Bill C-5

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.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, serious crimes always deserve serious consequences.

With Bill C‑5, we abandoned policies that clogged our justice system and our prisons, and we decided to fight systemic racism. The Bloc Québécois voted in favour of Bill C‑5 because it knew that minimum sentences do not work.

Our government is supporting victims of sexual assault. We are working on this. We introduced legislation and programs to reinforce support for victims, and we will continue that work.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Quebec National Assembly is concerned about the possibility under Bill C‑5 of conditional sentences for some violent crimes, such as sexual assault. It is clear that Bill C‑5 opens the door to problems.

The Bloc Québécois reiterates the fair compromise it had proposed during consideration of Bill C‑5 that was rejected by the Conservative-Liberal federalist bloc: to restore minimum sentences for gun crimes and armed sexual assaults, while allowing judges to make exceptions. This remains the most balanced approach.

Does the minister understand Quebec's concerns and, if so, will he consider this compromise?

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

Mr. Speaker, as the Attorney General, it would be inappropriate for me to comment not just on a case that could be appealed, but on a case where there is not yet a final decision. I will not speak about that case.

What I can say to Canadians is that the purpose of Bill C‑5 is to address systemic racism against indigenous and Black people in the system, and to set aside a system that did not work under the Conservatives.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is as though the minister always does things right.

Yesterday, the media reported on the case of Sobhi Akra, who pleaded guilty in January 2022 to sexually assaulting eight women between October 2017 and November 2018. Bill C‑5, the brainchild of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice, who got some help from our Bloc Québécois friends, could make it possible for this criminal to serve his sentence in the comfort of his own home.

Quebec has also pointed out that Bill C‑5 is a setback for the fight against sexual violence. I do not know where the minister is going with his answers, but it is obvious that there is a serious problem with Bill C‑5. We have said so from the outset. The Bloc Québécois supported the Liberals, but it is time to reconsider.

Is the Minister willing to change Bill C‑5 for the sake of the women?

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

Mr. Speaker, this Liberal government is facing mounting criticism over Bill C-5, and for good reason.

Quebec's justice minister, Simon Jolin-Barrette, tabled a motion in the National Assembly with the support of all members. The motion calls on this Bloc-centralist-Liberal government to amend the law stemming from Bill C‑5 to make sexual assault offences ineligible for community sentences. We are in this position because of the complicity of the Bloc Québécois.

Will they do the right thing and protect women instead of helping criminals?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Carrique, for being here with us.

I also want to offer my condolences on the death of your colleague. These are things we hope never to have to experience in life.

As far as the matter of bail before us today in committee, I would like your opinion on the repercussions of certain other legislative moves.

I touched on it with the previous group of witnesses.

No so long ago, we adopted Bill C‑5, which repeals minimum sentences for certain offences, including firearm related offences. We are talking about discharging a firearm with intent, which seems like a relatively serious crime to me, and for that type of offence, Bill C‑5 provides that there is no longer a minimum sentence.

In your opinion, does such a decision by a legislator have an impact on a judge's assessment when it comes to releasing the accused on bail?

In your experience, will there be consideration for the fact that the crime the individual is accused of committing is possibly less serious since the legislator just repealed the minimum sentence for that very crime?

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

I imagine that you followed the legislative process. Recently, Bill C‑5 repealed certain minimum sentences, including some for gun related offences.

I do not know them by heart, but I remember the offence where a person discharges a firearm with the intent of causing harm or injuring another person, or something to that effect. That seemed rather odd to me. Honestly, I had a bit of a hard time accepting that.

Do you not find it a bit surprising that if we repeal minimum sentences for gun related offences we might, in the case of parole, reverse the burden of proof and tell an individual that we are putting him in prison unless he can prove that he is not a danger to the public?

All together, are these two principles not a bit paradoxical?

Canadian Heritage

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

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who often says that the Bloc is picking fights, all of sudden say that the Bloc is his biggest ally. As was the case for several bills, bills C‑5, C‑75 and C‑11, the Bloc is a great ally to the Liberals.

Can the minister give us an answer? Will the government send Bill C‑11 to committee so it can study the request of the Government of Quebec?

Opposition Motion—Use of the Notwithstanding Clause

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

Mr. Speaker, typically, I think our answers are supposed to be as long as the questions, which means that I am going to be making another speech given how long my colleague's question was.

First of all, I could respond to the member for Drummond that his question does not matter to me one bit either, but I will try to be a little more polite than he is on that front.

As I said in my speech, it is clear that the Bloc Québécois wants sovereignty; it is a left-wing party that supports the Parti Québécois. There is no denying it.

The Government of Quebec is not the Parti Québécois. The Bloc Québécois does not have the sole authority to speak for all Quebeckers. That is patently untrue. I am a Quebecker and proud of it, as are my Conservative colleagues and even several Liberal members. We are all Quebeckers and we all speak for Quebec.

When I make connections between Bloc Québécois positions, I look at their platform and I look at the state of affairs, such as bills C-5, C-75 and C-21. I could go on and name more, but I do not have enough time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Perth—Wellington.

After eight years of the Prime Minister's dismal governance, he is now trying to turn attention away from his record, the cost of living crisis of his own making, the highest spikes in inflation in 40 years and the doubling of the price of rent and the cost of mortgages. He wants to turn Canadians' attention away from the record use of food banks, the record credit card debt and the fact that he tripled the carbon tax. He wants Canadians to forget that violent crimes have increased by 32%, that gang-related homicides have increased by 92%, that he has close ties to lobbyists who cost a fortune and that he has violated ethics rules.

The Prime Minister is trying once again to sow division in Canada. He is also trying to create a fake constitutional crisis. That is his latest attempt at dividing people and turning attention away from his failures.

The Bloc Québécois has no solutions for Quebec's real problems. On June 15, 1991, more than 30 years ago, in protest at the failure of the Meech Lake accord, Lucien Bouchard and a few other MPs founded the Bloc Québécois for a “temporary” period. Would I have been part of that group? Perhaps. However, the temporary Bloc Québécois of 1991 in no way resembles the Bloc Québécois of 2023. In any case, this was not what Lucien Bouchard intended at the time.

Today, we understand why the Bloc Québécois, like the Liberal Party of Canada, is completely out of touch with the reality of Quebec residents. It is using a full day, an opposition day, to talk about the Constitution, when there are so many other matters that are more important to Quebeckers.

As the Quebec lieutenant for the Conservative Party of Canada, I am trying to understand where the Bloc Québécois is going with its sometimes nebulous strategies. I want to make it clear that I am not criticizing the duly elected members, but rather the political party, which only cares about Quebec sovereignty and which, despite the rhetorical flourishes of its leader, has only one thing in mind: to bring down the Canadian federation.

This is why I question its strategic decision to devote a full day of debate to a subject that does not interest Quebeckers: the Canadian Constitution. Are there no topics that are more important to Quebeckers nowadays?

Despite its grand patriotic speeches, I sense that the Bloc Québécois is only focused on the Liberal government and its leftist agenda.

In the last eight years, we have seen a disoriented Bloc Québécois trying to score political points on various issues, but the people of Quebec expect their federal members of the House to work for them.

Article 070 of the main proposal prepared for the Bloc Québécois' upcoming national convention in May states: “We have the right to make mistakes, rethink our positions and change our minds”. That being the case, it should take this opportunity to course correct.

I can think of several examples of questionable choices made by the Bloc Québécois. Was it a good idea to support the Liberal government's Bill C-5, the infamous bill that allows street thugs to avoid prison time and sex offenders to serve their sentence at home instead of in jail where they belong? Was it a good idea to vote with the Liberal government in favour of Bill C-75, which allows the worst criminals to be released on bail when they are still a threat to society? Was it a good idea to punish hunters and indigenous people by supporting the Liberals' Bill C-21?

The Bloc has a very leftist agenda. It is the Liberal government' best ally. Are Quebeckers aware of that?

I hear members laughing. They can go ahead and laugh all they like, but facts are facts.

When Lucien Bouchard formed the Bloc Québécois, he clearly indicated that the party was meant to be a temporary measure. Over 30 years later, we are really seeing the wear and tear. Paragraph 018 of the Bloc Québécois's main position paper states, and I quote, “We, like the vast majority of Quebeckers, naturally think of the Quebec National Assembly when we talk about our government.” We see here a party that is still trying to find itself.

This political party claims to support the Quebec National Assembly and the Government of Quebec. However, during the most recent Quebec election campaign, the Bloc Québécois put all of its energy and resources into supporting the Parti Québécois and working against Coalition Avenir Québec, the party that won the election by a landslide and now forms the government. How can the Bloc claim to be an ally of the Quebec government when its objective is to get PQ members elected? Also, how can it be recognized as an effective voice for Quebec when it only managed to get three PQ members elected?

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's Bill C-5 passed with the full support of the Bloc Québécois and the NDP. This legislation endangers the lives of Quebec women. Consider the case of Jonathan Gravel. He was convicted of aggravated sexual assault and yet will be allowed to serve his sentence in the comfort of his own home, thanks to the Prime Minister.

If a man can rape a woman, and the only consequence is that he has to stay home with Netflix and a cold beer, then this government is deluded if it thinks it is protecting women. Shame on the Prime Minister. When will he do the right thing for victims and ensure that criminals stay behind bars?

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

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of this Prime Minister, Canada has become unrecognizable, but for all the wrong reasons. Writing on the subject of the Prime Minister's Bill C-5, columnist Joseph Facal of the Journal de Montréal wrote that “fanatical lunatics have taken over the asylum”.

He cited as an example the recent case of a 31-year-old woman who was found guilty of repeatedly beating her 11-year-old stepson and depriving him of food and urgent medical attention. She was sentenced to serve 15 months in the comfort of her home.

Why does the Prime Minister always defend criminals instead of helping victims?

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that the minister is still trying to protect the legislation flowing from Bill C‑5. There is clearly a problem with the word “justice” in the office of the Minister of Justice.

Under this new legislation, a crook caught in possession of a fully loaded illegal firearm and a rapist will serve their sentence at home. That is the Liberal record after eight years. We are living in a country that does not prioritize victims' rights.

Could the minister admit that the Bill C‑5 legislation is a failure and send criminals back “inside” so that there may be justice for the victims?

Public Safety

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

Madam Speaker, my condolences to members of his community who have been impacted by gun violence. It would appear that gun-related crimes are a problem in the member's community and across Canada. Of course that is one of the reasons why we brought forward legislation to address that.

The federal government has taken a comprehensive approach to addressing a wide variety of factors related to gun and gang violence and other crimes. The government is continuing to make investments in the CBSA and the RCMP to strengthen border controls and to reduce the number of guns being smuggled by criminals across borders. These investments are working. Thanks to the hard-working members of the RCMP and the CBSA, we have seen an increase in gun seizures and arrests at our borders and we expect this trend to continue.

We are also continuing to work with provinces, territories, municipalities and indigenous communities to develop gun and gang prevention and intervention initiatives.

Some have suggested that the government is not treating firearms crime seriously because Bill C-5 repealed the mandatory minimum penalties for some firearms offences. Repealing these MMPs does not change the fundamental principle of sentencing that directs courts to impose penalties that reflect the seriousness of the offence and the offender's degree of responsibility. Courts will continue to be bound by jurisdiction in this area and impose stiff denunciatory sentences where appropriate. At the same time, these changes will provide the courts with flexibility and in doing so will address the negative consequences associated with the rigid, one-size-fits-all sentencing laws that applied to offences that address a broad range of conduct.

I would further note that Bill C-5 did not alter the fact that MMPs continue to apply to gun crimes involving the use of restricted or prohibited firearms, like handguns or those for any firearm-related offences linked to organized crime. Serious crimes will be met with serious consequences.

Canada has a strong and effective criminal justice system, including its bail laws, but we know that things can always be improved. Canadians deserve to be safe and to feel safe. We all have a role to play in protecting our communities. I want to reassure Canadians that if someone poses a significant threat to public safety, the laws tell us that they should not be released on bail.

I look forward to continuing to work with the Minister of Justice, provinces and territories, and parliamentarians, including on the upcoming study at the justice committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I am here tonight to elaborate on something that is related to our opposition day motion today. It was a question I put to the government back in November about violent crime, Bill C-5 and the current Liberal government's soft-on-crime approach, which is not doing anything to make Canada safer.

In particular, I talked about how violent crime has risen 32% since the Liberals formed government, which equates to over 124,000 more violent crimes since they have been in government. I talked about local headlines of people “arrested again” for participation in a criminal organization, failure to comply with a probation order, 11 counts of knowledge of possession of a firearm while prohibited, two counts of disobeying a court order and two counts of breaching a weapons prohibition.

I am going to provide more local statistics from my own riding, because this is a prevalent problem. We see the media coverage all the time in our urban centres, but this problem of repeat offenders committing crimes is pervasive right across Canada.

Here is something from December 16, 2022, in my riding: “Charges laid in drive-by shooting”. Charges included possession of a weapon for dangerous purpose, careless use of firearm, assault with a weapon and discharging a firearm with intent. The key point is possession of a firearm contrary to a probation order. This individual also faces an attempted murder charge after a shooting in my riding back in August.

Here is another one: “Man suffers fractured skull in Hanover hammer attack”. I know the Prime Minister likes to speak about banning assault weapons. Well, guess what. A hammer used in an assault is an assault weapon, and good luck trying to ban all the hammers in the country. I do not think that is going to achieve much for public safety either. This happened at a convenience store. There were seven different charges, including several counts of breaching probation.

I have another one here, just miles from my own farm. It required significant resources from our law enforcement in the local area. A 53-year-old woman and a 48-year-old man were each charged with countless drug trafficking issues. The woman was additionally charged with two counts of disobeying a court order and failure to comply with a probation order. The man was additionally charged with two counts of breach of a weapons prohibition.

The fourth example is of a man in my riding. He has 25 weapons charges, with 15 different counts of a restricted or prohibited firearm and two breaches of a firearms prohibition.

Finally, I have one more example that required multiple police units to be involved. A 40-year-old man, a 63-year-old woman and a 24-year-old woman all got drug charges, and one was in possession of a firearm contrary to a prohibition order.

What is the government's solution? It removed mandatory minimum sentences for repeat offenders, including 10 of the 12 that were introduced by two former Liberal prime ministers, Trudeau senior and Chrétien. I do not know what the Liberal government had so wrong back in those days, but now we have seen every premier in this country table a letter to the government demanding bail reform. We also have police groups calling for stricter rules against these violent repeat offenders.

When are the Liberals going to repeal portions of Bill C-75 and Bill C-5 and stop targeting law-abiding firearms owners, sport shooters and farmers?