to buy a home have been let down by this budget.

The Prime Minister and the government will tell us over and over again, in fact he did it this week, how the first thing they did was to increase taxes on the top 1% so that they could reduce taxes for the middle class. As someone who has prepared thousands of tax returns over the last 30 years, the vast majority of them for middle-class Canadians, I can assure this House that this is simply not true. I could provide example after example of people whose personal income taxes have in fact increased substantially since 2015.

These are not people who are earning hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. I am talking about people who are earning $50,000 to $80,000 a year in family income and who have seen their taxes increase significantly.

Let me move on to jobs. There are two very important sectors in northern Saskatchewan that have been devastated by the government's poor handling of the pandemic, as well as its weakness at the bargaining table. These sectors are the outfitting and tourism sector and the forestry sector. Believe it or not, many members in this House may be surprised to learn that not all of Saskatchewan is flat prairies where one can see rolling wheatfields for miles at a time.

My riding in northern Saskatchewan is home to many businesses and jobs that depend on the forestry sector. The government's failure to secure a softwood lumber agreement with the United States over the past six years has been very difficult for them, and honestly embarrassing for Canada. Canada has not had a softwood lumber agreement with the United States since the fall of 2015, and the Liberal government failed to negotiate softwood lumber into the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement recently.

My very first question in the House, after I was elected, was on this exact issue. Nearly two years later, Canadians have yet to see any meaningful action on softwood lumber by the government. In fact, we are now seeing a step backward with the United States Department of Commerce's announcement last week of increased duties on softwood lumber imports from Canada.

I do not think the Prime Minister nor his ministers understand the importance of businesses like NorSask Forest Products in my riding. This is a lumber mill. It is owned by nine first nations. As I have stated in the House on previous occasions, dividends paid from this entity provide integral funding for critical programs to the ownership first nations. For this mill and many others that are not owned by first nation entities in my riding, these duties are doubling with the announcement last week. The stakes are too high for the government to continue to fail on this issue.

Let me move on to the outfitting and tourism sectors. The government's total failure when it comes to the border with the United States has continued to leave outfitters and other tourism operators in my riding in the dark. These businesses operate during hunting and fishing seasons. They are seasonal businesses, mostly with customers who travel from the United States to enjoy beautiful northern Saskatchewan. As I said before, the government's lack of a plan is severely hampering these businesses and the many other northern tourism operators.

Many will write this off as partisan, however the Parliamentary Budget Officer has been very clear in his analysis of the budget. Not only will a significant amount of the Liberal spending in this budget not create economic growth or jobs, the Liberals and their budget greatly overestimate their growth prediction. To use a very technical term from my days as an accountant, it seems the Liberals may be fudging the numbers to make themselves look better. I am sure it is not the first time and I am sure it will not be the last.

It is very clear that the Liberal government's stimulus fund was more about spending on Liberal partisan re-election promises than creating jobs or growing the economy. With their uncontrolled spending, the Liberals have made it clear that they have no plan to return to a balanced budget. Once again, this is just another example where the Liberal Party is completely out of touch with Canadians. In fact, a recent poll by Nanos found that 75% of Canadians were worried about the growing deficit.

I realize I have used most of my time on the first two issues, so let me quickly comment on the third priority of my constituents, those in northern Saskatchewan, and that is the rural and gang crime issue. The Liberal government has spent more time and energy going after law-abiding firearm owners like hunters and sport shooters than they have on illegal gun importing and organized crime. Tomorrow and next week, we will have more opportunity to debate the Liberals' disastrous bills, Bill C-21 and Bill C-22, that would decrease penalties for dangerous gun, drug and gang-related crime, while simultaneously criminalizing behaviour like hunting, which many indigenous and non-indigenous people in my riding rely on to provide for their families.

It does not take much to notice how the government has failed Canadians. One need look no further than the current NHL playoffs, games south of the border with fan-filled arenas and life returning to normal, while in Canada, my beloved Toronto Maple Leafs are handily putting a beat down on the Montreal Canadiens in front of empty arenas. It is time for the government to admit its failure and introduce a plan to return to normal, one that focuses on jobs and the economy, and does what it takes to keep Canadians safe.

Public Safety

[Kenny Chiu, Conservative, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was at YVR mere hours before greater Vancouver's 10th shooting in three weeks took place publicly in broad daylight.

In this past year the government has cracked down on legal firearms owners, airsoft players and paintball gamers, ignoring the real issues threatening Canadian lives. With its Bill C-22, criminals may not even have to serve prison time.

When will the government stop harassing law-abiding citizens, stand on the side of ordinary Canadians, tackle illegal guns and remove those violent thugs and gang criminals from our streets?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Durham region was shaken by two shootings in Ajax last week, which appear to be gang related. According to Statistics Canada, the number of gang-related murders since the Liberals first took office has been higher ever single year than any year under the previous Conservative government. The Liberal government's soft-on-crime approach through bills like Bill C-22 and Bill C-75 has made Canada a safe haven for gang activity.

When will caring about gang violence, the true source of gun crime in Canada, become a priority for the Liberal government?

[Joshua Sealy-Harrington]

Madam Chair, I'll just say that I spoke with Senator Kim Pate about my concerns about Bill C-22. If you listen to that interview, you'll be able to hear a detailed discussion about my support of certain aspects of it, but also my significant concerns with it.

[Drew Lafond]

Sure, I can chime in on this one.

On Bill C-22, again, we've had a lot to say to the minister's office on this point specifically. Our written correspondence outlines that while we're pleased to see some changes that reflect some of the calls to action—specifically, call to action 32—there's nothing of any substantive or systemic value in Bill C-22 or Bill C-23.

We've raised 16 points—10 immediate action points need to be addressed today. They need to be addressed immediately. They've been studied extensively and repeatedly and, again, set out in 21 commissions, reports and studies over the last 30 years. The problem we have with Bill C-22 and Bill C-23 is that the scope of their focus is too narrow and doesn't focus on any of the systemic items that we've identified need to take place immediately.

Just to name a few—I've named 10 already in my initial presentation—there are others that we've communicated: addressing over-policing and over-criminalization of indigenous peoples; implementing a multi-pronged indigenous de-escalation strategy; and ensuring appropriate systems are in place for carefully and systemically investigating reports of crime and violence against indigenous victims. These are systemic items that have been identified on numerous occasions, and what we lack right now is the implementation.

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

Thank you, Chair.

It is an absolute pleasure to join this committee today.

Mr. Brown, you mentioned record suspensions, and I couldn't agree with you more. It's something I was really pleased to see in the budget in terms of dealing with those mean-spirited increases in the record suspension fee, which meant that people couldn't apply. It is in the budget. There are 700 pages there, so I am not surprised if you may have missed that, but it is something that we're committed to changing.

I want to thank all the witnesses today for your testimony. You've been talking a lot about indigenous peoples, Black Canadians and racialized Canadians who are disproportionately impacted by their being touched by the criminal justice system. It costs us $330 a day to put someone into prison, and that's not the place where most of them need to be.

Because you've brought up those issues, I want to focus on Bill C-22, because that bill does include reducing mandatory minimum sentences, drug diversion and conditional sentences. It's dealing with a number of issues that you've all touched on as being of concern.

There was a study that was done of 44 indigenous women—the fastest-growing prison population in Canada—who received conditional sentences prior to 2012. It was found that 36 of them would have been ineligible to receive a conditional sentence under the Harper government restrictions. I met two of them when I visited the Edmonton Institute for Women. They were women who should not have been in jail, and because they were in jail, it was going to impact the rest of their lives.

I'm just wondering if each of you could maybe talk a bit about how important it is to get Bill C-22 passed—and passed quickly.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'm going to resist the temptation to use my entire six minutes to applaud this panel. I think it is very important that they've directed our attention to the root causes of delays in the system and to the importance of protecting constitutional rights.

We will have opportunities in Parliament to discuss other bills that deal with some of these questions, and I hope that we will see these witnesses come back to give us further input on Bill C-22 and Bill C-23.

I want to take the time today to talk about one of my concerns: that our shift to the Zoom platforms during COVID, while necessary in an emergency, may make some fundamental changes in our justice system, which I believe will disadvantage indigenous people, racialized Canadians and those who live in poverty.

I'd like to hear from each of the witnesses what they think about this shift of platforms and its impact on those who are most marginalized in the justice system already.

Maybe I will start with Mr. Sealy-Harrington.

[Daniel Brown]

Yes.

What I'd also say is that I've touched on a few points here, a few barriers, but there are other ones as well. The unavailability, right now, of conditional sentences for many offences, like fraud offences.... I know that's something the government is trying to reintroduce again in Bill C-22, but it is something where there's an absence of legislation to address a lot of these challenges.

Also, there is the fact that, right now, when somebody is found guilty of a fairly serious criminal offence, they are automatically deported without any right of appeal. There are so many reasons why people refuse to solve their cases, and they hang around the justice system and hang around and go all the way to trial and wait to see if their case gets thrown out for delay because there is just simply no way to solve these cases in advance. We need to find other opportunities to solve cases, to remove those barriers. If we're continuing to eat the same amount, we have to figure out at least a way to get rid of these cases that are in the system so that we can make room for these other cases.

[Daniel Brown, Vice-President, Criminal Lawyers' Association of Ontario]

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, vice-chairs and honourable members.

Criminal cases are more complex and consume greater court resources than ever before. We all know that lengthy court delays can violate an accused person's constitutionally protected right to a trial in a reasonable amount of time and lead to charges being stayed. Ongoing and repeated delays in the court system caused by the COVID-19 pandemic can also diminish the public's confidence in the criminal justice system, which is fundamental to its operation.

The answer isn't to give up and to ignore constitutionally protected rights, as advocated by Mr. McCarthy in the last panel. The Criminal Lawyers' Association believes that the answer to COVID-related backlogs in the court system is to enact policy changes that will ensure the system has both the time and resources to focus on the most serious cases and those that just simply can't be solved without a trial.

In our time here, we'll focus on three suggestions that will help remove cases that are clogging up the court system but shouldn't be. Number one is to remove barriers to resolving cases without a trial. Number two is to divert administration of justice offences out of the court system. Number three is to decriminalize drug possession offences.

The decision about whether or not an accused person should proceed to trial can be heavily influenced by the sentencing consequences of a particular crime. A person is far less likely to plead guilty if there are consequences that impact their immigration, their employment or will simply incarcerate them for a long period of time. These significant consequences act as barriers to solving cases without trials. One of these barriers is mandatory minimum sentences. I don't just mean mandatory minimum jail sentences, but mandatory minimum consequences that flow from certain criminal convictions.

Drinking and driving convictions, for example, require the sentencing judge to impose the mandatory criminal record in every single case, even for a first offender who's barely over the legal drinking limit. These otherwise resolvable cases are clogging up the courts. It's no coincidence that drinking and driving offences are one of the most litigated categories of cases and one of the offences that frequently breaches the delay ceiling set by the Supreme Court in the Jordan decision. Eliminating mandatory sentences would drastically reduce the number of cases that go to trial, which would, in turn, ensure timely justice for other cases in the system.

Another barrier to resolving cases is the five- to 10-year waiting period a person with a criminal conviction must endure to have their criminal record cleared through the record suspension process. The proposed changes in Bill C-22, introduced by this government, address some of these barriers, including the elimination of some mandatory minimum sentences, but fails to address other ones like the drinking and driving mandatory convictions. Bill C-22 also fails to address the barriers to obtaining record suspensions, including the prohibitive costs and lengthy wait times.

Another way we can reduce backlogs in the court system is to divert administration of justice offences from the system all together. These offences, including failing to appear in court and failing to comply with a court order, account for more than one in five cases right now in our justice system. Following Senate recommendations in 2017, the government changed the Criminal Code to include a process whereby the police or the prosecutors could now opt to not charge somebody and opt not to prosecute them for one of these offences. Instead, they can refer them to a judicial referral hearing where a judge would potentially tweak the bail release plan or decide to reincarcerate the person. This regime avoids piling on criminal charges, which come with their own requirements for disclosure, meeting with the prosecutor, guilty pleas, trials and sentencings.

Unfortunately, these diversion tools simply aren't being utilized by the crowns or the police who must initiate the referral hearing process. This new regime designed to reduce some 175,000 cases in our system is lying dormant. The solution here is simple: Remove those barriers that prevent either a judge from referring a case or place discretion completely in the hands of the police and the crowns.

A similar concern exists with the increased discretion afforded to prosecuting low-level drug offences. Bill C-22 goes some way toward decriminalizing these offences by encouraging prosecutors to divert some drug cases out of the system in favour of drug treatment programs. Placing discretion to divert these charges entirely in the hands of prosecutors and the police creates obvious problems. For example, will they use this discretion?

We're also concerned about whether this discretion will be applied equitably. We know that discrimination and bias run rampant through the justice system, adversely impacting indigenous and black defendants far more than any other race. If we accept that drug addiction is a public health issue, not a criminal law issue, we shouldn't be prosecuting these cases at all.

In conclusion, removing barriers to guilty plea resolutions and diverting drugs and access to justice offences from the justice system would free up precious court time and resources that could be redeployed to other cases in danger of being tossed for unreasonable delay following the COVID-19 pandemic, and ensure timely justice for victims and accused persons.

Thank you.

Criminal Code

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege for me to speak to Bill C-21, and I want to thank my colleague, the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest, for sharing his time with me today.

Keeping our communities safe is one of the primary responsibilities of government. Whenever we find ourselves lying in bed or walking in a park, or are at work or in a classroom, every Canadian should be able to live without the fear of violence. To that end, Canada has some of the strictest laws in the world when it comes to firearms.

Indeed, Canadian firearms owners are among the strongest advocates for firearm safety and common-sense firearms laws. To me, that makes sense, but when left-leaning governments want to be seen as cracking down on gun violence and gang activity, law-abiding firearms owners take the brunt of their focus and become the target.

The problem with that approach, of course, is that registered firearms owners are not typically the ones committing any acts of violence. This means that a credible approach to tackling gun violence needs to focus on the criminals and gangs who have no regard for Canada's firearms laws and who use illegal guns in the commission of violence. Any other focus is simply virtue signalling and window dressing.

The reality is that the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with illegally obtained firearms. At least 80% of the guns used in Canadian gun crimes are illegally smuggled in from the United States. This is not particularly shocking, given that Canada and the United States have the world's longest undefended border. We are also aware that it is considerably easier to purchase firearms in the U.S. This is a reality that we must recognize in any Canadian legislative response.

Bill C-21 does not take these facts into account, which is why I was pleased to support my colleague, the member for Markham—Unionville, who put forward Bill C-238 to amend the Criminal Code to increase penalties for those alleged to be in possession of a firearm unlawfully imported into Canada and to increase the mandatory minimum penalty for the possession of such weapons.

During his speech on his bill, the member shared that he met with community leaders and law enforcement and asked them what steps the federal government ought to take to make the community safer. This was his response:

The thing I heard over and over at these meetings was that organized crime was behind the shootings, and the streets are flooded with guns smuggled from across the border. Mostly they are handguns because they are easy to smuggle, hide and carry. That should not be shocking news to anyone. Our farmers, hunters and sports shooters are not fuelling a crime wave. The shootings are gang-related, with innocent people getting caught in the crossfire.

Bill C-238 was a common-sense bill that would have taken real action to address the serious issue that we are talking about today. However, the Liberals voted against it. They actually helped to defeat it. It was a bill that would have imposed tougher sentences for criminal smuggling and on those who were found in possession of illegal firearms. If the Liberals had wanted to show that they were serious about gun violence, they should have supported Bill C-238.

Then we have Bill C-22 on the heels of Bill C-21. It was introduced by the Liberals only one day after Bill C-21. In Bill C-21, the Liberals claim to be cracking down on gun violence, and in Bill C-22, the Liberals are proposing to repeal minimum penalties for firearms-related crimes such as unauthorized possession of a prohibited firearm or weapon that had been trafficked, discharge with the intent to wound or endanger, and robbery with a firearm. These are all part of what Bill C-22 is proposing to reduce the minimum sentences for.

How disconnected does one have to be to introduce, one day, a bill that would supposedly crack down on gun violence, and the next introduce a bill that would reduce penalties for gun crime?

I speak regularly with local firearms owners. These individuals know and understand the value of well-crafted firearms legislation.

They understand their responsibilities as firearms owners and they respect the rules that are in place, but they do not understand why the Liberal government continues to target them knowing full well that the problem does not lie with them, but with criminals and gangs.

It is not just firearms owners who do not understand this. Law enforcement voices have also raised concerns. The National Police Federation said, “Costly and current legislation, such as the Order in Council prohibiting various firearms and the proposed buyback program by the federal government targeted at legal firearm owners, does not address these current and emerging themes or urgent threats to public safety.”

The head of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police said, “The firearms laws in Canada are actually very good right now. They're very strict.” He added:

There are lots of law-abiding citizens out there who do possess guns for very legitimate purposes. When you look at the steps you have to go through to possess a firearm in Canada, it's actually quite rigorous. Once you do get a license, the actual purchasing, the transportation, the storage…all of that has very strict laws in Canada.

In my province of Manitoba, Winnipeg Police Service inspector Max Waddell said that while a ban on all guns might seem, and I emphasize the word “seem”, like a common-sense approach, banning guns wouldn't necessarily stop gun violence:

I’ll draw a parallel. Illicit drugs are also banned. Yet we see dramatic increases and challenges around methamphetamine... [because] it’s that supply and demand force that causes individuals to obtain these firearms whether it’s to protect their drug trade, prevent harm, to use it for extortion. Whatever the criminal element is needing these guns for.

Further, Winnipeg Police Service spokesman Constable Rob Carver did not mince words at all. He said Bill C-21 “won't make any difference whatsoever.”

Despite the unequivocal evidence that gun violence is perpetrated by criminals using illegal guns, perhaps the most bizarre part of Bill C-21 is that it goes after airsoft guns.

In rural Manitoba, chances are that people have used airsoft guns personally or at least have family and friends who have done so, shooting cans from across the yard or strapping on a pair of goggles for a friendly match. As it stands, Bill C-21 will ban all airsoft guns outright, most BB guns and some paintball models in Canada as well. This bill would destroy a pastime enjoyed by over 64,000 players across Canada and risk an industry worth $100 million to the Canadian economy. Half the businesses in Canada tailored to these harmless hobbies expect to close for good, causing some 1,500 Canadians to lose their jobs in the process. This is silly and does absolutely nothing to address real gun violence in Canada.

Earlier this year, 36,600 Canadians signed a petition to stop Bill C-21's attempt to shut down airsoft and paintball. Among other calls, they simply asked the government to recognize that airsoft and paintball do not represent any public risk, and that banning them would not improve public safety. Signatories hailed from every province and territory, with Ontario and Quebec making strong showings alongside western provinces.

Canadians are rightly frustrated with this. Why is the Liberal government's plan to take legal firearms off the ranges and ban toys? We need a bill that addresses gun smuggling. We need a bill that goes after gangs. We need a bill that prevents criminals from getting access to illegal guns, and Bill C-21 is not it. Bill C-21 is a smokescreen. The bill would have no impact on the illicit use of illegal firearms in crime. Criminals do not register their guns. They obtain their guns illegally. Gangs do not register their illegally obtained guns.

The Liberals propose to give municipalities the power to create local firearms bylaws. Why would we expect that this bill would have any impact on public safety?

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Madam Speaker, that is my point. These two bills have to be looked at in conjunction.

On the one hand, Bill C-21 targets law-abiding Canadians by turning them into criminals, penalizing them. On the other hand, Bill C-22 lessens the criminal sanctions on the illegal use of firearms.

It makes no sense, and a Conservative government would do the exact opposite.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, the member touched on a theme, and I want to ask him a question on it.

The focus of the legislation, I know for my rural constituents, seems to be targeting exactly the wrong people. I note that right after this bill was brought in, the government brought in Bill C-22, which would lessen the sentencing for robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, using a firearm in the commission of an offence and possession of a weapon obtained by the commission of an offence. The government is lowering the sentences for those offences committed by actual criminals, while Bill C-21 seems to be targeting the wrong people entirely, the non-criminals.

Could the hon. member please comment on that?

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

Bill C-21 affects thousands of hunters, fishers and people living in rural areas by making them out to be criminals. This is bad legislation.

With regard to the border, when firearms are not registered, the penalties should be more severe. We, Conservatives, introduced a bill on that, but it was blocked by the government and some opposition MPs. Furthermore, Bill C-21 would weaken penalties for the illegal aspects.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, the Minister of Public Safety will deny it. He will get angry too, along with many Liberal MPs. They will do that instead of replying to the substance of their policy, their own legislation.

Listen to the minister's response this week when answering my Conservative colleague from Red Deer—Lacombe during question period. He said:

There is no gun registry in the country. It is one of the reasons in the legislation we have brought forward that we will require people who are in possession of these now prohibited weapons to register them properly, so we can have a precise calculation of where these guns are.

By the minister's own description of the legislation, the Liberals intend to resurrect a long-gun registry.

That is not all. The bill misses its mark elsewhere and will waste resources in other ways as well.

Bill C-21 hopes to set up a voluntary purchase program, what Liberals call a “buyback” of the firearms the government made illegal last year. What is Ottawa proposing to purchase? It is lawfully obtained firearms as well as heirlooms and tools. Many are worth thousands of dollars because of their rarity, age and calibre.

The Minister of Public Safety recently said that the government did not know how many firearms would fall under its confiscation program, yet he also claimed elsewhere that in the range of 200,000 firearms, at an average cost of $1,300 per firearm, would be covered. At the low end of estimates, this will cost taxpayers somewhere in the range of $250 million, but other experts have said that the Liberals' voluntary confiscation program could cost the treasury billions of dollars.

As many members know, under the current Liberal government, our country's national debt surpasses the debt of every other government before it since Confederation. To the Liberals, a few more billion dollars wasted is not something to worry about. That is because they believe the budget will balance itself.

For some reason, the Liberals believe that creating more red tape for law-abiding firearms owners in confiscating their property will somehow stop gang and gun violence in Toronto. They are so confident this is a proven solution that they have even introduced another terribly flawed piece of legislation, Bill C-22, which doles out softer sentences for criminals who commit offences with a firearm. The Liberals are soft on crime. They are more concerned about standing up for the so-called rights of criminals than defending our communities.

We on this side of the House believe that victims of crime should have the first claim on our compassion. We also believe laws should achieve results, which Bill C-21 would not do. Indeed, Bill C-22 would even make communities less safe.

Unlike the Liberals, the Conservatives know our justice system must put more emphasis on responding to victims than catering to criminals.

The crimes the Liberals hope to prevent are committed by criminals who will never follow the laws and regulations of legal firearm ownership in Canada. Despite the Liberal order in council firearm ban last May, there were 462 Toronto shootings in 2020, an increase over 2018. After the Liberals brought in their firearms ban last year, the precursor to Bill C-21, the rate of shootings in Toronto did not go down but up. Why? Because law-abiding gun owners are not the source of gun crime in Toronto.

As a Conservative MP in 2012, I was proud to vote to abolish the wasteful and ineffective long-gun registry. It cost taxpayers almost $2 billion, yet it did not protect the public from gun crime. Instead, it needlessly targeted law-abiding Canadians and tied up police resources.

The Conservatives went further than simply abolishing it. We also enacted tougher legislation on the illegal use of firearms, something I know we tried to pass in this Parliament as well, but was voted down by opposition parties.

As well, the Conservatives also made changes when they were in government, but the data collected on firearm owners from the long-gun registry was destroyed, so the future federal government could not resurrect it after promising not to do so. One could say that the Conservative government passed measures 10 years ago to stop Liberal tricks. I say tricks, because in the last election, we saw Liberals across the country, especially in rural ridings, promise that a re-elected Liberal government would not bring back the long-gun registry. However, the Minister of Public Safety's answer in question period shows otherwise; that Bill C-21 would create a new registry.

As the member of Parliament for New Brunswick Southwest, I represent thousands of law-abiding firearms owners. Each was schooled on how to use firearms responsibly, how to care for them and how to store long guns. Each was approved by the RCMP to purchase, own and use his or her firearms legally.

These law-abiding citizens already follow some of the world's strictest laws pertaining to firearm ownership. They are moms and fathers, grandparents, sisters, brothers and, in some cases, kids. They are friends and they are neighbours. They pay their taxes and follow the rules. They enjoy spending their leisure time at a range or hunting deer, birds and moose in the woods.

These law-abiding firearm owners strive to follow all the rules and regulations on firearm ownership as outlined by the RCMP. Safety for them is not an afterthought but the chief objective whenever they use a firearm. I have seen this first-hand, as I have gone shooting with them on many occasions.

People should not take my word for it. They should go to the range themselves and watch. For every person, it is safety first. It is always about safety first. Why? Because they are responsible Canadians.

As well, many of them are legally allowed to possess restricted firearms. Under the Firearms Act, the RCMP scans their names through the Canadian Police Information Centre every single day. I did not misspeak. Every single day, checks are made.

Unfortunately, to the Liberals, these men and women are threats. They are practically criminals in their eyes. The act of them legally purchasing a firearm is seen as dangerous. The Minister of Public Safety has taken it upon himself to overreach into provincial authority and attempt to confiscate legally purchased property at taxpayer expense.

Bill C-21 as well as Bill C-22 are flawed bills that are poorly thought out and make our communities unsafe.

After the tragic killings in Nova Scotia last year, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety shared a briefing with parliamentarians. Those who joined the government's technical call on the Liberal order in council firearm ban last year will recall the exchange. When asked, “Would anything announced today in this prohibition have changed what occurred in Nova Scotia and how he accessed those illegal firearms?”, the parliamentary secretary for Public Safety replied, “C'est pas l'objectif”. That is not the bill's objective.

Other than using a national tragedy to vilify and harass law-abiding firearm owners, what would Bill C-21 achieve?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not understand why my colleague believes the bill would do anything. We know that 95% of gun crime in Canada is with illegal guns. The Liberals voted against a private member's bill from the member for Markham—Unionville that would have eliminated illegal guns coming into the country. They now have introduced Bill C-22, which would remove penalties for crimes committed with guns. It is clear that criminals do not obey the law.

Why does the member think that criminals will obey this law?

Business of the House

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will continue the debate on the budget presented on Monday by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.

Tomorrow, we will debate Bill C-21, the firearms act, at second reading.

When we return on Monday, we will have the fourth and final day of debate on the budget.

On Tuesday, we will resume the second reading debate of Bill C-12, an act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050.

On Wednesday of next week, we will continue with the second reading debate of Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (COVID-19 response).

On Thursday, we will have the first of eight opposition days in the current supply cycle.

Finally, on Friday morning, we will start with a debate on Bill C-22, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, followed in the afternoon by a debate on Bill S-3, an act to amend the Offshore Health and Safety Act.

That is all.

Criminal Code

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for introducing this bill. I have two questions to put to him.

The member raised the issue of sexual offences. What he is proposing is not just keeping a mandatory minimum but expanding it from 90 days to one year on summary conviction. Courts have already held in the country, in Yukon and Nova Scotia, that this has been found unconstitutional.

My second point is that I am asking him, given his long analysis and deep thought on the issue of mandatory minimums, what his position would be with respect to our position on this side of the aisle, that mandatory minimums contribute to the overrepresentation of people in the criminal justice system. It does not serve victims and, particularly, it does not serve Black and indigenous Canadians.

Given that reality, would the member be moved to be supportive of Bill C-22, which is currently before the House?

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking today at the second reading stage of Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which was introduced on December 3 of last year by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.

Introducing legislation to advance the implementation of the declaration is a key step in renewing the Government of Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples. I am speaking today from the traditional territory of the Haudenosaunee, the Huron-Wendat, the Anishinabe and, most recently, the territory of the Mississaugas of the Credit first nation. Toronto is now home to many diverse first nation, Inuit and Métis peoples.

Many of my constituents in Parkdale—High Park are strong advocates for the implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It is a privilege to represent such engaged and vocal individuals. My constituents have been clear about the importance of having a government that respects indigenous rights and plays an active role in reconciliation. This legislation would address those concerns by taking measures to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This bill is a critical step forward in the joint journey toward reconciliation.

I know that members are familiar with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, but to provide a bit of context, the declaration was adopted in 2007 after many years of hard work by indigenous leaders and countless Canadians.

We are grateful for the unwavering dedication of indigenous leaders such as Dr. Wilton Littlechild and many other stakeholders who worked tirelessly for many years to develop and negotiate the declaration.

I want to refer specifically to the long-standing work of James Sákéj Youngblood Henderson, who made UNDRIP a key part of his life's work, and who also happens to be the father of my colleague, the member for Sydney—Victoria. The adoption of this declaration was a very significant moment in human history, with the goal of protecting and promoting indigenous rights around the world.

The declaration contains 46 articles that address a wide variety of individual and collective rights, including cultural and identity rights, and rights relating to education, health, employment and language, among others.

It is the language piece that I want to focus on very briefly because I do feel that this dovetails with the other work that has been accomplished by our government and by this Parliament. In this, I am referring to the Indigenous Languages Act.

In the previous Parliament, I had the ability and the opportunity to work with the minister of heritage on the Indigenous Languages Act legislation. Through that process, I learned not only a tremendous amount about myself as a parliamentarian, but also about the legacy of colonial policies in this country over 400 years of settler contact with indigenous persons.

In restoring languages through the Indigenous Languages Act, which we passed in the last Parliament, restoring funding and now ensuring that we are working toward the passage of UNDRIP, we see a continuity in terms of protecting cultural and linguistic rights, among many other rights, for indigenous persons on this land. These rights are sorely in need of protection as we try to give meaning to concepts of autonomy and autodétermination, as we say in French.

The declaration itself also recognizes that the situation of indigenous people varies from region to region and from country to country. It provides us with flexibility and the opportunity, in consultation and co-operation with indigenous people, to ensure that rights are recognized, protected and implemented in a manner that reflects the circumstances right here in Canada. In May 2016, our government endorsed the UN declaration, without qualification, and we committed to its implementation.

Subsequently, we were very proud to support private member's bill, Bill C-262, in the previous Parliament, which was introduced by former NDP member of Parliament Romeo Saganash. Unfortunately, Bill C-262 died in the Senate in June 2019, due in large part, I will frankly indicate, to stonewalling by Conservative members of the Senate. However, what we did in the 2019 electoral campaign is redouble the commitment of the Liberal Party to reintroducing UNDRIP as a government bill, which is exactly what we have done with Bill C-15. This builds on the foundational work that was presented by the old bill, Bill C-262, in the previous Parliament.

Building on support from indigenous groups for the former Bill C-262 and following discussions with indigenous partners, we as a government used the old Bill C-262 as the floor for the development of this new legislative proposal, which is currently before all of us in this chamber.

The Government of Canada drafted the bill following consultations with representatives of national and regional indigenous organizations, modern treaty partners, self-governing first nations, rights holders, indigenous youth, indigenous women, gender-diverse and two-spirit people, as well as representatives from other indigenous organizations. The comments received throughout the consultation process helped shape the bill.

That was the genesis of Bill C-15, which seeks to affirm the declaration as a universal international human rights instrument with application in Canadian law and provide a framework for the Government of Canada’s implementation of the declaration.

Bill C-15 is but one sign of the progress I believe we are making in advancing reconciliation, affirming human rights, addressing systemic racism and combatting discrimination in this country. Members heard some of that in the previous speech from the member for Outremont with respect to other milestones we have reached as a government, but what I think is critical here is when we speak about combatting discrimination, in particular systemic racism.

It should not be lost on any members of Parliament how critical the timing of this bill is, given the moment we are in collectively as a nation and as a continent, with a movement taken on by all Canadians to actively combat systemic discrimination and systemic racism. COVID has shone a light on this, and we have been responding to it. Bill C-15 is part of the continuity of work that includes Bill C-22, which is about ending many mandatory minimum penalties that disproportionately impact Black and indigenous Canadians. Bill C-15 is part of that continuity and body of work.

This bill, Bill C-15, builds on the significant progress we have been making on implementing the declaration on a policy basis by creating a legislated, durable framework requiring the federal government, in consultation and co-operation with first nations, Inuit and Métis people, to take all measures necessary to ensure that federal laws are consistent with the declaration, to prepare and implement an action plan to achieve the objectives of the declaration, and to report annually to Parliament on progress made in implementing the legislation.

Enhancements we have made to Bill C-15 as a result of the engagement process we undertook with indigenous peoples, which preceded its introduction, include the addition of new language in the preamble, with the following objectives: to highlight the positive contributions the declaration can make to reconciliation, healing and peace; to recognize the inherent rights of indigenous peoples; to reflect the importance of respecting treaties, agreements and constructive arrangements; to highlight the connection between the declaration and sustainable development; and to emphasize the need to take the diversity of indigenous peoples into account in implementing the legislation. Other key enhancements include the addition of a purpose clause to address application of the declaration in Canadian law and to affirm the legislation as a framework for federal implementation of the declaration, and clearer and more robust provisions on the process for developing and tabling the action plan and annual reports.

Moving ahead with Bill C-15 is consistent with our commitment to address the TRC calls to action and respond to the national inquiry into MMIWG and the calls for justice therein. Implementing this declaration is the natural next step in our journey to advance reconciliation, something I mentioned at the outset. This would be a significant step forward in our efforts to build a renewed relationship with indigenous peoples based on rights, respect, co-operation and partnership.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples will be used as an essential tool in developing the Canadian framework for reconciliation, which will reflect our own history and our own legal and constitutional framework.

The bill proposes a legislative framework for the UN declaration, so that over time, as other laws are modified or developed, they would be aligned with the declaration. To this end, the legislation would require the Government of Canada, “in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, [to] take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the Declaration”, “prepare and implement an action plan”, and table an annual report to align the laws of Canada on the action plan.

As written, this bill would require that the action plan include measures to “address injustices, combat prejudice and eliminate all forms of violence and discrimination...against Indigenous peoples” and “promote mutual respect and understanding as well as good relations, including through human rights education”. The action plan would also include “measures related to monitoring, oversight, recourse or remedy or other accountability measures with respect to the implementation of the Declaration.”

I want to spend my last remaining time on an issue that has come up, which is with respect to free, prior and informed consent. Free, prior and informed consent is about doing just that. It is about the effective and meaningful participation of indigenous peoples in decisions that affect them, their communities and their territories. The participation of indigenous peoples as full partners in economic development is a reflection of their inherent right to self-determination. Achieving consent is the goal of any consultation or collaboration processes. This means we need to make every effort to reach agreements that work for all parties. To be clear, the concept does not confer veto or require unanimity in these types of decisions. If consent cannot be secured, the facts of law applicable to the specific circumstances will determine the path forward.

I would refer members of this House to the testimony of David Chartrand of the Métis National Council who said precisely this. I would also refer members of this House to the previous testimony of people like Romeo Saganash in parliamentary committees when we were studying the old bill, Bill C-262, in the last Parliament who also indicated that it is not the interpretation of the law that free, prior and informed consent, FPIC, would constitute a veto. Indeed, in literally the last 36 to 48 hours, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, as counsel for the Assembly of First Nations said at the standing committee looking into this bill that “The idea that free—

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Sydney—Victoria.

I am speaking today from the traditional territories of the Wendat, Haudenosaunee and Anishinabe peoples and the treaty land of the Williams Treaties First Nations. I am pleased to rise to discuss Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Our government has been clear. We are committed to renewing the relationship between the Crown and indigenous peoples based on recognition, rights, respect, co-operation, partnership and advancing reconciliation. Earlier this week, I rose in the House to speak about how our government is fighting systemic racism in our judicial system with Bill C-22, and I am proud to rise again today to speak to how the implementation of Bill C-15 is a step forward in protecting the human rights of indigenous peoples and fighting systemic racism.

In Canada and across the globe, citizens are debating the nature and promise of equality in our time. They are rightfully and urgently demanding change to fight systemic racism in our society. Human rights are universal and inherent to all human beings, and this bill is another sign of the progress we are making in affirming human rights and addressing the systemic racism present in the country.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples affirms the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of indigenous peoples. Article 1 of the UN declaration recognizes that “Indigenous peoples have the right to the full enjoyment, as a collective or as individuals, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms”, and that includes the right to self-government and self-determination. In addition, the UN declaration sets out rights and standards that draw on universal human rights norms, but speak more specifically to the circumstances of the world’s 370 million indigenous people.

The recognition of indigenous rights is at the core of our government’s commitment to build the relationship with first nations, Inuit and Métis people. That is why our government has introduced Bill C-15. The wait for equal respect and the human rights of indigenous people has been far too long and has taken far too many generations.

As part of our commitment to engage and collaborate with indigenous peoples, this legislation is the culmination of work with indigenous rights holders and organizations over many months past. We understand the importance of building on the work that has already been done to advance the implementation of the declaration in Canada. This is explicitly acknowledged in the preamble, which recognizes that provincial, territorial and municipal governments have the ability to establish their own approaches to implement the declaration. Indeed, several have already taken steps, in their own areas of authority, to do so.

We are ready to work with all levels of government, indigenous peoples and other sectors of society to achieve the goals outlined in the declaration and supported by this bill. We have also included a provision that specifically notes that the bill does not delay the application of the declaration in Canadian law. Achieving the objectives of the declaration and further aligning federal laws with the declaration will take time. However, we are not starting from scratch and we continue to advance recent and ongoing priorities and initiatives, which contribute to the implementation of the declaration in parallel to the process and measures required by the bill.

We have also responded to calls for clearer and more robust provisions for the process of developing and tabling an action plan and annual reports. These updates are incredibly important, and the action plan is a central pillar of this legislation. Developing and implementing the action plan means working together to address injustices, combat prejudice and eliminate all forms of violence and discrimination, including systemic discrimination against indigenous peoples; to promote respect, mutual understanding, as well as good relations, including through human rights education; to include measures that relate to monitoring, oversight, recourse or remedy, or other accountability with respect to the implementation of the declaration; and to include measures to review and amend the action plan.

With this legislation, we will fulfill the Government of Canada’s 2016 endorsement of the declaration without qualification, while also responding to the calls for justice of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls and the continuing progress on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s calls to action. There is no doubt that passing this legislation will help us move in a direction we all want.

Over the past few years, this government has taken a number of steps and measures consistent with the human rights framework of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Canadian charter. We are beginning to see positive changes happening, including steps to strengthen restorative justice, access to justice and diversion programs, and reform to our criminal justice system.

The Government of Canada, alongside the provinces and territories, is developing a pan-Canadian strategy to address the overrepresentation of indigenous people in the criminal justice system. Work on this strategy also includes close collaboration with indigenous communities and organizations.

We are also implementing impact of race and culture assessments, which allow sentencing judges to consider the disadvantages of systemic racism that contributed to indigenous people's and racialized Canadians’ interactions with the criminal justice system. We are putting in place community justice centre pilot projects in British Columbia, Manitoba and Ontario, as well as consultations to help expand the community justice centre concept to other provinces and territories.

Among other initiatives, we are also developing administration of justice agreements with indigenous communities to strengthen community-based justice systems and support self-determination. I believe this initiative to be especially important. It recognizes that indigenous peoples have to be part of the solution and that the capacity is there to improve justice within indigenous communities.

Bill C-15 is a significant step forward, but alone it will not achieve our collective goal of transformative change for indigenous people. There will be much work to do together after royal assent to develop an inclusive and effective approach to realize the full potential of the declaration. As a result, additional efforts and measures to implement the UN declaration will be needed, and as I just listed, the Government of Canada has begun work on additional efforts and measures. Certainly, there is much more work to do to support indigenous communities to a better state of health and security, but these are important steps forward. While the important national work is taking place, Canada will continue ongoing discussions with indigenous peoples to make progress together on our shared priorities of upholding human rights, advancing reconciliation, exercising self-determination, closing socio-economic gaps and eliminating the systemic barriers facing first nations, Inuit and Métis people.

Change is happening. Our government and our society are evolving as we learn the importance of doing things differently in a way that is better and fairer for all of us. Implementing the UN declaration is something the indigenous people in Canada have long called for, and it is a change we want to see come to fruition.

Criminal Code

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I urge all members to support this important bill.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

You're right. I did have my hand up. I was hoping to at least get on the record the last time we met a couple of weeks ago. Fortunately for me, I'll be able to get on the record now.

It's such a pleasure, it really and truly is, to be back on PROC and to be afforded the opportunity to speak. It's been a number of years. I've always thought of PROC as one of those standing committees that is held in fairly high esteem, Madam Chair, as you and other members are no doubt aware. Often other committees will look at what's happening in PROC and things that take place in PROC will often disseminate to other committees.

For many years I served in PROC, in particular while I was in opposition. Since being in government, some members may have preferred that I not attend PROC because I was a parliamentary secretary and maybe too strongly linked to it. Nowadays, given what's taken place....

The deputy House leader had it right on. I don't think anyone could have said it any better. The way in which she often speaks I always find very inspiring. She speaks at a level that embodies what I think all politicians strive for. That's to have emotional passion and connection with real people, demonstrating so well how we need to care for people. In that, I think she is second to no other inside the House of Commons in her ability to empathize and sympathize with the public as a whole and as individuals. That's why I appreciate some of the words that she was starting to say concerning what the priority of this government really is.

I've been afforded many opportunities to address a wide variety of issues inside the House of Commons. I've never taken it for granted, nor have I ever taken for granted what takes place in this particular committee. This committee, I believe, needs to be able to demonstrate leadership—leadership that says that in a pandemic, we can get the job done, the job that's necessary; that we're able to get it done.

I must say I am somewhat disappointed. I'm disappointed because I believe in part there's a certain faction rooted within the Conservative House leadership team but which goes beyond it, which is starting to play as a very destructive force. I've made reference to the destructive force inside the House of Commons. The opposition is using partisan politics at a time when we want Canadians and others, including parliamentarians of all political stripes at all different levels, to work closer together.

I have had the opportunity to watch over what's been taking place in PROC. I've witnessed the official opposition leading the charge in ensuring that PROC is not doing some of the things it could and should be doing. The official opposition is more interested in doing what it can to cause filibustering, as some refer to it. I refer to it as more an opportunity for government members, in this particular situation, to try to focus members of the standing committee on what Canadians are so passionate about today.

There is so much more that the PROC committee could be doing. I want to get into some of that, but not until I get rid of a few frustrations that I have.

There is a good example from earlier today. I was going into the chamber anticipating that the member for Elmwood—Transcona would be moving a concurrence motion. I must say I was getting a little agitated. I was thinking about why they would want to move another concurrence motion, especially with respect to PROC, because the member for Elmwood—Transcona would be very much aware of Bill C-19. I'm sure that members of PROC are concerned about an election. After all, in a minority situation no one knows when the election is going to occur.

We continue to do whatever we can to stay focused on the pandemic, and minimizing the negative impacts of the pandemic. However, a part of that is that we need to be ready. As I say, the role that PROC plays is absolutely critical.

As I was going into the House this morning, I received a text. I'm not too sure exactly where it came from, but it implied that the NDP were going to be moving a motion for concurrence in an election report. I know the member for Elmwood—Transcona is listening. I suspect that was his intent this morning. I'm not trying to impute motive—I don't want to go against Beauchesne's here—but I would ask if that was the intent. The only reason it didn't happen is that the Conservatives moved another motion for concurrence. Right away, I'm starting to think, “Well, here we go again. The opposition is trying to frustrate the government.”

We are trying to deal with substantial pieces of legislation, and the opposition wants to play games. In one sense, I was expecting the member for Elmwood—Transcona to bring forward his concurrence motion, and then I was hearing that they were going to ask for leave to have the debate occur later in the day, after the House adjourned. I suspect at some point in time the member for Elmwood—Transcona will provide some clarification if that was the plan.

Here's why it's so important to this particular committee. When we talk about the agenda, when we talk about what it is that we should or could be talking about, staying focused on what the deputy House leader was talking about, and that is the pandemic, Bill C-19 is completely relevant and would be a wonderful thing for PROC to be dealing with.

I was hoping that I would get the opportunity in that concurrence debate to go into details about the PROC report. In fact, the first thing I did was call it up on my computer in anticipation that we were going to see a concurrence motion.

Now, that would not have been my first choice, because, as the government has said day in and day out, there is a legislative agenda that the government is trying to get through the House of Commons. At the same time, the government's focus is on the pandemic. I would have preferred, if we were going to be debating something this morning, that it wasn't going to be.... I believe that Bill C-22 is being debated right now, for the very first time. It's an important piece of legislation.

I would have preferred that as opposed to debating the concurrence report, we would be debating Bill C-19. Bill C-19 should have been a major discussion, a topic area for debate inside the House, weeks ago. It has been sitting there for a long time. We've actually attempted—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

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

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

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

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the member's position on mandatory minimums?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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

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

The hon. member for Lakeland.

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

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

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

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The House resumed from March 24 consideration of the motion that Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2020

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to give a shout-out to the member for Courtenay—Alberni. We are in neighbouring ridings on Vancouver Island, and I always appreciate his interventions in the House and the work that he does on behalf of his constituents.

I am also pleased to be participating in today's debate to represent the good people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford and give some of my thoughts on Bill C-14, which is coming back to the House after its long journey through committee and is to implement certain provisions of the economic statement that was tabled in the House all the way back on November 30, 2020. I have a feeling that the bill, in a week's time, is going to be greatly overshadowed by the federal budget: the first one we are going to have seen in two years. It is going to be interesting to see what the government does with its budget implementation act and with Bill C-14, because it has taken a long time for us to get to this stage.

This is important to underline because a lot has changed in our country and around the world since the economic statement was delivered in November. In those days, we were just starting to get into the throes of the second wave of the pandemic. A lot of people were hoping that, by the spring, public health measures would have taken effect and we would largely be getting out of this ordeal, but that has not come to be. We are now very much in the grip of a third wave, and this one is very concerning because of the dangerous spread of variants of concern. Provinces such as Ontario and my home of British Columbia are seeing very worrying spikes, and this is certainly not a time for us to let up on our guard. It is certainly not a time, in particular, for the federal government to contemplate anything like an election, but it is a time to make sure the government is still there for individuals and for small businesses until our public health experts give us a clean bill of health. Until they declare that this pandemic is over, it is very important that all levels of government continue to focus on getting us through this.

I want to underline that people are exhausted. Pandemic fatigue is very much in place. We have been going through this for over a year. People are scared. They are worried about their futures, and people are wondering how much more we can go through. That underlines the importance of the federal government still being there.

I want to give a shout-out to communities like Port Renfrew, Lake Cowichan, Chemainus and Crofton, all the way down through the Cowichan Valley to its southern tip and the great city of Langford and the District of Highlands. The story is the same no matter which one of those communities people are in. Businesses have closed or they are operating on a razor's edge. People have lost their jobs. Front-line health care workers in hospitals in the region are dealing with so much. I want to give a shout-out to their efforts and say that we are certainly not all in this together, but we are in the same storm. Some of us have had a far greater ability to get through this than others, and for those who have been less fortunate it is very important that we collectively look after their interests.

In order for us to get through this pandemic, Canadians are looking for some semblance of normalcy. I agree with that, but I also think they are looking for innovative and ambitious measures to fight the pandemic and to get us on to the recovery. While there are a lot of things in Bill C-14 that I can support, unfortunately there are a lot of half measures. I want to see far more commitment to strengthening our communities over the long term.

For example, I know there have been commitments made recently by the finance minister with respect to strengthening our child care system. Unfortunately, this is a promise that we have seen all too often from the Liberal Party and, while in Bill C-14 we see measures to increase child benefit payments, it remains to be seen what kind of measures will actually be in next week's budget about strengthening the child care system. When I speak to many parents in my riding, the biggest concern aside from cost is availability. There simply are not spaces.

If we truly want parents to have full economic opportunity to participate in the workforce, particularly women who have been among the hardest hit in this pandemic, it makes economic sense to have those child care spaces so that small businesses are not losing valuable employees. When businesses are working with a staff of four or five people and they lose one, it can be devastating. It makes economic sense to be putting in these measures.

I want to go over a few things in Bill C-14. One helpful thing it would do is lift the interest on student loans for a full fiscal year: from April 1, 2021, through to March 31, 2022. However, this clause is a perfect example of how the Liberals like to govern: It appears they are tackling a problem, but they are really only paying it lip service.

Students have been particularly hard hit by this pandemic. I recently spoke with the Simon Fraser University Student Society. They are reporting that many of their members are using the food bank and skipping meals every single day to make their monthly budgets stretch.

Why not be bolder? Why not eliminate the interest on student loans altogether and give young people a real chance and opportunity at a time when society expects them to be at their most productive?

The federal government should not be profiting on the backs of students, through loans. We should be bold and get rid of the interest on student loans altogether. Let us give young people a real hand up to make their way in the world once they exit post-secondary education.

A part of Bill C-14 refers to payments from the consolidated revenue fund toward some regional development agencies. That is good to see, but members will recall that the federal government recently made a big announcement about British Columbia getting its very own regional development agency. That is a great thing. Our province is unique. It needs to be split off from the other western provinces to recognize our unique needs.

However, since the announcement, we have heard nothing else. The details on how this new B.C. RDA is going to come into being remain scarce. I certainly am hoping for much more detail on it.

In the final bit of my speech, I want to speak specifically on the opioid crisis. In Bill C-14, there is an authorized payment of $64.4 million for mental health and substance use in the context of COVID-19. I want to be very clear that I think any investment in this area is welcome news. My main problem is with the amount: $64 million of investment.

I acknowledge previous investments have been made, but $64 million spread across the country is very much a drop in the bucket. Communities like mine of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford are suffering under the opioid crisis. Every single death from fentanyl poisoning is preventable. I really need to give a shout out to the small business owners and front-line health care workers who are in the middle of this every single day. I live in a province that has been dealing with this crisis for many years, but last year we had a record number of deaths. The problem is not going away.

We do not need just $64 million of investment. We need a federal government that is going to step up to the plate, declare a national health emergency, and work with full decriminalization of personal amounts. I know the government has introduced Bill C-22 with a declaration of principles, but that is not going to go far enough. When the Province of B.C. and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police are both asking for decriminalization and the federal government does not deliver, that is a very big problem.

The federal government needs to step up to the plate. The time for half measures in this area is well and truly over. We need bold policy.

There is a lot to speak to in Bill C-14. It is quite a big bill. At this point, I would welcome any comments and questions from my colleagues.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to ask the member about the clause in Bill C-14 that is authorizing a health-related payment of about $64 million for mental health and substance abuse. Investment in this area is very welcome, especially for communities like mine. However, it seems that when the government has opportunities to do big, bold things to finally tackle the opioid crisis, such as declaring a national health emergency or even Bill C-22, the recent justice bill, they are full of half measures.

To this day, with all the statistics in place, why has the government not taken the big, bold steps to finally confront and put an end to the opioid crisis, which is ravaging so many small communities like mine?

Criminal Code

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-22. In our opinion, this is an important bill that deserves to be carefully examined in committee and then debated in the House.

The Bloc Québécois believes in the principle of honest and impartial deliberations before an impartial court. We think it is important that judges have the necessary discretion to render appropriate decisions. They must first decide whether a crime has been committed and then they must determine the sentence for that crime, if applicable.

Some rather tragic situations have occurred in the current context, where Parliament decided a few years ago to tie the hands of judges with minimum sentences. I am thinking of a relatively recent case. Two or three years ago, a young man who was about 22 or 23 years old had a girlfriend who was about 15. He was in a relationship with her. The parents of both young people were okay with it and consented to it. The young people were open about the fact that they were dating. There were no secrets. At one point, the young man was sentenced, and the Court of Appeal had to reduce that sentence. The Court of Appeal indicated in its decision that it was rather absurd to impose minimum sentences in situations like this one, where the judge clearly needed to be able to exercise some discretion and use judgment in enforcing the appropriate standards.

We think judges should have that discretion, so we are in favour of getting rid of mandatory minimums wherever possible.

That said, eliminating mandatory minimums does not mean a free-for-all. It means that judges we trust, who have a modicum of intelligence, experience and knowledge of the justice system, will be able to adjust a sentence, instead of simply imposing sentences over which they have no discretion whatsoever, just because lawmakers decided at some point that it should be that way. That is one thing.

I would say that our confidence in the justice system shows in the objections we have repeatedly raised, as all my parliamentary colleagues have witnessed, with regard to the Liberal government's partisan appointment process. I can still hardly believe that we were told they were using the infamous “Liberalist” to check whether candidates for the bench had any relationship with the Liberal Party. That really bothered me because a system like that undermines public confidence in those judges. That was just an aside, but we have been consistent about that.

Let me just say that we think that the justice system should work and we should be able to have confidence in it. Our job as legislators is to pass legislation and ensure that judges are unhindered, that they are completely free to apply the law objectively and judiciously.

I would add that we must never forget that the job of the legislator is to decide what constitutes an offence. Our work on a criminal offence is to determine whether drug possession is an offence or not, whether murder is an offence or not. I hope it will continue to be, but theoretically it is up to the legislator to make those types of decisions. As part of the executive branch, police officers have to apply or enforce the laws voted in by us, and the judiciary has to decide whether the Crown is right, whether an offence has been committed. We have to be consistent and eliminate minimum penalties. I completely agree with that.

I also think that diversion measures are rather important. In Quebec, we have a rather unique system with young offenders and youth law. There were fierce debates several years ago before I was elected when the previous government wanted to impose minimum sentences on young offenders. In Quebec, we believe we must try to rehabilitate young offenders. In Quebec we have expertise on diversion programs. We are pleased to see that the current government wants to move the legislation in that direction.

Getting back to the topic of drugs, in recent years, drug addiction problems have been dealt with as Criminal Code offences. We believe that this is a public health issue rather than a judicial one.

I am not talking about drug traffickers. When someone brings 100 kilograms of cocaine into Canada, we agree that it has nothing to do with the person having a drug addiction. That individual does not need to spend time in a rehabilitation centre, but rather to be tried and duly punished.

On the other hand, when we are talking about simple possession or a young person with a drug addiction, we need to look after that person. That young person needs to be loved, treated fairly and supported in their recovery. That is what we believe, and we therefore plan to support Bill C-22.

I do not know how much time I have left, but I could go on and on about why I believe in the principles of diversion and judicial discretion. I also want to mention that I have been listening to my Conservative colleagues and, although I do not agree with everything they have said, I also do not disagree with everything they have said. They are right about a few things. I think the bill is far from perfect and therefore needs some fine tuning. We need to hear from experts in various fields at committee, propose amendments and improve the bill, because there is considerable room for improvement.

I have serious concerns about clause 20 of the bill, which would add a section 10.2 to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, giving peace officers, or police officers, the power to either lay an information for certain offences, to give a warning or to send the offender to a program, such as a rehabilitation program, an agency or another service provider. I think that rehabilitation programs are good, but I am hesitant to give police officers the authority to make this decision without any legal framework.

Personally, I like the system we have in Quebec. If a police officer wants to lay an information, they first go to the Crown prosecutor, who will choose whether to authorize the charge and may decide to send the offender to a program instead of proceeding to trial. The Crown prosecutor is given some leeway, while Bill C-22 would give that leeway to police officers.

I have a lot of friends who are police officers, and I have a lot of respect for what they do. I am not saying that they are unable to show discretion, diligence or good judgment, but I still believe that Crown prosecutors or the director of criminal and penal prosecutions should have some oversight over this specific issue.

New clause 10.4, which the bill would add to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, states that the police force in question may keep a record or registry of any warnings or referrals. Should the “may” not be a “must”? That would ensure that there is a record of all of the warnings and referrals made by the police. What is more, should a provision not be added to enable the director of criminal and penal prosecutions to check that record from time to time or to ensure diligent follow-up? I do not think that leaving all the discretionary power in the hands of the police without any follow-up or oversight is the right solution.

I am not willing to give carte blanche with regard to Bill C-22. I think we need to examine it. I would like to hear what police officers think of the bill. I would also like to hear from people working in detox facilities or in offender rehabilitation. I would like to hear from all of those people and from Crown prosecutors, but I do not know how comfortable they would feel testifying before a parliamentary committee.

I would like to examine every aspect of these provisions because this is so important. I have to say that I am a little disappointed to see this happening at the end of the legislative process.

There has been talk of an election. Mr. Trudeau seems to be hinting at a spring or fall election.

Will we have time to pass Bill C-22 before Parliament is dissolved? I—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

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

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

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Employment Insurance Act

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Oshawa. Indeed, I will be splitting my time with my colleague.

As I said, if we were playing baseball, the umpire would have called the government “out” by now. That is not all. Even CERB, EI, had multiple changes, which is the main part of this bill after all. Canadians have been relying on those programs over the course of the pandemic. It is no surprise that the Liberals did not have them down pat. One would think that by now they would get it, or at least after three or four tries, but it seems we are still dealing with the same dilemma.

We know how the government loves to put things off to the last minute, and it has become what I call a “piecemeal” government. We see this again, with these new suggestions for implementation. Am I shocked? Of course, not. The mentality of the government to leave everything to the last minute, even its agenda, is well and good during normal years. We experienced that in the 42nd Parliament, and we see the same thing happening right now.

However, now we are dealing with a pandemic. Everything is an emergency and is taken with a different approach. We must be aware that we cannot do things the regular way. This is a time when governments need to be more proactive and determine how to get the best results from the best plans. The only words that come to my mind with what the government has come up with now is “not good enough”.

While obviously I do not agree with my Liberal colleagues on most things, I would have thought that we would agree that Canadians needed us to get this right the first time. This is the bottom line. We need to get it right the first time, not the second, third or fourth time. I have no idea why this is happening.

Now we have the highest unemployment rate in the G7. It is not acceptable for the government to get those programs wrong again and again. The government has to stop to think about what is going on and why we are facing these experiences again and again every time it comes near a new law or legislation.

As of January 2021, 213,000 Canadians lost their jobs due to the pandemic. That number is huge. Those 213,000 people are relying on us to get this bill right and get proper legislation passed that will serve them and help them carry on with their lives. Canadians do not expect us to keep screwing it up, not the first time, the second time or the third time, nor leave it to the very last minute by not planning properly.

The failures add up. For example, high school students cannot have money now for university. University students cannot find jobs after they graduate or pay for their tuition. Young Canadians who are looking to start their careers are facing barriers as tall as the CN Tower. New Canadians, who only arrived in our country last year or this year, are also struggling to find jobs and starting their lives here.

What has the Liberal government been doing all this time? It has not been getting support programs right the first time; it has not been getting it right the second time; and the money, of course, was delayed getting out the door. After all, it takes four months just to send Bill C-14 to the finance committee and now we find out that we do not have a budget this March either. It has been two years without a budget. This has broken the record as far as how we do finance in the country.

We have seen everything come in at the last minute. Last minute does not come without mistakes. Last minute does not come with proper results.

We know what the government has been doing. It has been sitting back, twiddling its thumbs and introducing bills that, honestly, Canadians never asked for and certainly do not want at this time, such as Bill C-22 and Bill C-19. Instead of debating bills on which Canadians are relying, ones that would fix programs that Canadians have been counting on getting fixed, the government has been debating, for example, a bill that would prepare the government to call an election during a pandemic and a bill that would lessen the penalties for violent offender rather than the bills that can support Canadians to get jobs, to get their lives in order and, of course, to get the economy back in order.

It is a very dark picture. It is very sad that Canadians do not get the support they need, but criminals, for example, face lesser penalties. The PMO is clearly lives in some sort of bizarre world to think that this is the way to go.

That is just begging the umpire to point to the government and say, “You are out”. I seriously cannot reiterate enough just how much of a disappointment this has been. The government does not have a plan for economic recovery. The support programs that the Liberals created have been without economic recovery. The programs have to be amended time and time again and that delay causes Canadians to suffer because it takes longer now to get needed support out to them. The list goes on and on.

Canadians cannot afford to wait around for the Liberals to finally get the programs in working order. They cannot afford to wait for vaccines to trickle in slower than a snail. They cannot afford to wait for the government to finally present us with a plan so our country and our fellow Canadians can start to recover from the effects of this pandemic. Canadians simply cannot wait.

When the government waffles and delays for months then suddenly introduces the bill, trying to rush it along, it is simply not right. It means we get poorly created programs that need to be taken back to the drawing board. It means there is a lack of transparency and accountability that we would normally afford a bill. It means that Canadians get stuck with an even longer—

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

Thanks very much, Minister. I look forward to working with you on that. I take you at your word.

Now I'm going to talk about a bill that's going to come to us fairly soon, and that's Bill C-22. The exchange, perhaps, will be a little less cordial.

I know you are committed to tackling the opioid crisis and also to tackling racial injustice within the Canadian justice system. I'm very disappointed with Bill C-22. I know it's consistent with your mandate letter, but it really misses the opportunity to decriminalize the personal possession of small amounts of drugs. Instead, it keeps those who have addiction issues in the criminal justice system. Instead of diversions and instead of taking away mandatory minimums—which I support—you had the opportunity here to decriminalize personal possession. We've had broad calls from the health field, from municipal officials and even from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, to consider more dramatic action to make sure addiction is a health issue, as you mentioned at the beginning.

Why is the bill such a timid one?

[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)