There is a point of order by the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.
David Lametti Liberal
This bill has received Royal Assent and is, or will soon become, law.
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.
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.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-5s:
This is a computer-generated summary of the speeches below. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Bill C-5 aims to address systemic racism in the justice system and reduce recidivism by amending the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. It proposes repealing certain mandatory minimum penalties, allowing for greater use of conditional sentences, and encouraging diversion measures for simple drug possession offenses. The bill seeks to promote fairer sentencing outcomes, especially for Indigenous, Black, and marginalized communities, while maintaining public safety by holding offenders accountable for serious crimes.
Liberal
Conservative
NDP
Bloc
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont
There is a point of order by the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative leadership race has nothing to do with the member's speech and he should not be getting into it.
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont
That is getting into debate.
The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am always absolutely fascinated by the member for Kingston and the Islands, but I have not been able to follow the last 10 minutes of his speech, so I do not think the Conservatives are correct in saying this may not have anything to do with it because it has been very hard to get a coherent message of what he is actually saying.
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont
That was not a point of order either.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member for Timmins—James Bay making that comment. Perhaps we can sit down and I could get into more detail if what I am saying is not resonating with him. I would be more than happy to do that at the appropriate time.
The reality of the situation is that we are seeing the Conservatives try to drum up fear out there, because they are doing it in ways that do not represent what is actually in this bill. I already made this point clear earlier, when I talked about the member for Kildonan—St. Paul saying—
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont
Order. I know people are trying to be helpful, but the member has three minutes and 33 seconds remaining in his speech and I am sure he wants to finish.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, I will end with the Bloc's position on this. I will stop picking on the Conservatives and I will turn to the Bloc. I see this wicked and very dramatically evolving change of heart with the Bloc in terms of its position on this bill. Bloc members seem to now be sitting on the fence. The member for Shefford said earlier that this just might not be the right time for this bill, as if in a couple of months it might be or maybe a few months ago it could have been. They are on the fence. I think they just need a bit of a push at this point to come over.
The member for Shefford, if I remember correctly, also talked about exceptional circumstances. She said she thinks that under certain exceptional circumstances, mandatory minimums might be appropriate, but under other circumstances, more regular circumstances perhaps, they would not be. I would suggest it is very clear, based on what we have seen in our own data as to what has happened over the past few decades, that mandatory minimums do not work and that it is time we actually start to develop strategies that help to rehabilitate individuals so that they can indeed become productive members of society again. At the end of the day, that is what we want. That is what we should want.
I get a kick out of it. The Conservatives are clapping right now in a very facetious manner, as if to suggest that should not be our overall objective and goal, and I think it should be. We have a role. We call it “corrections” because we are looking to help people get better and to change their lives so that they can become productive and contributing members of society once again. Unfortunately, time after time, we see Conservatives go down the exact same road with respect to their approach on this. I certainly disagree with them, and I most certainly will be voting in favour of this bill.
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Mr. Speaker, I found it interesting that during his speech, the member said we are not going to be dealing with conditional sentence orders on some sort of sexual offence, as I heard it, but I cannot remember the term he used.
I will remind him that about two weeks ago, I brought up a case in the House where a seven- or eight-year-old was victimized by the child's caregiver. That person received a conditional sentence order. My reason for rising on that very point was to say that it is incumbent on Parliament to change the framework that led to these types of decisions. This decision may have been a rarity, but the point is that Canadians come to us, as I am sure they do to the hon. member and certainly to me, and say an outcome was unacceptable.
Why is it so wrong, if Canadians think an outcome is unacceptable, that it is being represented in the House through a mandatory minimum?
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not know the details of that case, so I do not think it would be appropriate for me to speculate on it. I will say that I have faith in our justice system. I have faith that individuals will be tried properly, including by, I am sure, very fine prosecutors, such as the member used to be, and perhaps he would like to go back to that profession, I do not know. Maybe there is a good Liberal in his riding who would like to replace him. I say that in a joking way. I have a lot of respect for the member.
I think we need to put faith in the institutions. I have no problem when individuals get up to say that they are not happy with an outcome, but we heard the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, earlier today, get up to say that they respect judges, but judges do not always get it right. Well, one should also, as I am sure this member, as a former prosecutor, would agree, respect the decision. If one respects the institution, one respects the decision.
Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
Mr. Speaker, I hope to provide a bit of wisdom to the House. I may not have a lot of experience, but I am the right age for the job. In response to the member's speech, I want to make something clear right away. The Bloc Québécois has been saying since this morning that it will be voting in favour of the bill. It is time to stop asking questions and interpreting our colleagues' comments.
We can see the glass as half full or half empty. We have decided to see it as half full because several measures, including the diversion measures for some offences and the abolition of certain mandatory minimum sentences seem justified. However, we must not think that keeping people out of prison is going to save us a pile of money. It will take money and support to help those individuals and there is no mention of that in the bill.
Why is the Liberal Party, who accuses the opposition of all sorts of things, unable to do some nuanced thinking itself? Why is it rejecting the amendments proposed by the Bloc Québécois, which included removing the offence of discharging a firearm from the list of offences requiring a mandatory minimum sentence? That is the type of example that called for nuance, but the Liberals do not understand the meaning of that.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, on why Liberals are not accepting amendments, one would have to talk to the Liberals who are on that committee. Again, I do not have all the details, so I am unable to provide an answer to that, but I will say, to the member's first point, I realize that today the Bloc has come on board, but that was not the case a week ago. That was not the case two weeks ago. As a matter of fact, this morning, the member for Shefford said that this might not be the right time to look at mandatory minimums, given the recent crime rate. She said that.
It is very clear to me that the Bloc is just recently kind of on board with this. For the member to suggest that it is all in and it always has been, I think it is a massive stretch.
I will say, on the last point that she made about investing money, I agree completely. It costs money, and we have to invest in the right things. I would suggest that, instead of investing in more prison guards, which, by the way, would be great for my riding, what we should be investing in are the tools and resources and programs to help rehabilitate people. At the end of the day, that is what is much better for society.
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Mr. Speaker, one of the, I think, good things about the bill is that it removes mandatory minimums for drug sentences, but it leads to a larger question of consistency with the government. The member and the government voted against the NDP Bill C-216, which would have treated addiction as a health issue and decriminalized it for everybody. The government continues to say that it does believe that it should treat substance use as a health issue, yet it continues to criminalize substance use through the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
If it is right to remove mandatory sentences from people suffering from addiction in the bill, why is it not right to treat all drug addicts across the country with the same empathy and ensure they are treated as patients, not as criminals?
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, that is because we cannot do it on our own. It involves getting the provinces involved too. They are the ones responsible for administering our health care system. That is why we were able to do it with British Columbia because British Columbia came to the table suggesting that we sit down to talk about how we can do this. Collectively, we were able to put together the framework.
What the member is suggesting is that, through a private member's bill, we should have just ripped off the band-aid for the entire country and exposed the entire country, without making sure that the provinces were in place to help with this along the way and to participate in their way throughout this process. I know this member knows that. That is why doing this, working with provinces, as we have seen in British Columbia, is the right and responsible way to do it.
I have no doubt that the federal government will look to other jurisdictions and the other provinces to see if there are more opportunities to continue to do the same.