Bill C-5 (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.

Department of Justice—Main Estimates, 2024-25

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it was section 344, but what was the mandatory minimum sentence for robbery with a firearm prior to Bill C-5?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what was the minimum sentence for robbery with a firearm prior to Bill C-5?

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Chair, the minister is incorrect. I will give him one more chance.

Does he think it was wise to make it easier for a criminal to commit extortion with a gun through a Bill C-5, yes or no?

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

Madam Chair, there is a mandatory minimum penalty that is in place right now that was unchanged through Bill C-5. If someone does use—

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Chair, I will give the minister one more chance.

Bill C-5 repealed mandatory minimums for extortion with a gun. Why?

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Minister, Bill C-5 repealed mandatory minimums for criminals committing extortion with a gun. Why?

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Chair, Bill C-5 took away mandatory minimums for criminals committing extortion with a gun. Why?

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Chair, the Liberal Bill C-5 made it easier for criminals to commit extortion with a gun. It makes it easier for them to get out of jail.

Have cases of extortion gone up since 2022, yes or no?

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

Madam Chair, I appreciate the intervention of the member opposite, and I share his passion for addressing issues, including things that have a disproportionate impact on different communities, including racialized communities. What I can say is that the issue he is raising has been touched upon by Bill C-5, which proposes amendments that would need to be made. The Minister of Public Safety is working diligently on this very issue and is working within the parameters of the deadline that he just mentioned, November 2024, to address the amendments that are needed to deal with simple possession and those records.

Vehicle Theft

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's soft-on-crime agenda has led to a crime wave of motor vehicle theft, and Canadians are paying the cost. The cost of insurance claims for auto theft has skyrocketed to $1.5 billion, smashing the previous record. Not only are Canadians having their vehicles stolen, but they are also facing higher insurance premiums, thanks to the Liberal government's refusal to crack down on auto theft. In Ontario alone, the Insurance Bureau of Canada estimated that auto thefts added an extra $130 to insurance payments last year, and that number is set to go up again.

Conservatives would hit the brakes on auto theft. We would end the Liberal's catch-and-release justice system, which gives bail to repeat offenders within hours of their arrest, and we would repeal Bill C-5 to take away house arrest for auto theft, so criminals could no longer walk out their front door to steal another car. Our common-sense plan would protect people's property and bring home safe streets.

Public Safety

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to present a petition on behalf of constituents.

I rise for the 37th time on behalf of the people of Swan River, Manitoba, to present a petition on the rising rate of crime. The community of Swan River is demanding their voices be heard. They are living with the crime and chaos caused by the Liberal government's soft-on-crime laws, such as Bill C-5, which allows criminals to serve their sentences from home. In fact, the Manitoba West district RCMP reported that, in 18 months, just 15 individuals racked up over 200 charges.

The people of Swan River are calling for jail, not bail, for repeat violent offenders. They demand that the Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies, which directly threaten their livelihoods and communities.

I support the good people of Swan River.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was not forced by the courts to allow career car thieves to do their sentences in their living rooms playing Grand Theft Auto. He chose to do that through his Bill C-5. He chose to bring in catch-and-release bail through Bill C-75. He chose to pass a law allowing Paul Bernardo out of max pen.

Now, the Prime Minister can make another choice. Instead of trying to ban Grandpa Joe's hunting rifle, will he put extortionists who use machine guns in jail?

Protection against Extortion Act

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Madam Speaker, after listening to the debate today and the first session of it as well, I am quite disappointed in hearing that the NDP and the Liberals will not be supporting tougher penalties for such serious crimes as extortion.

The fact is that after nine years, backward, soft-on-crime Liberal policies have resulted in a full-blown crisis across Canada. Canadians are suffering the consequences of the Liberal government's failed policies on crime with skyrocketing auto theft, extortion, gun violence, random assaults and arson right across the country. Crime is not only more frequent, but the severity of crime has also gone up.

In fact, we see extraordinary crime statistics in almost every possible crime category. Statistics Canada paints a very grim picture, reporting that car thefts are up over 300% in some cities across the country, and the rate of firearm-related or violent crime in 2022 was the highest ever recorded. According to a recent report, violent crime is only getting worse, and Canada's violent crime severity index is at its highest level since 2007.

Extortion, which we have been discussing today, is up across the country. In Ontario and Alberta, extortion offences are up almost 300%, and 386% in British Columbia since 2015. This is the result of the last nine years of soft-on-crime Liberal policies allowing crime, chaos and disorder to run rampant in our Canadian streets.

Instead of addressing this Liberal-made crisis, the government continues to make life easier for criminals and their organized crime organizations. In today's Canada, it is common for criminals to get released within hours of arrest, allowing them to return to the same communities that they terrorized just hours earlier.

Under the current Prime Minister, our police are sick and tired of arresting the same criminals over and over again just to see them walk away unpunished. They know that despite doing their job and catching these criminals, the criminals will be released because of the bills the government brought in: Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. It is not surprising that Canadians are losing faith in our justice system. After nine years of the Liberals' catch-and-release chaos, the majority of Canadians do not have confidence in our justice system anymore.

None of this is normal. None of this makes any sense, but most importantly, it does not have to be this way. Our Conservative plan in Bill C-381 would ensure that anyone who commits extortion will serve jail time. This common-sense bill would establish a mandatory sentence of three years for any criminal convicted of extortion. It would send a clear message to organized crime rings that if they do the crime, they will do the time under a Conservative government.

The bill would undo the serious damage caused by the government's reckless Bill C-5, which eliminated mandatory jail time for committing extortion with a firearm. Not only would Bill C-381 restore a mandatory four-year prison sentence for committing extortion with a firearm, but it would also make arson an aggravating factor. Additionally, any criminal who commits extortion on behalf of a gang, criminal organization or crime ring would get a mandatory five-year sentence. Finally, we would reverse the damage done by the government's Bill C-75 and restore jail, not bail, for repeat offenders who continue to benefit from Liberal soft-on-crime policies.

This common-sense bill would give prosecutors and the police an important tool to go after the ringleaders of criminal organizations and allow them to put away those who work on the ringleaders' behalf.

Canadians deserve safer streets and secure communities that are free from extortionists and organized crime. It is our Conservative common-sense plan that would bring home safer streets, reverse the damage of the last nine years of the Liberal government's chaos and restore peace in our neighbourhoods.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will try to give a nuanced speech, without too much partisanship, because partisanship too often hinders debate.

Bill C‑381 fulfills a promise made by the leader of the Conservative Party. The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C‑381 in principle. This bill aims to reinstate mandatory minimum sentences for extortion crimes, particularly crimes involving weapons. My colleagues have gone into a lot of the details. I will avoid repeating the same things they said.

In this speech, I will briefly go over the position that the Bloc Québécois took during the study of Bill C‑5. I will reiterate our position on minimum sentences for crimes. Lastly, I will suggest a few avenues for tackling the sources of the problem.

When Parliament was studying Bill C‑5, which is now law, the Bloc Québécois was in favour of abolishing mandatory minimum sentences, except in cases involving crimes against the person. It is very important to mention that. We were in favour of abolishing minimum sentences, but not for the same reasons as other colleagues in the House. We were in favour of this because mandatory minimum sentences do not take into account the context in which the crime was committed. For some people, mandatory minimum sentences can take away their hope of improving themselves, of repenting, of getting their lives together. It also removes the potential discretion judges should have.

One of the reasons mandatory minimum sentences were removed is that certain populations are overrepresented in prison. The Bloc Québécois acknowledges that as well. However, is the problem really mandatory minimum sentences, or does it go deeper than that? For example, is it tied to socio-economic issues? Would removing mandatory minimum sentences really solve the underlying problem? We have to ask ourselves those questions. It is important to do so.

I am going to fumble my way through some of Thomas More's thoughts in Utopia. He basically says that punishing a crime without tackling its root cause simply ensures it will happen again. The more modern way of putting it is that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. If the same punishments are continually handed down in a broad, indiscriminate way and we fail to see any results in terms of helping people get their lives together and improving their socio-economic situation, then it should come as no surprise if repeating the same actions fails to achieve the desired results.

It is important to understand what is causing a particular problem. Several years ago, a father was sentenced to six months in prison because he was caught stealing medicine for his children, who had colds. It was an unarmed robbery, but he was caught stealing, and stealing is a crime. No consideration was given to the context of his crime. Nevertheless, he was sent to prison, which made his family's situation even worse. That is why it is important in some cases to contextualize and understand what happened. In other cases, the crime might be serious enough to warrant a mandatory minimum sentence.

It is a well-known fact that overcrowding is a problem in our prisons right now. We all know the impact that overcrowding has on people. The impact can be significant, particularly on mental health, but also on the physical health of inmates. These effects have been linked to an increase in violence and they undermine inmates' ability to integrate into the community and engage in good behaviour.

When prisons are overcrowded, inmates are always on high alert. When people's thoughts are focused mainly on their safety, they spend a lot less time thinking about empowerment or getting their lives back on track, even in prison.

Yes, we support minimum sentences for crimes against the person, but with some allowance made to depart from them in exceptional circumstances. The word “exceptional” is important because it refers to an exception, something that very rarely happens. If used indiscriminately and without regard for the circumstances of the offence or the situation of individuals, minimum sentences can create injustice. It seems quite a paradox that the justice system could ultimately create injustice.

We must ensure that our justice system does not cause injustice. Nevertheless, we believe that maintaining mandatory minimum sentences for violent crimes is justified, because we believe that legislators have the legitimate authority to rank crimes in order of severity and that mandatory minimum sentences ensure that the penalties reflect that ranking. It should be noted that the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased over the past few years, especially firearm-related violent crime. In Ontario, there were 1,016 more cases, or a 24% increase; in New Brunswick, there were 64 more cases, or a 24% increase; in British Columbia, there were 194 more cases, or a 12% increase. This is serious, and we must take action. I will come back to how we might do that.

During our study of Bill C‑5, lawyer Julie Desrosiers told us that if we decided to keep minimum sentences in some cases, we should also provide a possibility of making an exception to them in exceptional circumstances. What I suggested just now has the support of Julie Desrosiers. Her colleague Mr. Henry also mentioned it. If a minimum sentence is prescribed and the judge is not given the discretion to depart from it in exceptional circumstances, the sentence will not reflect the complexity of reality. Let us also focus on the sources of the problem, namely protecting our borders, education, social integration, socio-economic support. Let us not cause injustice from birth. I invite everyone to read Thomas More's very edifying writings on this topic.

Let us think back to the Heritage Minute about the Klondike, where the RCMP officer would not let anyone with a weapon into Canada. Right now, our borders are like Swiss cheese, and weapons that should not be crossing our borders are constantly being let into the country. Violence is unacceptable in Canada and Quebec, and the mandatory minimum sentences for serious crimes against the person serve as a reminder that it is completely inappropriate and unacceptable to use violence against others. That is also in keeping with our history, or at least the prouder moments in our history.

Lastly, the Bloc Québécois invites the government to keep the promise of Quebec and Canadian society, which is that everyone can succeed and live a good life within the law. In order for that to happen, the necessary foundations must be laid, and those who did not have those foundations must be given an opportunity to get back on track. Everyone has the right to a second chance, but we need to send the message that violence is unacceptable and that, eventually, something has to give.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak about Bill C-381, an act to amend the Criminal Code on the important issue of extortion, which is something that I and, I expect, all parliamentarians are deeply concerned about.

Bill C-381 proposes amendments to the Criminal Code to address the rise in extortion offences. I will focus my remarks today on the proposed amendments relating to mandatory minimum penalties, or MMPs. I want to say at the outset that we know MMPs do not actually deter crime. Our government knows this, and frankly, the Leader of the Opposition knows this. However, he will continue to pretend for political purposes that they do deter crime. Our government is committed to evidence-based policy, not empty sloganeering, to combat crime.

The proposed amendments in the bill would reverse reforms introduced by our government in Bill C-5, which reflected the government's commitment to the introduce legislation that takes action to address systemic racism and discrimination in the criminal justice system, while ensuring strong penalties remained in place to target serious crime.

Bill C-5 helps address the disproportionate negative impact that MMPs have on indigenous people, Black persons and members of other marginalized communities by repealing all MMPs in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act as well as a number of MMPs in the Criminal Code for which there was evidence to demonstrate that they contributed to the overincarceration of these populations.

MMPs remain for extortion in cases where a restricted or prohibited firearm is used, or where the offence involves a firearm and was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization. Such conduct continues to carry an MMP of five years for the first offence and seven years for second and subsequent offences.

I know that some will argue that Bill C-5 has weakened the ability of our courts to impose fit sentences, which is completely false. In fact, it is nonsense in my opinion. I think it is important to note here that the maximum sentence for extortion is life in prison. Judges have the option to give the full range of sentences for extortion, depending on the severity of the crime.

Courts have repeatedly highlighted the importance of proportionality in sentencing. Giving judges greater flexibility in their ability to impose sentences does not mean that offenders will receive a slap on the wrist or otherwise receive a penalty that does not reflect the seriousness of the crime. Giving judges flexibility ensures that our system works fairly in all cases, and I applaud the effort made by our government to ensure that our criminal justice system is effective, efficient and fair for everyone.

Bill C-5 was a significant step forward in addressing the overrepresentation of indigenous people, Black persons and other marginalized communities. To reinstate penalties that could contribute to overincarceration would be contrary to the government's ongoing commitment to tackling systemic racism in the criminal justice system.

What is more, research shows that increased use of MMPs has also had significant impacts on the criminal justice system. The Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Jordan has brought heightened attention to the issue of trial delays. The imposition of MMPs can exacerbate delays in the trial process, as accused persons may be more inclined to exercise their right to trial rather than accept a guilty plea and face a minimum mandatory provision.

Evidence also shows that MMPs do not support deterrence from crime. Rather, they increase costs for all levels of government, diverting finite resources from evidence-based crime prevention programs. This is the position taken now by former Stephen Harper legal adviser Ben Perrin. I want to note some of his statements on MMPs. He said, “If history is any judge, [the Leader of the Opposition]’s MMPs may not be worth the paper they’re printed on. What’s worse, even if they do pass constitutional muster, they will only exacerbate the...challenges facing the criminal justice system.”

Here is another one: “MMPs are ineffective at reducing crime, may actually increase recidivism, are highly vulnerable to being struck down by the courts as unconstitutional, can increase delays in an overburdened system, and perpetuate systemic racism.” Finally, he states, “[the leader of the Conservative Party]’s idea may actually backfire, leading to more crime in the long term.”

While it is true that MMPs can be a tool to denounce criminality, there are more effective ways to denounce criminal offending while avoiding the negative impacts that MMPs have on our criminal justice system. For instance, the Supreme Court of Canada has indicated that increasing maximum penalties is one way that Parliament can denounce and has effectively denounced offending. Again, here I want to note the maximum penalty of life imprisonment for extortion. Other ways that Parliament has effectively denounced certain types of offences include enacting aggravating factors and directing sentencing courts to prioritize denunciation and deterrence in certain cases.

Our existing legal framework provides judges with the tools and discretion needed to tailor sentences that reflect the gravity of the offence and the culpability of the offender. While it is important for all parliamentarians to recognize the serious threats posed by the rise in cases involving extortion, sentencing measures in the Criminal Code allow judges to impose stiff penalties in cases where circumstances warrant it, without being constrained by rigid MMPs that may not adequately account for the nuances of each case. This is why we will be opposing the flawed proposal.