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

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

Mr. Speaker, Jonathan Gravel committed a violent sexual assault but avoided going to prison after eight years of legal proceedings. Instead, he received a 20-month suspended sentence that he can serve in the community. Why? It is because the Prime Minister, with the help of the Bloc Québécois, passed Bill C‑5.

When the sentence was handed down, the Crown prosecutor, Alexis Dinelle, said, “Now [the Prime Minister] and the Minister of Justice will have to answer to the victims of sexual assault.”

Does the Prime Minister now realize that Bill C‑5 is a monumental mistake?

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, since the Liberal government took office, violent crime has increased by 32%. There have been 124,000 more violent crimes under its watch.

Who are the primary perpetrators of these crimes? They are repeat offenders and drug traffickers with illegal guns. What is the Liberal solution? It is to remove mandatory minimums and target law-abiding hunters and firearms owners, people like this retired RCMP officer who has four handguns that were carried by his grandfather and father during both world wars. Unfortunately, due to the Liberals' handgun freeze, keeping them in the family is no longer possible.

Meanwhile, recent victims of gun violence include a 17-year-old killed in broad daylight and another police officer murdered by a repeat offender out on bail and prohibited from owning a firearm. After an armed robbery this past weekend, the regional police chief stated, “This violent incident was avoidable. Two of the arrested in this incident failed to adhere to the conditions of their release on previous charges. This is why we must pursue bail reform.”

Considering these disturbing facts, the Liberal government must withdraw its soft-on-crime Bill C-5, make bail reform a priority, and withdraw Bill C-21.

Firearms

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the leader of the Bloc Québécois are totally out of touch when it comes to the safety of Quebeckers. They are working together to criminalize law-abiding citizens, while allowing criminals to roam free in our communities.

Bill C‑5, which was passed with the Bloc's support, allowed a criminal to avoid jail time this week despite being arrested in possession of two fully loaded guns. In addition, Bill C‑21, which the Bloc Québécois also supported, directly attacks Quebec hunters.

Why are they so out of touch?

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

Mr. Speaker, we all want a safer society where serious crimes should be met with serious consequences. However, we also have a duty to follow the evidence and set aside failed policies that did not work. That is exactly what we did with Bill C‑5. We are putting resources where they are needed to ensure that our society is safer.

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

Mr. Speaker, our community's safety is obviously a priority. We have always said that serious crimes will have serious consequences, but we can also recognize that our justice system required reform. With Bill C‑5, we abandoned policies that were unnecessarily harsh, especially towards indigenous people and Black or marginalized people. These policies clearly were not working. We are proud that Bill C‑5 passed and that it will have a positive impact on Canadians.

Judges Act

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, that was precisely the point of my entire speech, that the attitude of the Liberal government around crime is causing an increase in crime across this country.

Bill C-5, which the member mentioned, also allows human traffickers to be placed under house arrest rather than spend their time in jail. Many human traffickers are able to control their victims from inside prison, never mind when they are inside the very same community they were operating in before. Many of them operate from their homes and are able to control their victims through a multitude of means. Not taking these people out of society to do their time and rehabilitate them is a complete failure of justice and leads to the reasons why Canadians do not report crime when they see it and why criminals feel that they can operate with impunity.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, in Bill C-9, there is a strengthened review process where allegations are made against judges regarding sexual misconduct. That is a good thing, but this is the same government that just passed a bill, Bill C-5, to allow criminals convicted of sexual assault to be able to serve their sentences at home, perhaps next door or down the street from their victims.

What does that say about the current government's priorities?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is my honour to speak to Bill C-9 today. I know this is always an interesting topic, and I have spoken to it at the other stages along the way.

I commend the Liberals for taking on the issue of judge accountability. It seems like an interesting topic for me, given the fact that Conservatives are often critical of the decisions made by judges across Canada. We find their leniency to be annoying. We find the overturning of the mandatory minimum sentencing to be frustrating, and all of those kinds of things, therefore we think there needs to be accountability for judges along the way.

Then there is the issue of comments made by judges in public. We have seen that become an issue. There are also the actions judges may take in their personal lives that are beyond the pale. It is frustrating to the public that folks in a position of authority and a position of stature in our society would behave in such a manner. These are all areas in which we need to have a level of accountability.

The member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke talked about the independence of the judiciary. That is an important principle, and the bill would maintain that, for sure.

The bill does a good job around personal behaviour accountability and accountability for comments made by judges outside of their role. It would not necessarily deal with accountability in terms of making judgments and things like that, so I would suggest perhaps there is an opportunity to go forward from here.

We will be supporting the bill. It is a good first step. We have heard from folks across the country around the appeals process. Conservatives put forward recommendations to not make the Supreme Court the final appeal process, but to make the Federal Court of Appeals the final appeal process, and I would have supported that as well.

Ensuring accountability for judgments is an interesting and more complicated area. For as long as I have been here I have been trying to come up with a solution for not only maintaining the independence of the judiciary but also having some sort of accountability for judgments made that are not in line with what the Canadian public agrees with. We have seen this very recently around sexual assault and people who are intoxicated. We have seen horrendous judgments from judges in that respect.

I understand there is the notwithstanding clause here, so that Parliament can pass legislation to clarify a judgment. However, we have seen how the Liberal government has been loath to use the notwithstanding clause and has condemned other governments for using it. The notwithstanding clause is an extreme measure, and it also comes with a five-year renewal process. I do not think that is necessarily a good process.

One of the more fascinating items that has come to my attention, and I throw this out there as more of a possibility, is around judge selection by having a panel of judges put forward. As I understand it, cases are generally assigned to particular judges along the way by a chief justice of sorts. There are jurisdictional regions from which cases come that are assigned to particular judges.

There might be an opportunity for the movement of culture within the decisions that are made by judges to put forward a panel of judges rather than one particular judge. Similar to jury selection, both the prosecution and the defence would then agree upon a particular judge. If three judges were put forward in a particular case, out of the three, the prosecution and the defence would have to agree on a particular judge.

That may in fact be the free market of judges, so to speak, a selection process that would ensure judges' accountability. Judges who were making poor judgments would not get as many cases, therefore it would be a kind of corrective action. I am not a lawyer. I am an auto mechanic, so there may be huge holes in this argument, but it seems to me that it is one way of providing judge accountability without going after the independence of the judiciary.

If this place deals with judges and their inaction or their overturning of laws, because there is an interface there, that would be problematic. Putting politics into the judiciary would also be problematic. We want an independent judiciary, and that is very important. I want to reinforce that. I just put forward the idea around the panel of judges and the judge selection process as a possible opportunity for another mechanism for judge accountability.

I am now going to turn my focus to more broader justice issues in this country. We saw the lowering of sentencing across the board in Bill C-71 and now in Bill C-5. We see how the removal or reduction of sentencing has led to an increase in violent crime across the country.

Folks come to me often about rural crime in their communities and how that seems to be on the increase. Some of it is not so much to do with the laws. The laws have not changed a great deal over the last seven years, but the attitude has. That is really what frustrates me about the Liberals. The Liberals' lack of emphasis on justice and their emphasis on the rehabilitation of the criminal but not on aid to the victims or survivors are the kinds of things that have really frustrated me. There is also the lack of taking seriously the crimes that happen in our communities.

I totally understand that there is a host of things, from our prison system to our justice system to our laws, that come into play. Then there is the administration of all of it. When people feel that the system will work, that their cases will be heard, that justice will be had and, if they are victims of crime, that the person will be taken out of their communities or their property will be returned to them, then there is an appetite to participate.

If none of that is seen to be happening, there is an increasing issue of people not being interested in participating in the justice system. That goes in either of two directions. It goes to desperation in terms of not feeling like their country cares for them, but it also goes to vigilantism, where people take things into their own hands.

The Liberals have completely failed in the administration of justice. It is mostly an attitudinal thing. It is not about the particular laws or the system. It is a lot about where they place their emphasis. We have seen, since the Liberals have taken power, that rural crime and violent crime across this country have been on an upward trajectory. That is because victims do not feel that they will get restitution for the problems they are facing. Criminals do not feel they will be held accountable either.

Constituents contacted me about some pickup truck rolling into their yard. They went outside and there were people stealing scrap metal or copper right out of their yard. They confronted them, and the criminals said to call the police and asked what they were going to do about it. That is exactly what is happening in our communities. It comes from the tacit support for the movement to defund the police, from the lowering of sentencing across the board and from the lack of concern for the victim.

It is not a funding issue. We hear the Liberals saying all the time that they have more funding for all of those issues. It is not the funding that is the issue. It is the attitude. We see it over and over again.

The case in point is probably the border security issue that is tangentially attached to this. Under the Conservatives, we spent a lot less on border security. We also did not have a big problem with people coming across the border illegally. People understood that if they came across the border illegally, we were turning them right back around. When the Conservatives were in government, that was the case. That is my major frustration.

Last, I will talk a little about the firearms situation in Canada.

The Liberal government has let the veil slip. It has been trying to ban, confiscate, make illegal and criminalize firearm ownership in this country, full stop. The Liberals always deny that. They always say they are not doing that. However, they have now let veil slip and have put in an amendment to Bill C-21 that includes hundreds of hunting rifles. They were caught, and now they are saying they did not mean to and did not understand.

The Liberals are the ones who say they know how to define firearms. They are the ones telling us they have the experts on their side. They are the ones who said they paid for all the studies.

If they have done all of that hard work, how come hunting rifles are ending up on the list? They are ending up on the list because the Liberals have let the veil slip. They have been after everyone's firearms, not just the handguns, which we were fine with. We said that if they were going to do this, they were going to do this. We do not think criminals should have firearms.

However, when it comes to hunting rifles and farmers having the tools of their jobs, that is where we have drawn the line. We now know what the Liberals' plans are when it comes to firearm ownership in this country. They want to ban it. They want to criminalize it. They want to confiscate the firearms of everyday Canadians. That is extremely worrying.

This particular bill is about judge accountability, and I commend the Liberals for it. I did not think they had it in them to bring forward a bill on judge accountability. I am happy they have. I think judge accountability is something we need to ensure continues in Canada. I have put forward another mechanism for judge accountability, and I am looking forward to having more discussions on that as well.

However, I am concerned that the issues this country faces around justice and law and order do not come from the particular laws and systems that we have in this place, but from the soft-on-crime attitudes of the Liberals and their lack of concern for public safety. This has caused a dramatic decrease in the safety of everyday Canadians, with the running wild, the unaccountability and the lack of fear that we see from criminals in this country as they operate on the streets of Canada.

That is what I hear more and more from Canadians across the country. Criminals operate with impunity. People ask me about this all the time. Why do these criminals operate in broad daylight? Do they not fear the police? They do not.

We hear from Canadians over and over again that these criminals fear nothing in Canada. They do not fear the judicial system. They do not fear our police. We need to ensure that our police forces have the political backing to do what they need to do to take these guys off our streets. We have to make sure that the justice system takes these criminals off the streets and puts them away for a long time to ensure that our streets are safe. If we do not have safety in our communities, we do not have anything. That is the reality.

Safety and security are the fundamental building blocks of a stable and strong country, and we must maintain that as we watch other things fall apart in this country. That starts with the justice, law and order issues in this country, not to mention the inflation issues, the border security issues and the inability to get a passport. There is a whole host of other things that are falling apart.

We need to ensure that our justice system works and that we feel safe to walk around the streets of Canada. Therefore, I will be supporting this bill, and I look forward to questions and comments.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, the courts have not struck down minimum sentences across the board. Mandatory jail times have always been a part of our Criminal Code, or have been for many decades, and continue to be. In fact, none of the provisions, I believe, in Bill C-5 were struck down by the courts, certainly not by the Supreme Court.

It was a choice made by the government to remove those mandatory jail times because, for the government, it is always about putting the rights of criminals ahead of those of victims. The Liberals provided little rationale on why they picked those specific provisions, which involve serious firearms offences and serious drug offences.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, this legislation would reform the process by which the Canadian Judicial Council undertakes reviews of complaints brought against judges for alleged misconduct. The judicial complaints review process was established more than 50 years ago, in 1971. It has a number of problems in that it can be timely, cumbersome and costly. These problems have been publicly recognized by the Canadian Judicial Council, which consists of 41 members, including all chief justices and associate chief justices of federally appointed courts. For years, there have been calls to reform the process.

The process, as it currently stands, can involve up to three layers of judicial review: the Federal Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal and, upon leave being granted, the Supreme Court of Canada. That process can take years and, in some cases, even as long as a decade. This bill seeks to address that by streamlining the process, although, I would submit, it does so somewhat imperfectly from the standpoint of ensuring procedural fairness. Nonetheless, the process the government has come up with is supportable, notwithstanding some shortcomings that Conservatives raised at committee.

The bill also seeks to enhance transparency by requiring that the Canadian Judicial Council, in its annual reports, to publish the number of complaints and how those complaints were resolved.

The bill would enhance accountability. Under the current process, where a judge's misconduct is not at a level that would warrant their removal from office, such cases can be settled behind closed doors with really very little transparency. This bill would change that by providing for mandatory sanctions. Those sanctions could range from requiring the judge to issue an apology to requiring the judge to undertake counselling or professional development training with regard for the nature of the misconduct and circumstances of the case.

The bill, on the whole, would protect the independence of the judiciary, which is vital to our democracy and integral to the rule of law, which is something that, unfortunately from time to time, the current government has not respected. In addition, with some imperfections, the bill would maintain procedural fairness, both from the standpoint of the complainant as well as for a judge whose conduct is being questioned by way of a complaint.

It is good that this bill has been brought forward. It is a bill that is the product of consultations that took place in 2016, the substance of which have been incorporated into this bill, on which there is generally consensus. However, I will say that it did take the Liberals five years after those consultations ended to get around to introducing a bill. Moreover, when the government finally got around to introducing a bill in May 2021, it went nowhere because of the Prime Minister, who called a completely unnecessary and opportunistic election. Following the unnecessary election, the Liberals reintroduced the bill in the Senate last November and then suddenly decided one month later to pull the bill from the Senate.

The Liberals then reintroduced the bill, Bill C-9, last December in the House and proceeded to let it languish for months on end. For six months, they sat on their hands only to finally bring it up for debate at second reading in June, just before the House rose for the summer, and here we are at Christmas still dealing with the bill.

I highlight the process to underscore how dysfunctional the Liberal government is. Here, we have a bill around which there is general consensus, and it has taken the Liberals three bills to proceed. While the bill would enhance public confidence in the judicial system, and judges are central to that system, the same cannot be said more broadly about public confidence in our justice system, as a result of the policies of the Liberal government, policies and actions for which the government gets a failing grade.

For the Liberals, it is always about the criminals and never about the victims. This, after all, is a government that allowed the position of victims ombudsman to be left vacant for nine months. Finally, in September, the Liberals got around to filling that vacancy. It was not the first time they left that position vacant, the federal advocate for victims, the ombudsman. They left the position vacant for nearly a year in 2017 and 2018. By contrast, when it came to the prisoners ombudsman, when that position became vacant, the Liberals saw fit to fill it the very next day.

That is quite a contrast. When it comes to an ombudsman for prisoners, the vacancy was filled the next day. When it comes to the ombudsman for the rights of victims, the government has presided over leaving that critical position vacant for nearly two years out of the seven years it has been in office.

This is a government that just passed Bill C-5, the do-no-time, soft-on-crime bill, as it has come to be known, which eliminates mandatory jail time for serious firearms offences and for serious drug offences, including trafficking and production of schedule 1 drugs such as cocaine, fentanyl and crystal meth. This is at a time when we have an opioids crisis. When 21 Canadians a day are dying as a result of that, the government's priority is to let those who put that poison on our streets serve their sentence at home, instead of behind bars where they belong.

That is a government that has failed to engage in that dialogue, which is so critical between Parliament and the courts. The minister failed to respond to the Supreme Court's decision to strike down the very reasonable and just law passed by the previous Harper government to give judges the discretion to apply consecutive parole ineligibility periods for mass murderers, including the mass murderer responsible for the murder of my constituent Brian Ilesic. His parents, Mike and Dianne, are very deeply troubled by the inaction of the minister, and I am glad that today he at least acknowledged he was open to reviewing that decision. That is the first time he has said that.

In closing, I will just say that the bill is a supportable bill, but it is cold comfort for victims and their families who, time and again, have been abandoned by the government.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Mr. Minister.

There is a lot of talk about Bill C-5. We know that the opioid and overdose crisis is complex. It's important to have a diverse approach in order to respond well. I think Bill C‑5 does just that.

Supplementary estimates (B), 2022-23, provide $3.5 million to support new detox programs that are supervised by drug treatment courts in Canada and to expand existing programs. Funding is also provided for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Can you provide us with a little more detail on these new programs?

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

Thank you for your question.

Bill C‑5 is one element to address this overrepresentation. Working with indigenous leaders across the country, who are doing much of the work, we are developing an indigenous justice strategy, which we expect to see the results of, that will target the very important issue of overrepresentation of indigenous people in the criminal justice system.

We also believe that the reconstitution of the Law Reform Commission of Canada will allow the commission to explore or further develop other avenues to combat this problem. We would also like to see the creation of a commission on miscarriages of justice, which disproportionately affect indigenous and racialized people.

We are using other measures and investing in community justice centres across Canada to find grassroots solutions.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Good morning, Minister. Thank you to you and your officials for being here today.

My first question has to do with Bill C‑5, which received royal assent on November 17, 2022. Can you tell us how the bill will ensure that Canadians are treated fairly and equitably within our criminal justice system?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm glad to be here today for the committee's study of the 2022‑23 supplementary estimates (B) of the Department of Justice Canada.

I would like to start by acknowledging that we are located on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabeg Nation.

I'm joined today, as you said, Mr. Chair, by François Daigle, deputy minister of justice and deputy attorney general of Canada; Michael Sousa, senior assistant deputy minister of the policy sector; and Bill Kroll, chief financial officer and assistant deputy minister. I thank the three of them for being in support of me today.

Over the past year, the Department of Justice Canada has continued working to address the tremendous pressures on the justice system.

We have made good progress on the postpandemic recovery, now that the health restrictions have been lifted. We have reduced the backlog of cases before the courts, and we have strengthened the justice system to better support the people affected most. We hope to continue that work through Bill S‑4, which is now before you.

We are continuing to support government-wide priorities, such as addressing inequality, systemic racism and discrimination, advancing reconciliation with indigenous peoples and assisting newcomers to Canada and refugees.

The funds we seek in the 2022-23 supplementary estimates (B) will allow us to build on this work by delivering on key commitments to transform our justice system and make sure that it truly focuses on the people whom it serves.

In particular, that means ensuring that the justice system is accessible and fair to everyone in Canada, no matter their background, income, beliefs or gender identity.

This work stems from our overarching objective of addressing systemic discrimination and the overrepresentation of indigenous, Black, racialized and marginalized people in the criminal justice system. We have taken an important step this year with the passage of Bill C‑5, which includes numerous reforms to make the justice system more fair and equitable.

We are continuing our work together with indigenous peoples to achieve the objectives of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and to make progress toward reconciliation.

Let me explain how the supplementary estimates funds will allow us to deliver on these priorities.

First, access to justice is a fundamental Canadian value and an integral part of a fair and just society. A strong legal aid system is one of the pillars that supports Canada's justice system.

We are continuing to make investments to address the strain on the legal aid system and to ensure the continued delivery of legal aid in immigration and refugee cases.

This is an essential investment, without which, some legal aid providers might have to stop providing services that vulnerable refugee claimants depend on.

Without proper resources and services we would see delays at the Immigration and Refugee Board and the Federal Court. This in turn would hinder government investments aimed at improving the asylum system's processing capacity.

This funding feeds into the department's work to fulfill the Government of Canada's commitment to addressing systemic racism in Canada.

The supplementary estimates (B) also include funding to support our efforts to address the overrepresentation of indigenous people, Black and racialized Canadians and members of marginalized communities in our justice system. As mentioned, this funding complements our work in other areas, including law reform, improving the diversity of judicial appointments and my mandate commitments to develop an indigenous justice strategy and Canada's first Black justice strategy.

The opioid crisis has laid bare the need for public health solutions to substance abuse rather than criminal penalties.

We have seen a growing demand all over the country for court-supervised addictions treatment programs provided by drug treatment courts. In an effort to address those needs, the government allocated $40.4 million in budget 2021 over five years, beginning in 2021‑22, and $10 million ongoing for the justice department and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

That includes $24.5 million over five years starting this year and $7 million ongoing in contributions funding for the justice department.

These measures will work to support justice for all.

This brings me to our efforts to advance reconciliation with indigenous peoples, which is central to so much of my mandate.

A key component of reconciliation is ensuring that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is properly implemented, in consultation and co‑operation with indigenous peoples.

We are in the process of an extensive distinctions-based process to engage first nations, Inuit and Métis communities to develop an action plan by June 2023.

We are also working with indigenous peoples on an indigenous justice strategy. This past year, our government appointed a special interlocutor for missing children, unmarked graves and burial sites associated with Indian residential schools. The special interlocutor, Ms. Kimberly Murray, will work closely and collaboratively with indigenous leaders, communities, survivors, families and experts to identify needed measures and recommend a new federal legal framework to ensure the respectful and culturally appropriate treatment and protection of unmarked graves and burial sites of children at former residential schools.

We are also supporting Indigenous Services Canada and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada in their work to implement An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, which came into force on January 1, 2020.

Accordingly, Justice Canada is requesting $510,000 in supplementary estimates (B) to enhance the department's capacity to provide expert legal advice on interpretation and implementation issues related to section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

We expect that this additional funding will be essential over a period of five years given the national scope of the legal issues, the extent of their impact and their newness.

In short, Mr. Chair, the funding requested through supplementary estimates (B) will enable the Department of Justice Canada to continue playing an essential role in building a robust, equitable and effective justice system that protects Canadians, their rights and their communities.

Thank you for your time.

I am now happy to take your questions.

National Council for Reconciliation Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, a big part of the reconciliation and the calls for action deal with the issue of incarceration. Part of those calls incorporate the idea that we need to reduce minimum sentencing or reduce the number of times that minimum sentencing is being utilized.

Given the Conservative Party's approach to minimum sentences, based on things like Bill C-5, does the Conservative Party support calls for action that deal with the reduction, in any way, of minimum sentences?