Mr. Speaker, I rise to join the debate on Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. I will spare members the suspense and say from the outset that I do not support the bill.
The bill sends exactly the wrong message from this Parliament to the judiciary. It sends the wrong message from the government to criminals. It sends the wrong message to Canada's victims of serious and violent crimes. It also represents a missed opportunity to send a message that might help address a serious and growing problem, which is fraud, a crime that the current government has taken no meaningful action to address since it was first elected nearly seven years ago, but I will not have time to talk about that today.
Thankfully, in recent decades there has been a steep reduction in most violent offences and property crimes. Experts and pundits have theories to explain this, but the most recent years show that this overall trend may now be in reverse. It is against this backdrop that the government has chosen to undo a series of minimum sentences for offences that successive Liberal and Conservative governments have passed over a very long time.
Offences for which the government wishes to reduce minimum sentences include some of the most grievous offences on the books. One is left to wonder why.
Who are the Canadians crying out for lighter sentences on, for example, firearms offences? Are there Canadians who think that the Criminal Code is too harsh on gun traffickers or those who smuggle guns illegally from the United States into Canada? Do Canadians think that the judicial system is too harsh on people convicted of robbery with a firearm? Is there really anyone in Canada who thinks that robbery with a firearm should result in anything other than a custodial sentence? Does any Canadian think that if a person uses a firearm to rob someone, they should not do so with full knowledge that if caught they will go to prison? Is there anyone in Canada who thinks extortion with a firearm or discharging a firearm with intent is not a serious criminal offence?
I listened to the justice minister's speech when this bill was first tabled and debated at second reading. He spoke of the need for greater flexibility in sentencing and he used a hypothetical example. He spoke of a 19-year-old man residing in a remote northern community who, after having too much to drink and maybe on a dare from his buddies, discharged a firearm. He fired a gun into a building.
The minister suggested in this example that the current Criminal Code would force this young man into the prison system and into the company of other criminals, destroying his potential for life-long employment and setting him on a life-long trajectory of career criminality. The justice minister's hypothetical critique of a mandatory sentence for this hypothetical crime is riddled with a series of false premises.
First, the minister falsely assumed that in this hypothetical case the police, the prosecutor and the judge would have no other choice but to charge, prosecute and convict this young man of discharging a firearm with intent and sending him to a mandatory sentence.
Second, the minister, in choosing this example, deliberately chose to characterize drunkenly shooting up a building as a minor offence. There was a certain amount of arrogance in assuming that a drunken late-night shooting was somehow more acceptable in a northern community than perhaps in his Montreal riding.
I disagree with the minister. Discharging a firearm is a serious crime with potentially life-altering consequences for victims that ought to carry life-altering consequences for the shooter, such as a custodial sentence should their actions actually meet the high bar for conviction that firing with intent would carry.
Gun crimes are not the only offence for which this bill would reduce floor sentences. Bill C-5 would reduce the penalties for kidnapping and human trafficking, and it would allow for conditional sentences of house arrest instead of prison for those who abduct vulnerable Canadians and force them into unpaid labour or into the sex trade.
I ask again, who wants lighter sentences for human trafficking? Do we live in a country where normal people, even legal experts, would say that the Criminal Code is too strong and inflexible in the way that it robs judges of the flexibility to allow human traffickers and rapists to serve their sentences in their own homes?
Allowing offenders convicted of sexual assault, kidnapping or human trafficking to serve sentences in their homes in their communities would be the ultimate insult to their victims. We all know that the majority of these crimes go unreported, and that is exactly why. Most victims of sexual assault have no confidence, as it is now, that justice will be done if they come forward. The very knowledge that the perpetrators of sexual assault could receive a community sentence is a disincentive to victims of sexual assault to report the crime.
Bill C-5 would also weaken sentencing for criminals at the very top of criminal enterprises: the deadly opioid epidemic. This bill would reduce minimum penalties for the production and trafficking of schedule 1 drugs. We are not talking about simple possession, and we are not talking about street-level addicts who are selling drugs to finance their habit. We are talking about producers and importers of fentanyl and heroin. Every day, these drugs kill Canadians, and every day these drugs create misery and deprivation that rip families apart, yet this bill would reduce the minimum penalties for criminals who illegally manufacture these drugs to be sold to the most desperate and vulnerable members of our society.
If someone manufactures the illegal opioids that are killing Canadians, they belong in prison.
As we have heard, this bill would eliminate the necessity of a custodial sentence for those convicted of crimes that include armed robbery, kidnapping, sexual assault, gun trafficking, opioid production and a bunch of others. What about the administration of justice? The minister has argued that the existence of mandatory prison sentences clogs up the system. Setting aside the question of whether mandatory penalties cause delays within the courts, let us instead ask whether this is relevant in the context of serious violent crime.
The reason for floor sentences for criminals who commit serious and violent crimes is to protect the public from dangerous offenders, to allow communities time to recover from victimization, to address issues such as witness intimidation and, most importantly, to ensure that punishment is proportionate to crime.
If the argument against floor sentences for these crimes is simply to relieve congestion in the courts and reduce the number of people in prison, then I must disagree with proponents of this bill. If our courts are congested, and delay is denying the public, the accused and the victims of justice, the minister should get serious about timely judicial appointments, instead of trying to blame those who disagree with him on the necessity of floor sentence requirements for serious, violent offences.
The member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River raised an important point when he pointed out that peace officers, prosecutors and judges already do what they can to divert non-violent offenders away from prison into other programs. I agree that prison is not the only, nor even the most suitable, option for non-violent offenders when other programs can adequately punish their crimes, contribute to public safety and increase the chances of successful reintegration. One can recognize this fact and still object to this bill.
The point of floor sentences is not to railroad the judiciary into certain decisions or to unduly diminish judges' discretion. It is to ensure that justice is done and the public is protected from violent offenders.
Finally, legislating effective sentencing would not pit the legislature against the judiciary, as the minister would frame it. It is an example of Parliament exercising its legitimate authority over defining criminal offences and setting floors and ceilings on penalties. Setting reasonable parameters for sentencing is part of Parliament's job.
In conclusion, Bill C-5 sends the wrong signals to criminals and society at large about the severity of certain crimes. It risks increasing crime rates and victimization, it continues to miss the mark on addressing gun crime and the opioid crisis, and it goes soft on sexual assault, kidnapping and modern-day slavery.
As such, I cannot support the bill.
